No way is this a substitute for CDMA wireless as such.
If successful, it could make CDMA wireless more useful by making connections among devices easier over short distances.
Haven't read the entire article, but how is it a substitute for CDMA? I thought ultrawideband isn't a short range technology, but a long range technology? I think the military has been using ultrawideband for some time.
Trouble is, QUALCOMM is showing the positive cash flow generated by its various segments (and also the cash drain from investments). One of the key issues that investors ignore is the very issue that keeps Warren Buffett from investing in high technology. It is hard to calculate the true cost of being at the cutting edge.
Yes, but Qualcomm continues to add more cash to the bank. Sells more CDMA ASICs, generates more in CDMA IP, and continues to impress me with new technologies yet spends considerably less than most companies. About 440 million in R&D and they have staprack, ZerOne, GSM1x, WCDMA ASICS, more patents, ect..
I do agree and I also wish Qualcomm would be more careful with their investments.
The Baby Bells monopoly on the copper wire infrastructure is what is protecting them, not their brilliant management or technological innovation. Therefore, in-state per minute rates are twice that of state-to-state long-distance.
Ya, I don't know if wireline companies are really facing that many problems. I think the person who quoted wireless is effecting wireline just sees Qwest going into the crapper and thinks there must be a fundamental flaw with wireline. Wireline, as far as I know, is still a cash cow. That said, wireless is competition to wireline. Although, Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, and AT&T are part of big wireline companies.
As for long distance, I think it makes sense for the baby bells to get in, because they still have a lower costs. They will always get better margins than AT&T or Sprint, because they own the local lines. But at current long distance rates, it doesn't make sense to enter this market and open up their local markets to compeition which generates a ton of their profits.
btw, i think we are starting to see people question whether it makes sense to offer 3g or whether people really want broadband....could be wrong. I've seen a few people question whether 3g makes sense.
here's a article that says broadband is dead.
pbs.org
Works both ways, when times are good everyone thinks things will happen faster than actuality and when times are bad and companies are more interested in getting rid of debt, people think it will take years and years before broadband becomes accepted. The CLECs were doomed from the very start. So was @home. The cable companies didn't want to share profits with @home. Just common logic. Companies don't want to share profits with someone else if they don't have to (ie RMBS). If we believe that theory, could we not say the same thing about Gemstar? Maybe, but there is no way around GMST's IP, so they will eventually have to share revenues (unless they find a way around their IP). Look at CDMA and WCMDA. Companies will go to great lengths to not share profits. I think that's one thing i've learned. The second is that things just take a lot longer than most people think. Ya, ok, maybe Segway will totally change society, but it's going to take time!
What is dangerous is the all out attack on American business as composed of phonies, crooks and mean people who will do whatever it takes to hurt their employees.
and
Beating up on US companies as a "class" is fun for some, but might, just might, be difficult to sustain over the next months and years.
If you are a buyer of stocks, this is great. I am starting to see people question whether 3G makes sense. Articles saying broadband is dead. People questioning the revenues and profits everywhere. A few companies go bankrupt and people now think that this is an indication of all companies. This produces cheap prices. If you want to buy stocks at cheap prices..well, it requires people to get all emotional and sell for reasons that are not real (ie 1987 crash and fear of depression, ect..)
Buffett: "Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is."
George Soros: "The prevailing wisdom is that markets are always right. I assume they're always wrong."
Buffett: "The biggest mistake an investor makes is to use a rear view mirror as a map for the future."
Every telecom company that goes bankrupt, the better a investment the others become. Everyone talks about the middle east and how peace seems very unlikely. You *could* disagree. Every day there is war, the more unbearable life becomes, thus the greater chance both sides will decide peace is the only option. Err..or all out war.
Buffett from the 1994 letter: "Fear is the foe of the faddist, but the friend of the fundamentalist."
Buffett: "you pay a very high price for a cheery concensus."
Buffett: "Aim to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."
So in my opinion, let people attack American business. It just produces better prices. We'll get through this. We've faced tougher competitors than this before. The more serious problem, imo, is a possible housing bubble and consumer credit bubble.
A potential positive for Gemstar:
Very well could be. If the merger is turned down, Merdock (did i spell that right?) will get a much sweeter price for DirecTV. Also look like a genius in the process.
Otherwise, it's beginning to look like this is going to be a shallow and short recession. I've been worrying and waiting for the consumer to quit spending (like businesses quit spending in 2000), but it hasn't happened, and with each passing month, it gets less likely it'll ever happen.
Jacob, i don't know about that. You could easily argue that every month that passes, there is a greater chance it will burst. Housing prices have grown faster than incomes. Like 10% a year, whereas, incomes have grown like 3-5% a year (i could be wrong on my figures). This is not sustainable. If Buffett, lynch, and others are correct and their theory that markets regress to the mean, then the housing market will correct. Give it time. The stock market correct because internet companies were a house of cards and they generated business for other real businesses. Although, could you argue that housing prices do not necessarily have to track incomes? There are more people today than 30 years ago. Less land per person and this will continue till the end of time. I don't know..
btw, not only did the consumer not fall, they continued to buy a ton of cars and houses! That seems very unusual? While the NASDAQ crashed, the DOW is flat for the last 3 years.
just my 2 cents.. |
