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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockHawk who wrote (10600)	11/18/1999 3:45:00 PM
From: Michael Kimmel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

With all of the bad press with respect to QCOM these last couple of days, I thought I would relate some wireless computing experiences from work (nope, I'm not an employee of QCOM). First, I guess I need to introduce myself. I've been a long time lurker....and established a position in Q shortly after the ERICY deal. I've been averaging up since then - which is very different from my typical averaging down exercises that I used to perform prior to discovering this thread and the Gorilla Game. I read the FM back in March - and have been following this thread religiously. I expressed some opinions to an Unqle of mine, last night, and he asked me to make some of them public. I can't add anything further on a discussion of valuation - some of the people on this thread are very sharp - and I want to thank you all for sharing your expertise. However, I can perhaps shed some light on just how popular I expect HDR to be. I am a software engineer, in the networking area, and the company that I currently work for has had wireless computing for a number of years. Using wisdom beyond my comprehension, that company has decided not to exploit the technology - but that's another matter. But, I can tell you this. Many people here have laptop computers that are hooked to the Internet via wireless modems. The technology is VERY popular. Those that have it even use it at their desks instead of a wired connection (and we have very fast options available to us). Wireless computers are used at many of our meetings. All of these personal computers, displaying the slides being presented to the general audience. The information is immediately available on the PC, but because theses computers are also on the net - users can surf the web for additional information, get/receive mail...you get the idea. So based on my experience here, I think that HDR is going to be very popular. We've seen analysts casting doubt on the Q's future...just prior to options expiration, comparing it to IOM, or saying that there aren't any 3G apps available, or how CSCO's new solution will be causing problems for Q. First of all, what Q is providing is an enabling technology. This is no IOM (which was merely another choice in a commodity business with rapidly shrinking margins). And because we're talking an enabling technology - there really can't be applications out there for 3G (beyond what we already have today). As for CSCO...I think that the central point of wireless, is that it offers mobility. And I think that as long as the speed of HDR is sufficient, and can be brought to market quickly, it's going to be a win over CSCO's solution. People like to keep things simple. I think that a solution that requires two different wireless methods (like CSCO for higher fixed speed, but QCOM for mobility) is probably not going to fly. My experience here also seems to support the idea that speed is not the issue here. Why purchase two different solutions when one is going to be sufficient? I think, therefore, that mobility wins. Not exactly a high switching cost issue - just a cost issue in general. One thing is key; however. The antenna that QCOM has been talking about...for use inside of a building. This is very important. A problem with wireless is that it can't reach inside of a steel cage. An internal antenna/repeater solution would fix this problem. I think the future of wireless will be absolutely huge - as big or bigger than the impact of the computer. Anyway, I hope I have helped in reducing some fears on the Q's technology - and future prospects. And I again would like to thank members of this thread for contributing their ideas. Oh - and LindyBill - I really enjoy your Quillionaire counts. Mike

To: StockHawk who wrote (10600)	11/18/1999 4:03:00 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm not sure what your numbers indicate. It's evident from the table that CSCO sells at a lower P/E than QCOM. I personally own decidedly more QCOM than CSCO, thinking it has a vaster future. But the numbers in the table can't contain the estimate of the future. ???

To: StockHawk who wrote (10600)	11/18/1999 4:05:00 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm not sure what your numbers indicate. It's evident from the table that CSCO sells at a lower P/E than QCOM. I personally own decidedly more QCOM than CSCO, thinking it has a vaster future. But the numbers in the table can't contain the estimate of the future. ???

To: StockHawk who wrote (10600)	11/18/1999 4:15:00 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Respond to of 54805

StockHawk, I think we're on the same page here. I probably didn't explain myself very well. My point: 1. Qualcomm's sales and earnings will grow to be comparable in size to CSCO or INTC or IBM, which are in later stages of their Gorilla markets. 2. CDMA wireless's tornado is just beginning. When Q's sales and earnings are comparable to CSCO's, its growth prospects will be similar to CSCO's (or INTC's or IBM's--depending upon the point in the market cycle). 3. Qualcomm's market cap will then be comparable to CSCO's. 4. We have lots of room to grow--at least 5 times, as you say, before market cap matches CSCO's. (Did I do better this time? :o)) Best, JS