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: quidditch who wrote (6992)	2/27/2000 9:28:00 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 13582

On Wireless Internet Launchpad, a question for ikj, clark, w molloy and engineer: it has been said frequently on this thread that Q's software stack is very difficult to work with (which may be both costly for competitors and licensees alike and which may, <g>, raise barriers to entry). Indeed, LSI took pains to tout its new internet enabled CDMA ASIC as being very manufacturer-friendly to work with. The question: does Q approach WIL through the same software stack platform, or is it likely that it has been or will be totally re-written? The importance of this should be clear: with Q engineering so many new applications into the MSM3500 (I think that is the name for WIL ASIC), it must interface cleanly and easily for Q to gain support ("design wins", if you will) for the service providers to flock to this chip and ramp WIL successfully during the next two to three years. Hopefully, this question is not off-base. Steve

To: quidditch who wrote (6992)	2/27/2000 10:10:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 13582

Why is upgrading to Windows 2000 any different than trading up to a Q2760 dual band or upgrading further to the 1xrtt when it comes out? The BIG questions, how will 3G take shape, will the DS mode(WCDMA) really dominate and what kind of royalties will QCOM ultimately recieve from it, will QCOM take a decent share of the WCDMA chipset mkt, are all intertwined with the royalty question. Many have a common interest in diminishing QCOM's take, and they have the benefit of hindsight, having seen how MSFT and INTC have garnered the lions's share of the profits in PC land. We are not yet at the same point in the timeline where MSFT is with the Windows 2000 upgrade,CDMA is still a minor share of the overall mkt. It's the "establishment" that suffers the most, the Koreans and Japanes have to pay high royalties no matter whether it's GSM or CDMA. Structurally I agree with you that there's little difference between buying Windows and paying the Q royalty but appearances/psychology are another thing. With Windows the OEM buys an electronic copy of the OS which is why I called it fee per use, not just the rights to use the OS a la QCOM patents. When the CFO writes the checks he pays for a certain number of "copies" of the OS. In Q's case he pays over and over again for the "same" patents, on a license negotiated in what will become the distant past. make any sense? DMG