Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (31073)	9/4/2000 10:35:17 PM
From: sditto	Read Replies (3) of 54805

<<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.>> The short answer to a long question is yes. <g> The fundamental issue is not about controlling the standard - the issue is controlling the architecture which results from the standard. As an analogy, consider the path CSCO took toward control of the enterprise routing marketplace. CSCO developed significant intellectual property and experience in routing TCP/IP - a protocol controlled by international standards bodies. CSCO created strong momentum on the back of their TCP/IP expertise then ran into FUD as IBM tried to redefine the playing field around the ability to route SNA. Yet more FUD was generated around the difficulty of routing IPX for the smaller enterprises and departments using Novell. In the end, the inherent advantages of TCP/IP for enterprise networking, the unsuccessful attempts by competitors to leverage their hold over inferior protocols, and CSCO expertise with the winning protocol were the keys to their eventual marketplace dominance. QCOM appears to be in an even stronger position by virtue of their royalty position (imagine a world where CSCO received a royalty for every device capable of sending a TCP/IP packet) and their deep experience in CDMA where they conceived, produced, and continue to advance a technology many thought to be impossible. From the day you sent me the architectural diagram of the QCOM MSM3300 chipset at qualcomm.com I have become convinced QCOM has a reasonable shot at extending their control beyond the CDMA processor by creating and controlling the architecture of the next generation handset. Since then, I have also come to believe QCOM may be able to transcend control of the handset architecture and capture the system architecture for the next generation telematics platform through Wingcast. There have been few details from QCOM since the announcement and relatively little discussion here but the opportunities resulting from control of the in/near car communications architecture are enormous. Other possibilities for future architectural control include In-Flight Network and Technicolor Digital Cinema (not to mention SnapTrack, OmniTRACS, and Globalstar). The thing that continues to amaze me about QCOM is not whether it will control an architecture but rather how many architectures it is in a position to control.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next