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: Eric L who wrote (27346)	7/6/2000 6:28:17 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 54805

>> I am perhaps the most contrarian poster on Qualcomm and CDMA that exists here (although my only current wireless play is Qualcomm because of its gorilla status) but nobody has thrown me off the board yet. <g> That's only because nobody really understands what you're saying. uf

To: Eric L who wrote (27346)	7/6/2000 6:36:40 PM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 54805

<<I am perhaps the most contrarian poster on Qualcomm and CDMA that exists here>> yeah, but you have that nasty habit of occasionally being right, which we find endearing. tekboy/Ares@plus,youhavesuchgoodtasteinposts.com

To: Eric L who wrote (27346)	7/6/2000 6:47:26 PM
From: roonz	Respond to of 54805

The way we look at it, (and although IP plays a significant role) its about the hypergrowth of a discontinuous proprietary and open architecture controlled by one company that has had a significant value chain form around it, that it controls. (my emphasis) I don't pretend to understand the technical issues involved, but I am a little suspect as to whether QCOM actually controls its value chain. Obviously, Q derives revenue from every CMDA implementation. But it seems that others are free to implement CMDA any way they wish. Are they controled by Q in how they implement it? Just wondering...

To: Eric L who wrote (27346)	7/7/2000 12:23:15 AM
From: Mrjns	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric, Thanks for the warm welcome. I've followed QCOM for more than a year, held it briefly <couldn't stand the rough seas> and will buy in when the future is in better focus. IF they win the battle they stand to be the Intel AND Microsoft of the wireless era and will provide stellar returns for years to come. Right now there's too much uncertainty & I have learnt not to trust the judicial system, at least not with my money. As for the manual, yes I have read it - and I have an acquired distaste for the Mo-Mo guys jumping on something I own. I actually hunt baby gorillas ( and princes if you want to be technical) and the low cost basis provides a big buffer against their inevitable future volatility when discovered.

To: Eric L who wrote (27346)	7/7/2000 10:17:27 AM
From: areokat	Respond to of 54805

>>Since 3G mobile wireless telephony is several years away from launching commercially, it does not yet bear on the current gorilla status of Qualcomm. When 3G enters hypergrowth, Qualcomm will (at the very least) be on Main Street, CDMA wise. Look at the CAP & GAP that the gorilla advantage affords, in regards to your current (or a planned) Qualcomm investment.<< Eric I may not understand your point here but if 3G goes into hypergrowth wouldn't this put qcom in the middle of a tornado and wouldn't that tornado be pretty big? I'm not a techie so I may have missed your point all together. I do enjoy your posts as they have educated me a lot in regard to qcom. Tom