Discussions

I don't think so... doesn't seem to be. Why?

Is that forum against Iphones?



----
Javatech
mobile marketing applications

These aren't the gPhones you're looking for...

But SOMEONE must recognise what the phones are? please
 check out the video and tell us what you think they are!

Edited by author 01-25-2008 09:59 AM

Me, you? go elsewhere...

I was going to say "I can't believe a million people sign up for Zlango" each month. But sadly, I can.

 

Edited by author 01-10-2008 01:16 PM

Everex Cloudbook

Note to the designers: Very nice - but where's the bleedin' Bluetooth?!?

Some of us live outside the US and want to use wireless broadband through our mobile phones, y'know.

Even within the US, I think you'll find Wi-Fi isn't quite ubiquitous yet...

Douglas Adams Boulevard?

I like the idea of a street named after him! but can't we call it something more exciting than his name?
 

Mike42*
" ANYONE! . . . who - er ! . . . " uses " . . . er ! um ! . . . You just said it ! ! ! . . . Tooth Fairy on the way !

Erwin,
If I understand what you're saying, your analysis is that Qualcomm isn't excluded by Intel's IP, but Intel would be excluded from the GSM IP? I certainly would go along with that.

Mike42: the term 4G is a quote from the ABI report. The story in NewsWireless is a report on the ABI report, so we quote it as they did. I wouldn't disagree with your analysis.

Blimfark: if you read that piece as in any way supporting a Nokia viewpoint, you didn't read what I wrote! And it's not just Nokia; it's anybody who is not a member of the GSM cartel.

Since when was WiMAX a 4G technology?

AFAIK, the ITU, IEEE etc haven't even yet agreed what a '4G' technology will look like.

WiMAX in its current form is no faster/more efficient/better range/cheaper for a given freq/BW/range/power/etc than HSDPA 7.2. And it doesn't have QoS or CS for voice prioritisation. Or just about any other feature that makes HSDPA/UMTS/GSM such a great system, warts & all. And the WiMAX hardware costs will be astronomical, should you decide to roll out a network of the stuff. If the requisite hardware (as the South Koreans have discovered) is the size/weight of a Coke machine, needs multiple 20W PA's, a 2KW aircon plant, LDF5-50 feeder, 21dB panel antennas...hmmm...sorry, why not just use HSDPA?

Anyone who uses the terms 'WiMAX' and '4G' in the same sentence is either in the pay of Intel, doesn't read technical literature, doesn't understand the laws of physics, believes in the tooth fairy, or all of the above.

Cheers,

Mike

Ummmmmmmmm......what?? Lighten up on the Kool-aid

Guy, just to avoid further embarrassment, I think you have got it quite wrong in terms of patents.
Qualcomm though a strong player in W-CDMA (UMTS), does not have many patents in that regime compare to folks like Nokia, NTT-Docomo and Ericsson. That's why they have created an independent 3G ecosystem called 3GPP2 with CDMA2000, EVDO, UMB alike to maintain monopoly control.
In terms of WiMAX though, Qualcomm has got by far the most complete patent portfolio in OFDMA, which is the core technology in WiMAX, through its acquisition of Flarion several years back. It will be a Intel and Qualcomm only game if WiMAX ever flies.

Edited by author 10-05-2007 08:16 AM
Which markets exactly is Qualcomm alienating? N. America? India? China? S.Korea? Japan? Or are you really referring to alienating entrenched handset manufacturers like Nokia who enjoyed a stranglehold on GSM wireless for years and are now seeing new entrants into the handset space which have been enabled by access to W-CDMA technology developed by Qualcomm. Before you buy into the world according to Nokia, be intellectually honest and and compare the uniform 5% or less licensing fee charged by Qualcomm to the GSM licensing fees (reported to be up to 28% for newcomers without IP to trade). Competition is a good thing, despite the opinions of Nokia and their EU lapdogs. Can you articulate one good reason for the UMTS specification in Europe other than protectionism?

My analysis wouldn't go that far, and even if I had more information, I'd still hold back...

What I do observe is that Qualcomm is an unusual company, which bases its revenue on a rigorous enforcement of intellectual property. What I also perceive, is that the market as a whole finds this rigour intolerable.

The morals and ethics of this are a matter for a different debate. What I'd focus on, is the issue of whether Qualcomm is correctly optimising its benefit from its asset base. If it alienates markets as completely as it is doing, could it be worth re-considering whether it's actually losing more business than it gains?

Edited by author 08-22-2007 12:17 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/technolo...hnology&oref=slogin

Qualcomm has been accused by various people of some pretty sharp practices, do you think that their GC played any role in such conduct?

Just Wondering

Sod this - I'm off!

Did "Lou" Lupin quit his job at Qualcomm? Or was he "let go"?

---

 

Latest version of Bluetooth

RFID now plays its part in pairing of devices.