To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (4045 ) 2/26/2000 5:17:00 PM From: Bux Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 5195
Darrell, I agree strongly with Molloy that your statement was misleading, and especially so in context of the article you posted below it.(note that time division duplexing is the key to download links from sites like Amazon - either to your mobile unit, or your laptap computer - doesn't matter which - it is the TDD function sponsored by Nokia and IDC that will make possible the dowload of complete books, records, videos, etc., specifically designed for download in an urban enviornment) Links are small, data "pointers" to other addresses. WAP facilitates the downloading of information on a slow link, for instance the speeds most mobile phones use today, 9.9-14.4. The article was about the current adoption of WAP by Amazon with the support of Nokia in order to facilitate browsing the Amazon site with a mobile device of a relatively slow connection. Where does TDD fit into the picture? WAP is protocol agnostic, it is designed for TDMA, GSM, CDMA, etc. Also, your contention that "TDD is key" to making possible the downloading of complete books, records, videos, etc. is misleading. TDD is only one of at least two or three technologies that will make this possible. In all probability, it is likely that HDR will be available to the mass market for these purposes, before any TDD technologies are widely deployed and used by consumers for these purposes. In any case, the recent WAP announcement is not related to TDD technology at all. To suggest this announcement is a net positive for IDC shareholders is further stretching the limits of your credibility. IDC has had enough "hype" to last it for the next 3 or 4 years. Maybe it's time to start focussing on the real-world potential to increase shareholder value. At it's current sky-high price relative to what they have demonstrated, I think management has it's job cut out for them. Think of what IDC's balance sheet would look like without the recent sweetheart deal with Nokia for engineering services and a ticket to use IDC's existing IPR for some unknown amount of time into the future. For all we know, Nokia may not ever "use up" this up front royalty payment, it depends upon the terms of the agreement. I think it's time to start taking the competitive technologies seriously. IDC has a history of claiming superior technologies, only to leave shareholders to discover they aren't commercially viable. In my book, a technology is not "better" until it demonstrates it's superiority commercially. Has IDC ever done this? I'm not bashing IDC, just looking at the current situation from the all too familiar historical perspective. Bux