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: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (18160)	2/5/2002 5:20:56 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

Cax, << The problem with the cdma market is not q's chip schedule. It is the late launch of 1x in general by pcs and vz, they could have done it the same time as korea. >> They weren't about to, and they had no intention of debugging an immature standard with "trial chips" on a live basis. As you recall I was amongst the most conservative of posters on Ramsey's thread, when it came to projecting when PCS and VZ would launch. I'm still surprised there were no meaningful launches by Christmas, however, so I am mildly disappointed as you are with the fact that there is a paucity of 1xRTT. << China Unicom also would be doing much better if they had launched cdma a year ago. >> Well now they are almost sorta launched. We'll just have to see how they do this year. Selling CDMA against GSM on the basis of digital voice quality and comparative SAR will be no mean feat. Fortunately they will have two-way SMS. IMO, the delay in MSM6300's is going to hinder cdma proliferation in China, which I would think is the primary initial target for that chip, although certainly not the only one. Other than as stated above and the fact that if Qualcomm is going to make it's WCDMA chip penetration targets they need dual-mode samples in manufacturers hands ASAP (although one quarter slippage won't kill em) my concern for Qualcomm's chip schedule isn't overly great, and as stated before I understand why things slip. << CDMA would also b doing better if the lying sacks of shit at nokia, seimans, alcatel, ericy, etc. would have told the truth to their customers by telling them that they are far from having their act together with data products including GPRS. All their lies have helped contribute to the proliferation of the best technology providing the best products. Well business is business.............>> Maybe we should cease that lying sacks of shit, shit. Ericsson, and Nokia have been around data and wireless data a lot longer than Qualcomm, which is not to say that they do everything right, but then again, neither does Qualcomm. If Qualcomm had put a little more emphasis on standardizing underlying services and protocols, and more emphasis on network to network interoperability and not pooh poohed cross border roaming way back when, cdmaOne/cdma2000 would likely be well ahead of where they are at today, IMO. I stood beside some folks from Qualcomm at CTIA in New Orleans in early 1995 while they explained the facts of life to some prospects. They boldly stated that CDMA-1900 would be ready when the prospects were ready to launch, but that GSM-1900 would not. It sounded like the Shoshtek CDG sponsored FUD piece about GSM-800. The prospects went on to inquire about OTA provisioning of subscription with CDMA and the Qualcomm reps stated that although they wouldn't have OTA provisioning initially, that it would follow shortly after initial release. They went on to say that OTA provisioning was not being utilized anywhere in the GSM world and it would be several years before it would be working. Those individuals were with a firm that launched GSM-1900 in November 1995, almost a year before PrimeCo and then SprintPCS launched CDMA-1900. They launched GSM-1900 with OTA provisioning first day (as did BellSouth and Western Wireless early the following year) with an OTA gateway they developed themselves. Were those good folks from Qualcomm "lying sacks of shit" just because they were totally wrong about what they were telling their prospects? Dig in the Qualcomm archives and get yourself a copy of those 100+ page, spiral bound treasures published by Qualcomm and handed out at trade shows in 1995 called "Economics of PCS: A Tale of Two Networks" and "CDMA vs. GSM: a Comparison of the Seven C's of Wireless Communications" and have yourself a giggle - but please don't call the authors "lying sacks of shit". << All their lies have helped contribute to the proliferation of the best technology providing the best products. Well business is business............. >> Did you make a typo or is the "best technology" the one most widely proliferated? <g> ... and yes, business is business. ... and the carriers determine what technology is best, long term. << If there is demand for data, the cdma 1x carriers in the U.S. are certainly presented with the opportunity to capitalize on it this year. >> The window is getting increasingly short, but the cdma 1x carriers potentially do have an opportunity, particularly as it relates to corporate business customers where data transmission rates do count for long file transfers and server replication. The average potential customer who doesn't even yet know he needs wireless data sure doesn't need high-bandwith data in the early stages. It is highly doubtful that there is pent up demand in the US on a mass market scale for wireless data and in particular high bandwidth data, and that is why content, new devices, and some real marketing are going to come into play. One advantage of 1xRTT initially, whether we are talking GPRS or eventually EDGE, is that there is going to be a wider variety of 1xRTT devices available over the next 18 months as the demand for data gradually builds. << It appears that GPRS is a giant flop and I am hoping that it is because it is crap, and not because there is no demand. >> GPRS certainly took longer to implement and (start to) stabilize than anyone anticipated. It is way too early to call it a giant flop. Very few carriers are aggressively marketing it yet, and for good reason. There are still several missing pieces and some of those same pieces are missing for 1xRTT. The Nokia's and Ericsson's of the world certainly don't want it to be too good because of the comparatively large R&D expenditures they have made in WCDMA. << A good question is do you short gsm carriers and go long on cdma carriers if there is demand for data? >> I wouldn't touch a wireless carrier right now with a 10 foot pole. Bad enough I'm heavily weighted in wireless manufacturers. I made a good killing on OMPT and VSTR in 1999 (and fortunately didn't play PCS) and fortunately got out at the right time. No more carriers for me. << If there is no demand for data, then there is just price wars for voice calls ahead. A price war between carriers may do well to increase penetration which helps anyone making handsets/chips. I think the price of the service is more important to customers than the price of the phone, or at least it should be. >> Sensible pricing for data is certainly important - particularly when there is limited demand. << This is sure and ugly month for wireless, to be sure. >> Sector will suck for the remainder of this quarter and next. Hopefully it gets better after that, but there is no guarantee. Best, - Eric -

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (18160)	2/6/2002 3:22:46 AM
From: Yeuk-Hai Mok	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

A price war between carriers may do well to increase penetration which helps anyone making handsets/chips. I totally agreed and I hope this comes true (because of my investment in both NOK and QCOM). I think the price of the service is more important to customers thna the price of the phone, or at least it should be. This is an interesting point but I think this is not the case in US. Since there is NO handset portability between carriers (not even within the same technology, at least in my area), I would NOT paid anything more then a few tens of dollar for a handset in the US. In most case, I'll go for the free phone. And this is the same feeling of many people I know. The issue here is with the carriers not the handset makers. I would even predict that unless a carrier would have a GSM/1X mixed network in the US (highly unlikely) or the carriers changed they way of business, we will not see handset sold by US carrier using QCOM's 6300 chipset. In China, that will be a different story.