Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gdichaz who wrote (23835)	4/28/2000 8:06:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2, << Re PHCM ... The Unwired Planet (which is Phone.com under an earlier label ...) decided early on that the best way to get a seat at the table among the "big boys" was to give away their technology to a group - in return for the side benefits >> Which was the primary differentiating factor between its browser and the Geoworks OS/microbrowser that GSMNA was considering when it made the decision on WAP (which involved some concessions from Nokia as well as UP if I recall) as opposed to the Geoworks approach. GSMNA (the regional group of GSM Association) passed on its recommendations to GSM Association and ETSI (draft proposal format) and the rest is history. WAP is BIG! Even though WAP is technology agnostic, at the time this decision was made, CDMA (unlike GSM) had no data capability, or perhaps I should say had never commercially implemented a data capability. The 2 day meeting (of GSMNA) I refer to, took place in Dallas and I believe it was in June of 1997. BTW: I did not attend the meeting. I was across town. I did, however, get a rather complete rundown on it from one of its key participants, a week later. << Nokia is claiming (deju vu all over again) to have "invented" the technology which Unwired Planet in fact did >> My recollection is that this is not entirely accurate, Chaz. UP & Nokia teamed up, and collaborated using bits and chunks of each others technology, as the story was related to me, and they later confounded the WAP forum (along with MOTO & ERICY). Geoworks, is of course, back, for their piece of the pie, and I am told, has a reasonable shot at getting a chunk. << The success of PHCM really depends on the server related services they can sell - not a lock on IPR - the IPR was given away. Right or wrong, that was done >> Some would say that there best shot at success is to act as a portal. I have meant to explore that a bit further (will soon) and am glad it was identified in the great Project Hunt report presented here. << Dr. J argues ... that WAP (Phone.com's technology which is the basis for the WAP forum) is not the best way to go for the wireless / internet nexus >> Many in the GSM community feel the same way (at least as a medium term to long term solution. It is interesting that Qualcomm was an early equity investor in UP. I am not sure that this was mentioned in the report but it may have been (Disclosure: the company I worked for at the time was also an equity investor in the same financing wave). << Will the latter day Betamax (perhaps the analogy) triumph? >> Are you referring to cdma2000? << Qualcomm as reflects the brilliance of the leadership there, makes WAP available ... even though Dr. J is skeptical of how "necessary" it is. Best he does. Dr. J is brilliant (and a great corporate leader, no question, but this is NOT an example of his "brilliance". The US cdma carriers who have little practical wireless data experience (well BAM has some CDPD experience) need WAP desperately and use it to deliver the minuscule data services they currently offer. Let me give you a few examples: * BAM (now Verizon) is using (or will use) the UP server to provision a phone Over The Air (OTA provisioning). This is the year 2000. By comparison when the first PCS network (Sprint Spectrum) launched in the United States using GSM in November 1995 (fully one year ahead of a cdma network) the phones were provisioned over the air. * CDMA is catching up to GSM and they need WAP to catch up. Actually they have caught up and actually leapfrogged GSM, since they now deliver data services 50% faster than GSM here in the good old USA (a temporary and highly theoretical advantage since commercial GPRS infrastructure was delivered here before any cdma carrier ordered 1X for test purposes, but of course the standardization of IS-2000 by TIA only just occurred. * I just reached over and used my WAP enabled Qualcomm QCP860 with its Mickey Mouse MMI (which is not much better or much worse than any other MMI commercially available regardless of technology) and connecting to the UP server using Verizon and got a stock quote on Qualcomm (nicely up) at the blazing speed of 14.4 kbps. * I then reached over and used my old (non WAP enabled) GSM Omnipoint/Voicestream Bosch "Worldphone" to get a stock quote on GMST (even better) at the sluggish speed of 9.6 kbps using SMS. Dr. J would say, we don't need SMS, we have a better technology and someday we will deliver it. This service from Omnipoint has been available since they launched commercial in November 1996, and a comparable cdma data service from PCS Sprint or BAM was finally made available in August 1999 (using WAP). Some of the good Doctor's brilliance lies in his magnificent use of FUD (and FUD is only effective when you practice it as skillfully as he does). IBM may have invented the art, but he has perfected it. Well anyway, I am starting to rant as bad as Mq, so once again I will say that it is always a pleasure to dialogue with you (and occasionally rant a little). I will rant less when QCOM is YTD green. <g> - Eric -

To: gdichaz who wrote (23835)	4/28/2000 9:41:00 PM
From: chaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2-- Thank you from "Stumblehead" Chaz. That's the most lucid explanation of WAP that I've seen, and I'm delighted you chimed in with it. If Dr. J is correct...that WAP isn't necessary...then PHCM's server related services won't be either. Correct? If that's the case, then in retrosspect, it would not have mattered whether they kept it or gave it away. Do you have any notions as to how long it will take to show the need or lack of need of WAP? If it's a betamax, does PHCM have other alternatives? PHCM has taken among the worst of the recent drubbings, and I wonder now how much of it may be permanent? Chaz

To: gdichaz who wrote (23835)	4/30/2000 11:21:00 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz, Re: WAP - Dr. Jacobs of Qualcomm (statements on WAP) - WirelessKnowledge - WML v. XML << Dr J argues, and of course I listen carefully to him, that WAP (Phone.com's technology which is the basis for the WAP forum) is not the best way to go for the wireless / internet nexus. He is probably right. He usually is >> He may well be (right). There are many individuals involved with the selection or implementation of WAP across technologies that state that while WAP has a very large window of opportunity, it is a relatively short window (2 to 3 Years). Some are betting on XML superseding WML and others are looking forward implementations of Java that download web sites to a SIM/R-UIM for temporary execution, with or without SMS, as an alternative. One of the reasons that Dr. J argues (argues against WAP) is that Qualcomm (an early equity investor in UP and at one time obviously saw real potential in them) has decided to team up with Microsoft in the WirelessKnowledge JV backing WML (see my clip from an Ericsson "info-ad", below. It is possible also that the recent investment in NetZero could provide a playground for implementation of WirelessKnowledge technology and Eudora could wrap in here. Now whether or not Dr. J is right or not I do not know, but while I was doing serious DD on phone.com shortly after their IPO (and seriously considering investing in them), I came to the conclusion that WML was potentially a more sensible approach to dealing with web content than XML, and I also concluded that some of the Java SIM approaches and solutions like those supposedly being developed by companies like Lava2140 could also create a short window for WAP. For these reasons (and also being unable to really figure out their business model I elected not to invest in phone.com. Only time will tell whether I made the right decision or if the Doctor is on the right track. Please Note (counterpoint): WAP is technology agnostic (like me); Qualcomm IS a member of WAP Forum: WAP IS a key enabler of initial cdma wireless data; the WAP window may (or may not) be short but regardless it is BIG, and 3 years from now there will be a huge installed base of WAP enabled phones that will need to be supported. The following is an excerpt on WAP from an "info-ad" called "Bridging the Data Gap" published by Ericsson a while back. The bold emphasis towards the end is mine is mine. >> The principal 2.5G upgrade technologies are High-Speed Circuit-Switched Data (HSCSD) networks, General Packet Switched Radio Systems (GPRS) and Enhanced Data GSM Environment (EDGE)?all used in conjunction with Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). WAP is important because developing and delivering powerful Internet applications and services for mobile phones involves a host of changes to existing cellular networks and handsets. It also involves modifications or additions to the Internet, which until now has been accessed mainly by PCs over relatively low-cost wireline networks. Connectivity has been the key, not mobility, and PCs?unlike mobile phones?have the power to process and display a wealth of information. WAP is one of the cornerstones of the wireless Internet. It is an open and global specification standardizing communications between mobile phones and cellular network servers, and it gives developers the power to create Internet applications that will work on most, if not all, mobile networks and handsets, as well as on other devices like personal digital assistants (PDAs). But at least three crucial changes are necessary before new internet applications become ubiquitous on mobile phones: * Existing mobile network servers need to be upgraded to be WAP compatible?mainly a software issue * Vendors have to introduce new WAP-enabled handsets * New internet applications and services have to be developed in WAP. WAP creates a new breed of internet standards, languages and applications designed specifically for mobile networks and devices. It slims down internet services to fit on cell phones? small displays and ups data transfer rates, which is essential, given the cost of mobile airtime. WAP has its own Wireless Markup Language (WML), which can be viewed as a severely pared-down version of Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML), the predominant Web language. In some cases WML can carry the same piece of information as HTML, but using half the kilobytes. Not all the web?s existing HTML sites are immediately compatible with WAP?s WML, but companies with existing HTML-based sites can take a limited amount of content and translate it into a WML-coded WAP site. For example, CNN, Reuters, Yahoo! and other groups have already launched WAP services derived from existing HTML content. Mobile network infrastructure companies are also working to automate the translation from HTML to WML, using either dedicated equipment or filters in WAP gateway servers. Another option for making the internet a better fit for wireless networks is to evolve existing web sites from HTML to eXtensible Markup Language (XML), which is very similar to HTML but with a number of additional advantages. Chief among them is that XML theoretically gives a Web site the potential to recognize the device requesting information and to deliver the appropriate information in the correct format. XML is designed to be an umbrella language that contains HTML, WML and other markup languages as subsets. Key XML backers include U.S. software giant Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Wash.) and equipment vendor Qualcomm Inc. (San Diego). Their joint venture company, WirelessKnowledge, has developed a product to convert HTML to XML. Falk Muller-Veerse, author of Durlacher?s recent Mobile Commerce Report, points to the possibilities of Voice XML. ?VXML is a standard being pushed by the VoiceXML Forum, which is driven by U.S. groups Motorola, AT&T and Lucent,? he says. ?VXML aims to allow voice-activated internet access via a wired or wireless phone. IBM has provided its speech recognition technology to further enhance the standardization process.? Software developed by computer concern IBM Corp. (Armonk, N.Y.) already allows PCs to read out e-mails and selected web content, and the company is now working with Nokia Oy (Espoo, Finland) to bring the same capability to mobile devices. Microsoft, which appears to be taking a position in the majority of the technologies involved in telecom and computer convergence, has also invested heavily in voice recognition systems, Muller-Veerse notes. Operating systems and web browsers, although fundamental to the PC-dominated internet model, will play a smaller role in the evolution of the wireless internet. That is partly because wireless devices, which have far less memory and processing power than PCs, cannot support enormous software applications like Microsoft?s Windows 95 and Internet Explorer or Netscape?s Navigator. Operating systems and microbrowsers for mobile devices are far more modest and limited than their counterparts for PCs, which means that the hardware and software supporting new wireless internet applications will be housed mainly in mobile network servers. << - Eric -