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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (119116)	5/22/2002 9:49:48 AM
From: q_long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<<They want to place a 10% surcharge on each application. seems silly to me. >> Not exactly. QCOM collects 10% of the download price I belive the carrier gets a similar percentage the developer gets the bulk around 80%. The win for qcom and the carrier is differentiation of CDMA and some more MOU's

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (119116)	5/22/2002 9:58:44 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 152472

they want to place a 10% surcharge on each application. seems silly to me. i don't have to pay 10% to Microsoft when i buy Quicken. Well....your point is well taken but I think it underscores the position that Qualcomm has managed to put themselves in. Take a look at the number of carriers that are working with Qualcomm. qualcomm.com Qualcomm is going to have almost the entire CDMA POP base covered by BREW. You are right that MSFT would have trouble charging 10% on every application designed for Windows....but doesnt that tell you that Qualcomm has tremendous leverage over their value chain? That being said....I'm still not entirely sure how successful BREW will be versus J2ME. However, ultimately this will be decided by the market.....and the early returns from Korea have been pretty encouraging. Slacker

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (119116)	5/22/2002 10:09:05 AM
From: DWB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Define "10% surcharge". As I understand it, whatever the cost to the user of downloading an application (ringtones, Tiger Woods golf, location tracking), QCOM gets a percentage of that (I've heard it's 10%). I believe the carrier gets a cut of the cost (again, I've heard 10% thrown out), and the application developer gets 80%. Now, what about that is ridiculous? QCOM has developed a program that allows carriers to offer a universe of different applications on their network, nearly independent of the handset being used by the user. They also get increased MOUs on their system, driving up their revenues, and allowing them to promote their data offerings. This same program allows applications developers to program in a common language, while being able to validate their operability (True BREW cert.), and offer their applications to large carriers for sale. In return for this, the developer gets 80% of the sale. No, you don't have to pay 10% to MSFT when you buy Quicken... but then, you're not downloading it to your mobile phone either. I don't think that's a real good comparison. Have you noticed how many vendors take credit cards these days, despite the fact that Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of the sale? Seems like making it easy for the consumer to get what they want has some benefit for sales.... Rather, for your example, if MSFT wanted to make Quicken available over Verizons network, how would they do it? They'd get it to work as a BREW application, and then you'd pay something to download the application. QCOM would get 10% of that cost for providing them a programming environment that works within a mobile data environment. My guess is that the "winner" in this fight (QCOM, NOK, SUN, whoever) will be the one with the compelling applications that consumers crave. Then we'll know if 10% of the cost is too high a price to pay. Doesn't seem like it's holding back Disney, or EA sports, or the WWE, or Verizon, or KDDI, or the Korean carriers... DWB