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 : YURI ( YURI SYSTEM ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (627)	2/25/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: Keith A Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

Gary, In your honor I have decided to setup a G-man forecasting indicator for Yurie's stock price. This is a simple function of how many disagreements you get into with other participants on the thread / divided by your own viewpoint. Basically, the calculation works as follows: Yurie's stock price in six months = TodaysMarketPrice * G-man ratio. Where: TodaysMarketPrice = Yurie's closing price for the day; G-man ratio = YxParticipants/GarysPointOfView; YxParticipants = Number of other arguments for Yurie's price to go higher which everyone else has on this thread; GarysPointOfView = Your more than adequate number of arguments why Yurie is just a short-term play (really equals 1 because in the long run you believe Yurie is doomed or going to be acquired) From this formula, you can see, that if we are all in agreement with your point-of-view, then Yurie's price will equal the current market price in six months. The greater number of thread participants which argue with you, the higher Yurie's price will go in six months. I currently estimate the G-man ratio at 5.3927, probably a little optimistic. Too many arguments. Have a great day!

To: The Phoenix who wrote (627)	2/25/1998 5:38:00 PM
From: Teknvstr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

Gary, That was an all time record mumbo-jumbo post...!!!!

To: The Phoenix who wrote (627)	2/26/1998 1:47:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1181

<..to that fact that multimedia over IP is becomming the next HOT topic..> Just like ATM was years ago, and is NOW hitting it's market strides. <..If you don't like to hear it then ignore it and go on your merry way... But this is indeed a fact.> By what standard (non-propietary hardware/software) is IP provisioning prioritization, fault tolerance and QoS solutions? I'm DEFINITELY interested in such facts and market stats. <..Do you think these folks will put all thier eggs in one basket at this juncture?..> To see YURI over 40, they don't HAVE to. For instance: "..There will be a lot of tariffing of T1 ATM services in 1998," said Stix, who also expects Yurie Systems Inc. to hold its own in the market. "Yurie will do well selling access ATM switches to the carriers" through its partnership with Bay Networks. Market researchers agree access ATM will be a hot technology in 1998. In a recent study of the ATM market, Dataquest analyst George Hunt estimated the ATM access concentrator arena will nearly double to $375 million in 1998, up from about $205 million in 1997. By 2001, the market will grow to $1.28 billion, he projected. The low-speed (less than 2-Mbps) concentrator market is expected to climb to $221.2 million in 2001, from $32 million in 1997. High-speed (greater than 2-Mbps) concentrator sales will grow 57.3 percent per year to $1.1 billion in 2001, Hunt said...." from techweb.com <..but you can't argue the point that this stock is performing poorly...> Well, I traded it for 50% (margined) over a few days the week of earnings, and am currently averaged in the low 20s, looking for 30+ in a few months at the outside. <..not IP, not frame and not ATM. However voice is being integratred into all of the above as we speak. Each have their issues. The technology that delievers the be quality with the best financial return for the players will win...> Exactly. Any argument that ATM is far and away the only "real" existing and available technology? Frame or IP for voice or video? We KNOW ATM is currently the ONLY "toll quality" solution. <..The issue is where the demarkation between IP and ATM ends up. I don't know for certain where this will shake out, I'm simply suggesting that the focus of YURI - ATM at the edge - is a huge battle ground and YURI will need lots of help if they wish to succeed...> It's already to the campus and moving rapidly to the enterprise and branch office I agree that YURI will need help. That's why I think they likely get bought within 6 months to maybe a year. <..Their strategy up to now is flawed but this is a separate discussion...> I'm interested in hearing your perpective on this. <..It has yet to be proven that TOLL quality voice can not be supported in a network with IP edges and ATM/Circuit (PSTN) switched cores...> LONG before it could be proved they COULD, a TREMENDOUS amount of core is needed to be ATM upgraded. Until then (if then), there is a LOT of edge which can use what YURI has to offer. <..The one flaw in the article is the assumption that frame and IP oriented products can NEVER support QoS and TOLL quality voice...> Show me an available, marketable non-propietary product. (We KNOW it is a LONG way off.) [eg.: "...None of the FRADs were able match the quality of a standard long-distance network call. ACT Networks' NetPerformer SDM-9300 achieved the best voice quality with an overall CMOS average of -0.70. All the FRADs are capable of achieving better performance by tuning voice/ data handling variables. But higher throughputs generally mean sacrificing voice performance, or vice versa. The voice and data prioritization, segmentation and bandwidth settings we used were taken from the vendors' recommended settings. Another point worth noting: These FRADs can be a bit expensive. Our top ticket unit tips the scales at just over $11,000, as we tested it. More troubling, however, is the fact that none conforms to the FRF.11 specification for voice over frame relay, which means that interoperability won't be a reality for some time. Additionally, all of the units tested for this roundup use proprietary methods of segmenting, prioritizing and compressing voice packets...."] from techweb.com <..??? I'm not sure what prompted that comment. If you're referring to my "conversation" with Teknvestor you may want to note couple of things...> (Without so much as a "howdy", you came out swinging and swaggering): exchange2000.com And good luck to you.