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: Maurice Winn who wrote (5254)	6/4/2000 10:47:00 PM
From: ehopper	Respond to of 34857

Nokia has secured the components they need for the next 3 years...I hope Samsung has done the same. ed.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (5254)	6/4/2000 11:46:00 PM
From: ehopper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Maurice, i am also not sure why you mention Analog and Nokia in the same sentence. Nokia has never made an analog phone (other than adding AMPs to be backwards compatible with old Analog networks). Let's face it CDMA2000 only exists fir the same reason....backwards compatibility with IS95...."backwards" that seems to be a word that comes up often here in the US. The rest of the world is going WCDMA, which of course still benifits Qualcomm in royalties however Nokia is agressively persuing WCDMA in Japan so saying they are thru is a bit premature... But then again we still use miles and inches here... ed.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (5254)	6/5/2000 3:15:00 AM
From: Gus	Respond to of 34857

You contradicted yourself so many times in that post and meandered all over the place, Maurice, that I hope you didn't suffer vertigo when you wrote that. Money is only part of it, dude. Manufacturing visibility is probably the most valuable part of what Nokia brings to the table. Remember that wireless access is expected to surpass wireline access as the primary means of telecommunications in a few years. As deregulation makes its way around the world, wireless and wireline operators have a keen interest in making the overall telecom pie grow because deregulation is a protracted and disruptive process as you can see from the North American reference model, which is entering the 3rd decade of deregulation. Increased global teledensity IS important to the sustainability of deregulation. Nokia provides invaluable visibility to manufacturers because its superior time to market allows it to simultaneously drive global teledensity up and shorten the handset replacement cycle. Those profits provide the dollars for investments in many things like R&D, manufacturing processes, people etc. That is why American, Asian and European manufacturers will gravitate to a hot vendor like Nokia. Even Qualcomm has to defer to Nokia's superior market clout and piggyback on that visibility as it did when it partnered with an expanding RFMD, whose main customer is Nokia, to develop power amplifier technology. Manufacturers lose money in 2 ways: when they can't keep their factories busy enough as in periods of glut or when they fail to keep expanding their factories to meet demand as in periods of shortages. A vendor that can provide visibility measured in years is an absolute godsend especially at this point in time when large segments of the global electronics community are just beginning to come out of a protracted period of glut and are beginning to adjust to the implications of the 64-bit PC upgrade cycle and the robust growth of wireless. Your views are obviously diametrically opposed to mine because of your unabashed and unrepentant Qualcomm bias. Those are the elements of an interminable and feckless type of debate that I have no interest in so how about this. Why don't you look at how the events in the next few months will put to lie this rather amusing notion that China is not factored into QCOM's valuations. While correct in the shallowest sense, it ignores the fact that the direction that China takes with 3G CDMA2000 or WCDMA -- believe it or not the harmonization of WCDMA and TD-SCDMA is closer than you think -- is going to heavily influence the direction that South Korea, CDMAOne's single largest market with about 28 million subs, is going to take in 3G so how can China not be a factor. Figure that South Korea, Inc. is operating under a $58B IMF program and that their manufacturing-intensive business models approach peak profitability as they approach peak capacity. As you also know, the WCDMA overlay over CDMAOne project was initiated late last year by Docomo and SK Tel, which has over 57% of South Korea's CDMAOne market. That relationship has already progressed to the point where Docomo is taking a passive 15-20% stake in SK Tel so you read those tea leaves, watch events unfold and then come back and tell me that that gobbleydook you just ranted about has anything to do with the inevitable consequences of manufacturing scale and visibility.