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: Mike Buckley who wrote (50942)	4/7/2002 1:43:10 AM
From: techreports	Respond to of 54805

Ya, I know Nextel has the exclusive use, although I thought that might have been only for US carriers. Or Nextel has the the right to license Qchat to other carriers. Still, Qualcomm should make sure China Unicom has Qchat as soon as possible. I really think that's been a big hit with business users. Nextel's margins show this. They should make sure all non-US CDMA carriers have Qchat. The only way to succeed is to differentiate with products and services that people want. Right now, CDMA vs. GSM are not any different. That's why CDMA isn't stealing market share when it competes against TDMA, GSM, or in Japan. Pricing plans are so complicated, so I have no idea if CDMA carrier such as Sprint or Verizon passes the cost savings on to the consumer. There are so many factors that effect voice pricing. With data, however, people will be able to compare the speeds they get. I would think. In the voice world, everyone says their calls are crystal clear, but how do you measure who has the best voice quality. I think they are all the same. I'm more interested in who offers the lowest price. The quality of voice isn't even something I think about. When it comes to data, I would be interested in how much per meg and how fast is it. We've been told that this is where CDMA shines. But if consumers can't rate services then they don't know. Just like with computer processors. Intel has the fastest processor in terms of mhz, but a Athlon running at slower speeds actually runs the application faster (the chip even costs less, although there is more to the cost of a PC than the CPU). But most consumers don't know this. Consumers have to be able to know the difference! Some wanted Qualcomm to spend millions on an adverting campaign. I'm not against it, I just want to be shown that Qualcomm would receive a return on their investment in some kind. It doesn't necessarily have to be a monetary return. I just don't think a CDMA Inside campaign would get people to start asking, "Is your service CDMA?" Although, Qualcomm could partner with the CDMA carriers and offer them cash in return the carriers promote that they use CDMA/BREW in their commercials. Intel uses this strategy and I think this is part of the reason why the OEMs are so loyal to Intel. Not only would increased advertising by CDMA carriers help bring more CDMA adds, the non-CDMA carriers might begin to consider switching to CDMA if they received 50-100 million in free cash per year. This could easily be justified if a carrier like Voicestream switch. Think of the revenue their 6 million subs would bring if they switched to CDMA?