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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rajala who wrote (4998)	6/2/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: RMiethe	Respond to of 29987

A "moral" duty to be optimistic? "Moral"? Would that be the Kantian, Platonic, Aristotelian, Hegelian, or Utilitarian notion of "moral"? In any event thanks for the explanation of the term "G* fanatic" as you use it. I found it offensive. I perhaps, having access to wordsmiths, would have used the term "G* devotee".

To: Rajala who wrote (4998)	6/2/1999 2:15:00 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

You think the people who buy the phones to test them would lie because they own the stock? Why would you think that?

To: Rajala who wrote (4998)	6/2/1999 8:25:00 PM
From: Michael Young	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

<< Its a moral duty for the management to be optimistic at this stage.>> That is pure crap. Unfounded "optimism" typically leads to a loss of shareholder's wealth, lawsuits, bad press, and nasty recriminations. I prefer realism. MIKE

To: Rajala who wrote (4998)	6/2/1999 8:46:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 29987

Rajala, buying a Globalstar handset is barely evidence of being a devotee let alone a fanatic. Enthusiast perhaps. I'm planning on buying a gateway for myself in New Zealand. Now THAT's fanatical! I'll get a handset or three to go with it. Is Globalstar disruptive technology? That sounds like a jargon business school question unworthy of close consideration. But since it's on the table, let's dissect it. My comments in bold. -------------------------------------------------------------------- >Maurice/all, do you think G* qualifies as a "disruptive" technology? >see below) >... Since I was asked (I belong to the group "all") I had a look on the criteria one by one: >What is a disruptive technology? In short, a disruptive technology >has the following traits: > >Is a less featured, sometimes cheaper, version of an existing >technology Undecided. Satellite phone is less featured OK (unless size is considred a feature) at least for the end user. Much more expensive though. Yes, less featured than terrestrial at least for the next few years. But you are wrong about being more expensive than existing technology. It is far cheaper than Iridium, Inmarsat and other options currently available which cover the same geography. It might even be cheaper than terrestrial wireless >Redefines the parameters of performance measurement in an industry True for sat phones. While not reaching the normally required levels of conventional quality indicators sat phone is very handy when visiting the odd relative living in Antarctica. Globalstar will also reach the normal cdmaOne voice quality with no perceptible voice delay. It will totally redefine the coverage and call quality expectations people have of satellites. >Does not have a defined market at the time of introduction Not true. The market is quite clearly, well, limited. You have the oil drillers, CNN reporters, at least the newer ones who haven't got the Inmarsat yet, the half a dozen enthusiasts on the GSTRF thread and of course the higher management of G* related companies who get it whether they want it or not. There have been attempts to define the market, but really, and this is the worry we all have, the definition is total guesswork. We can say that the market is people who can afford something like $1000 for a handset and normal terrestrial rates for minutes. That is about a billion people. >If adopted by existing players immediately, would require an >undermining of their existing product line Not true. If Ericsson produces a sat phone (which they were supposed to do by the way) the users of their existing mobiles couldn't care less. There is no contest here: where you can use terrestial mobile, terrestial mobile wins. The existing satellite "players" don't have the chance to adopt Globalstar because it is proprietary technology in a single system. If they could adopt it, then they would undermine their existing technology. True, in the first stage, terrestrial service providers won't undermine their existing product line, but wait a few years and let's see whether terrestrial networks start to get undermined. Globalstar production cost of minutes will head down to 1c per minute. That will be undermining terrestrial. Handsets will be cheap too. Admittedly that will have to wait for constellations 3 or 4. >Often appears contrary to needs requested by customers, at >introduction Very true. Indeed very rarely do people require from their mobiles massive size and weight, huge power consumption, low call quality, indoor incapability, mind boggling cost and coverage on Mount Everest. It does appear contrary to customer needs [handset size, cost of handsets and minutes, size of aerial, the need for an open sky] but the technology pathways are what's important here and those pathways are all in Globalstar's favour. >Creates a new market, which eventually grows to destroy the existing >technology market Not true. G* is not creating a new market as Inmarsat and I* are there already, more or less successfully (respectively). I'd say it's a new market. There are fewer than 100,000 satellite subscribers and they have taken decades to increase to those few, using cumbersome notebook size 'phones' and other technology. Inmarsat and Iridium can hardly be said to have created any market. They and chunks of marginal terrestrial cellphone service will be replaced. Two out of six (one draw). Conclusion: not disruptive technology. Six out of six. Conclusion: Very 'disruptive' technology. Maurice