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: S100 who wrote (10960)	4/23/2001 8:52:42 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

GPRS+WAP 2.0 looks good, but I'm sure some will have to do a lot of investigations into who wrote what piece of code with what wrong comments and added all those hidden, unknown special features. Soup and stirred pots are nice, cold spaghetti code with few of the original cooks around is worse. The GSM world has gone through a lot in achieving compatibility and roaming, only Motorola was famous for not being able to fix bugs when even given a year to do it. Clearly VZ isn't even mature enough to solve even one minor standardization bug after haven gone through the pains of two way SMS messaging. That is, the reason it is called "building standards", not "dictating standards" and why some have earned the title "disruptive". But with less and less employee capacity in the midst of layoffs Nokia just might start dictating some solutions to common problems?? Just like Galvin and Ollila did in terms of the US frequency thingy. Ilmarinen

To: S100 who wrote (10960)	4/23/2001 9:41:25 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

"...Some 60 or more "improvements" in the last 1 1/2 months, see quintillion.co.jp and look at what's new. Cast of hundreds? Add this, add that..." ---------- "60 or more" can't be all. I receive all contributions - all emails - directly from 3GPP TSG Ran WG's 1 and 2 (and this is ONLY TSG Ran - and ONLY WG's 1 and 2), as I am on their reflectors. I receive all draft and final reports from meetings, within which are listed all approved modifications to Release 99 - and ALREADY Release 4. They're also cobbling together Release 5 UTRA (HSDPA) now. In 3GPP, literally hundreds of modifications are being made monthly to Releases 99 (still!) and 4 (already!) in 3GPP. For Release 5 (UTRA, including HSDPA), scores of contributions are submitted proposing company-specific variations on base framework technologies , as well as company-specific variations on component proposals as well. What I see no signs of, nor correspondence on, is a methodology for deliberative comparative analysis of competing technology proposals - or the existence or construction of a framework for comparing technologies submitted for inclusion in 3GPP Standards. There can not possibly be time to thoughtfully and competitively analyze and compare the scores of proposals monthly. There can not possibly be time to thoughtfully authenticate competing claims. During monthly 3GPP meetings, hundreds of proposals are approved pell-mell. There are simply too may cooks in the 3GPP kitchen to seriously verify technology claims. The process would grind to a halt. 3GPP standard development appears to be solely contingent on the political vote - up or down - dependent on the strength of cliques and coalitions.... Some choose to compare 3G flavors by comparing standards..... but a standard specification is nothing but a roadmap, whose accuracy is contingent on the skills of its makers. In 3GPP, by all appearances, we have a plethora of map makers - who have a vested interest in including their proposed proprietary road construction on the maps - who are not independently verifying one another's proposed proprietary road construction - agreeing on a course of travel by political consensus. No wonder 3GPP specifications require an unending stream of revisions - the Standards being modified are political documents first - tested and verified science a distant third. Those who perceive the timely realization of UMTS are in for a profound disappointment. The UMTS standard, as an abstract document, may be a politician's work of art. As technology, it's value appears highly questionable - as confirmed by the endless stream of revisions (that receive the same shallow scrutiny as the original standard). "Not looking good." Nope.