Tero, IKM, et al.,
Tero wrote:
"In addition, they have made zero headway in differentiating CDMA from its
competitors. We're a long way from "CDMA Inside" and the marketing budgets of
AT&T, Microsoft, Intel, Ericsson, Nokia, Sony and Philips dwarf Qualcomm's milk
money. These giants have big plans for GSM in USA, and unlike Europe, America
is still up for grabs."
Well, which of these giants have plans to operate a GSM cellular or PCS network in the USA? As far as I know, none of them. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) It seems to me that it is the plans of the operating companies that are most important. They are the ones making choices between CDMA and GSM or other TDMA systems. This also implies that the consumer preferences for various handset features that you have talked about at length are of only limited relevance, because consumers are not generally making a choice between CDMA and GSM. This choice in fact is not generally available to them, because most people do not live in areas that are served by both CDMA and GSM carriers.
I think IKM described the situation very well:
"What's driving the market inroads of CDMA vs. other technologies is not the quality
of the handsets. It is the operators making judgments about the long-term cost and
capability of infrastructure. That is where CDMA has been winning overwhelmingly in
application to new system builds."
Exactly right, in my opinion. The important choices between CDMA and other technologies right now are those being made by the carriers, not by consumers, or handset manufacturers, or even Microsoft! ;-) |
