SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 159.59-3.9%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: waitwatchwander who wrote (33235)3/9/2003 4:06:13 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) of 196713
 
If you can't beat 'em ... join 'em?

No, co-opt them.

Both versions of GSM1x will require use of a CDMA 2000 multi-mode handset. Who will be making the pre-eminent ASICs for such a phone? Want to bet it won't be Nokia? It has no incentive to do so, even if it were technically competent.

Take a look at this, in which the two versions of GSM1x are discussed.

qualcomm.com

Under both GSM1x versions, MSN and the Global Gateway, multi-mode phones with one mode being CDMA 2000 are required, though single mode CDMA 2000 sets will do, too.

How do you think the CDMA 2000-impaired Nordic Cabalistas feel about the widespread use of CDMA 2000 single mode sets and/or multi-mode sets with CDMA 2000 being one of the modes? As I understand it, Q has enough IPR to not pay a nickel in royatlies to the GSM bunch, but the obverse is not true. Can you see the Cabalistas happy about such a development?

The bottom line is that Q makes a bloody mint out of GSM1x if it is widely accepted, and not just out of the GSM1x software.

In many ways, the difficulty with GSM1x is reminiscent of the difficulties Q had with CDMA. It promises carriers a better, cheaper, etc., system but there are entrenched interests who are not willing to give Q the keys to the wireless kingdom.

C2@theflyintheointmentmeboy.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext