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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bux who wrote (2236)	9/20/1999 7:06:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 34857

What's the point of these outbursts? If you think that it's good for the development of a standard that one company has absolute power over it, you are entitled to your opinion. I think I'm entitled to mine. What do comments like "you are losing it" contribute? This is exactly the reason why there's no substantive discussion on Qcom on any thread. Step outside the party line and you get 38 messages about "dementia, socialism and government intrusion" overnight like I did. Who needs the grief? The irony here is that CDMA's success rests on Korea's decision to outlaw all other standards... blatant government intrusion. Welcome to the club. Qualcomm's terms for license holders are stiff. Of course Philips is "conciliatory" towards Qualcomm in public. They better be. I think the chipset design in the CDMA sector is lagging behind competing standards, because of Qualcomm's restrictive terms. Many people disagree. Fine. But how come Siemens can offer 400 hours of stand-by time with their GSM models? How come the new Mitsubishi GSM model weighs under 70 grams? How can anyone build a case against GSM development being more nimble and the competition being stronger when the products on the market tell the exact opposite? Monopoly positions tend to be destructive. One reason China is so reluctant to adopt CDMA lies in Qualcomm's stranglehold on the standard. Maybe you don't think that losing that market is a major weakness - but I do. AT&T and BT are now a major engine in pushing for the convergence of TDMA and GSM standards. That means multi-mode phones benefiting GSM and TDMA operators. This development is happening much slower with CDMA - few manufacturers want to negotiate with Qualcomm on the terms. The entire 3G development is in danger of being bogged down - because terms Qualcomm demands are unreasonable for other IPR holders. I'm not surprised that many people disagree with these opinions. But I remain astonished about the vitriol. A lot of people at Qcom thread promised that AT&T's conversion to CDMA is imminent. Nobody is taking them to task for the empty promises. A lot of people promised that Qualcomm is "totally committed" to handset manufacturing last June. Nobody is now criticizing them for lack of perspective. And those CDMA in China promises? It seems that you can spin out baseless fantasies that are positive towards Q to your heart's content and nobody cares whether you are right or wrong. Bux - a phone retailing at 99 bucks isn't high-end. That's pretty basic. If you are totally confident about QCOM - why do you sound so upset? This is Nokia thread and people coming here started the discussion on Qualcomm. I am not shoving these opinions down anyone's throat. Folks - don't start anything you can't handle. You are free to ignore my "demented views". Which, by the way, included an opinion that Nokia will not be a good short-term performer during the first half of 1999. My short term favorites from December/Jannuary were Motorola, Omnipoint and Voicestream. It's all on debry.com, so you can hardly contradict me on this. If you want to keep floating in your bubble of warm contentment, just keep reading the half a dozen threads at SI that are positive on QCOM. Why upset yourself by reading one critical post among 1'000 positive ones? Tero