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: JohnG who wrote (9652)	3/5/2001 6:54:08 AM
From: JohnG	Respond to of 34857

Eric J. What is the penalty for smuggling meat balls and food. What about baby formula - do you arrest the baby or just the mother. What a petty bunch. JohnG

To: JohnG who wrote (9652)	3/5/2001 8:33:59 AM
From: EJhonsa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

You need not defend Eric L. He can defend himself. I know that :-). I just found the "Eurocentric" comment amusing, and thus felt like commenting on it. No one has refuted either this slide or its predicessor Uh, I just did in my last post, by pointing out how Ericsson claims that even Release A of UMTS-UTRA offers over 9x the capacity of GSM, whereas the slide claims that it offers roughly 3x as much capacity. To repeat, Ericsson wasn't bringing up some new technology that they're developing on their own, but the first release of the standard most commonly referred to as W-CDMA. Interestingly enough, if one were to assume that Ericsson's telling the truth, based on Qualcomm's slide, Release A would offer roughly twice the capacity of 1xRTT. Of course, as I said before, I don't trust Ericsson any more than I trust Qualcomm, but the fact remains that there have been comments made by others which, if true, would imply that Qualcomm isn't being entirely honest. Sweeds have a great love for things they are good at and a great distain for things they don't understand. Then they choke on that which they love and are done in by that which they distain. They need to recognize their own failings before they seek to conquer the world I'm not much of an expert on Swedish history and culture (BTW, are you?), so I suppose that I'll leave any refutation of that criticism to Lars, should he want to respond to it. However, I think it's worth noting that I could easily say the exact same things about Qualcomm, given how, in spite of the company's great history as a wireless innovator that's capable of accomplishing magnificent technological breakthroughs all but independently from the rest of the world, it's absolutely cluless when it comes to collaborating and dealing with those companies which could become its greatest customers and allies, should they know how to do this well. Thus, as evidenced by the FT interview, and by the fact that they push slides like the one you referenced, when they find that they don't happen to be on the same wavelength as some of those potential customers and allies, instead of attempting to find a middle ground, they chose to burn all bridges and go it alone. Sure, such bravado may come across as heroic and romantic to those who have memories of 1994, back when it was actually justified, but in today's environment, with nearly the entire world in full embrace of mobile wireless technolgies based on spread spectrum transmissions, this type of behavior is inevitably highly detrimental to shareholder value. Eric