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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43982)	6/29/2001 2:33:27 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 54805

I agree. But remember, we're talking about the same Christensen who started a mutual fund and shut it down only months later. And the same Christensen that is listed as a member of NTT DoCoMo's global advisory board. John

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43982)	6/29/2001 2:37:24 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I sold my Qualcomm LEAPS expiring in 2001 two months ago because they were getting too close to expiration. Today I used half of the proceeds to replace them with LEAPS expiring in 2004. (I plan to use the other half of the proceeds to purchase Siebel LEAPS.) It's interesting to me that when I sold the LEAPS about to expire in roughly 8 months, the stock was at about $56 and the options were about $19 in the money. I sold them for about $29. Yet with the stock at almost the same price, for my new LEAPS expiring about 30 months from now that are about $3 out of the money, it cost me only $24 to buy them. With the options being about 5% out of the money, I get two more years of time for a little less money. Maybe Uncle Frank or one of the options mavens can explain that to me. Is it that options premiums have decreased that much in the last two months? --Mike clueless but no cell phone will help Buckley

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43982)	6/29/2001 5:38:22 PM
From: Judith Williams	Respond to of 54805

Mike-- ask Christensen how much he got paid for that piece...appears we had it all sorted out... Maybe the tariff would cover a cell phone for me. But only after you try out the one BB's sending. Late adapter here. Just traded in my horse and buggy. Now I walk. Doesn't use as much hay and shoes are a little cheaper. --Judith

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43982)	6/29/2001 11:28:37 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

re: QCOM - CDMA growth We are now completing 2001 H2. EMC has 5 months official subscriber numbers for GSM in, and unofficial numbers for CDMA and TDMA. We won't have official numbers for CDMA for almost 3 months out of CDG, and their abacus. I decided to take a peek and start some preliminary drilling down on the first 5 months of the year: The single positive I've noticed for CDMA is that it has caught back up with GSM's rate of subscriber growth, and could possibly exceed GSM and catch TDMA by the end of the year. However: * GSM market share continues to increase worldwide and now exceeds 70%. * CDMA market share is holding steady at 11.5% of all subs and 12.5% of digital. * TDMA market share is declining. * Analog AMPS decline is accelerating. * The ratio of GSM subs to CDMA subs has dramatically increased from 5.1:1 at year 2000 end to 5.7:1 in 5 short months * GSM is beginning to move up rapidly in the Americas. The cleaned up numbers and some analysis is here: Message 16016068 What's the point in my attempting to get inside the numbers and look for a trend? There are several ... but I'm primarily concerned with market leadership, right now. Gorillas or Kings are market leaders. And market leadership connotes market share. Clearly Qualcomm is the market leader of CDMA (and then some). The market share of CDMA, however, within the larger sector of wireless, has not only stalled, it has actually declined since I 1st invested in Qualcomm in January 1999. ... so I'm looking for a trend reversal. I haven't clearly seen it yet, but I sense there may be a slight positive change. My view is long. << << if we should pat ourselves on the back for having come to Christensen's conclusions a long time ago that 3G will take a long time to build out. :) >> Perhaps we should have told that to Dr. Irwin Jacobs. <g> Last year Dr. Jacobs stated frequently when forecasting out for the future that after 2005 CDMA would predominate. I, on the other hand, took a slightly longer term view, and suggested it would be at least 2007 before CDMA became the dominant air interface or access method to a mobile wireless network. I now say it will be at least 2008. Grudgingly, I suspect the more optimistic but still realistic Dr. Irwin Jacobs might be thinking 2007. Maybe he'll stick around till then. I hope so. Unless Dr. Paul matures. << we don't have a clear understanding of Christensen's definitions of "open" and "closed" standards; we really don't know (or at least I don't know) how he is using those terms. >> On a sort of similar note, I'm ondering if you have caught the dialogue going on, on the Moderated Qualcomm thread between pcstel and others starting at around post 12194 or so. In relationship to Qualcomm, pcstel is discussing a concept he refers to as "control over Technology Entitlement" or "Adminsitration of Technology Entitlement".. which seems to be similar to the competetive advantage gained by control of a proprietary open architecture. - Eric -

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (43982)	6/30/2001 9:14:46 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, << I agree with you that we don't have a clear understanding of Christensen's definitions of "open" and "closed" standards; we really don't know (or at least I don't know) how he is using those terms. >> I thought he spelled it out his usage of proprietary "closed" nice and concisely. His proprietary "closed" appears to be lifted just about wholesale from the same source that Moore lifted proprietary "open" - "Computer Wars". NTT Docomo has mostly closely followed the "proprietary integrated" approach at this early stage in the development of the wireless internet market. For example, DoCoMo developed i-mode technology (which is based on cHTML), cultivated revenue share agreements through close relationships with content vendors, and established the i-mode brand, which appears to be a more integrated approach than most wireless carriers. In other words, they didn't develop a standard, did not develop to a standard, and did not wait around for a standard to be developed - whether de facto or de jure - they just did it, did it in an integrated fashion, and in doing so, proved to the world, the viability of wireless data, taking a page out of the mainframers original approach. In the process, they also proved that the underlying technology was not the fundamental determinant of the success of wireless data. His key point seems to be: •3G appears to be a classic example of an established industry attempting to cram a new technology into an existing business model. Dr. William Lee talked to this in one of the early CDG Digevents when he talked about 3G3 being a vendor push rather than a carrier pull, with the implication that little attention was being focused on the integrated business model. - Eric -