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(QCOM) -> SpinCo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: w molloy who wrote (52)	7/28/2000 10:45:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 172

WM, What you describe seems like a lot of hard work to make GSM go well to fill a gap of only a few years. What about just having two phones? W-CDMA for round town [or MC-CDMA if DS-CDMA never actually gets going] and grab the GSM phone for a trip from London to Cornimont [where the rollout of 3G will take a lot longer]. There are several service providers in each area. People could just have a couple of phones [as our youngest daughter does with her own money to use the cheapest plans at different times]. Phones are very cheap now. Don't you think that it might be cheaper, more efficient, more convenient etc just to have a few devices and use the one needed at the time? To buy a multimode, multiband system for the odd trips around the world only to replace them on an annual basis without actually using the other modes and bands seems expensive. The battery would go flat faster. It would run slower. It would be bigger and hotter. Phones are so small and light now that to pack a couple or three phones wouldn't be all that tough to do. I admit the Globalstar phone is still quite expensive and cumbersome, with backup batteries and recharger. Vodafone will be building 3G out in the UK very quickly given the $35bn spent on spectrum. Leave GSM for the 2G world which will gradually die off. If people go to such an area where only GSM's available, then they could take a cheap GSM phone for a few days. I'm not convinced that GSM/3G is a necessary ASIC package to offer. Even if Spinco does get GSM working quite well, it won't be as good as what Nokia is offering in standalone GSM devices by then so maybe the multimodes won't sell anyway. Mqurice

To: w molloy who wrote (52)	7/31/2000 1:49:54 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 172

From A Friend> Hi Mike, >if Spinco does in fact get the GSM x-licenses why indeed >could there not be a 1x >CDMA/GSM chip by next summer or sooner. >Here's why not. >1. x-license buys the right to us the technology once it >is created. One has to create the >technology first. Good point. The author should then conclude that if SpinCo is to produce GSM based chips in the very near future then SpinCo could conceivably have started on this a long time ago? Recall from Dr.J's own statement regarding other folks doing WCDMA/cdma2000 at the moment - 'anybody can develop anything in the labs. Royalties, licensing etc. come into play when they try to sell it' - Why wouldn't that apply to SpinCo too? >2. Good CDMA RF engineers don't transition into good GSM >engineers overnight. >They should be in shape with prototypes by next summer. Very good point. Does the author know of any GSM RF engineers SpinCo could hire? ;) Through Globalstar and elsehwere Qualcomm/SpinCo does have some GSM experience. >3. Even if the RF side is sorted - I know the software >side isn't. A multimode chipset >will need 4 (arguably 5) major components >a) Access substrata >QCOM/SpinCo are historically good at this >b) The network substrata >This is pure GSM - SpinCo would be nuts to try to write >this from scratch, and they >wont. QCOM has been touring the UK in an acquisition hunt. >They don't have a deal >with anyone (yet) >c) Application programmers interface. >The API shields the handset software chaps (the MMI >developers) from the >complexities of the protocol. >This is a weak area for QCOM, who made a dogs dinner out >of this component for >IS-95. Quite on the contrary. Look for the APIs and software description at: qualcomm.com >A GSM API is much more complex. >d) GSM Call Control state machine. >This component could either form part of the MMI or the >API. In my experience, most >GSM chipset vendors don't supply this component, but >nearly all Handset OEM's, >particularly those in Taiwan (and the putative ones in >China) want the chipset guys to >supply it. What's silly to re-invent should be presumably acquired :) >By the time WCDMA gets to market, I think this will be >offered as part of the ASIC >software >e) Reference design for an MMI >A bigger job than you think, bu could be outsourced. Again, look at the link to MSM software above. >a) .. e) if written from scratch, would take 100+ software >guys two years to get into a >state fit for type approval. >b) realistically requires a partnership deal with a stack >vendor, who could also help >with c) and d) This is needed for CDMA anyway - can be extended over to GSM. >After the software is written and integrated on chip, then >the ASIC's have to be type approved. The process from >start to finish typically takes 9 >months. If SpinCo was working with a partnership company >like TTP, it could be done >quite a bit quicker. This is a valid point too - Type Approval process is lengthy - then good to acquire access to technolgies that have already gone through the process? >Presumably there will be a lead customer at this point, >and a lengthy series of field trials >will start. These can last anywhere from 3 months to a >year, then you can start serious >production. Yeah. Qualcomm/Spinco has done similar things with IS-95A, IS-95B, now 1x and 1xEV. I think the author has a fairly good understanding of the chip engineering process but let that not deter anyone from thinking that Qualcomm/Spinco doesn't - these things and a lot, lot more are surely being taken into account.