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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ibexx who wrote (75304)	7/2/2000 9:34:31 PM
From: ehopper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I think it does. The debate you jumped into was that right now Nokia, Ericsson etc do not have to pay royalties for GSM. (Whether other manufacturers have to pay a higher royalty for GSM was not being discussed). We would all love to see the #1 cellphone manufactuer jump on the QCOM bandwagon however cost is an issue. The article you posted simply clarified that Nok and Eric are not involved in paying this 15% royalty for GSM so saying that CDMA is cheaper than GSM for a company like Nokia or Ericcson due to royalties (CDMa = 5%, GSM = 15%) is not valid. Obviously NOK and ERIC etc cannot get CDMA for free, the trick is to find a cost point so that NOK, ERIC, MOT and Samsung (no more subsidies) for that matter can ramp up volumes, they all make money and Qualcom makes lots of $$$ This was the nature of the debate. Regards ed.