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: tero kuittinen who wrote (2237)	9/20/1999 7:31:00 AM
From: Labrador	Respond to of 34857

>>Monopoly positions tend to be destructive. One reason China is so reluctant to adopt CDMA lies in Qualcomm's stranglehold on the standard. << Actually, I thought the reason that CDMA has not been permitted in China was principally due to China not wanting to pay royalties (i.e., China wanting a freebee, or close to it), and secondarily, CDMA being held hostage in the free-trade wars with the U.S. I never thought that China cares about Qualcomm's close tie to the standard, as long as they don't have to pay for it.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2237)	9/20/1999 8:06:00 AM
From: NAGINDAS J.O.PATTNI	Respond to of 34857

dear Tero,why qcom if you can have a b-cdma licence from IDC?have you seen theyr asics @theyr website?NOK is working allready with idc,i'm just scared that qcom take them over,the idc'S shares are so cheap! yours nagin

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2237)	9/20/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: Labrador	Respond to of 34857

Personally, I like your challenging, yet reasoned, Q comments -- it gets me thinking and provides some balance and objectivity to these boards. As you may know, over 10% of the QCOM float is short, and there must be a reason why some are betting against Q.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2237)	9/20/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

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. So first you claimed CDMA would not be successful, a niche standard at best. Now that it's wildly successful it's because Korea outlawed other standards? Earth calling Tero, it's wildly successful because CDMA is much more advanced than GSM and has many compelling real world advantages. A lot of people promised that Qualcomm is "totally committed" to handset manufacturing last June. Nobody is now criticizing them for lack of perspective. You still don't get it! Qualcomm's focus has been commercializing CDMA technology and insuring it's rapid deployment worldwide. Qualcomm began producing CDMA handsets originally because they were the only company capable of producing CDMA handsets. It is not possible to roll out CDMA networks without CDMA handsets. Handset sales have been capacity constrained for many quarters since CDMA is being adopted so rapidly. Recently, other manufacturers have been producing CDMA handsets in sufficient numbers to meet demand. While I can't speak for everyone on any of the QCOM threads, I have known this has been their plan all along and I have stated numerous times that I do not view the Q as a handset manufacturer but as a technological leader in wireless communications. Why should anyone criticize QCOM for lack of perspective (becoming a handset manufacturer) when have done exactly what was required for the furtherment of CDMA as an international wireless standard? Just last year you claimed it was crazy for a company as small as the Q to try to establish their own standard against such giants as Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola. Now that they are succeeding, you criticize them for lack of perspective? I'm sorry, but your positions are indefensible. . 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. Please show me where I have ever claimed anything but that eventually CDMA would be successful in China! If you are saying that since it hasn't happened immediately, I am wrong, well that's your fantasy. 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? Last year CDMA was doomed because the handsets were too large, heavy and too expensive. Qualcomm releases a thin, light phone with the most advanced CDMA chipset in the world and priced at a point to further the rapid spread of CDMA and all you can say is "99 bucks isn't high-end." I never said the Thinphone was high-end, I was trying to drive a simple point through your thick skull, simply the world's wireless markets don't revolve around high-end handsets. The wireless revolution is about everyone having a handset, just like everyone has a watch, not just those that can afford to spend hundreds of dollars. 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. For a self-proclaimed telecom analyst, you sure missed the big story of '99. QCOM could have been had for only $25 (split-adjusted) with minimum risk if you understood the companies fundamentals but obviously you still don't. Why upset yourself by reading one critical post among 1'000 positive ones? I like reading critical posts that are well reasoned. While yours may appear so on the surface, anyone with half an understanding of QCOM can see they are not. You are welcome to your opinions and I am entitled to rebutt them. I feel sorry for the small investors that were swayed by your deceptive arguments aqainst QCOM last year and early this year. Bux