Ben,
Re: QCOM - Gorilla of 3G3 CDMA ????
<< I fail to understand how the Korean decision materially effects QCOM in the intermediate or long term. I fail to see how it makes the slightest difference >>
Then whats all the hubbub on the various boards about WCDMA v. cdma2000? <g>
I have been kind of wondering what all the hubbub is about myself. I never expected GSM-MAP operators (or IS-136 TDMA operators) to opt for cdma2000. Any forecast I have ever seen from any research firm, anticipates them migrating with WCDMA, which is of course the standard they evolved in 3GIG/3GPP.
<< flavors and variations fundamentally based on QCOM IP ... QCOM's technologies remain at the core >>
In Korea however we have a little surprise (as we almost had in Japan with DDI) however. Now we have ANSI-41 carriers considering WCDMA, and forecasts are starting to look more like 80:20 WCDMA v. cdma2000 rather than 70:30.
Now to be honest, for the intermediate term, that type of decision leads to some fUNCERTAINTYd, and will till IP issues resolve. I am as confident as you that QCOM will be paid for its essential IP, but never the less uncertainty lingers, and uncertainty affects shareholder value.
We also have the issue of Qualcomm's unproven ability to design WCDMA ASICs that incorporate the complex GSM protocol stack. More uncertainty.
<< Please elaborate on you perceived intermediate term effects >>
Well I've mentioned a few above. None insurmountable.
As you know, however, I look at things from the perspective of a gorilla gamer, and we haven't really got into gorilla matters in this discussion other than revenue that accrues from QCOM essential IP.
On this board, we consider Qualcomm to be the gorilla of CDMA, We have witnessed the hypergrowth of CDMA (the 2G voice tornado evolving near term into 2.5G voice and data tornado or forming a new voice and data tornado).
Off in the distance is a 3rd tornado, the 3G3 multimedia tornado.
Qualcomm's current gorilla status is based on them controlling a proprietary open architecture or standard.
3G3 as opposed to cdma2000 is a committee based standard.
Here is a question that I pose to you and others here. The question is whether or not within the context of 3G3, which is a committee based standard (for the moment 2 standards and 2 committees), where Qualcomm lacks (or potentially lacks) the type of control it has enjoyed in the past over an architecture or standard, can it still be considered a gorilla in the new tornados that are forming.
I am not sure that just receiving royalties for (some of) the essential IP of an architecture or standard is sufficient to classify a company as a gorilla.
The slides I recently referenced bear on this.
I have been pondering this for some time.
I don't know the answer myself yet ... but that is what this thread is all about, so I throw the question open.
- Eric - |
