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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shamsaee who wrote (24574)	5/11/2000 4:27:00 PM
From: chaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Intel is not a computer provider. Chaz

To: shamsaee who wrote (24574)	5/11/2000 4:39:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Shamsaee, I don't think qcom is concerned about having their name on a phone ... That being the case, why do they have their name on phones? If they wanted to go that route they would have kept their handset division. In my opinion, that Qualcomm decided to sell a money-losing handset division in an environment with dramatically decreasing margins and one which they had comparably miniscule resources to compete should not lead an investor to the conclusion that the company doesn't want to establish brand equity. At the end of the day it is the carriers, who have to sell to the customers their service. For me, that's tantamount to leaving one's destiny in control of others. I'd much prefer that Qualcomm create the market by advertising. The result will be an ability to maintain higher prices to the carriers and greater adoption of the product. Would Intel have been as successful if the company had left it up to the computer manufacturers to sell reliability of the computer's engine? Not in my opinion. I believe the analogy holds true for Qualcomm and the carriers. --Mike Buckley