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: w molloy who wrote (9245)	4/25/2000 3:48:00 PM
From: Patrese	Respond to of 13582

w. molloy, How do you know? What are your sources? Thanks. Regards, Patty

To: w molloy who wrote (9245)	4/25/2000 4:02:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 13582

w molloy: You are not quoting Dr J in full and so the snippet you have chosen is misleading. Also there has been no claim from Qualcomm that a chip for DS is near. The thrust of Dr J's statement was just the opposite - that because of an "unstable" situation, the chip is not possible yet. Then you accuse him of FUD. What a travesty. The words from the conference call are available, those indicate not that a chip exists which can be used as is, just the opposite. So your speculation and charge of FUD on a false basis is misleading in the extreme. Chaz

To: w molloy who wrote (9245)	4/25/2000 4:09:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

IMO - Jacobs is dispensing FUD. Yep--without a doubt, you have an ulterior motive here. I highly doubt a man who has been so refreshingly transparent and truthful with his comments for the past 9 years would suddenly come out and become a blatant liar over his ability to deliver DS chips. As a matter of fact, I am sure he would be offended by the mere mention of your post. Can you tell me what DS tech QCOM picked up when they did the settlement with ERICY? This is not CNXT promising PA's, this is the master of CDMA promising a CDMA ASIC!

To: w molloy who wrote (9245)	4/25/2000 8:32:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Jeez, relax everyone. Molloy is pointing out a valid concern: That the engineering of an ASIC cum software to meet a not-yet-complete standard is a significantly different process than vise versa. The first requires designing a lot more flexibility into the hardware and software, and it requires an engineering organization that is relatively more focused on process than creativity (almost antithetical skills). (I know because I have had the inverse problem trying to get organizations used to migrating standards to learn to fill a blank sheet of paper. It can be a huge challenge.) Do I know that Qualcomm is having problems in this regard? No, but it is not an unreasonable place to look for potential problems. Now, do I characterize what Dr. J said as FUD, assuming that what WM says is true? From Dr. J's perspective, no. For an organization not used to a different form of engineering, the required flexibility may look much more difficult than the creativity with which they normally work. In addition, I am sure that it is very frustrating knowing that others are, by definition, further along because they have much more control over the standard. Clark PS The best question to ask at the next Quarterly telecon to put this to bed is "Once the DS mode has at least one complete end-to-end standard defined, how long until Qualcomm releases an ASIC and associated software for volume sales?" Of course this begs the question of what qualifies as end-to-end, but at least it is a good start.