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: slacker711 who wrote (349)	7/28/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 13582

I still think Q's baisic business's are undervalued. There is still the mentality that Q cant hold it's own in the handset business. If their production and margins expand that will need to be re-evaluated. There are still to many people who think Nokia will walk in and take the whole market. I just dont think that will happen. There are still alot of doubters, and questions about the model. When those questions are answered and the price reflected in the stock, then Q will be fairly valued.

To: slacker711 who wrote (349)	7/28/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

At the risk of looking stupid (or at least very uninformed) could someone please tell me what W-CDMA is or is supposed to be. I gather it is a competing technology to Q's CDMA being developed by ERICY? someone else? Is there anything more for me to know?

To: slacker711 who wrote (349)	7/29/1999 7:34:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Slacker711, just a slight correction, I say VW40 is vapour wear, not will be. It is quite possible Ericy and others will cobble together something they'll call W-CDMA which will work. But right now, it is very definitely in the category of vaporware. One could argue that cdma2000 is in the same category, but the history of success Q! has had would lead to the conclusion that cdma2000 will become real in 2 years, while W-CDMA will remain a gleam in the eye of Lars Ramqvist who, until very recently, denied that CDMA was an option at all [even though lately they claim to have invented it - in 1880 or thereabouts, though they were not prepared to let a court decide, preferring to sign up for a Q! licence]. Meanwhile, it's nice to see Gregg back. Morgan did make a valid point: it's surprising that Private Capital Management sold a big bunch of Q! stock. I suppose it was to maintain percentages so that they would be seen to be meeting some balance in portfolio holdings. Gregg more or less measured up cash flow forecasts rather than the more ethereal Condor, WK, Eudora, Cinecomm, 724, 3G and wireless data income streams. These are so big, that like Gregg, I find it's hard to find an upper bound. The existing cash flows definitely justify current prices. Mqurice PS: Morgan, you better have a very good reason for your sense of humour. So far, I can't see the joke. Also, Gregg, do you still think Irwin made a mistake seeking convergence? You had thought a fragmented standard would be in Q! interests although Irwin was pushing hard for convergence.

To: slacker711 who wrote (349)	7/29/1999 7:24:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

slacker711, You imply that QCOM could not effectively compete if W-CDMA (whatever it turns out to be) is marketed by ERICY. It is my understanding that the technical specifications for any widely deployed wireless standard will be published allowing open competition. It is the opinion of many engineers that QCOM's IPR is not likely to be bypassed in any mobile CDMA standard that is competitive. In other words, even if ERICY markets a W-CDMA, QCOM will still collect the same size royalties from each device manufactured by anyone and QCOM could choose to manufacture W-CDMA devices also. If ERICY incorporates their IPR in a new standard, and chooses to collect royalties from it (on top of the QCOM royalties), the standard would be at a further competitive disadvantage. The new standard would need to be significantly better to attract customers. However unlikely this is, QCOM should still be well positioned to compete and even if they choose not to make devices for that standard they would still collect the usual royalties from each device. Bux