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 174.60

0.0%

2:09 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20498)	12/29/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Tero: It's getting pretty smelly around here...you probably should harness that male bovine of yours before he poops all over the place. Please show me where I said that IS-95 was going to "demolish" GSM. My argument then was the same as my argument now: TDMA-based GSM is built around an obsolete air interface. The correctness of this observation, and GSM's inherent weakness, is being borne out by the push for W-CDMA. Meanwhile, you are pretty quick to dismiss the LIES that Ericsson told its customers in the interest of protecting its GSM investment. Let's see. "Hi Mr. Customer...no you don't want that CDMA stuff 'cause it doesn't/won't/can't work (and if it does pan out, we'll claim to have invented it). Please buy our TDMA-based product, even though we are trying real hard to make this CDMA stuff that doesn't/won't/can't work. Please be prepared to write us new checks to upgrade if CDMA which doesn't/won't/can't work, in fact does. P.S. we're telling the truth now!!!" Tero...just once...please...demonstrate some intellectual honesty and in precise terms explain how W-CDMA is technically different from IS-95. Please delve into the nuances of power control, soft hand-off and rake receivers so we can all see how Ericsson invented something different as opposed to attaching a new name to the same fundamental concepts. Are you naive or simply being deceptive? Simply tweaking a specificaion and calling it W-CDMA rather than IS-95 doesn't change the fundamental technological principles...or do things really work that way in delusional-land? Please...please...Tero...make me look stupid...prove to the world I am an idiot...explain to us in a factually verifiable fashion, the precise differences in W-CDMA and IS-95. Please avoid such global generalities as "W-CDMA has been designed to provide an easy upgrade for GSM while cdma2000 has not." Please demonstrate how the IPR that exists in the Nokia and Orbitel licenses fails to appear in W-CDMA's fundamental design. Do so and I will concede defeat...maybe even sell my Qualcomm stock. How's that for an incentive? Good luck! Gregg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next