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: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 11:21:23 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

re:every decade has it's predictions of profits from China, profits that in time usually turn out to be an illusion. The profits aren't an illusion. It's just that the Chinese are making the profits in China. Their government is good at making sure things turn out that way. From their point of view, the reason to let foreign companies in, is to transfer technology as rapidly as possible. Once that has happened, the foreigners aren't needed any more. The last-minute deal-breaking demand for QCOM's chip design is a classic Chinese move. Expect more of the same in the future.

To: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 11:51:59 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Luke, I have long held the view that QCOM gorilla status is weakened by it's distance from the ultimate consumers of it's products. Me too. It's probably still a gorilla, but not one in the sense of MSFT. I doubt that it has the power of Microsoft, but one reason for that is that Microsoft has been judged to use its power illegally, making it more powerful than a company with the same attributes using its strength legally. (I'm not suggesting that Qualcomm's attributes are the same.) But it's very difficult to determine the market opportunity. Qualcomm's potential market might be larger than Softie's, Cisco's or Intel's. For me, Intel continues to be the best comparison to be made with Qualcomm. It's somewhat removed from the enduser. There are strong analagies to be made about its IPR. And there are weaker analogies to be made about its chip business. --Mike Buckley

To: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 12:38:17 PM
From: areokat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>>it's probably still a gorilla, but not one in the sense of MSFT<< Heck no it's not like softie. Qcom is a young gorilla which is what we want. The greatest growth should be ahead of it. Qcom doesn't have to be the dominant gorilla world-wide, it just needs to be dominant in a large slice of the global economy. Negative information seems to have at least twice the impact as positive information so that might explain what people are reacting to. There has been some good news out over the last several days. Keep the faith. Tom

To: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 1:11:42 PM
From: StockHawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>>I have long held the view that QCOM gorilla status is weakened by it's distance from the ultimate consumers of it's products. Consumers want better products but they often have no easy way to judge which is best and they can be swayed by advertising. The advertising and FUD work best when originated by a name they know (Nokia) than one they don't (Qualcomm). An inferior product often sells quite well if cleverly presented. QCOM appears to have failed in it's attempt to get CDMA as the standard. It's probably still a gorilla, but not one in the sense of MSFT.<< I remember buying my first IBM PC. It was 1984 or thereabouts. Being somewhat "tech savvy" I knew that it had a program called DOS and I even knew who made it, but I did not think much of it. It was something I hardly ever used, and when I did use it (with a text editor - edlin perhaps)I thought it a minor, not very great program that would likely get swept away by the next IBM operating system. Looking back, I was a typical consumer. I did not care what made that PC work, I only cared that it did work. I'm pretty sure MSFT investors at the time were reading plenty of stuff about how larger competitors were going to eat their lunch. I submit, it is the very uncertainty - the thing the market hates so much - that makes the investment so compelling. If the path were clear, the stock would be fully valued and the opportunity would be diminished. If I am someone who has held QCOM this year the FUD slide has been a royal pain, but if I am someone looking to invest now, it has been a godsend. It would be nice if consumers knew QCOM but I don't think it is as important as many others do. The fact that QCOM is there in so many phones is what is important. 3G is Qualcomm, and as was stated in that good article Ruffian posted here today, the potential is enormous. StockHawk

To: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 1:24:42 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

re: QCOM gorilla status is weakened by it's distance from the ultimate consumers of it's products. Lots of examples of gorillas that sell to a mass market, but not directly. The earlier suggestion for a "QCOM Inside" marketing campaign, is excellent. Insist that all cellphones have an artistic "Q" somewhere on the outside, and then spend a few billion making sure everyone from Malaysia to Uruguay to Poland knows what "Q" stands for. The problem is, QCOM has neither the cash for this marketing campaign, nor the gorilla power to force the cellphone makers to do it. Maybe by 2003.

To: mauser96 who wrote (27822)	7/13/2000 2:44:42 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I have long held the view that QCOM gorilla status is weakened by it's distance from the ultimate consumers of it's products. I see your point, on one hand. I keep seeing these clever Sprint PCS commercials which are trying to tell consumers how much clearer PCS is than "cellular". As someone who sorta understands what is behind this claim, I understand it. As a normal consumer, I would probably question the claim, as the reasons for that claim are not explained. A "CDMA Inside" or "QCOM inside" modification to this claim would be helpful, perhaps. OTOH, QCOM's market is not the consumers, it could be argued, but the service providers. By concentrating their marketing resources on showing the economic and competitive advantages of CDMA on the service providers, they are using those resources wisely. What the could do is offer a "QCOM inside" promotional support to the service providers, just like INTC did. This would re-enforce the message to the provider and involve the consumer to the advantage of the provider, to Q, (and to me!)