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 (3061)	12/17/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 34857

I almost got caught in the same trap....I nearly found myself arguing for LU and MOT (LU has actually done fairly well but there is no excuse for MOT). Nokia has done well....I am not arguing with you. If you think that they didnt have the resources to pursue both CDMA and GSM infrastructure, I will bow to your expertise. The question is what will matter for the manufacturers going forward? I believe that companies with experience in CDMA will benefit as CDMA handsets accelerate and as the 3G market starts to unfold. Now the question is how much of this expertise does Nokia actually have? Maybe the last 4-5 years of research into W-CDMA will be enough to allow them to execute both in the 3G marketplace as well as 2G handsets. Unfortunately their current efforts have not impressed me....and this is the only thing on which I can judge Nokia's efforts in this space. I wont mind if I am proven wrong. Please dont saddle me with MOT....with the exception of iDEN they've barely mastered any of the digital platforms. Even if they did concentrate too much on CDMA....they didnt execute. The example doesnt hold....it would be like holding Ericsson as an example of GSM/TDMA handset manufacturing prowess. Execution still matters. Slacker

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3061)	12/17/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Mr.Fun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, In Nokia's 1994 annual report, they reported full year sales of Telecommunications systems (almost all of which was wireless infrastructure) of FIM 6.9B which is approximately US$1.4B based on exchange rates of the day. This is, in fact, about the same as Motorola and 12% more than Lucent. Now it is true that Nokia is now 15% larger than Lucent and 20% larger than Motorola, but the story you paint is wholey innacurate. Where are you getting your data? The numbers for telecommunications infrastructure sales are in the financial statements on Nokia's own web site. Nokia, Lucent and Nortel were all late to the wireless infrastructure party. A decade ago, Motorola was neck and neck with Ericsson in a two horse race. Perhaps its true that Motorola was distracted by developing too many radio platforms, but Mot's paltry share of CDMA infrastructure would indicate that it likely wasn't the case that it over fixated on CDMA to the exclusion of GSM - perhaps you are thinking about iDEN? I stand firm in my belief that MOT's downfall was its inability to develop a digital switch. LU has not had a market share advantage over Nokia in wireless infrastructure at any time over the last 7 years, much less a 4-6 times advantage. However, it has kept pace with the growth of the mighty Nokia over that time frame. Sit silently for a moment and contemplate on this contradiction of your basic thesis. Nokia is one of the world's truly great companies, and we have been heavily overweighted for a long time. However, let's not make up "facts" to support this thesis, since the truth is enough.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3061)	12/17/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, I'm inclined to agree that major strategic blunders were the important issues. But there is the intangible X-factor which subtly sees some people consistently do the right thing and excel and others seem to be really good, but get things wrong even though they have excellent reputations. Think Irwin Jacobs and Lars Ramqvist for example. Which would you give $1,000,000 to do something really great? That's a rhetorical question, so no need to answer that. Nokia for a decade has done everything right, though they have been unable to make the CDMA handsets a success. That doesn't mean they were wrong to try to do their own ASICs, just that it was like the world champions, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, etc boxing Cassius Clay, or like Gary Kasparov trying to beat Deep Blue at chess. They can easily remedy that by buying ASICs from Q! and maybe even the whole handset division. Nokia was one of the first to buy the rights to use CDMA. They have succeeded brilliantly in handsets. Now their major challenge is to rapidly convert their marketing and stuff to CDMA. They should not take that task too lightly and so far are in failure mode. Their fall from grace could be spectacular. There are dozens of CDMA handset makers thrashing around in a low margin market. Nokia doesn't have any W-CDMA lock on Europe. So, Nokia is the handset King, fully clothed in beautiful raiment but is having to rally the troops very quickly in the CDMA space going forward [to coin a phrase]. L M Ericcson is the nearly-naked King, who has acquired a figleaf via the infrastructure division of Mighty Q! Hurrying to regain dignity. Lucent is the CDMA infrastructure champion and they have nothing but glory ahead [so far anyway] as WWeb orders flood in. They really got their strategy and execution right! [A shame about their handsets.] Motorola is a shambles, though was early into CDMA and is doing okay there. Not great, but okay. Could recover very well and become a titan again with WWeb developments and CDMA expansion. Nortel seems to be doing okay. A good journeyman in the CDMA space [not to make a cliche of the word]. Then there is Samsung which is doing very well in handsets and infrastructure and will be very big time in CDMA. Philips made a charge at CDMA handsets, but crashed. Plus swarms of others are competing and succeeding or failing in handsets and infrastructure. Sony gave up the QPE game. Qualcomm, I suppose you now realize, is being very successful. Infrastructure and handsets aside, which to me were very disappointing - they should have succeeded. I don't buy the 'we were too small to get parts' argument. They is true, but great people overcome minor problems like having to form contracts for supply or being slightly disadvantaged on price compared with bulk buyers. The only strategy which matters now is to put all bets on CDMA in WWeb and EARLY, not late, while keeping the GSM cash cow ticking over as long as possible. EDGE is never going to see the light of day. GPRS is going to be a minor bump in the landscape looking back from 2010. HDR seems set to be a major lump in the first half of the decade with cdma2000 [and clone] the zeitgeist from 2005 to 2010. Motorola's cellphone failure seems to have been in execution rather than strategy [though Iridium was strategy = the wrong system design]. They failed in CDMA networks [well, didn't do very well and had significant glitches]. They failed in handsets with Mighty Q! rescuing them in Hong Kong when Motorola couldn't supply the world's first network which they built and which seems to have been of indifferent quality [at that time anyway]. If you or Nokia are putting much emphasis on GSM [other than as a smokescreen] you will be in big trouble. It'll make Motorola's crunch look like a smooth glide. That's how I've placed my bets. All on WWeb, and sooner rather than later. Maurice