Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 166.76

-1.5%

12:24 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (146694)	11/29/2006 11:23:08 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Art, so that I don't repeat myself [just now], suffice to say I've thrashed that one fairly well over the years [lower royalties to increase adoption of CDMA, QCOM revenue, [in the long run], and profits]. Thanks for the opportunity to rant again, but I'll take a rain-check on it. But briefly, the cost of QCOM royalties over the 2 year life of a cyberphone and the service associated with it is something like $10 [5% of $200 wholesale price] compared with $2000 [$200 phone plus $1800 service charges] with low end a lot less than $2000 and and high end a lot more. If QCOM halves the royalty to $5, that's = $1,994 instead of $1,999. I wouldn't want to be the salesman who is supposed to double sales with a price difference like that. Also [doing a minor rant] if QCOM cut the price to $0, that wouldn't give the subscriber any lower price than now because people sell for what the market will bear. If a supplier gives a discount to a company, the company doesn't just pass the savings on. They pocket it and continue to match competitors and sell for what the market will bear. I won't go into the spectrum cost arguments. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next