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: Jon Koplik who wrote (14101)	8/20/2001 3:51:17 PM
From: Ibexx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197032

Re. I will use my home computer on HDR, assuming it is priced correctly. What price would you be willing to pay? Ibexx

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (14101)	8/20/2001 4:48:36 PM
From: ggamer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197032

<<<I will use my home computer on HDR, assuming it is priced correctly.>>> I own a Samsung phone and I am with Sprint. I have a hard time getting good signal inside my house. Do you think this would affect my ability to use CDMA wireless data (1X, HDR, and CDMA2000)in the near future inside my house. I do OK when I am in the balcony. GGamer QCOM, Toll Gate to 3G Serving Brewed, Snaptraked, Multi-Flavored CDMA

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (14101)	8/20/2001 7:52:51 PM
From: John Biddle	Respond to of 197032

I will use my home computer on HDR, assuming it is priced correctly. Not to be too snide about it, but of course you will. So will everyone else. Correct pricing is, however, going to be in the eye of the beholder. If the quality and performance of a wireless data link were on a par with, say, a cable modem, then one would expect people to be willing to spend what they do for a cable modem (avg about $40/mo) plus a premium for mobility. Some who place a high value on mobility will be willing to pay much more of a premium than those who don't value mobility much, for whatever reason. Other factors affecting the price are the perception of risk the prospective user has toward the service (it's new and different, not everyone finds that attractive), towards the company (maybe they don't know anything about the CDMA service provider in their area), or other things like whether there's a charge that is based on use and they'll have a hard time estimating their costs. Good marketing will take all this and much more into consideration. They'll use data gathered in various ways about what people are likely to do (some from people themselves, some from analysts, some from within the company, etc.) and look as well at how new technologies have been marketed both successfully and unsuccessfully in the past. The goal in most cases (gotta wonder about G*) is to maximize profit in the long run taking risk into account. Traditional capitalist theory, as explained by non-capitalists, would say something like costs will start out high to milk those who will pay the most, and prices come down over time as high margins draw competitors until the price is just above break-even. Real capitalists are much smarter than that, though, and don't practice static analysis, but are also interested in how what they do affects how the customer reacts, and they plan on that. Also, wasting a hugely costly infrastructure investment in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of a small number of people while pricing a large number of people out of the market is not a long term profit maximizing strategy. I suspect that the CDMA sellers will keep the price reasonable to maximize their market share gains, but high enough to profit handsomely, since competition for this new service will at first (if we're right about the relative merits of 1X) be scant. As AT&T and Cingular etc. get into the act, Sprint and Verizon can undercut them on price because of efficiency, and continue to take share. My big worry in all this is how many customers can be supported simultaneously per cell. That is, how many users surfing at home using what they hope will be a cable modem equivalent performer can do so within each wireless cell? Will the aggregate bandwidth be enough for LOTS of traffic, or will 2.4 Mbps be shared across 30 people giving no one a pleasurable experience? I seem to remember Qualcomm making a statement that HDR was profitable at $40 per person for unlimited use. That implies to me that the aggregate bandwidth available is much higher than I thought it was/is. Can anyone here provide information to clarify how much throughput is actually going to be available?