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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (76503)	7/13/2000 8:23:13 AM
From: edamo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

tarzan....... maybe the book was conceived and marketed in the "great bull run".......no need to exit when you increase ten fold a year.....in retrospect no different then the "dogs of the dow"............all "systems/theories" run their course....if you read the book prior to april then it was a brilliant epoch....started reading and jump into the game in early 2000, and you had your library card taken from you...... be careful of the banana peels...the bowling alley is slippery enough.....don't get hoovered into the chasm...use the rope bridge...it looks safer... so how's jane doing?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (76503)	7/13/2000 9:16:14 AM
From: qveauriche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mucho-Pretermitting the question of whether, by 2005 it won't (as Dr. J claims)matter to QCOM,would you at least agree that the foreordained ascendancy of WCDMA as the "world" standard is subject to some uncertainties itself? For example, what if CDMA 2000 really is a technologically superior product, and stays that way because (another assumption) no one is Q's equal in CDMA science? What if there really is a significant time lag between the time that Q can rollout CDMA 2000 and the rollout of WCDMA? What if there really is no significant cost disadvantage to a GSM carrier in upgrading to CDMA 2000, only performance advantages? What if the pervasiveness of GSM in 2g, and the consequent foreordained pervasiveness of WCDMA in 3g, loses its relevance because of the anticipated ability to freely roam between standards by 2002-03? What if the collective royalty expense of a wcdma system really is greater than cdma 2000 because so many people claim a right to participate? In the final analysis, I can well remember back in 1996 when the GSM crowd scoffed at CDMA, and challenged whether it would even work at all. Whatever uncertainties remain, I am still astounded that in such a short time we have come from that point to a point where the entire world seems to be moving to one form of CDMA or another. The point is also made that handset use between humans is only the tip of the iceberg.A recent study predicted that by 2005 machines will access the internet with 5 times the frequency of humans. I wonder how may of these as yet unestablished communicative functions will be most efficiently handled over an air interface.I wonder whether QCOMs longstanding opponents will enjoy the political sway in these collateral markets that they are presently exercising in the field of human telecommunications.Or whether these markets will be more receptive to rationally choosing the best technology on its merits. I don't know the answer to these questions.I simply pose them .I do note that one defining characteristic of the age in which we live is the decentralization of power away from bureaucracies toward people, whether in choice of content or technology.I think that augurs well for companies rich in intellectual capital, an asset I have perceived QCOM as having which is as, or more, valuable than its intellectual property. Your thoughts would be sincerely appreciated.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (76503)	7/13/2000 9:41:30 AM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 152472

When does a "system" (after all, gorilla gaming purports to be a "system") get you out of a stock? Hmmmmm.... Ggaming is not a "system". It is a model, a lens, a perspective, a paradigm. It provides a way to analyze companies, their industries, and their products to identify those that are likely to grow beyond the expecations of the general marketplace. It does give you guidelines about getting out of a stock, based on discontinuous innovations, but its perspective is way beyond events of this year or even severe price fluctuations of this year. Ggaming leads me to believe that I should ignore the stories of this year as long as the fundamentals of QCOM and its industry have not changed. To me, it is clear that they have not changed, though the severity of the tornado may be delayed. Your reference to communism is way out in left field (pardon the pun). It has no relevance. Your perspective on ggaming is like judging the behavior of an elephant through a microscope. You learn very little about the movement of the animal, its stimuli, nor its environment, while you do observe the movement of the fleas in its hair.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (76503)	7/13/2000 9:56:21 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

* OT * >> after all, gorilla gaming purports to be a "system" That's where you miss the point, MM. Rather than a system, gorilla gaming is a set of tools designed to help individual investors discover great companies. What you do with them after you find them is a matter of personal preference. Some attempt to time them, while others prefer the time proven ltb&h approach. The funny metaphors that some, like our concept challenged threadmate of the moment, edamo, disdain are simply mnemonic aids. Since reading Dr. Moore's book 24 months ago, GG tools have led me to a portfolio consisting of core holdings in csco, qcom, gmst, sebl, and ntap. I rest my case <gg>. Now let's get back to work on Primate Qualcomm <lol>. uf