...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Mobile Europe >EDITORIAL COMMENT
【24h】

EDITORIAL COMMENT

机译：编辑评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Back in our March issue, we ran a story based on an in-depth interview with George Bailey, general manager of IBM's electronics business, in which Bailey said that he thought it possible there would be just three major network equipment providers in the market in five years' time. Whether you agree with that or not, the thrust of his argument was that NEPs were going to have to decide what it was they wanted to be. Either they could be end-to-end players, or they could work in partnership with specialists from other areas, whilst concentrating on their own core research and development activities. An end-to-end provider sounds like a piece of marketing spiel, but there are companies out there attempting to put together, access, core, software, hardware, services and systems integration plays. Alcatel-Lucent is one. The advantage of such an approach is that you have your bases covered. If any market takes off, say the broadband access market, then you have a play. If carriers invest millions in softswitching in the core, then you have a play. The downside of such an approach is the research and development costs needed to sustain such a broad approach will, in the end, cripple you, unless you can keep them as low as possible.
机译：在三月份的期刊中，我们根据对IBM电子业务总经理George Bailey的深入采访，发表了一个故事，其中Bailey说，他认为在市场上可能只有三家主要的网络设备提供商。五年的时间。无论您是否同意，他的论据的重点是，NEP必须决定他们想要成为的国家。他们要么成为端到端参与者，要么可以与其他领域的专家合作，同时专注于自己的核心研发活动。端到端的提供商听起来像是市场营销的恶作剧，但是有些公司试图将访问，核心，软件，硬件，服务和系统集成整合在一起。阿尔卡特朗讯就是其中之一。这种方法的优点是您可以覆盖基础。如果说有一个腾飞的市场，比如说宽带接入市场，那么您就可以发挥作用。如果运营商在核心上的软交换上投入了数百万美元，那么您就可以发挥作用。这种方法的缺点是，维持这种广泛方法所需的研发成本最终会削弱您的能力，除非您可以将其降低到最低。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号