Dave, mmeggs, the cost of cdma2000 or VW40 should be about the same for GSM customers. Q! has already developed a GSM overlay and they will have designed it as cheaply as they can. They will want cdma2000 to be optimally priced so that GSM customers can most cheaply convert to cdma2000.
The driving force for VW40 to be different from cdma2000 in chip rate and other aspects is to give cdmaOne a handicap. No doubt there are some bells and whistles which are desirable and Q! will harmonize those into cdma2000 or whatever the cdma2000/VW40 combination ends up being called. The GSM crowd call the handicap, "making things equal". As though equality by damaging cdmaOne is a sensible thing to do.
Another driving force for VW40 is to get Q! royalties down and hopefully out. If Q! gets 5% royalties for cdma2000, that is a lot of money and listen to the 747 sounds from Korea and Motorola already over the modest IPR fees they pay Q!
I don't see any reason for capex to be higher for cdma2000 than VW40 for those converting from GSM legacy systems. The main issue for those converting from GSM is to maximize their advantage against cdmaOne systems which convert. If cdmaOne converters have backward compatibility, they will have less capex than GSM converters and therefore an inherent price advantage.
There is no efficiency which VW40 has over cdma2000. Maybe Mika, Tero, Raymond, chuckj, Daniel Barineau or other GSM/Ericy proponent could explain the efficiency if there is one. The 3.84 chip rate has been totally discredited as a crock to handicap cdmaOne users.
If a single, harmonized, synchronicity Turbo standard cdma2000 is chosen, costs for GSM legacy converters would be lower than if there are two standards, cdma2000 and VW40:
1.... With a single standard, there would be concentration of research and development expenditure in a single method, which will result in lower costs and better performance sooner.
2.... With a single standard, there would be much more competition due to all competing in a single field, resulting in more efficiency and lower costs.
3.... With a single standard, there would be lower unit costs because of huge volume production so the market would develop quicker and more people could enjoy service.
As Tero says, development costs are high and low unit costs are vital.
A single standard is better, but it will mean competitive disadvantage for GSM legacy systems. Bad luck for them. They can't load the rest of the world with a handicap because they backed the wrong horse.
When you think of the gizzards involved, converting GSM to cdma2000 or VW40 should be the same.
Expect a single, fig-leafed, cdma2000 standard, cave-in announcement in principle by Q! and the VW40 crowd on Tuesday [just guessing]. Xmas is coming. The delay is costing Ericy, NTT and the GSM crowd a fortune while cdmaOne and cdma2000 roll on!
Nobody will be silly enough to buy a GSM new system while this is hanging over them. But cdmaOne can roll on regardless because even if there did end up a dual standard, cdma2000 and VW40 cdmaOne buyers wouldn't lose anything by going ahead now.
I suppose mostly though they'll be bluffed by Ericy and wait to see the outcome.
Mqurice
***OT Desert Fox***
I was interested to see the name the USA selected for the attack on Saddam's place. Apparently they were aware that WWII Erwin Rommel was called the Desert Fox. Erwin was the German General who my Dad and the 8th army beat in the Libyan and North African desert. Rommel retreated and told Hitler it was time to give up, also being implicated in a plot against Hitler.
Since Erwin was a bad guy and lost, it was odd that the USA would choose such a name.
newsday.com
Of course Irwin is a good guy, so we shouldn't worry too much about a name. |
