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: DaveMG who wrote (3461)	11/21/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Dave - IF LSI won because of superior software as you suggest, it must mean that the Q RF lead just isn't that important anymore, that the other supplier's chips are getting "good enough"? My suspicion is that WM is talking about usability, not technical capability. I assume that everyone, at one time or another, has used software that is flexible, robust, has multiple features, ... , but is a royal pain to use. I think that is WM's assertion. FWIW, Qualcomm basestations didn't have the best reputation for software ease of use. (although never having used them myself, take that with a grain of salt). Clark

To: DaveMG who wrote (3461)	11/22/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Dave, Clark et al : Technical lead and Useability Two years lead is an educated guess. The pool of CDMA savvy engineers is expanding (albeit slowly) and these guys are being snapped up by QCOMS competition. This enhances the ability of LSI and INTC (via DSPC) to improve the technical quality of their respective chipsets. Additional competition is likely from the likes of Philips (via VLSI), Mitsubishi and CNXT. Regarding software. Clark- I was reffering to the handset software, not the basestation. Useability is the most important issue for 'phone manufacturers like Denso, Samsung and others. The time to market for enhanced feature 'phones is critical, and a bad API (stack interface) severely impacts the ability of the manufacturers to add their in-house MMI's (what the 'phone user sees) to the protocol stack. LSI and INTC both use the ISOTEL protocol stack, which is significantly easier to interface to than the QCOM stack. I presume on networks loaded at capacity the carriers would favor phones that utilize the spectrum most efficiently, In theory - yes. But the Networks are not that sophisticated in determining if a given 'phone is 'efficient'. Field trials are geared to ensuring that a manufacturers 'phone is useable in a reliable manner. i.e - the 'good enough' standard prevails. w.