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 : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grantcw who wrote (5855)	3/8/1998 1:43:00 PM
From: Stewart V. Nelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

Grant You are still focusing on the product! As Craig has repeatedly stated...That ain't the problem at FIBR! Regards Stewart V. Nelson

To: Grantcw who wrote (5855)	3/8/1998 4:41:00 PM
From: CH	Respond to of 10479

Grant, You said in your message : >>I looked at the press release again: >>As a result, Brooks is now extending GigaMux trials and deployment >>to other larger cities. >>Doesn't this imply that Brooks is deploying the Gigamux? That >>coupled with the fact that the conference call mentioned a PO for >>the Gigamux makes me think that Brooks is buying them. I think the key problem is the word "imply", I was also very disappointed after listening to CC, because I need to "imply" a lot of good feeling about this company and I did not think it was necessary unless what Craig's claim is closer to the fact. Look at one example, in the CC, during the housekeeping section, the CFO said "....by Gigumux has been approved by Brooks Fiber, has been deployed by number of banks in Europe, and is currently under evaluation or scheduled for evaluation by a number of other network operators.". In the housekeeping section, not like the questions section, he should read from a prepared statement, and there is no need to use ambiguous expression. If it is "approved" unconditionly by Brooks Fiber, why Brooks need to extend the trial as said in the PR, this is contradicting in procedure. Also, I have a reasonable doubt that the word "deployed" is intentionally to be placed after the Brook's approval, but there is nothing to do with Brooks. In this thread, a lot of argument later raised addressing to whether Brooks has been "trying" or "deploying" the Gigamux. At least a major part of responsibility of this argument, if not all, should be born by the management. If the management do not intend to share a clear picture to the shareholders, why do they need to waste money to hold such CC? So being a reasonable man, I confessed Craig had a better ground of his argument. In our industry, good product is not good enough, (even Osicom have) they need to prove they are capable to back the products up, such as Disaster Recovery which they are moving in (another interesting thing, Osicom seems to be capable to move in any hot industry with the right products, why?), do you think the buyer will have a concern that Fibr will be broken before the Gigamux? CH

To: Grantcw who wrote (5855)	3/9/1998 1:12:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

<< Your stuff about the other products is interesting, but I won't really be impressed until I see a large order comparable to Brooks or something. >> I hate to break it you but Brooks hasn't bought squat. Your getting the cart ahead of the horse. << IBM could be beta-testing its muxmaster for all we know. The small companies would definitely announce a large order, right? >> Did you read the article I posted? It gave real world examples of the IBM Muxmaster in use. What's this baloney about beta-testing? IBM's Muxmaster was introduced before the Gigamux and is installed. Call IBM next week. << I looked at the press release again: As a result, Brooks is now extending GigaMux trials and deployment to other larger cities. >> Listen to the conference call again. Management told a different tune. Management was probably trying to con you into believing that Gigamux was depoyed. It was obvious that they were trying to word it to make you beleive that but they didn't want to get into trouble. << Doesn't this imply that Brooks is deploying the Gigamux? >> Believe me, if it was deployed in the network carrying live traffic there would have been a press release and management woud have mentioned it 6 zillion times in the CC. Instead they stuttered, stammered, and avoided the question when asked specifically. Basically gave you the runaround. In fact they avoided most all of the questions in the conference call. I heard very few direct answers to people's questions. Go back and listen. At least 3 times I heard people say that their question wasn't really answered. Some just kind of gave up on trying to get a straight answer. << Here's a thought that you might actually like Craig. It has to do with the stealth alliance Osicom has created and your competition theory. Osicom supposedly doesn't want to announce who they're working with because they will now be able to charge more for the Gigamux while banking on the multi-billion dollar company's brand name. >> So they are admitting that their name carries no weight in the industry and they have to resort to selling it through someone else? CIEN didn't have problem marketing to their first customers Sprint and Worldcom. << Well, if Osicom is truly the only product out on the market >> FOR THE LAST TIME IT IS NOT! Who cares if it is? The short-haul market is just finally starting to develop. If it's so hot how come FIBR isn't announcing huge orders with insatiable demand? << Everyone should know that whatever multi-billion dollar company is selling a Metro DWDM product has to be selling Osicom's Gigamux, right? >> I suppose so. Precisely why they sounded foolish for not telling anyone who it was. << My theory is that Xin Cheng (sp?) knows that there are competitors out there but dismisses them because the Gigamux's technology is better. >> Yeah right. Just like FIBR's products are better than A$ND, COMS, C$CO, CS, BAY, MOT, LU, CIEN, HWP, etc. << This may be true, but I'm a person who likes to know the truth >> You don't want to see the truth. << A brand name company will be able to sell a product of less quality than Osicom. >> Why do you think that is? Why would companies buy inferior products rather than do business with Osicom?