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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 100cfm who wrote (5730)	12/24/2000 9:04:25 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196816

"What one has to re(s)pect is the fact that this is coming from a CDMA user with first hand knowlegde and not from a GSM Fudster." ---------- <g> This comes from LG - who wishes to spin the best case for bending the government to modify its plans to accept only a CDMA2000 application for the remaining license - from a company who views itself as the standard bearer and rightful heir to the Korean wCDMA crown - and who has just lost face to its competitors. To suggest that LG's stated perceptions regarding costs and finances are objective is - silly. It's certainly constructive to try and fathom the dynamics of decisions by Operators. But to consider this analysis by LG as being without its own self-serving bias is.... remarkable. ---------- Consider CDMA2000 and wCDMA as 2 pots - roughly the same size and proportion. There is the Q pot. The pot's contents are pure Q - only Q pees in its pot. Operators and Vendors haven't been invited near Q's pot.* Then there is the wCDMA pot. Access to this pot has been much easier - and many Operators and Vendors have relieved themselves in the wCDMA pot. Even though the contents of Q's pot are pure, potentially superior and untainted by compromise, Operators and Vendors prefer the pot whose contents include their legacy. Their vested interests lie within. Fortunately, Q owns both pots - and should contribute to the contents of both. As soon as appropriate. ---------- With victory in war imminent - does one battle matter? Does it substantively matter which pot is more popular? Is lingering obsession with this battle - with the pots - symptomatic of fighting the last battle? Is this clever or wise? Is Korea a blessing in disguise? Will Q, with its established regional value chain, use Asia wCDMA as its proving ground? It would be ideal for Q to get its nose under NTT's tent - but there is JPhone and Korea for Q prove itself and establish its wCDMA chipset dominance prior to Europe moving in scale. I speculate that SpinCo - with dominant wCDMA influence in Asia - would spur European Vendors to push UMTS in Europe harder and sooner - in order to allow them to develop experience through execution - in order to compete with Q's experience through execution gleaned in Asia. (GSM Vendors do not appear technically prepared ((or welcome??)) to participate with wCDMA in Asia - NTT's primary suppliers are all Asian. Won't JPhone and Korea be the same?) There will be a growing wCDMA technology base in Asia that can only be achieved by experience in the field - that will give players a leg up with technology for Europe - an advantage that will only grow. By postponing 3G with interim technologies, Europe, and its Vendors, will fall behind. Making wCDMA/UMTS "real and soon" may be Q's holy grail. And Q remains the odds on favorite to win their division, the play-offs, and the championship - but they won't have home field advantage. ((Being football season, I had to inject at least one hackneyed sports cliché.)) ((This is now changing. Witness 1x EV-DV specifications in progress. Aside from Q, LGE, LinkAir, Motorola, Nokia, LSI, TI, Nortel, Samsung, and Tantivity* petition to pee in Q's pot. This is the price of success.)) Happy eclipse. ben

To: 100cfm who wrote (5730)	12/25/2000 10:18:18 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196816

100cfm, I agree this looks 180 degrees from our beliefs. How can a W-CDMA deployment be cheaper never mind much cheaper than a cdma2000 deployment? Actually one reason might be that the suppliers of the equipment, in an effort to detroy cdma2000 offered to supply the W-CDMA equipment at a very very very cheap price. Now why would I even think anything like that? THe B/E till 2009 is of course affected by the netwrok installation costs do that is the same point. Now as for cost of the handsets well although some of the Koreans have decided to become traitors to their own manufacturing companies at this most difficult time for those manufacturing comapanies, surely they have considerd that the US WILL have CDMA2000 no matter what the W proponents try to do to stop it. And so the US consumer is going to want cdma2000 handsets and some of those are going to be made by Korean companies and the US consumers are going to want them to be cheap and to compete with other systems in the US so why should handsets be more expensive in Korea? Beats me unless the three Korean SP were offered some great terms by the W-CDMA network suppliers. Best regards, L