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: Eric L who wrote (48922)	11/14/2001 11:25:25 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric, Qualcomm has NO architectural control of the WCDMA air interface, whatsoever ... or the other air interfaces that are part of UMTS, or UMTS. Does any company have that control? The reason I ask is because I believe the non-cdmaOne/CDMA2000 sectors are royalty games. If I'm right, neither Qualcomm nor any company could be the chimp you feel Qualcomm is. --Mike Buckley P. S. Hah! I surprised Paul by changing my standard insert. Actually, I'm just reviving an old one that I stopped harping about because nobody ever paid any attention to it. :)

To: Eric L who wrote (48922)	11/15/2001 3:17:33 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> You have, IMO, just attempted to rewrite the Gorilla Game. I'm just trying to interpret it, Eric. We've been doing that here for almost 3 years. >> I sure hope you are not going to attempt to tell me that you can't accomplish handover in the asynchronous mode of WCDMA. Believe me, the thought never crossed my mind :-). I'll leave that debate to the engineers, and listen carefully to their discussions. My belief in the essential nature of qcom's ip is based on 1) their success bringing 3G to market (which I'll plead down to 2.5 G if you object) years ahead of anyone else, and 2) the fact that virtually every member of the gsm community has signed up and will pay big bucks to use Q's patents. Reports are they tried to work around those patents for several years before capitulating because they couldn't do without them. If there's no way around the qcom patents, why should I be concerned what architecture the wcdma manufacturers adopt? >> The value of architectural control is relegating wannabe gorillas to Chimp status. I don't think so in this case. If a 3G tornado materializes, Q will be the Gorilla of 3G air interfaces, and most likely, the King of 3G chipsets. jmho, uf

To: Eric L who wrote (48922)	11/15/2001 10:04:03 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

They have No market share in WCDMA, and will have no market share in WCDMA other than what they'll scrap for on equal terms with other partners for some portion of the chip business. I wrote some posts in '99 and '00 that looked at Qualcomm's competition in the ASIC market....primarily LSI Logic and DSPC (bought by Intel). It seemed inevitable that these companies would eventually manage to take away marketshare from Qualcomm, particuarly on the low-end. Qualcomm's gross margins should be inviting attack from other seminconductor companies. This has not happened in the CDMA ASIC market. It would be as if Intel licensed all comers, and continued to dominate sales of the Pentium II as well as the Pentium IV. The Pentium IV is understandable since it is a bleeding edge technology in which Intel has architectural control. However, how long does that control matter? Once the standards have been set and the technology had been around for a while we would expect competitors to enter the market. Curious what you think the explanation is.... Slacker