Maurice,
When will you learn to stop arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the tip of the antenna of a GSM/TDMA or CDMAOne handset?
Qualcomm clearly overpromised and underdelivered on CDMAOne. CDMAOne was not ready in 1993, 1994, and 1995. It was unstable in 1996 and 1997, and it only took off in 1998 thanks to the South Korean market. As a result, TDMA/GSM experienced exponential growth in the 90s and now accounts for 85% to 90% of the global installed base while Qualcomm was left with a niche 10% to 15% share of the market.
Even now, its loudly proclaimed capacity and voice advantages over the established standard are not as advertised. Take this excerpt from a recent Andrew Seybold -- a self-acknowledged CDMA believer, whatever that means -- article.
The WSJ article discusses the efficiencies of deployment, comparing TDMA and CDMA, and states that voice quality is better with CDMA. The UWCC, to its credit, accepts these arguments and states that real-world tests prove that voice quality on all of the standards -- TDMA, CDMA, and GSM -- appear to be about the same. I certainly agree with this statement. When it comes to system capacity, the UWCC states that in real-world situations the efficiencies of spectrum usage appear to be about the same (for voice) and again, I agree with this statement.
outlook.com
That, by the way, is not a fringe opinion about CDMAOne, which as you acknowledged is 2-3x more expensive than TDMA or GSM.
But that's really besides the real point now, is it? The fact that CDMAOne only became a viable platform in 1998 goes to show you how patently stupid this constant comparison is between CDMAOne and TDMA/GSM and by extension, the upgrade paths, because extending the useful life of those existing TDMA/GSM networks is a perfectly rational form of behavior especially since those TDMA/GSM carriers continue to make money.
Winners know how to make markets decide the de facto standards. With TDMA/GSM accounting for 85% to 90% of the global installed base, your whinny tirades against Nokia are getting a bit tiresome. The world is going to go to WCDMA and they have a choice of starting the transition from circuit-switching to packet-data with GPRS, EDGE or the FDD version of WCDMA. Depending on when they make the transition, the technology will quite naturally advance and provide them with more options like the TDD version of WCDMA.
The rate of growth of a system, actual sales, is the best guide to success rather than the theory.
Now you're just playing fast and loose with the numbers. South Korea accounts for close to 28 million subs out of CDMAOne's installed base of 60 million. With wireless adoption rates approaching 65%, the South Korean market is expected to slow down considerably, especially with the removal of the subsidies. Now, take that growth off a small base and put the right context because that growth rate is based on a much smaller base now since close to half of the installed base is slowing down.
Incidentally, you are wrong on the component shortage hurting the niche standard. What is hurt is the low margin standard.
I don't think you even understand what you're saying. The low margin standard is the standard that does not particpate in all three segments:
1) high-volume, low-margin low-end segment
2) moderate-volume, moderate margin mid-range segment
3) low-volume, high-margin high-end segment
Guess what, dude? CDMAOne handsets invariably fall in the mid-range segment because they do not benefit from the massive economies of scale of TDMA/GSM. Again, once you excluded the heavily protected South Korean market, you're really talking about all those CDMAOne licensees fighting for scraps of a 30-35 million installed base. Why do you think NEC, a CDMAOne licensee, abandoned that market to focus on TDMA, GSM and WCDMA? Why do you think Nokia focuses on establishing a 70-80% commonality of parts that allows them to respond quickly to market dynamics across all segments? Show me one CDMAOne handset vendor with 21% handset operating margins?
Again, keep your feet on the ground and look at the supply chain dynamics that are heavily favoring the de facto global standard and the de facto upgrade path.
Nokia indicated that a) in CDMAOne, they are making progress with Verizon and Sprint; and, b) in WCDMA, they expect to ship in 12-18 months. So, I don't know where you got this nonsense that Nokia doesn't have a WCDMA program.
And if you're expecting 1x + HDR in South Korea to take off right away, again, you're making the same extravagant assumptions that led to your blunders with CDMA in 1996 and Globalstar. It's no wonder also that whatever money you made in Qualcomm last year, you are apparently hell-bent on giving it all right back. That's actually a more common pattern of behavior than you think.
As for cross-licensing of TDMA/GSM and CDMAOne/CDMA2000, I trust you're smart enough to figure out that Qualcomm is just posturing on those unenforceable licensing terms -- license one claim, license all patents for one flat rate? LOL. Do you really think that the global carrier community is going to allow this kind of commercial behavior to prosper? Note that 1999 was the first year that Airbus outsold Boeing to get an idea of what's happending in the real world, Maurice.
Thanks for attempting to answer the points I raised, but you were spectacularly unconvincing, despite the verbiage. |
