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: JohnG who wrote (9886)	4/16/2001 10:48:55 PM
From: Theophile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196649

As for QCOM being inflexible, this is VERY IMPORTANT technologically, lest they have their customers' insistence upon special consideration gum up the works for rapid product development. This cannot be overly stressed, and is a maxim of the Technology Adoption Lifecycle. During the buildout phase, while conquering one niche market and then another, a solution provider must listen to their customers and meet their whole product needs. Once the momentum for their products begins to accelerate, then to continue accommodating those specific requests becomes an impossible burden resulting in QoS issues resulting in product returns, slower product development life cycles, in short, "shipping problems" (as per G.Moore). (in the case of QCOM, this applies to IPR being readied, Flawlessly, [on spec and on time] for incorporation into its product development plans. There does not need to be developed a "high art" of ignoring one's customers, however there may be some inflated reactionism here, as well as some behind-the-scenes agreement for trying to paint QCOM as a 'difficult supplier'. 'They' are certainly collaborating on just about every other aspect of 'their' war against QCOM. Has anyone seen similar comments from CDMAone carriers?? This information would help make this much-published slur against QCOM more objective. Of course, there are other 'much-published' bits of information as well, eg GPRS is great, w-CDMA is conquering the world, blablabla. If this sort of blatant misinformation can be propagated so freely, it being easily verified and patently false, then a 'back handed comment' or two, totally unverifiable, and possibly totally unfounded, would certainly be easy enough to keep alive. I must say, of course, considering the continued restraint and prior MO of QCOM WRT the GSM failure to produce viable technology, and the fact only recently QCOM chose to come out and reveal these facts openly, does cast doubt onto their being aggressively snooty in their customer relations. But of course, I cannot really know. Martin Thomas