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 Incorporated (QCOM)
QCOM 163.32+2.3%Nov 21 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: qdog who wrote (3519)8/16/1997 8:57:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen   of 152472
 
Well shoot my horse and slap me silly, as they say in Texas (I think). Phone with the extended battery really does weigh over 11 ounces. I'm gratified that it has QCOM-beating standby time and that the slim battery model is slimmer and lighter than QCP-1900 or QCP-800 but I'm kinda... no, kind of disappointed that Nokia was unable to combine these features in one phone. Seems like right now CDMA really is tough on combined light weight/long stand by times. This does give an opening to Q-phone, even with its shortcomings. Damn. All I can say is that this highlights the current lead of TDMA in light/efficient phones. When is the next wave of Qualcomm phones being introduced anyway? Maybe Nokia will win the round two, even if this first one is a tie. They do specialise in quick succession of product introductions and incremental improvements on existing models, a bit like Microsoft.
BTW, I'm under impression that Nokia will pay licensing fees for certain basic CDMA patents, but it will not pay for any components like certain Asian companies do. This frees it from being vulnerable to sudden chip price hikes from QCOM if the company decides to squeeze its competition in case the race proves too close (much like Apple is now considering of doing to its cloners with the OS price). This independence makes Nokia a much more credible competitor than some company that is essentially under Qualcomm's thumb. So they do pay something... but not as much as Samsung, I'd think.

Tero



Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News