Various responses. First to Maurice.
With delight, I see we agree on a few things, like:
1. Pooling versus unilateral royalty math mechanics.
2. The GSM FUDmeisters have a far higher noise to signal ratio than the QCOM hypesters. (But while there's a lot of noise, there is still a signal in there with proper filtering.)
3. I sure hope the Musketeers turn on each other in various internecine squabbles. (But they did manage to sort things out in their GSM club, so don't bet money on hope.)
4. TDMA is a sorry standard. (But there are a bunch of users.)
5. The moon is NOT made out of green cheese.
RfHombre:
1. If we SI posters could figure out the mean expectations in the stock we'd be a whole lot richer. As the Verve stated, this is a hard damn stock to understand, and most of the people here have made a great deal of effort to do so. Sounds from some of the feedback that maybe the more applicable moniker is "clueless investors."
Carranza:
1. You forgot that QCOM also owns the bases and home plate. As long as the umpires do their jobs, we should be OK, even if we have to pay $5 each for a beer and a hot dog. Everybody coming into the park needs to buy a ticket (although it appears a few will try to sneak in without paying).
General Comment:
If through dint of superior technology, efficient system-wide costs of ownership, and time to market, 3G MC exceeds 30% worldwide market share, that would be incredible. I wouldn't buy or own the stock on that basis, other than looking at it as upside potential.
Lastly, thanks to engineer for the historical perspective. As Yogi Berra used to say, it's really just deja vu, all over again. |
