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: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (17875)	1/17/2002 1:24:47 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Cax, << ********Eric isn't ths what Dr. J said? >> Which time? Are you talking about the same Dr. J that in mid 2000 was telling us what we wanted to hear ... that the 2nd billion handsets would be predominately CDMA. The same Dr. J who a few months later on November 15, 2000 showed a slide at the Goldman, Sachs Internet Conference, that stated that 3G 1xRTT was "commercially available"* in Korea since October 1 and 3G WCDMA would be "commercially available (in Europe) in "2003 ?????" Message 14839284 [exhibit long since expunged from Qualcomm web site] And so the FUD & HYPE wars began afresh. I might add that QUALCOMM and CDG have set the benchmark for what 3G "commercially available" means. It basically means that a single carrier issues a press release announcing their "commercial launch" and a handful of a single handset model (in this case the SKI IM 2300) is available (while the rest of the 20,000 initial production run is still being produced using a non-IMT-2000 "trial" chip) while for the next 4 months the nations press talks about the "commercial trial" in progress and conjectures when the "commercial trial" will be a "commercial launch". So now we come to late February 2001 and over his "smoked salmon pillows" while expounding the virtues of 1xEV-DO (which had not then, and still hasn't, begun standardization for GSM MAP), "commercially available (in Europe) in "2003 ?????" becomes "not commercially available (in Europe) until 2004 or 2005" Classically described here: Message 15399412 So after our CEO got his rocks off in what I'm sure was a well intentioned "marketing" gambit the CFO of a major 3G equipment manufacturer reiterated what the CEO of his corporation had stated 3 weeks prior (when in fact that CEO had moved out the schedule 3 months) when asked to comment on our leaders comments: Responding to Qualcomm's comments, he said: "Our view is drastically different. We know the technology is there. We know calls have been made in the lab in W-CDMA technology. We know we can ramp up the networks of our customers." He added: "I don't understand the comment of someone who is not even in the business in terms of selling systems. We will be selling W-CDMA handsets in volumes in the second half of 2002." globalarchive.ft.com ... which was kind of my reaction since Qualcomm's future earnings are most certainly tied to WCDMA proliferation. We now have 4 major wireless equipment manufacturers telling us that they will deliver dual-mode GSM/WCDMA handsets in H2 2002. We also have a half dozen or so carriers including Hutchinson Whampoa and Vodafone telling us that they will commercially launch in 2002, many more in 2003, and some stragglers in 2004. If in total thee manufacturers deliver 20,000 in total to the 40 plus carriers that are now taking delivery of commercial grade 3G WCDMA gear and bring that gear live than the "commercially available (in Europe) in "2003 ?????" was a crock of hype. If not than it was not, and the company that told us back in early 1995 that CDMA 1900 would be commercially available when A&B block carriers were ready to launch (the HYPE) and that GSM-1900 would not (the FUD). We all know what the reality of that HYPE & FUD combo was. As for what "commercial viability" means, I guess that different people could define that differently. I certainly don't expect heavy subscriber growth in 3GSM in 2003 and at the earliest I would not expect mass deployment much before mid 2004. I do however expect significant "commercial viability" for non-cdma (GPRS) technology beginning in 2003 and extending into 2004 and beyond. This of course putting some and growth and earnings pressure on Qualcomm because it means that we will be well into the second half of this decade before CDMA (all flavors combined) becomes the dominant air-interface technology. << Switzerland's dominant telecoms operator Swisscom AG said on Wednesday it did not expect any meaningful third-generation (3G) mobile services in Europe until 2004 while the handset technology catches up. ... isn't ths what Dr. J said? >> Must have been a self fulfilling prophecy so I guess we deserve that 20% one day plummet in valuation. Indeed, one of the (many) carriers that does not want to act as an early adopter (along the lines of a Verizon or Sprint PCS) and one of the (many) carriers that is delaying Capex is using the term "meaningful" more or less synonymously with "commercially viable". Think loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Best, - Eric -

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (17875)	1/17/2002 3:45:51 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 34857

One could ask how meaningful it is to use the word meaningful without any meaningful definition on meaningful in terms of what?? mean·ing·ful (mnng-fl) adj. 1.Having meaning, function, or purpose. 2.Fraught with meaning; significant: A meaningful glance. See Synonyms at expressive. - it did not expect any _meaningful_ third-generation (3G) mobile services in Europe until 2004 while the handset technology catches up (with what??) - Schloter said the firm was building 250 antennas to offer the coverage set in the licence conditions, but expected it would take another 16 to 18 months before these antennas were used in any _meaningful_ way. But I'm sure the guys who thought the meaningful thoughts had some definition of what above two meaningful refered to, but clearly the journalist didn't catch any of that, or he decided to avoid the topic. Or maybe he was thinking of "expressive": -These adjectives mean effectively conveying a feeling, idea, or mood: an expressive gesture; "expressive gesture" would make the text more meaningful?? (and show that the journalist still might write something more expressive than boring news, maybe even some full, meaningful,expressive love poems) Btw, what is "full" as in "No full 3G in Europe before 2004, Swisscom argues" something like : 1.Containing all that is normal or possible: a full pail. 2.Complete in every particular: a full account. etc.. Like "No normal or possible, complete in every particular, 3G in Europe before 2004, Swisscom argues" Ilmarinen I had kind of thought even journalists were supposed to be able to describe things in words wich do not leave the meaning to the private dreams of the reader but still legally correct in terms of at least one meaning out of 10-20?? Btw,is "it" really Swisscom who "builds" those antennas, or is "it" all a result of meaningless but funny translations??