Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valueman who wrote (144)	7/24/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

It is my understanding that current cdmaOne licensees are already licensed for cdma2000. If they sell any other flavor of CDMA based 3G equipment, they have to sign another license agreement. I may be wrong about this but I had thought in a previous conference call that the Q had stated Phillips was the only licensed CDMA2000 manufacturer. I believe this was due to a cross-licensing deal that the Q did a couple of years back. Not sure about this....but it is what I had based my previous comment on. If the deals are already done, are the royalty percentages exactly the same as IS-95? I guess I am really wondering if MOT continues to have lower royalties as well as the right to sell their own ASIC's (not that many people would buy from them right now). Slacker

To: Valueman who wrote (144)	7/25/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Valueman--I gave myself a few days to ponder the H&Q report, and ultimately concluded that there's more wrong than right. First, I really don't think they 'get it': wireless communication, voice and or data, is a market with so many growth sectors that the only thing worth talking about is how best to participate in it. The market itself is beyond serious question. As your post indicates, the next chapter, data, is a revenue gusher for Q. H&Q seems oblivious. The main leg under their argument seemed to be declining ASP, in concert with losing market share to NOK, et. al. This is very curious. Intel has been managing in a constant environment of declining ASPs for their entire product line for 20 some odd years now and seem none the worse for wear. It is a fact of technological life. [My trusty VCR broke the other day and I waltzed in to Circuit City grimmacing at the thought of having to shell out ~$500. Jeez, it was very difficult to spend $175 and I only got there by buying a very fancy machine:CC had $99 models by the shelf load] The one area of the H&Q report that leaves me queasy is market share: our buddies at INTC certainly have that in spades. My guess is that the one billion from the secondary goes into ASICs--production, R&D, marketing, JV's, soup to nuts. "Qualcomm Inside" was suggested on the old thread, and I still think it has merit. Particularly after reading engineer's posts: this is a very high barrier to entry market and Q is in the 6th generation. I'm still in the "jury is out" stage on handset production/sales, but I know that side is providing lion's share of revenue, profits, and cash flow--enough said. Longer term however, I get very comfy with the notion of NOK, Ericcy, MOT bashing their respective brains out hustling handsets, each and every one of which has a Q ASIC nestled inside. Regards, Mike Doyle