Mika, so it's YOU who dislikes QUALCOMM. I wondered why you couldn't give any names to back up your absurd claims.
If you were told never to bite the hand that feeds you, don't you understand that it is QUALCOMM's hand which has produced the CDMA food upon which the euroserfs wish to feed. George Bush won't tolerate any crap from Europe in stealing Q! IPR. So, don't bite the hand that's feeding you and don't steal from it. Simply get your money out and pay it. That's the time-honoured way of business and trade.
Here is a post you presumably missed. The first are your words:
============================================================
<I have previously said that Qualcomm were one of the most disliked companies in the telecom business...and that still holds true.> Mika, I find that sort of attitude quite offensive. It's true that jealous, envious, thieving, Marxist types do despise people who achieve great things and make a lot of money. Are these types of people really running companies for whom you provide services?
Any time I have seen the suggestion that QUALCOMM is disliked etc, it is in regard to accusations that Q! is greedy, stopping CDMA, and the like. All such accusations are self-evidently false to anyone who is not a complete crook or totally stupid.
GSM royalties are much higher than CDMA royalties. 15% versus 5% or so - 15% is what the GSM Guild wants to charge QUALCOMM to use GSM.
CDMA has boomed so it is NOT true that royalties have slowed it. Neither could 5% or so slow it given the advantage provided by CDMA over competing technologies.
That royalty has ALL fed back into continuing development of CDMA so the royalty has accelerated CDMA, not slowed it. If the royalty had not been charged, SnapTrack, BREW and all the other developments which will support CDMA adoption wouldn't have happened.
This is easy for most people to understand if they read it twice.
Dividends have not been paid by QUALCOMM - the royalties are still in the company's balance sheet or have paid for continued CDMA development [or gone in taxes which are a sad fact of life - which would have happened no matter who got the money].
QUALCOMM's CDMA has been excluded from Europe. Standards bodies and governments have excluded them. Threats and attempts to steal their property have been made. QUALCOMM has had to defend their property in court several times. Lies about who owns the property have been made. The immoral behaviour lies with the GSM Nazis and the hagfish world Mika, not the allegedly fraudulent world of the CDMA Mafia.
Please name somebody who dislikes QUALCOMM and tell me why they dislike QUALCOMM. I think you will find nothing but pure greed dressed up in envy. Your comment implies some unpleasant behaviour by QUALCOMM. I don't believe you will be able to state anything other than selling their property, at a price which suits QUALCOMM, to whine about.
L M Ericsson, Nokia and some others have led years of lies, disinformation, deception and in at least one instance, illegal activity, in an attempt to stop what was a great achievement by the likes of Klein Gilhousen, Andrew Viterbi and the others who created mobile CDMA out of thin air. Billions of people will benefit from the creations of these people which are being delivered by QUALCOMM.
I find L M Ericsson's, Nokia's and the others' comments and behaviour in the VW-40 band contemptible.
Mika, it hasn't been a matter of squeezing the last out of equipment which offends me. I'm all in favour of that. It's the lies, deceit and abusive monopolistic practises which have been used to slow the development of CDMA and keep the GSM subscribers prisoner which is offensive.
GSM won't dominate for 5 years. Analogue has collapsed in a rush and GSM will do the same when the balance of technology and price and spectrum demand is right. That process has already happened in the USA where GSM had a lead on CDMA.
I am surprised by how slowly GSM has given ground to CDMA, even where free market forces have prevailed. I think it's mainly because there hasn't been serious pressure on spectrum. Also, the cost of production of a minute for either GSM or CDMA is trivial compared with the prices charged by service providers.
As competitive forces increase, minute prices will come under increasing pressure and spectrum demand and the difference in production costs will matter a lot. Technology factors will be important too [SnapTrack, as one example, doesn't matter at present].
Mika, GSM was ever only one technology of many. CDMA is one of many. A 'GSM harmonized' world isn't how the world works. People are individuals and inventive ones at that. They are always looking for another idea. Even just for fun. The Euro 'Standard cucumber bend' and 'Standard beer froth' and 'Standard diesel fuel' are wacky ideas derived right out of George Orwell's '1984' where Big Brother knows best. For those who don't know, there truly are European standards for such things despite the needs and inclinations of individuals who don't want the standard.
Mika, it's true Globalstar was a dream but it is now a reality. The only thing wrong with it is that the telecom marketing companies are still in the 1970s mindset of how to market services. They have come from monopolies and oligopolies and are not yet seriously competitive enterprises. They should be run like petrol stations in the USA. They should discount gluts and charge heaps in a shortage. Globalstar is in the process of figuring out that gouging customers isn't the best way to earn a living. They were very slow learners, but they are getting there. The same sort of people run the terrestrial wireless world. They'll gradually come under pressure too.
CTIA was full of CDMA and 3G CDMA hopes. I have contempt for people who purport to dislike QUALCOMM [in the way you meant]. They are lying cowards who are not able to substantiate their arguments. I hope they lose all their money and rot in GSM hell.
Please tell me why these people you quote dislike QUALCOMM - you claim to know about it. Let's see if there is anything other than whining envy to their argument. Please name them too; the company and the individual who makes the claim.
I'm being moderate in my comments because quiet, reasoned discussion is always best about such things. But if you want to know what I really think, let me know.
Mqurice
================================================================ |
