>You say that their technology is not breakthrough compared to Rockwell, Pairgain, etc. <
Actually, it was me who said that, but you need to take the comment in the context of the entire post, which I intended to be a positive one regarding their technical capabilities. To be clear, I believe those are:
1. Good understanding of communications protocols and the ability to quickly develop the algorithms required.
2. DSP expertise, including both scalable architectures and the programming ability to implement the algorithms efficiently, and
3. VLSI expertise, which allows them to deliver the solutions in ASIC or ASSP form, permitting all of the advantages of silicon integration we all have come to know and love (higher performance, lower cost, smaller footprint, lower power, etc.)
This combination has allowed them to be first-to-market with a host of products addressing large markets. They have chosen well on the networking and cable sectors, both with respect to the products they decided to develop, the partners the decided to work with, and the nature of the relationships the created (look at the number of customers who are also investors), and they have done a great job of execution. That's why investors are so excited about the company, IMHO.
Back to the original comment, I don't see anything "breakthrough" about their technology-it's hard to do, yes, but I am not aware of anything fundamental which gives them a long-term sustainable advantage over other players in the business. And FWIW, I think you will find that Lucent, LSI and maybe even STI had QAM parts available before BRCM. |
