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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FactsOnly who wrote (18156)	2/5/2002 2:48:19 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

Goodluck, << Eric you are right 5100 was delayed. But if I remember correctly it is because service providers needed a cheaper and less featurized chip first. So 5100 was delayed to make room for 5105. If you look from the point of view when market needs 5100, it is now. Do you agree? >> No, and I don't totally buy the fact that the MSM3100 based MSM5105 was snuck in the lineup unceremoniously (and without a press release) in September 2000 pushing back the more robust MSM3300 based MSM5100 "because service providers needed a cheaper and less featurized chip first" either, although that explanation was offered. There were some statements by Qualcomm, in writing, at the time the MSM5105 was announced, to the effect that using the proven MSM3100 platform was a safer, faster port, of MSM500 1xRTT features than basing on the MSM3300. that is from remembrance and sorry I don't have the exact source of that statement or the exact wording, but it was in material on Qualcomm's web site back when the MSM5105 first appeared: Message 14333937 In addition, and around the end of December 2000, early January 2001, the Korean Press was commenting on the fact that what CDG and Qualcomm were calling a commercial launch was in fact a commercial trial, and were conjecturing that what was holding up commercial launches was handsets that would support AOD/VOD. In early February 2001, early in the CC for FQ1 2001 earnings IMJ addressed both the value tiered MSM5105 and the AOD/VOD issue, stating that the "extra buffering" of the MSM5100 would better enable that capability. It is entirely possible that delays in finalization of cdma2000 Release A that offer alternative coding schemes (that will permit downlink speeds of 307 kbps and theoretically 614 kbps. Our friend S100 has followed the convolutional encoding/decoding for SCH (MSM5105) v. convolutional and turbo encoding/decoding for SCH (MSM5100) matter. Message 16912668 The lack of turbo encoding/decoding was one of the issues flagged in the Korean press along the way. I've often wondered if there might not have been a patent issue with the employment of turbo code, since seeing this: Message 16778793 ... and I'm still wondering if Qualcomm is paying royalties to Spectra Licensing or France Telecom. ... so although I'm sure that there was valid reason(s) for the MSM5100 being delayed 4 months even though the MSM5105 got out the door on the MSM5100's target , and the MSM5500 narrowly missing its production shipping target, I still raise an eyebrow at the use of the term "on-time" in Qualcomm PR referring to these chips, and I will raise one again if the MSM6200 & MSM6300 sample on their new targets (which I sure hope they do) and they ship "on-time". - Eric -