To: up_tick who wrote (4125 ) 11/11/1998 12:09:00 PM From: Sea Otter Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 10081
The QCOM/MSFT play has a terrific market. No argument there. It's just not GMGC's market. First, have you ever used one of these micro-browser phones? They are very limited. My boyfriend built the first demo browsers, and I've seen just what they can do. Work ok in some circumstances, less well in others. The problem is that their screen size is necessarily limited, so you only get to see a very limited window on data. Certain data can adapt to this, other data can't. I remember trying to navigate through a sales database - nightmare. Seeing TWA flights from SF to London was easier, however. HDML was better suited for such an app. In any event, a mixture of VUI and GUI is obviously the optimal approach. (Technical nit: HDML, *is* a standard. UP gave it up to the standards committee. All devices that I'm aware of use HDML rather than HTML, since HDML was built expressly for low-bandwidth wireless comm, where as HTML wasn't. The QCOM deal is, in my understanding, an HDML deal) Laptop wireless is a different scenario. But even there, limited bandwidth means that you can only get critical data. I know, I've struggled with it enough. As to GMGC being proprietary, vs the open-standards of the QCOM deal. What technology is proprietary in GMGC? They license everything, even run NT instead of Unix. The VUI is theirs of course, but there isn't a competing standard there, nor will there ever be. So I don't see this as a point. Right now Portico is mainly about human messaging over existing mobile telephones. Right now the QCOM play is mainly about data messaging via a upcoming next-generation of micro-browser phones and laptops. Will they converge? Absolutely. In the press release yesterday QCOM kept mentioning voice, and we all know GMGC wants to get to corporate data. But, where we stand right now, they are completely different approaches and plays. As to the carriers lining up behind this deal rather than GMGC. No, I disagree on this point for three reasons. 1) Non-competitive. The VUI virtual-assistant positioning of Portico is nowhere to be found in the MSFT deal. Apples and oranges. 2) Timeframe. GMGC is here now, QCOM deal delivers sometime in 2000 - maybe! Vaporware. 3) Politics. Carriers take multiple tacks all the time - internally they are huge Balkan states with many disparate agendas. To think that this deal somehow precludes a GMGC deal doesn't accord with how these firms work. Anyway, we'll see who is right soon enough. You predict we won't get any of these 9 carriers because of QCOM/MSFT. I predict we'll get some of them. In fact, I predict we'll get one very soon, certainly before end of the year. So time will answer this debate soon enough. I also predict that no one will be chatting about QCOM/MSFT very soon. It will drop off the end of the earth as an issue, not to resurface for another year, probably two. Sea Otter