c2,
<< Not a gamer, so please take these comments with a barrel of salt. >>
I usually do, don't I? <g>
I do think that you are a wannabe gamer, just like Qualcomm is a wannabe wireless gorilla.
Why not break down and read the manual?
No one says that you have to become a "gamer" at that point, but having discoursed with you on various threads, I suspect you would enjoy the book, and you would enjoy the fine discussions that take place here a bit more.
<< A significant IPR portfolio that cannot be avoided seems sufficiently analogous to architectural control to render it a functional equivalent.
It might seem so to you.
So far as I am concerned it is not remotely close to being sufficient. Without control of a proprietary open architecture there is no gorilla.
I happen to think that Qualcomm serves as a great example of a company with control of a proprietary open architecture (and all the other gorilla ingredients).
At the same time the obstacles they face in terms of trying to position themselves as the market leader in the broader industry they aspire to dominate, serve as a reminder that in a major sector, (general networking or the corporate desktop for example).
<< Ask Nokia. Without a license, its plans to become dominant in 3G infra were dreams. >>
Have you examined Nokia's IP portfolio? It is massive, but it is used in a somewhat different fashion than Qualcomm uses it.
Same with Ericsson.
Both have significant ESSENTIAL IP in WCDMA. They cross license to partners (and in some cases accrue revenue) but they play a different game than Qualcomm.
Neither has (full) architectural control of WCDMA either because they are both committed to open non-proprietary and commitee-based architecture and standards.
One should not say that they lack control of wireless (or WCDMA), however, because they in fact have tremendous (shared) control of the industry (along with others) that are out to "Shoot the Chimp!" and in this case in the big wide world outside of CDG with its relative handful of carrier inhabitants, Qualcomm is the apparent chimp (so far).
Going back 15 ears one could say that AT&T & Motorola controlled the industry because they controlled the prevalent architectures, and going back 6 or so one could say that Ericsson and Motorola controlled it for the same reason.
Today the dominant players in wireless are Ericsson and Nokia. You can measure that by revenue, year to year growth, whatever, but also by control, or failing control, at least influence, and of course market share.
Ericsson is a bit weakened by macro economic factors (and some questionable management focus and structure) at the moment, but they still have tremendous influence in the industry.
Nokia is a clear cut King in Moore's terms in handsets, and Ericsson could be (although more likely the dominant Prince) in infra, respectively the razors and razor blades of wireless.
Now as far as Nokia's "dreams ... to become dominant in 3G infra", they have set an target of 35% market share (for WCDMA infra - not 3G infra). That's aggressive. I happen to think unrealistic - although certainly suitable and sensible as a target. Ericsson still dominates infra. Ericsson - not Qualcomm - determines whether they achieve that target. Qualcomm collects some toll, but in the case of Nokia, infra (as opposed to handsets) I suspect is a relative pittance.
<< If every user of the architecture is required to go through an IPR toll-gate, then there is control over the architecture, though it may not be absolute control over every detail. >>
No. That is absolutely not architectural control. Thats a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch, IMO.
You'll need to go back to Moore's source (Morris & Ferguson - "Computer Wars") to drill down on that concept further.
I have, several times, and I would not consider myself to beeing intellectually honest, if I made that streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
Qualcomm traded architectural control (their 5 principles) for the IP toll-gate.
I can't criticize them for that. They were under they ITU gun. It was realistically the only avenue open to them.
The competitive advantage that Qualcomm enjoys in the cdmaOne/cdma2000 world by virtue of its gorilla hood and control of architecture can be dramatically compared to the absolute lack of advantage or control that they have in the WCDMA world where they have to react to every nuance of architectural change on the chipmaking side of their business, and can't control the pace or nature of deployment or evolution on the revenue producing side.
They are attempting to maintain control of the architecture they evolved (and doing a stupendous job of it) even while being forced to work in a "committee" modelled on 3GIG/3GPP, while to some degree maintaining a semblance of control of the value chain that has formed around the proprietary (open) architecture they do control, even though that value chain, for the most part favors open architecture, because the carrier customers who pay the bills, overwhelmingly favor that.
<< In Q's case, however, it is a leading manufacturer and seller of CDMA equipment, and is likely to establish a significant if not preeminent role in 3G CDMA. Until that happens, however, it seems presumptuous to afford it gorilla status. >>
They have already, been through 3 years of hypergrowth (based on the subscriber metric) and developed a sustainable mass market.
They are a local gorilla, without any reservations in my mind.
In an industry as large as wireless, I have no reservations in breaking down the industry by segments based on technology.
No discontinuous innovation has displaced theirs, nor does any immediately threaten.
For now they are the cdmaOne/cdma2000 gorilla replete with architectural control, value chain control, high switching costs for those that have elected to deploy their technology.
They also will benefit from the deployment of competitive technology by virtue of royalties paid to them on the technology that they don't control- a very powerful plus.
Now if all that would just translate into a little better revenue and earnings growth ...
<< A teenage chimp that has a good chance of becoming a 3G gorilla >>
I have my reservations about that.
Right now the world is trying to to figure out what 3G is, but let's leave that one alone, as it gets somewhat complicated.
They'll become the 3G gorilla, in my mind, if and when cdma2000 is more widely adopted than UMTS and only when 3G shows clear signs of displaceing 2G, and all-IP packet data starts displacing voice.
May I respectfully close by saying:
RTFM
- Eric - |
