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: Eric L who wrote (30976)	9/2/2000 10:51:14 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I find it difficult to understand your post. You dismiss HDR as vapourware. Vapourware means something that does not exist yet and in fact is unlikely to exist in the future. It does not mean simply something that is being developed. Yet you say QCOM will make (lots of) money, from 2002 on. (The meter, or should we say cash register? will start clicking after 2001, the test period.) On vapourware? I carefully read what you regard as a momentous post from Beijing. I can't see anything there except, "yes, guys we'd better advance GSM to the 3G stage." There's no hint as to how or when they will get there. In fact I couldn't see any memorable content there at all. What point are you making, overall? I personally believe that advance to the 3G level absolutely requires QCOM's technology. The socalled plans and committee formation mean nothing unless they decide what they will do about CDMA. I can only assume they mean to steal it.

To: Eric L who wrote (30976)	9/3/2000 12:12:50 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Well let's see, we agree on: 1)DoCoMo is on a fast track . 2)next year's developments in Japan should provide a very interesting, high visibility test. 3)It would be a mistake for Qualcomm to adopt a Rambus like strategy and deny a license to recalcitrant GSM companies. We disagree on whether a GSM cabal exists that is using a strategy of delay and obfuscation. As the saying goes "three outa four ain't bad". <gg> Perhaps I just have too many scars from the Holy Wars, but to claim the those of GSM persuasion would not engage in delay and obfuscation stretches my credulity beyond its elastic limit. Am I to deny that which I've witnessed for a period of years? Using your definition of cabal A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers sounds about right from what I've observed. Now the fact that the organizational structure (from ETSI to 3GPP) of the cabal changes is irrelevant. The pronouncements from the 3GPP remind me of those from the CDG in terms of bias. Nothing wrong with that as long as one admits the bias. Anyway I always look forward to reading your highly informative posts - here, on the Q threads, or on the NOK thread. Yes I own some NOK, but for an odd reason. lurqer