BUX..
You've been around here at least as long as I so you shouldn't be surprised by my "attitude". If everyone on these boards towed the party line we wouldn't learn much would we? Believe it or not it's possible to be a QCOM shareholder and to have reservations, not about the superiority of the technology, but about what may or may not occur in the real world marketplace, to be a shareholder without believing that ATT will inevitably be forced to overlay CDMA, that CDMA will be overlayed on top of GSM in Europe. These things may happen but they're by no means inevitable and anybody who thinks so is fooling themselves IMO.
Many but not all issues that Tero raises are serious even if his style makes you and me both want to puke. He was correct that QCOM lacked the economies of scale necessary to compete in the handset business, and CDMAone will continue to labor at a scale disadvantage for the foreseeable future.These scale economies may apply to wireless web services and applications as well, we'll see. I have no doubts that your Sprint wireless web's gonna work on a laptop, but what about a handset? Qdog raised VERY interesting questions about what the method of choice for high speed wireless internet access will be, about how much 2mgps mobile access is necessary, about whether there really is enough PCS spectrum for what 3G envisions. I don't have the answer to that one and I suspect you don't either.
OF COURSE my investment in QCOM is predicated on CDMA's spectral efficency so I'm not ignoring the pressures that ATT is likely to face when confronting SPrint and AIT/Vod, the cost and evolutionary disadvantages that GSM/TDMA face when compared to CDMAone/2000, I just don't think the "conversion" is anything like the slamdunk that some intimate. I'd love it if someone could explain why I'm wrong, that's really what I'm looking for out of this discussion.
As far as "WCDMA QCOM royalty hijacking wannabees," can you elaborate? Do you really think there are companies planning to deploy mobile WCDMA without paying royalties to QCOM?
Once again there are more and more quotes surfacing attributable to execs from the usual suspects claiming that " WCDMA" doesn't need Q IPR", that "Q has no more or less 3G patent rights than anybody else", the kind of FUD we were constantly subjected to before the Ericsson "settlement". Will there will be serious IPR challenges as a result of QCOM's refusal to join the patent pool, the industry aligned against Q? I'm simply suggesting that one of the things but by no means the only thing driving the coalition of forces out to deploy WCDMA is the common irritaton at having to pay Q royalties, and that the most effective way to not boost QCOM and the CDMAone carriers position might be to stick to TDMA/GSM and the economies of scale and global roaming advantages that now exist..
Dave
PS.. I readily admit and gladly so that as soon as we see a TDMA/GSM/CDMA chipset these roaming advantages go down the drain don't they.. |
