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: Clarksterh who wrote (9269)	4/25/2000 9:20:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

the engineering of an ASIC cum software to meet a not-yet-complete standard is a significantly different process than vice versa. The first... Clark - I am not quite clear what you mean by "vice-versa" and "the first" here. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (9269)	4/26/2000 7:13:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 13582

Clark, << Jeez, relax everyone. Molloy is pointing out a valid concern >> At the risk of violating Ramseys's Rules, I would simply like to thnk you for your post(s) regarding the complexity of the engineering of an ASIC cum software to meet a not-yet-complete standard. ... and thanks also to Molloy for raising the issue which is indeed an important one. - Eric -

To: Clarksterh who wrote (9269)	4/26/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 13582

Clark on w molloy; Lucent on UMTS: Clark points out a tempering and valuable contribution by w molloy concerning the difficulty of execution of software design/engineering to fit a (movable target) standard. Difficult as it is to accept w molloy's perception of shortcomings in Q's engineering armament re. ability to work with GSM-based network protocols, I think that his comments, accurate or not, have gone further than what Clark points out: w has said on a number of occasions that even within CDMA ASICs, Q's software design and engineering may leave something to be desired--a difficult software stack for application user interface designers to work with. If Q's software design within MSMs is indeed clumsy (a point that others with extensive knowledge of Q's technical abilities have agreed with at some level or other), w seems to be making the point that: how well and how quickly will they fare in working with a totally foreign network protocol when grafted onto the CDMA air interface. This goes a step beyond what Clark is saying. As evidence for this, w pointed to LSI's design win for its ASIC for Denso's phone, although there might be other politics at play there too. No one at the quarterly earnings CC asked exactly what the software design firm in England acquired by Q is doing. Is this a source of GSM network software expertise. How does this relate to San Jose? Does anyone think that LU's work with UMTS on a 3G network will help Q? The idea being that LU and Q work closely in CDMA network buildouts, with LU being a world-wide implementation company--will this help stabilize the standards background issues pointed to by Dr. J? Steve