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 (4276)	4/19/2000 10:09:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

you are funny, Tero. I call it old fashion arm-twistin leverage. <gg> Ruff

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (4276)	4/19/2000 10:14:00 AM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

"Unstable" is from the engineer viewpoint.. he needs to design into a stable standard . Probably just wants to move things along in a sea of navel twirling delays.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (4276)	4/22/2000 8:21:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 34857

Tero - especially if they keep alienating the W-CDMA community by slurs like "unstable". First, Qualcomm management said that in response to a question as to when they would have a CDMA chipset. It was part of an explanation about why they have 1X chips but not DS chips. (I think you would agree that 1X is much further along than DS-CDMA in terms of standardization.) Question: Was the IS-95 standard still unstable 1 year before the LA "roll-out" (i.e. loading trial) in 95 or 96? Answer - yes. Why would you expect DS-CDMA, especially given the greater degree of politics, to be any different? Having said all that, I absolutely agree that by not being actively involved in the DS-CDMA trials, Qualcomm will pay a penalty in that standard. So, why do you believe that Nokia and others wouldn't seek that situation intentionally, regardless of how polite Qualcomm is. I think that it is reasonably clear that that situation was forced on Qualcomm, not vis versa. The hand is dealt, sides are taken, now lets see how it plays out: Qualcomm, with its relatively David like resources, but with all of their experience and with an evolutionary product. OR The johnny-come-latelys, with Goliath like resources, with a very different technology, and little experience in it. I honestly cannot predict the outcome. If DS slips to 2002 or 2003 (as I suspect), I think MC has a very good chance. And regardless, Qualcomm makes big money from royalties. Even the worst case scenario for QCOMers is pretty nice. Clark