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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (103632)	9/3/2001 6:13:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

John, the interests are aligned. The issue you are talking about is called share bargaining. Who gets what slice of the cake? Also, if Q! makes huge profts, but is still the best technology, their customers won't think - gee, I'd better sell analogue phones instead because the analogue makers aren't making huge profits. Have to go, but will review later [tomorrow or something]. Too many posts!! Mq

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (103632)	9/3/2001 7:22:13 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>> I'm afraid that Q's interests (from a profit perspective, which is what matters to me as a shareholder) are misaligned with their customers. That's a fact. No it isn't, John. It's just your conjecture. If you had facts at hand, you'd be buying or selling qcom instead of just speculating about it. Do you have a position, either short or long, in qcom? uf

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (103632)	9/3/2001 7:41:00 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Well, Microsoft's interests have never been aligned with either customers or business partners, from day one. And one can't say that MS has not been obscenely profitable for much of the time either. These are simple observed facts, but it haven't stopped the stock from climbing in value over a long period of time. You've raised some interesting points in your messages, but I don't think you're really being that objective. It goes without saying, but I'm not equating Qualcomm with Microsoft. Qualcomm has real best in class technical excellence behind them.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (103632)	9/3/2001 8:16:13 PM
From: TShirtPrinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

John, Are you trying to tell me because QCOM makes money on the technology CDMA, the service providers using that see them as competition? I don't get it. Are the Koreans really unhappy that CDMA has been so successful in their country? Sure they may whine (like Maurice's 747's) about royalty rates, but they sure seem pretty aggressive trying to partner w/ China companies. They export more & more CDMA. They make alot of money on CDMA. I don't think they mind one bit QCOM keeps feeding new "stuff" on their chips. I really think it's more like a partnership. It's no fact, JMHO. Tony

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (103632)	9/3/2001 8:32:43 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

John S. please do not mind me interjecting into your conversation with Jon and Maurice. <<But they'll take any other "better" solution to their customer's demands if they can get it. >> Not really, In this business there is something called "the standards". In order for a carrier to use a technology, it must be one of the standards accepted in the world. Until now (in 2 g) you had carriers adopting various technologies, but from now on they really cannot do that. Economies of scale will not permit it, the standard bodies will not permit it, the vendors will not make equipment for it. The 3rd generation paths of this business are established, and as a carrier, there are a few ways you can implement 3g. They are all CDMA. <<In any commodity product (which if 3 billion people get their hands on it, would include wireless), margin pressure is paramount. >> To the equipment vendors, Q simply provides one of the items in the parts list: technology. They would surely like to pay less then 5% for it, but hey, they would also like to pay nothing. Everybody would like to reduce costs. The GSM patents fees are much higher for a Chinese or Korean or a US company, to the tune of 15% (if you are not a member of the GSM cabal). But that's what patents are for. Pharma companies and Universities do it all the time. <<In any commodity product (which if 3 billion people get their hands on it, would include wireless), >> Q is not in a commodity business. The handset vendors are, and Q's presence and technology enables them to compete from an advantage point with a better product. <<No, I'm afraid that Q's interests (from a profit perspective, which is what matters to me as a shareholder) are misaligned with their customers. That's a fact.>> This is true by definition. But it is also the primary differentiating factor the carriers to be a CDMA network. I saw the CTO of Verizon speak at a meeting about the partnership, between his company and the Q. He was not just being political, or partizan. He was very, very sincere about how they depend on innovations from Q, and how fortunate his company was to have been aligned with the Q. Now, can all of this change? I'm sure it can. But it will take a better company, better engineers, better management, better patents, and about 12 years for them just to get to the point where Q is today. Sam A.