On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 05:40 , Nick May wrote:
> I read your posts with interest - in part because they often function as
> rhetoric far better than they do as structured arguments - and that is
> rare and interesting on this list - and in part because you clearly know
> your stuff technically.
Thank you for the flowers, Nick.
You make it look a bit like I knew my stuff better than others and I
would like to discount that and rephrase this into "I know well what I
don't know and I stay away from that". I would feel rather uncomfortable
if I had to resort to making assumptions. This is why my choice of
subject matter may at times seem out of balance as in "Oh, no, not
'roaming' again ..." ;-) Other than that, I am pretty confident that you
know your stuff just as well as I do mine.
I am sorry to learn that the points I put forward seem to lack
structured argumentation. I promise I will try to work on it but I have
to digest this first ;-)
> Could you point out any posting made to this list in recent days that
> implies the formula you state? I do not know anyone who works with
> i-mode
> on this list who believes it.
Taking on your comments above, I think that in the interest of a
structured argument it is wise not to pick quotations and explain why I
think they match the formula I presented as it may turn out to end up as
rhetoric. Instead, I would like to provide a logical examination.
I may have a misunderstanding, but my reading of the various responses
received yields a number of statements that in my understanding appear
to be saying the following ...
- Japanese phones are cute and therefore PDC is good
where PDC may also stand for the domination of PDC
- Without PDC there would be no cute phones
where PDC may also stand for any proprietary domestic cellular system
Let's now examine this on a logical basis ...
We have a claim that goes like this:
(1) Japanese phones are cute therefore domination of PDC is good.
And we have also got a claim that goes like this:
(2) If there was no domination of PDC then there would be no cute
phones.
Or in a different notation:
(C1) Cute phones exist => Domination of PDC is good
(C2) Domination of PDC exists => Cute phones exist
(C3) No Domination of PDC => No cute phones
C1 and C2 are due to (1) and C3 is due to (2)
I will now show that C1 - C3 together will lead to the logical
equivalent of the formula I presented, which should serve as an answer
to your inquiry
By substitution of "cute phones" with "shiny piece of metal" and "PDC
domination is good" with "all is gold", C1 can be directly translated
into:
(A) If there is a shiny piece of metal then all is gold.
From C2 and C3 we derive that the existence of cute phones is a result
of domination of PDC and the absence of cute phones is a result of an
absence of such domination of PDC. Thus, if there is an absence of cute
phones then there must be an absence of domination of PDC.
Because of C1, the existence of cute phones also leads to domination of
PDC is good and hence the removal of cute phones removes the indicator
to render PDC dominance good.
Therefore, by substituting as above we will arrive at:
(B) if there is no shiny piece of metal left then all is not gold.
Combining A and B, we get:
If there is a shiny piece of metal then all is gold,
until there is no shiny piece of metal left.
What I was trying to say by this is that you cannot judge an entire
complex by cherry picking one particular piece of it that may be
favourable. That one piece may not be representative.
Apart from that, there would also appear to be some confusion about the
fact that the discussion got frequently side tracked resulting in two
different discussions going on in parallel, one of which in my opinion
had nothing to do with the other.
My argument is based on the overall macro-economic complex of a wireless
infrastructure. That includes consumers, operators and manufacturers;
shareholders and employees; and the impact on the economy which they
rely on to act and function.
I don't want to go into details again, because I think we have gone
through this often enough by now. Therefore I am trying to summarise my
argument on a very general level
I am saying that the Japanese economy (including all entities which are
active in it) would have done far better if decision makers had bothered
to take into account that Japan is an export nation relying on exporting
value added products (as opposed to commodities).
The Japanese government has realised this some time ago and they have
acknowledged that it would be beneficial if Japan had adopted GSM (their
first choice) or CDMA (their second choice). They intended to change in
1996/97 but found they had locked themselves pretty well out. So I am
not preaching any new gospel. Fact is there is no dispute over this
(other than some readers on this list perhaps).
Countering my argument, I keep reading things like "not true - Japanese
mobile phones are cute - therefore you are wrong".
This has led us to get somewhat distracted from the main argument,
because a side issue of "these phones are better than those ones" popped
up as a result.
Independently of the main argument, I happen to disagree with what would
seem to be the consensus on the *side issue* on this list, that Japanese
phones are superior. But whatever my opinion on this side issue is does
not matter, for it is a side issue. Even if we were to agree on the side
issue, that Japanese phones are superior, even then, the main argument
stands as it is. In fact no matter what we were to agree on the side
issue, the main argument still remains unaffected.
I am saying, whether Japanese phones are superior or not does not matter
for the main argument. However, I keep reading responses along the lines
"not so - if Japanese phones are better then so must be the Japanese
phone system" or "Japanese phones are better therefore you are wrong".
That is why I am saying, you cannot cherry pick one particular piece
(the judgement of which is arguable anyway) and judge the entire system
based on that one single piece.
It doesn't work that way.
regards
benjamin
Received on Wed Jun 19 01:57:10 2002