Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • hnuir hnuir Aug 8, 2007 4:19 PM Flag

    conference call

    the number in today's press release is incorrect. The area code should 888

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Trub wrote: �I guess what you are saying is that it is the fact that extended battery life is not critical in 2/2.5G applications, rather than a lack of interest, that explains the delay in a handset manufacturer adopting the D2P solution.�

      I�ve maintained the battery life on existing (2/2.5G) is not critical and not on anybody�s top-ten list for some time. (Refer to Apr 17 postings) Whether 3G is an issue remains to be seen as it�s not a significant market element yet.

      Your comment: �Rather than lack �.� is not correct, the two run hand in hand. The uselessness of D2P �technology� is what drives the lack of interest. D2P provides no useful benefit to most of the cell phone market (2/2.5G) by JP�s admission.

      Useful technologies sell rather quickly. Camera chips, small color displays, white LED backlights, microspeakers, Flex circuits, DSP�s, and embedded antennas, are all technologies that made serious inroads on cellular phones while D2P went nowhere.

      JP, however, has maintained the need for D2P for years. Clearly, he was flat wrong. Now he has done a very smooth story change to the �3G future�. Masterfully done, go listen again.

      A few more PIPES and then it will be 4G or 5G or whatever is hip and trendy at the time.

      Effectively, I think he admitted he was wrong on the need the value D2P brought to cell phones from its inception.

      What are they now faced with? No substantial revenue in �07 and most or all of �08.

      So what is the stock worth? In the long run, much less. If not for ITT, the answer would be zero. With ITT, it will be a bit more. IMO.

      But still, the smoothness of the 3G story shift was impressive. I think the board should give him another bonus.

      One other problem�the killer features of cell phones, like security are voice. 3G is a weakly needed technology push that will be slow to adopt.

      The opinions are my own.

    • <<Back then, he claimed to also extend the battery life of GSM - he's now dropped that claim>>

      I may be wrong, but I don't believe that he has dropped that claim. As I recall, he said that the improvement, because of the nature of the digital transmission in 2/2.5G, was smaller and of less importance to customers and handset suppliers.

      And more efficient PAs will not solve the problem. Only a dramatic change in the overall circuit architecture will effect the change required for the leap in efficiency.

      Is D2P that dramatic change? We will see.

    • BJ:

      <<Battery life has not been on the typical "top-ten" list for years.>>

      For years, battery life has not been very critical. It will be in feature-laden 3G phones, and the service providers will want extended battery life and better RF performance in order to assure maximum usage. If customers are not confident in their battery, they may not initiate some profitable downloads and may cut short call times.

      <<JP's conference call effectively admitted that don't have enough of an advantage in 2/2.5G applications (most of the present market) to be a player. >>

      So, I guess what you are saying is that it is the fact that extended battery life is not critical in 2/2.5G applications, rather than a lack of interest, that explains the delay in a handset manufacturer adopting the D2P solution.

    • > He also dropped another little bomb as it were when he said that d2p technology provides a 70% improvement in talk time in 3G handsets.

      He first made that exact same claim (70% improvement in talk time) in 2005. He made it both in the quarterly conference call(s) and in the AeA conference in Nov 2005. He repeated the claim at various calls in 2006. I have the transcripts, if you doubt me. Back then, he claimed to also extend the battery life of GSM - he's now dropped that claim, since the rest of industry came out with very efficient PAs for GSM and Edge - just as they are now starting to introduce very efficient PAs for W-CDMA.

    • "JP's conference call effectively admitted that don't have enough of an advantage in 2/2.5G applications (most of the present market) to be a player. (Did anyone else notice this little bomb he dropped?)"

      He also dropped another little bomb as it were when he said that d2p technology provides a 70% improvement in talk time in 3G handsets. I bet we do see it in 3G and that's what the market is all about is it not? You say this, I say that, we both make our respective investments and see how they do.

    • Tyus,

      I used to know a cell phone operator and a bit about what he was looking for. He served as a basis for my fictional accounts of Apr 17 and 18 at

      http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?bn=14618&tid=24641&mid=24677

      PV does not seem to understand how their stuff fits into the technical landscape. Because of their collective ego, they seem to think they ARE the landscape. "Legends in their own minds", so to speak.

      Each cellphone operator has a long list of what he wants from the phone vendors. Battery life has not been on the typical "top-ten" list for years.

      JP's conference call effectively admitted that don't have enough of an advantage in 2/2.5G applications (most of the present market) to be a player. (Did anyone else notice this little bomb he dropped?)

      Sales results support that.

      Thus, he painted the "future" as 3G handsets. Rest assured, by the time that's an issue, plenty of other vendors will also have better 3G solutions well integrated.

      Maybe things will work out at ITT, but I can't see this stuff ever in cell phones. IMHO.

    • People can listen to the conference calls, read sec filings, look at the website, and otherwise do their own research. Unbiased investigation should lead to the correct conclusions about whether PRKR is worth buying or shorting or whatever. What I have tried to do here is uncover the BS (in your case careless BS) promulgated by some people betting against the stock. So I'm not going to respond to your endless spin. But just in case some might take you seriously, I would point out just how uninformed and reckless you are: the 'carrier program' is designed to rally the wireless network operators to get behind the broad advantages to THEM of ESP-based technology - more calls per tower and less dropped calls would be two prime examples. Parkervision wants them in turn to use their leverage with the OEMs (whose phones they market) to start adopting ESP-based technology.

    • Enlighten me then, what exactly is the program about? What additional information can the carriers tell the OEMs that they couldn't grasp from talking to Jeff Parker and PRKR's sales engineers? Surely the OEMs understand the benefits of longer battery life, greater transceiver integration, the ability to operate in multiple modes, etc.

      To put it another way, after supposedly having 2+ years of meetings with cell phone and chip companies on d2p, why can't the target customers get excited enough to even form a working relationship? If the benefits of the technology are so easy for the PRKR investors to grasp, why do they elude the people cranking out 3G handsets today? After all, given the hundreds of millions poured into R&D, it would be trivial for them to strike a deal like ITT's to pay PRKR a few hundred thousand dollars to develop a proof of concept.

      The carrier marketing program is just more conference call BS so PRKR can sound like it is accomplishing something.

    • This is not at all what the program is about and demonstrates that you are a remarkably uninformed investor. That, combined with your overconfidence, makes for a really potent, deadly combination.

      <But the funniest part to me is their program of marketing to carriers, and the idea they are taking people from the carriers when they meet with OEMs. Does Jeff Parker really think the cell phone OEMs and chip designers are so dumb that they can't understand the benefit of longer battery life? Shouldn't they be able to figure out that longer talk time is better without having to have someone from the carrier tell them? It amazes that me professional investors can listen to BS like this and even pretend to take it seriously. >

    • What is there that would make a short like me change his opinion? From where I sit the shorts have been always right about the failure of PRKR as a business and as a technology, from the distant to very recent past. What we are surprised by is the apparently endless supply of credulous fools.

      Listening to the ludicrous kabuki theater that is PRKR's quarterly conference call is one of the most enjoyable parts of following this POS. I noticed Jeff Parker has backed off of any type of prediction as to when the first real cell phone OEM deal will be signed, since none of the predictions of closing a deal by the end of 2006 or deals being in the "final stages" have been true in the past. Now he's conditioning investors to expect more BS deals with non-cell phone OEMs so he can put out some press releases while the "business" continues to founder.

      But the funniest part to me is their program of marketing to carriers, and the idea they are taking people from the carriers when they meet with OEMs. Does Jeff Parker really think the cell phone OEMs and chip designers are so dumb that they can't understand the benefit of longer battery life? Shouldn't they be able to figure out that longer talk time is better without having to have someone from the carrier tell them? It amazes that me professional investors can listen to BS like this and even pretend to take it seriously.

    • View More Messages
 
PRKR
3.58-0.03(-0.83%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT