Mika:
You wrote "(forget about what is superior, in a lot of cases it doesn't matter)"
I think investing in QCOM is at least a 25% - 50% bet that technology does matter in this case. I would agree that there are ample examples of markets where the best technology does not win out. However, there are far fewer examples of this when applied to maximizing the use of a scarce resource (such as spectrum). If this resource wasn't so scarce, other GSM flavors of 3G would have won the battle over CDMA. But we all know that spectrum fills quickly with subscribers (evidenced by AT&T's TDMA capacity issues, Nextels Capacity problems, and even China's prediction that they will not be able to add GSM subs past 2003).
Given this fact, I believe that ultimately carriers will care about maximizing their allotment of spectrum. If it is proven that CDMA2000 proves to be technically superior to W-CDMA (and significantly so), I think network operators will change their mind.
I may be forecasting the panacea here, but you have to admit that regardless of the royalty and IPR issues, IF CDMA2000 is proven to deliver voice and data at rates faster than W-WCDMA, and IF it proves to use spectrum more efficiently, and IF it can overlay on GSM systems, and IF it is available within 6 months, probably 1- 2 years before W-CDMA, then it has a pretty good chance of success.
The nice thing about the risks inherent with the 4 IF's above is that even if they fail, and W-CDMA is widely deployed, QCOM becomes a phenomenal once in a lifetime investment at these levels.
Good luck to all! |
