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 (3954)	4/4/2000 4:18:00 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 34857

I seriously doubt Nokia can ever hit 40%... but it can migrate upmarket. Apparently Ericsson's price erosion topped 25% last year - the Ericsson-Nokia competition is turning into a Chevrolet versus Mercedes SLK combat. I think that Nokia was somewhere around 28% for all of last year....but they were probably higher for the last quarter. The introduction of an i-mode phone in Japan (basically a new market) plus the fact that no other company has yet showed an ability to manufacture a high-end phone (WAP now, GPRS next year) should increase Nokia's market share. I am still hoping that either Nokia will release a competitive CDMA phone on their own or will use a Qualcomm chipset....this combination might bring them to somewhere close to 40%. Of course at some point Ericsson/Motorola should get their acts together.....but that has been said for over two years. I'm praying that MCI Worldcom will get an UMTS license in England. Could you explain what MCI is doing? I cant figure out why they would build a W-CDMA network with no roaming partners (how would they compete with VOD?)....and I also doubt they would want a CDMA2000 network that couldnt roam onto the continent. It makes no sense to me.... Slacker

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3954)	4/4/2000 5:24:00 PM
From: Gus	Respond to of 34857

I really want to read the QCOM threads the day Sprint's parent company announces its W-CDMA order It looks like the Euro and some US states are holding up the MCI/Sprint merger. Do you really think a WCDMA order from Sprint is necessary to introduce more common sense in those QCOM threads?<g> Methinks the volatility after the end of the pension funds flow season should just about do it and make those Qualcommers consider more realistically the prospects of a company with that kind of earnings power sustaining any rise above the $100 billion threshold where it seems to me robust sales and earnings growth -- in absolute AND percentage terms -- are absolutely necessary.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3954)	4/5/2000 1:12:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

<I really want to read the QCOM threads the day Sprint's parent company announces its W-CDMA order. That should be a blast.> Hey! Tell me about it Tero. You know where I'm coming from? W-CDMA different from cdma2000? Don't even go there. They are in, like, denial. Yeah! I too think it will be a very good blast when either W-CDMA or cdma2000 start rolling out. It will also be very blasting if Nokia is producing cdma2000 or any other kind of CDMA handset in large numbers. But do we yet know just exactly how W-CDMA differs from cdma2000? Last I heard, Vodafone was leaning heavily in the direction of having a single world-wide standard. I can't see that they would want to spend extra money on their IS-95 networks to install W-CDMA if it's incompatible. If it's compatible, then it will be so like cdma2000 that it will be irrelevant. How is W-CDMA better than cdma2000? What exactly are the differences? You mean there has been a detailed standard announced? It seems that the main difference between the two standards is that some extra IPR baggage and costs will be hanging around W-CDMA, making the erlangs per dollar less efficient than cdma2000. Do you think Gus is getting a bit gross with his comments? I have no problem with 'anti-emetics'. Can't say I like the idea of them myself. They should be illegal. What was that 'smelt' business Gus was describing? LET'S HAVE NO EMETICS ON THIS THREAD!! Gus, no emetics or smelting, okay? Maurice

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3954)	4/6/2000 8:57:00 PM
From: Mike Wilhelm	Respond to of 34857

tero, Please elaborate on your statement: "I have a really hard time believing that the operators would drop 4 billion bucks on a technology that they haven't thoroughly tested... and apparently almost every operator is willing to do so." Specifically, I would like to hear your opinion on: (1) What level of testing would be customary in the industry for this type of decision & how different is that from what is occurring? (2) Why would operators take on this kind of risk? (3) If the deals that are occurring were made utilizing less than a customary level of testing, do you think it is likely that the contracts also contain unusual cancellation / penalty features if performance / timetable metrics are not met? thanks, mike