David Boettger

Baidu Extends Its Post-Earnings Rally - But What's It Worth?

I'm sorry, but the analysts are just morons when it comes to this stock. I've been following Citibank/Jason Brueschke on this share for a long time. Here's how it works: The stock rises, so Jason raises his target price. The stock falls, so Jason lowers his target price. If you are trading based on analyst "intelligence", you're a fool.

A New Slant on VoIPo3G

First, regarding VoIPoWLAN vs. VoIPo3G: This is hardly a valid comparison. WLAN will likely never be a wide-area solution and thus VoIPoWLAN and VoIPo3G don't address the same market.

Second, I continue to be puzzled as to why there is a perception that VoIPo3G should be deployed for its own sake. If VoIPo3G is cheaper to operate at a given quality of service than circuit voice, then carriers will deploy it. If it's cheaper at retail than circuit voice, then subscribers will buy it. There are precious few other justifications for it.

But I don't think either one of these points is self-evident. Even if the VoIPo3G quality of service issues can be addressed, WCDMA with the AMR codec operating at 5.9 kbps or less sets a pretty high capacity (read: cost/price per MoU) bar. And it does so without all the burden imposed on the packet scheduler in the case of VoIPo3G.

One question: Are you sure you've got the CS over HSPA fundamentals right (i.e., that the call is transported in IP)? I tried to do some research through Google and at 3gpp.org but couldn't come up with any references. I understand with the concept of running a "circuit" call over a packet radio link, but it doesn't make sense to me that (or why) voice packets would be encapsulated in IP. Without going into detail, this would imply some goofball call setup and packet routing in the core network, not to mention needless overhead. I'm guessing that packets are transported up to the circuit core using normal WCDMA framing which just happens to be carried over the HSPA bearers (no IP involved).

China Mobile, Apple Butt Heads Over iPhone

With hacked iPhones so readily available in China, I wonder if Jobs (like Gates) isn't simply content on attacking the Chinese market guerrilla-style.

China Mobile, Apple Butt Heads Over iPhone

reinharden: Nearly all GSM base stations are capable of GPRS, but they aren't necessarily capable of EDGE. iPhone usability (such as it is) is dependent on EDGE, which Unicom doesn't have. In order to be commercially-viable under the Unicom brand, the iPhone would need to be both CDMA/EVDO-capable and SIM-enabled, as David stated. As CDMA/EVDO has one foot in the grave, and presuming that EDGE won't be launched on Unicom's GSM network (until the net is hived off to Telecom or Netcom), a Unicom-Apple pair-up just in the cards which, I think, was David's main point.

Nokia's Qualcomm Smear Campaign Won't Work

Ah, Nokia's ceaselessly tiring whinges about the baddies over at Qualcomm. Why is it that only David Wolf - who is fairly well removed from action - calls Nokia out on this issue?

Nokia: If you didn't want to pay Qualcomm, then why did you base UMTS on CDMA technology? CDMA wasn't the only option. You could have used OFDMA (Whoops! Late to the party on that one, too!). And Qualcomm's CDMA royalty rates are known to be in the neighborhood of 2.5%. How can you argue with a straight face that the sloth-like take-up of 3G is a matter of 2.5% in additional handset cost? To most cellular operators, 2.5% more for handsets is a rounding error in the OPEX budget. It would be better if you stopped treating us like imbeciles and stopped acting like tantrum-prone two-year-olds.

Investors Flee Sinking Chinese Video Sharing Sites

Answer? Apparently not: www.pacificepoch.com/n.../

China's Pending TD-SCDMA Network: Foreign Companies Shouldn't Hold Their Breath

There is no doubt that it will be extremely difficult (for foreigners) to "[make] any money in the hypercompetitive typhoon the network will create among equipment vendors". However, the three foreign vendors which have been nominated to provide core networking equipment - Ericsson, Nokia, and Alcatel - have deep and long-lasting ties into the government and, in the case of E/// and NOK, into China Mobile. This reduces the probability that they'll be ripped out in favor of a local vendor at some point in the future. Further, since TD-SCDMA uses essentially the same core network as UMTS/WCDMA, there is little or no custom development required, which helps the foreigners to minimize their net cost-of-sales.

Investors Flee Sinking Chinese Video Sharing Sites

"A typical Chinese 'one guy got rich doing this so we can, too' pile-on". Ha! I'm glad someone finally said it out loud. This is a concept that people who have never lived in China (i.e., most VCs) just don't get. Anybody over on Sand Hill Road paying attention??

China as an Economic Superpower: 'Watch Out Below'

"Marxist theory of capitalism"? Um... Huh? I almost don't know where to start here. Free markets and rule of law have nothing to do with each other. As for free markets not producing monopolists... you might check your early 20th century history. Ever heard of Standard Oil? US Steel? Carnegie? Rockefeller? For more modern examples, check out Hong Kong - a free market by any standard - and the handful of tycoons that controls every aspect of the economy. Just try starting a business that competes with one of Li Ka-Shing's businesses and see how quickly you can compete away his profit advantage.

A recurring theme amongst people that speak about China while knowing nothing about the place is that they think it's Communism/Marxism/The Party that's produced the current political-economic situation. In fact, the elites in China have manipulated the political system for their economic advantage for thousands of years. The common people have been disenfranchised for thousands of years. The Communist Central Government is just another Chinese dynasty, with the possible exception that they actually give a crap about the people's welfare (albeit for less-than-altruistic reasons).

And to the point at hand, there are hundreds of thousands of extremely well-connected vested interests in China who will use every last gram of their political power to ensure that something like the chart above doesn't happen. Further, the total collapse of FDI that would occur as a result is too politically risky - and too much of a loss of face - for the Central Government to tolerate. It often doesn't pay to be too rational/mathematical when analyzing Chinese markets; <b>everything<... in China is political.