<<I've been getting a bit distraught over the Gigamux recently. As I see it, our 6 month lead is dwindling to at least under 3.>>
Grant,
i'm not sure how you figure that the lead has dwindled to under 3 months. It sounds like you think the lead time is the time from which the Gigamux is done testing to the time someone actually releases a product as Osicom did with the Gigamux more than 3 months ago. You have to remember, competing products will have to undergo the few months of rigorous testing that the Gigamux is in the midst of. Becuase of this, the lead time is, and remains, the time from which the Gigamux was released to the time when a competing product is released and ready for testing. Assuming competing products are on schedule, which they may or may not be, the lead time remains 6 months.
<<If Lucent and Ciena falter for a few more months due to the complex nature of the short-haul product, we may see some serious progress.>>
See, you've got the idea. The reality is that competing products may indeed be on schedule, but it certainly isn't beyond the realm of comprehension that they could be slightly or quite a bit behind schedule. This kind of technology is tricky stuff....it's not like building cars or anything. Another thing, as per the e-mail that Stuart was so kind to share with us(albeit, in not such a timely fashion), the Brooks engineer was "encouraged" and he reported an error rate that, if i'm not mistaken, was 1 order of magnitude better than what was expected. If competing products are on time, they are still at least 6 months behind, and have alot to live up to when compared to the Gigamux. |
