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: Mark Fleming who wrote (114086)	2/22/2002 5:44:21 PM
From: qveauriche	Respond to of 152472

Thanks Mark. sometimes the simplest answer is the best.

To: Mark Fleming who wrote (114086)	2/22/2002 8:51:51 PM
From: waverider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Think Kleenx. Think Xerox. As in... Can I have a Kleenx? Would you make a Xerox of that? Those products so dominated their industries that people still ask for them by the original company's tradmarked name. I can just hear it now. "Call me on my CDMA if you can't reach me at home." Problem is, by the time the world telecommunications sector pulls out from under all their debt to go do CDMA one wonders where QCOM will be...or better yet, what their stock price will be. Checked out Xerox lately? Dominance means nothing if the world is against ya. wr

To: Mark Fleming who wrote (114086)	2/22/2002 10:12:09 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

There is no one that knows anything about wireless that doesn't admit CDMA is going to have 100% of the 3G market, be it CDMA2000, W-CDMA or any other flavor. If that doesn't translate into good long-term returns, I don't know what will. If that is true, then long term returns will be enhanced if the company doesn't continue to chase opportunistic boondoggles to advance CDMA over GSM. If 100% is guaranteed, why bother? This business of owning wireless spectrum in various and sundry parched parts of the planet is hardly core competency, and it is a distraction. For example. Which distractions together have so far destroyed more wealth than they have created. Perhaps they will net out to positive some day, but why adopt this extra burden? But yet the company (who arguably know more than you or I about these things) is still embarking upon these tangents. Which leads me to believe that while all of these 3G outcomes involve CDMA, that Qualcomm's ability to monetize the outcome depends heavily on the intermediate path, and possibly the end itself. Or in other words, "100% of what?" is at question.