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.

Technology Stocks : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5069)	5/29/2000 1:16:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 34857

<We've had this "Asians are flooding the markets with cheap phones" discussion going on since 1996. The difference here is that Nokia's market share has tripled since then. Dataquest came out with their 1Q 2000 mobile phone market share numbers today. It's an interesting read.> You are correct, that was then this NOW. Nok had an advantage, with the GSM standard, that game is over, or havn't you noticed. CDMA-W-CDMA is a ball with a new cover, and i doubt NOK can hit it out of the infield, based on batting practice, we have witness.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5069)	5/29/2000 3:21:00 PM
From: brian h	Respond to of 34857

Tero, Nok's Credibility? I guess NOK is in a position to beg some companies or countries to sign at least one WCDMA license. That way you can prove it to us that NOK really just got some real deals as compared to questioning a deal between QCOM and China Unicom by you. Brian H.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5069)	5/29/2000 4:48:00 PM
From: Kent Rattey	Respond to of 34857

<Nokia has the CDMA credibility that the W-CDMA deals in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein and Finland bring it; as well as the deals with KPN and Viag and cooperation with Korean and Chinese companies. No more, no less. > Tero, Liechtenstein? That's like saying we've got half of Rhode Island...please! Have you seen these agreements. Exactly what are they, "Letters of Intent"? Any chance you have a copy of the "termination clause" of these "deals"? Until these networks actually deploy, its a big brass band, IMO. Don't you think its a little strange that these carriers are committing millions of dollars to a company which has historically failed to deploy the technology????? Kent

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5069)	5/29/2000 5:04:00 PM
From: Kent Rattey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, More from George... Message 13793313 More from George Gilder on why "Qualcomm will win." Posted today on Gildertech.com. date: 5/29/00 11:36:46 AM We should do a chart at some point, but the differences reduce to the "direct sequence" form of the WCDMA coherent five megahertz band and the CDMA2000 three "direct sequences" of 1.25 megahertz bonded together. CMDA2000 comprises a 3.75 megahertz band to preserve compatibility with IS95 and HDR. Contrary to WCDMA claims, the Qualcomm 1.25 megahertz is nearly optimal and the wider spread of WCDMA still yields inferior performance to the bonded system. Unfortunately for the anti-Qualcomm forces, broadband wireless is still an "undershoot" technology (the market demands leading edge performance, not political claims). If I could give some advice after eight years of immersion in these debates, I would urge a deaf ear to the endless detailed claims of superiority which the anti-Qualcomm forces will propagate. CDMA is hard, and Qualcomm engineers know how to do it. HDR shows they can even do TDM better than the GSM people can. (At Linkabit, the Qualcomm people invented TDMA also). Though HDR is code division between sectors, it is an adaptable dynamic TDM system for each connection. The reason for the TDM choice is the spreading code for a 2 megabit per second channel would be some 200 megahertz, which is not today technically feasible at reasonable cost. In response to an earlier post holding that I lack a grasp of Gorilla theory and its stress on barriers to entry, I admit I don't believe in legal barriers and consensual standards. Execution is absolutely vital; standards, like history texts, are written by the winners. 3Com, Intel, Microsoft, Applied Materials et al won not because of some legal monopoly but because they moved first and sustained their learning curve ahead of all followers. 3Com failed not because the Ethernet standard failed but because Synoptics outperformed them with the innovation of 10BaseT (Ethernet over twisted pair). Qualcomm will win because they are masters of the technology that all agree will be the foundation of the wireless internet. WCDMA is not a significant innovation; it is a political play. In the end, as I said, politics will give way to the exacting practicalities of creating broadband CDMA systems that can handle voice and data robustly at once. --GG Cheers, Kent