Eric-
You amaze me sometimes.
You can’t be serious about your arguments.
WCDMA was created to take advantage of CDMA while averting Qualcomm's patents. In order to make it “significantly different” the WCDMA consortium chose different methods. Their priorities were screwed up in the fact that making “it different” was more important than making it efficient, functional, and cost effective. Now that the court battles are over and the WCDMA consortium is stuck with those technical choices and it is costing them delays in deployment. Do you seriously doubt in any way this it true?
Technology exists to solve challenges. Qualcomm solved the challenge of commercializing narrowband CDMA for application in mobile wireless.
I think you can say Qualcomm commercialized CDMA for mobile wireless PERIOD. That was answered in the courts on three continents.
One might ask then why the CDMA geniuses in San Diego didn't listen to customer requirements (not their forte) and perfect (and patent protect) asynchronous CDMA, just as they did synchronous CDMA ... or maybe they already have ... or maybe DoCoMo has, or Ericsson has, (patented the best solution) and now it is being perfected.
If you ask the geniuses in San Diego, they will tell you that nobody was asking for asynchronous AND it sucks compared to synchronous. Ask them, I have and that’s what they told me, 3 years ago. Anyway, is a asynchronous patent ( q’s or someone else’s) in anyway financially relevant to Qualcomm, I seriously doubt it. As for customer requirements, they were were competitor requirements. You think nok would give Q a break on anything?
Let’s ask you this question again, should the innovator allow a bastardization of the product he commercialized just so that his patents are avoided?
The only gain for the innovator here is by giving other’s a piece of the pie to gain consensus. Similar thinking by Qualcomm in regard to lower royalty on Homemade China phones and infrastructure, got them into China.
The bottom line is that a lot of folks looked at CDMA in the 80s, realized its potential, but made the decision not to pursue it because they would be unable to make it work. Qualcomm knew they could make it work and locked up the essential patents for CDMA mobile wireless.
The GSM/TDMA crowd has reaped the rewards of earlier launches and the resulting market share. The vendors have raked in the dough on the switch from analog to digital. But now its time for the next push, data and capacity, and the carriers that went with Qualcomm’s recommendations have a TREMENDOUS financial advantage over the carriers who chose not to opt for CDMA in the beginning.
The network upgrade costs and complications are BRUTAL for GSM and TDMA compared to CDMA networks. GSM and TDMA are now in the era of patch, fix, band-aid, and then upgrade to a completely different system (WCDMA) that is technically inferior to what the “Commercializer of CDMA” has to offer.
There are several questions to be answered:
1) Will “Market Share” or “Superior Technology” win out? The Qheads bet that superior technology and innovation will.
2) Will GSM/TDMA carriers/suppliers be able grow profits by offering band-aid fixes of GPRS and EDGE? They may where there is no competition, where there is, look out!
3) Will the low teledensity mega countries China, India, and Indonesia with a combined population of over 2.5 Billion prove a more profitable market for CDMA2000 or GSM/GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA? The Qheads believe that the carrier economics makes CDMA2000 a no brainer.
4) How big will data be? The bigger the better for everyone, and who will benefit most? Qualcomm because to “do data” you got to go cdma, whether the superior or inferior version.
And for why the Qheads despise the GSM crowd, it is because the more they lie, delay, and dump free handsets in low penetration countries, the longer Qheads have to wait for their inevitable paycheck.
Caxton |
