I guess we do agree on some things after all.
Agendas are all relative. But unless folks state them, it's hard to tell what they are. My mind reader is broken, so I prefer to address substance than motive. Besides, if the substance is strong and compelling, who cares "why" someone would craft an argument? On the other hand, if the substance is flimsy, even if the motives of construction are pure... well, the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.
And our differences are enough to spark some good discussion.
For example, you wrote: "I agree with Rob on the fact that 3G has been fractured by the folks who are building the wireless universe. However, I don't agreed[sic] with him that such means the demise of Qualcomm". I look at it a bit differently. Rather than the "demise of Qualcomm", I believe that the fracturing reduces the current value of the business results that Qualcomm will achieve. Either by an absolute reduction in the area under the time/revenue curve, or by a shifting of the curve to later time frames. Or, more likely, both.
In other words, it reduces the value of QCOM. Not necessarily diminishing at all the results that Qualcomm might eventually achieve. Just what they are worth in-toto, e.g. as a stream of discounted future free cash flows.
To me there is a difference between QCOM and Qualcomm, which I don't see many people acknowledging on this thread.
But being part of this herd requires a bit more astute knowledge (probably of a technical nature) than just knowing how to gnaw on grass all day.
If you had left out the parenthetical "probably of a technical nature", then I would agree completely. Even though my background is of a highly technical nature. Both business and serendipity often play the more significant roles.
John |
