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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Gilder who wrote (898)	1/20/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Sandy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

This isn't on point but I've heard so many, I think erroneous, press reports of Greenspan's testimony that I've found and printed below a couple of his comments: "Nonetheless, in the current state of financial markets, policymakers are going to have to be particularly wary of actions that unnecessarily sow uncertainties, undermine confidence, and interfere with the efficient allocation of capital on which our economic prosperity and asset values rest. It is important not to undermine the highly sensitive ongoing process of reallocation of capital from less to more productive uses...It is this continuous churning, this so-called creative destruction, that has become so essential to the effective deployment of advanced technologies by this country over recent decades." I don't think Greenspan is negative toward the stock markets and especially not toward individuals and entities which invest capital in ascendant technologies. I guess words at times have to be twisted, tortured, and parsed to make a good story.

To: George Gilder who wrote (898)	1/29/1999 12:08:00 AM
From: NicholasC	Respond to of 5853

Hi George, What's your take on PCOM? -N

To: George Gilder who wrote (898)	2/4/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

George, why does Golden Technology think so poorly of QCOM's version of CDMA as a 3G replacement, instead choosing WP-CDMA (it's clear GT belongs to the ITU consortium of AT&T, Golden, et al. promoting WP-CDMA, so they have a vested interest in WP-CDMA). I know what they've and others have stated, but was wondering if you had an opinion on the issue (one of their many complaints re QCOM's CDMA protocol was moving from 3G to 4G becomes problematic due to problems associated with real-time video stream). It appears that Europe and Asia are moving in support of a form of WP-CDMA, as you mentioned in an earlier post. Golden, which hopes to come public later this year, proposes that they're already working on 4G. They state that AT&T chose Golden as their technology assists AT&T in bypassing QCOM's IPR for 3G (and it is more cost effective). I also found it interesting that CSCO purchased Clarity Wireless, which according to Cisco, developed a method of information transfer that was less affected by multi-path fading (also a complaint that others have expressed about QCOM's CDMA). I've enjoyed your newsletter.

To: George Gilder who wrote (898)	2/11/1999 12:28:00 PM
From: Robert Sheldon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Mr. Gilder - I have been reading bits about silicon carbide (SiC) as an alternative to gallium arsenide (GaAs) for applications beginning at 1.8 gigahertz, such as PCS base station networks. Apparently SiC transistors are superior to current silicon and GaAs based devices due to greater output power per transistor. This higher output power is expected to allow a reduction in the use of transistors per base station resulting in less complex circuitry and lower cost. In addition, SiC's ability to dissipate heat more rapidly than other materials reportedly reduces the need for costly cooling equipment. Would you classify this development as radical, disruptive, or merely crap? Thank you for your reply in advance.

To: George Gilder who wrote (898)	2/13/1999 9:17:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

I'm wondering if you could comment on the issues raised in this post which I found at Yahoo, regarding the possible obsolete nature of Globalstar's business plan and technology, and reduced market share/profit potential in light of better cellular service in general. In your opinion, is there any truth the sentiments raised in this post? Is Globalstar just too late because of all the delays? Thanks very much in advance! messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com I can tell you why the price isn't rising... by: hopefades 4059 of 4071 ...because no one wants this stuff. Why? No one wants these overpriced, oversized, underpowered phones. The market projections are a load of crap, cooked up by consultants who get paid to be optimistic. These Big LEO systems are hampered by the fact that they were planned years ago when terrestrial cellular was still quite limited. Now you can make calls cheaply on tiny phones in 95+% of the places where most consumers spend their time. When 3rd gen high bandwidth kicks in the sats won't stand a chance. It's a case of 'too late to stop' for Globalstar et al. They must know now that the market will be a lot smaller than hoped for. Look at TRW's Odyssey back out. Don't get me wrong, I love the technology, but I think the smart money got out before Iridium's expensive marketing campaign failed to drum up many users. Good luck to all anyway. I could be wrong, but I'm not touching the stuff.