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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (11185)	5/2/2001 12:33:03 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I do remember (for those that don't) in terms of 3G networks, you said W-CDMA is BAD for Qualcomm and CDMA2000 is GOOD for Qualcomm. I hope I didnt say that....I must not have expressed myself clearly. W-CDMA is less good for Qualcomm than CDMA2000....but it is clearly not bad. They would still get the same royalties off of W-CDMA but would likely have a lower chipset marketshare (though of a larger total market). The only bad scenario for Qualcomm is one in which neither CDMA2000 nor W-CDMA flourishes in the next few years. Any delays in the implementation of W-CDMA are bad for the industry as a whole as well.... Gee if Qualcomm has not come up with a migration path from 2G to 3G for GSM (ie, no CDMA/GSM chipset), no wonder Europe is leery of moving to a CDMA2000 standard. The way the timetables look right now....handsets with GSM modes for both CDMA2000 and W-CDMA handsets will be coming out in the second half of next year. The problem is that Qualcomm needed to be early (like right now!) to present a convincing case to the operators. OTOH....it is more likely that W-CDMA/GSM handsets will be delayed next year than CDMA2000/GSM handsets. The W-CDMA portion of the handsets is clearly the wildcard. Slacker