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 : APA OPTICS(APAT)-fiberoptic upstar

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Andy Yamaguchi who wrote (2)2/21/2000 11:27:00 PM
From: jack bittner  Read Replies (1) of 34
hello Andy. i admire your posts. i think your opinions are very well grounded in facts and common sense - both as to timing (april 10) and stocks.
i know you don't think much of avnx, because you favor both adct (#1) and apat. you've written that avnx can achieve only 100 Ghz vs apat's 50 (eventual 25), also cost advantages and 1 yr ahead of avnx for 50 Ghz.
i've read that NT can do 160 channels, which'd be just over 18 Ghz. have you read that? is it so?
now comes avnx. geo gilder (i've read some criticism of him lately. for example, that his claims for terayon are extreme) says avanex can do (or will be able to do) 2000 channels. that is 1.5 Ghz!!!
on the one hand, i know photonic engineers who say this is BS, or who can't simply accept it. i've read your brief description of their Interleaver, about separating the odd and even channels and "using the lower density parts" (don't get the part in quotes). i suppose one could cause interference, focus the beam, get dark, light, dark: is that the Interleaver?
But my key question is the apparent contradiction: that we have on one hand this extravagant claim of 1.5 Ghz that no one believes or understands; and on the other hand we know they have the backing of the mayfield fund, sequoia capital and the venture funds of wcom and msft. they are big, tough outfits, and they must have kicked the tires pretty hard before investing millions. they have the work of Simon Cao, formerly etek(38 patents) and CTO John Fee (20 patents), formerly with wcom. they say Mr Cao jointly developed and share ownership of the patent with with Fujitsu.

have you any thoughts on all this - especialy the hard-to-believe claims versus the solid financial backing? do you believe the claims?: the PowerShaper and the PowerMux?
i eagerly await your opinions. jack
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext