Your post appears to be non-constructive and designed to re-iterate ad nauseam your negative position on QCOM and the wireless industry.
But the post to which you responded states a goal "of getting a "Qualcomm [Revenue] Dollar per CDMA subscriber" [number]". Your post contributing to that goal would definitely be a redeeming quality. So let's see.
>>"the voice market is largely saturated, Wi-Fi is stealing potential data customers"<<
If you had followed the strand (thread within a thread, see P.S.) back a few posts, you would have noticed that the phrase, "roughly 117 million people worldwide use cell phones based on QUALCOMM patents, up from 80.4 million a year earlier", triggered this strand in the first place. A 45% annual increase in CDMA-based phones certainly doesn't sound like either market saturation or loss of market share.
>>"the price of voice keeps dropping, nobody's paying for data"<<
QCOM's revenue is not directly based on the ARPU to the wireless SP, imo, particularly in view of the recent 45% phone growth just mentioned. QCOM's revenue is based on licensing fees, royalty fees, and the sales of ASICs.
>>"manufacturing keeps moving to cheaper and cheaper locations"<<
You have presented one probable reason for a declining phone ASP, which in imo is one definite cause of the non-linear relationship that John Shannon noted between CDMA phone growth and QCT revenue growth. But declining ASP had already been suggested.
So, do you think you contributed? You are not obligated to answer that, of course. <g>
I didn't contribute to the strand's goal either, you say? You're probably right. And I'm responding to your negativity with cynicism, you say? You're may be right again. But on both counts, I offer the excuse of trying to offer constructive criticism. Thread etiquette includes contributing to a strand's goals and helping maintain strand continuity, imho. Repeatedly not doing either may partly explain why so many people seem have you on ignore.
My selfish motive: Trying to help improve one of my favorite SI threads.
I already see improvement in your exchanges with UF and pheilman .. and I haven't even submitted this yet. <g>
Hopefully, Ron :-)
P.S. Apologies to all for using "strand" but .. couldn't think of another word and .. didn't wish to write "thread within a thread" over and over again. |
