AI
Friday, July 11, 2003 11:19:21 AM
My main point is that the applications are endless and that cell phones are just the tip of the iceberg...
excuse me for butting in to this exchange, but this is something i've had an opinion on for a while (since i used to be of the same mind as you). the problem is, the applications aren't endless, and - for those that exist - there are probably more cost effective alternatives.
wirelss video used to be the selling point for 3g, the driver for >1mbps bandwidth requirements. but really, who cares? for entertainment, the cost will be prohibitive; and just in terms of practicality overall, carrying a dvd in your pocket gives you more bandwidth/dollar than you'll ever get from wireless. person-to-person video is a big flop on stationary phones, so why expect more from mobile? even the camera-in-a-phone is a big flop, having become little more than a james-bond device for snapping clandestine photos in locker rooms.
now data is a more convincing alternative, but there the success of wifi, and even more primitively, places where you can just plug your computer in to a public network, are again pretty much usable, convenient, and more cost effective. hey, why not have starbuck's subsidize my internet usage while i'm there; i'm all for that.
and the old arguments that ran the count of cdma devices up to N per person (for N > 1), claiming that it would be embedded in all sorts of devices, has pretty much disappeared. bluetooth can provide the short range connectivity, and for dumber devices, there's rfid's. (and note, even bluetooth is much slower out of the gate than ever predicted. the applications are not as compelling as the hype. hell, i ran out and got a wireless keyboard and mouse when they first arrived, and within 4 weeks they ended up in the closet, just because the batteries died and the new inconveniences overruled the old inconveniences.)
so anyway, i'm not a big believer. i don't think many of the applications survive real scrutiny, or provide sufficient benefit over cheaper alternatives.
but that's one boy's opinion.
(aside) oh, and by the way, re this IDCC thing. i haven't followed the thread on here closely, but what i've read amazes me. these are the same arguments, the same names from 3 years ago, repeat with reverend dalglish. (back in winter 1999, i was a novice in the market and stoopidly bought idcc (then idc) at $10 and sold for a modest profit, like a buck or two, after actually sitting down to read through the companies docs. then the "baby qualcomm" thing took off and the stock momentarily hit $80, which was my first short. at that point, i was pretty vocal on the yahoo boards, feeling like i was the only person battling the misinformation that people were spitting out there. but it did force me to go out and learn quite a bit about this stuff - most of which i've forgotten. of course, this was before i learned that yahoo is the sewer of stock discussion fora.
excuse me for butting in to this exchange, but this is something i've had an opinion on for a while (since i used to be of the same mind as you). the problem is, the applications aren't endless, and - for those that exist - there are probably more cost effective alternatives.
wirelss video used to be the selling point for 3g, the driver for >1mbps bandwidth requirements. but really, who cares? for entertainment, the cost will be prohibitive; and just in terms of practicality overall, carrying a dvd in your pocket gives you more bandwidth/dollar than you'll ever get from wireless. person-to-person video is a big flop on stationary phones, so why expect more from mobile? even the camera-in-a-phone is a big flop, having become little more than a james-bond device for snapping clandestine photos in locker rooms.
now data is a more convincing alternative, but there the success of wifi, and even more primitively, places where you can just plug your computer in to a public network, are again pretty much usable, convenient, and more cost effective. hey, why not have starbuck's subsidize my internet usage while i'm there; i'm all for that.
and the old arguments that ran the count of cdma devices up to N per person (for N > 1), claiming that it would be embedded in all sorts of devices, has pretty much disappeared. bluetooth can provide the short range connectivity, and for dumber devices, there's rfid's. (and note, even bluetooth is much slower out of the gate than ever predicted. the applications are not as compelling as the hype. hell, i ran out and got a wireless keyboard and mouse when they first arrived, and within 4 weeks they ended up in the closet, just because the batteries died and the new inconveniences overruled the old inconveniences.)
so anyway, i'm not a big believer. i don't think many of the applications survive real scrutiny, or provide sufficient benefit over cheaper alternatives.
but that's one boy's opinion.
(aside) oh, and by the way, re this IDCC thing. i haven't followed the thread on here closely, but what i've read amazes me. these are the same arguments, the same names from 3 years ago, repeat with reverend dalglish. (back in winter 1999, i was a novice in the market and stoopidly bought idcc (then idc) at $10 and sold for a modest profit, like a buck or two, after actually sitting down to read through the companies docs. then the "baby qualcomm" thing took off and the stock momentarily hit $80, which was my first short. at that point, i was pretty vocal on the yahoo boards, feeling like i was the only person battling the misinformation that people were spitting out there. but it did force me to go out and learn quite a bit about this stuff - most of which i've forgotten. of course, this was before i learned that yahoo is the sewer of stock discussion fora.
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
