re: (Seybold) Bullish on Qualcomm or not so (Lynch) Bullish on Qualcomm: Part 1
Since we are into a lot of redundancy and bloat on the main thread today and yesterday, I thought I would bring some over here and post a recent (already much posted) article from long time Qualcomm Bull Andrew Seybold. who is now teamed up with another long time Qualcomm Bull George Gilder, and then follow this post with a classic article from Grahame Lynch who last year examined similar subject matter and Seybolds fellow Forbes Outlook Mate, George Gilder.
By doing this, both sides of a coin can be examined back to back, and for those with an open mind, somewhat objectively.
I would like to point out that for the most part I am agreement with many (not all) of the main points Seybold makes in his article, and I am also in agreement with many of the points that Lynch makes in his.
Well how can that be, one might ask?
The answer is that choosing a (new) technology migration path is a monumental decision for a major carrier.
There is no 100% right answer. If you look at the competitive choices AWS faced and Cingular now faces there are tradeoffs.
I am searching for an older article (and one I found somewhat more objective) by Seybold from last fall that examines the challenges faced by AWS and Cingular, and the possibility of technology flips by both, and should I find it, I intend to post it here.
We will start off with Mr. Seybold and then in the next post we can listen to Mr Lynch, two very capable wireless commentators:
>> Wireless Technology Wars
Potential Casualties of Recent Spectrum Battles
Andrew Seybold
Special to ABCNEWS.com
July 9, 2001
Why are companies wasting time and energy waging war in the wireless industry?
I recently suggested that Cingular Wireless had a problem if it didn't get the spectrum it bid on in the most recent auction. Now it looks as though everyone who bid on the spectrum is out of luck.
Nextwave is getting its lost spectrum back. The firm is so sure it will retain ownership that it has entered into an $800 million deal with Lucent for infrastructure to build its own network to provide voice and data services in Detroit and Madison, Wis., and data services to their 93 other markets.
Why the Wireless Wars?
Nextwave's technology of choice, by the way, is CDMA2000 1x and 1x EV-DO that means a win for Qualcomm's flavor of CDMA. But remember, Qualcomm's intellectual property covers both its own flavor of CDMA and what is being called WCDMA or UMTS.
My last column drew a response from the folks at Cingular, who explained why they are considering technologies other than CDMA2000 1x, many of which are based on their current technology deployment, and some of which are based on the promise of new technologies not yet proven in the field.
In any case, it missed what I consider to be the most critical piece of the puzzle: Without Nextwave's spectrum several U.S. carriers will have to wait-note: Not all - Sprint PCS and Verizon are OK without spectrum until the Federal Communications Commission "finds" more wavelengths to auction. This is going to be a long, drawn-out process.
First, a spectrum has to be identified. Next, existing users have to plan ahead to be able to move to another spectrum. The band then has to be auctioned. It is only after the auction and incumbent users are moved that it can be turned into a usable spectrum.
Don’t Get Bogged Down
So to me it comes back to this: If I owned a company that had a limited spectrum and my future expansion was dependent upon the feds and their auctions, I would make the best possible use of my existing spectrum. I would look to the most spectrally efficient technology and not get bogged down with internal politics or other non-germane details.
Simply put, those who win will be those who make the best possible use of their resources, while those who believe that the feds will offer them new spectrum anytime soon are going to have a hard time competing.
Nokia seems to be fanning the flames of these wireless wars hardest. It is interesting that Nokia finally signed an agreement with Qualcomm regarding the CDMA intellectual property - making it the last major vendor to do so.
Meanwhile, the folks at Nokia are traveling around the world giving a presentation that uses distorted information to try to prove that GSM (using some new technology) and Wideband CDMA are more spectrally efficient than CDMA2000 1x.
Needless Battle of Technologies
I simply don't understand why a company with Nokia's stature and reputation feels so strongly about its own wireless roadmap that it has to not only over-promise what it can deliver, but denigrate the proven technology capabilities of CDMA2000 1x, which it now has a license to sell.
The wireless industry is embroiled in a needless battle of technologies. Some operators are likening it to the battle between Beta and VHS recorders. But this isn't the same.
Handset vendors are already designing handsets that can move between technologies. No one has to lose, and if people honestly believe that CDMA2000 1x is like Sony's BetaMax, they are acknowledging that it is, in fact, the best of the technology. But because it is Qualcomm's flavor of CDMA, it is not the politically correct technology to use.
My belief is that carriers using CDMA2000 1x will be up and running with high-speed data first - the Korean system already has more than 400,000 users - and those who don't will find themselves at a disadvantage on two fronts.
First, they will be late to the high-speed data party, and second they will be reliant on the feds finding them more spectrum and making it available - something I sure wouldn't be willing to do.
Andrew Seybold is a consultant and top computer industry analyst. He is considered by many to be the leading authority on the mobile computing industry. He's based in Campbell, Calif. <<
Grahame Lynch's contrasting point of view on this subject is posted here:
Message 16066687
- Eric - |
