Your 1, 2 and 3 examples are realistic for steel mills (ie: someone that produces a product) but quite unrealistic for a service such as these two companies produce.
Simple example: in the middle of the Pacific ocean, G* will be using none of its theoretical capacity because there's no groundstation, yet Iridium will be using some amount of it because it doesn't need a groundstation. I* wins. You can't sell the steel if you can't deliver it to your customers, in other words.
Another example: In a highly populated area, I* and G* both will be able to add groundstations to increase capacity. In otherwords, the theoretical capacity numbers given are meaningless because there's no set limit on capacity of these systems. Hence you have competition based on price, if there's softness in demand.
"I, very FACTUALLY, pointed out that I* will cost TWO AND ONE HALF BILLION DOLLARS more than G* and pump out 1/10 the volume."
The Iridium system will cost $4.4B total to achieve operational status. The Space Segment of Globalstar will cost 2.7B. Both of these figures are from 10-Ks released this month. Additionally, there is some un-documented cost for the local partners of G* to operate and build their gateways, etc. This means that the complete Iridium system will cost $1.7B more than the space segment of Globalstar. Your "FACTS" disagree with the 10Ks.
Given that its not clear that G*'s costs are going to be 2/3 of I*s, then your assessment that G* will win a price war is unsupported.
At the same time your "volume" comments are not only meaningless, but unsubstantiated by any reports from either company, as far as I can find.
Therefore the two legs of your position (10X capacity and 2/3 costs) have now been removed, and your arguement falls flat.
Sorry.
Dragonfly.
PS- Why the hatred for Motorola? What did they do to you to create this response? |
