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: mightylakers who wrote (12236)	6/29/2001 7:35:46 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196971

ML: So if you look at the overall picture, Q's success is not because they controlled what the others can or can not do, but rather because of Q's own strength as far as CDMA technology concerns. Do you really think if Samsung or Sanyo had been allowed a Aisc license that they would still be buying the quantity of Asics from Qualcomm? Or if MOT had been allowed to re-sell their IS-95A Asic, that their might have been more pricing pressure on Qualcomm Asic prices? The Companies that were allowed to Re-Sell Asics had no built in customer in themselves to establish a market for.. While the Companies who did have a built-in customer (MOT, NOK, etc) were NOT allowed to resell them to other phone manufactures.. So I would agree with your statement 100% IF Qualcomm had allowed the MOT and NOK to resell Asics at Large!! Why were NOK and MOT NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO??(Maybe because, MOT pays a lower royalty rate than the average)? It 's called Protectionism!! You license companies who have no customer base as a Re-Seller.. In addition, You limit those companies that are thier own customers (MOT, NOK) the ability to enjoy the economics of scale that Qualcomm enjoyed.. After all.. Only Qualcomm had the ability to Re-Sell Asics.. and were their own customer in UT's and Infrastructure. Hey.. They are allowed in my eyes.. They invented it!!! But, that is not what this conversation was about... Controlling the distribution model really helped them out.. IMO. PCSTEL

To: mightylakers who wrote (12236)	6/30/2001 12:45:14 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 196971

mighty: Still curious if there will be differences between what the Koreans, Japanese and Europeans actually use as "W-CDMA". Unless I remember wrong, a condition of W-CDMA in Korea is that it is "backwardly compatible" to CDMA One (IS 95 A/B).(Yet it is usually referred to as asynchronous) The is no underlying GSM in Japan, so no GPRS for DoCoMo, but the unique Japanese technologies. So there really is no 2.5 G for DoCoMo and therefore the need to push W-CDMA asap. (And variations from "standards" has been historically what Japan has done to set up its own unique technologies to permit Japanese suppliers a leg up vs "outsiders") In Europe on the other hand there is nothing but GSM as a base, and that base is being changed to permit GPRS in current frequencies. So the bottleneck is handsets. Yet in new frequencies there is nothing yet. If all of this is so, won't there be very different timetables and "flavors" of W-CDMA? For example, it would be logical for DoCoMo to push hardest for W-CDMA soonest because it has no GPRS alternative as an interim step. In Korea could "W-CDMA" be synchronous or a combination of asynchronous/synchonous if there is to be backward compatibility? And in Europe could HDR (1xEV DO or 1xEV DV) be used in the new frequencies even if banned in current frequencies? So in Europe in the new frequencies could there be both UMTS as islands in the urban areas and 1xEV more broadly? (This is on the assumption that GPRS is nowhere near the efficiency or practicality for data as 1xEV is.) Comment? Chaz