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: Peter J Hudson who wrote (4509)	5/1/2000 11:51:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 34857

Peter: Suggest you not hold your breath for a meaningful response. There are three kinds of posters here (at least). A few are actually interested in the prospects of Nokia first and perhaps Qualcomm as well. Then there are the defenders - using any means of defense. Finally we have the salesmen. The fun part (as Maurice might say) is that out of this, comes some useful information and even the possibility of learning something from time to time. That is why I still find this thread so interesting. Best. Chaz

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (4509)	5/1/2000 12:20:00 PM
From: tero kuittinen	Respond to of 34857

Here's the original exchange: ">>As you have seen, during the 1Q 2000, second generation CDMA was either completely irrelevant or actively harmful to the profitability of phone makers. You can't point to a single manufacturer earning substantial profits from making IS-95 phones.<< AUDIOVOX" I asked for one example of a manufacturer earning substantial profits from making IS-95 phones. Your reply was "AUDIOVOX". Obviously - this reply makes no sense. VOXX does not earn substantial profits, as the recent gross profit margin clearly demonstrates. So - where is the misrepresentation? All the CDMA zombies on this thread are studiously avoiding drawing any conclusions from the available data on the profit margins of manufacturers with a IS-95 focus. Tero