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: Eric L who wrote (6969)	2/4/2001 5:56:35 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196546

Eric, doesn't the RadioOne technology make the whole issue of compatibility virtually moot? My understanding is that with RadioOne, you can have a handset that combines GSM and CDMA without using so much power as to limit battery life to unacceptable amounts. I also understand that through cross licensing agreements between QUALCOMM and Texas Instruments, QCOM gains access to certain GSM proprietary technology. So where is the problem? If it isn't already solved, won't it be solved by the time these GSM-CDMA compatible handsets reach the market, perhaps in another year or two? Art

To: Eric L who wrote (6969)	2/4/2001 8:03:50 PM
From: foundation	Respond to of 196546

"...so what do YOU think QUALCOMM's strategy is to win a bigger share of the business?..." ---------- I think Q's strategy is to give China a piece of cdma2000 (in 3GPP2 WG5). This will give China a clear royalty play - like QClassic's. Which will be maximized by China encouraging its use - which will be maximized by China using cdma2000 itself. I think Q's strategy is for China to take a piece of SpinCo. As a SpinCo owner, China will part-own IP that provides China currency with wCDMA patent poolers (for China's indigenous vendors) in obtaining the "house" royalty rates for wCDMA equipment production for Europe. I think Q's strategy is to manufacture the lion's share of SpinCo's chipsets in China by 2005. ---------- The equation - and standards primacy - is not resolved until China decides. Europe may never change - but the world is not yet set around it. If China decides cdma2000 (with a token nod to td-scdma and wcdma) everything changes. How will China decide - when offered a serious piece of the action - royalties and national pride? It's impossible to game China - the most fascinating and inscrutable piece of the equation. 3GSM speculation regarding standards dominance is predicated on the belief that China's legacy GSM systems dictate a wCDMA selection for 3G. Bu there are many forces at play. And China's not decided. Until it is - most everything's in the air.. Most everything. ben

To: Eric L who wrote (6969)	2/5/2001 5:19:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196546

<I want to take advantage of new W-CDMA services. I buy a new W-CDMA/GSM mobile. I put my old SIM in it - or have the carrier transfer data to my new Java SIM. I do all the old and all the new. ALL of the above plus W-CDMA, but I still do GSM where W-CDMA not built out. In 161 countries.> Apart from GPRS being a dead duck [groaning along at an impossibly slow data rate if it every actually makes it to market - Vodafone has it installed here and is waiting for handsets], your selections were reasonable. But when you want to take advantage of W-CDMA is the problem. More particularly, when the allocated W-CDMA spectrum is full and the service providers want to convert their old GSM networks to W-CDMA there will be a problem. Just as Vodafone told QUALCOMM there was a problem with swapping GSM networks to IS-95 or cdma2000, there is as much problem converting to W-CDMA. However, prescient service providers who select the early CDMA technology won't have the difficulty of upgrading. They can switch over incrementally without dumping legacy subscribers. As the new cdma2000 network spreads, people can buy new handsets for that technology. That applies in both new and existing spectrum. W-CDMA and GSM are bumble-footed until multimode, multiband, RadioOne and the like are available at reasonable cost, efficiency, size and battery life. According to QUALCOMM, cdma2000 is more efficient than W-CDMA and you know I will believe them before I believe L M Ericsson or Nokia. <Well, I already furnished you with a link to some 20+ reasons I thought the Koreans may possibly have considered, in making a W-CDMA choice for the IMT-2000 3G global initiative. It was just theorizing. But given the fact that only KDDI has chosen W-CDMA for IMT-2000 3G buildouts in 2GHz yet ... why do YOU think that QUALCOMM, CDG, and 3GPP2, have so far failed to make cdma2000 attractive to the carriers making decisions. > Forgive my senility. I can't recall the links or 20 advantages of W-CDMA over cdma2000. I guess they were non-persuasive or I suspect [hope] I would have remembered them, or some of them. Would you please refresh my memory? Now that you mention it, I do remember something about it, but not the details. The 'Network Effect' is the obvious one and that has been the strategy of the GSM Guild all along. With multimode, multiband in efficient RadioOne phones, that compatibility issue will reduce, but I doubt it will go away entirely in the next few years. However, that network effect advantage for W-CDMA is not a certainty yet as there is immediacy at work, which is the advantage of cdma2000, 1xRTT, 1xEV which China might decide to take. Imagine the commotion if China opts for cdma2000 in cahoots with QUALCOMM, which would be to the great benefit of both. What then of the GSM Guild and their extorquerationate relationship with China? I'm primarily interested in technical and economic advantages of W-CDMA compared with cdma2000. The advantages seem to be to cdma2000, so other than game-playing for royalty and market share advantages, I don't see merit in the W-CDMA strategy with a lot of risk to the W-CDMA world if they can't make it happen in a timely way. There is immense pressure for early action in 3G. I-mode is just a taste of what's to come. So is SMS. Just a mere whiff really. WAP has misled many people into thinking that wireless Internet is a fizzer. Those watching i-mode and SMS know they are seeing the tip of a huge dragon's nose. A Taniwha! Something which will rear up from nowhere, in and among us, from the core of our own being, and consume all in It's path. I think W-CDMA is attractive to service providers because NTT has given them money. Buying support is very effective but can give a transient success rather than permanent [a bit like buying a wife might work; for a while, but in a superficial way]. Multi$$billions don't grow on trees. So if NTT is willing to pay for a bunch of W-CDMA stuff and take the risk, the company letting them in is on a winner. Maybe they have been promised vendor financing or other goodies or some other bait with a 'we'll take the risk' offer from Nokia, L M Ericsson, NEC etc. NEC has had a low profile in CDMA despite being an early licensee, so I expect they have gone like crazy on W-CDMA to support NTT, so maybe they have got something going. So I remain puzzled but cynical about the "GREAT SUCCESS OF W-CDMA". I'll believe it when I see subscribers happily buying handsets in a free market in competition with cdma2000, 1xEV, 1xRTT. Keep in mind that it is in everyone's interests except QUALCOMM's for QUALCOMM royalties to be low or zero. Actually, the USA government wants QUALCOMM to be paid all the royalties they can get [because of high taxation and great profit for the government from those royalties]. But people buying the technology want no royalties. So there is a very large incentive for everyone to gang up on QUALCOMM, including the service providers and subscribers. The GSM Guild, which owns the W-CDMA patents has extra incentive to keep others out! So, even if W-CDMA is a fizzer, there is a lot of incentive to pretend it isn't, with the intention of leveraging QUALCOMM royalties down. According to QUALCOMM, W-CDMA is not as efficient as cdma2000. I will continue to believe them on that until the VW-40 crowd can show data to the contrary. Mqurice