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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pyslent who wrote (23317)	6/2/2002 1:23:19 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197247

Consider this: if every GSM carrier in the world committed to GSM1X today, QCOM's business prospects would be no better than they were expected to be 2-3 years ago, when everyone thought that wCDMA would be up and running by now AND paying royalties to QCOM. Obviously that was wrong to think that if everyone appears to be switching to W-CDMA it would be great for Qualcomm. The point is that they didn't switch in part because of failure of the technology. Right? Why did the CDMA based technology fail? Because it was out of Qualcomm's control. If in fact everyone were to announce they were switching to GSM1X, now that would be something to take to the bank, because we know it would work technically, and work for Qualcomm. Ask yourself if your are indifferent to the following 3 outcomes: 1) W-CDMA 95%/ CDMA1X 5% 2) W-CDMA 80%/ CDMA1X 20% 3) W-CDMA 50%/ CDMA1X 50% I for one would be much happier with 3) than 1) which is how it looked to some 2-3 years ago. The reason is that the success of CDMA1X as more than a niche standard allows Qualcomm to put pressure on foot dragging adoption of W-CDMA. If just a niche player, as in 1) Qualcomm would have largely abandoned its ability to influence W-CDMA adoption and the rate of adoption would be much slower. GPRS/EDGE might go on for a long time. In a world such as 3), that thankfully Qualcomm has been working feverishly to bring about, the foot dragging begins to look suicidal. One more question, do the QSI investments make 3) a more likely outcome? I say they will, and have already.

To: pyslent who wrote (23317)	6/2/2002 1:44:35 PM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 197247

pyslent-- if/then "QCOM's business prospects would be no better than they were expected to be 2-3 years ago" There's a lot of stew under the bridge in the last 2-3 years. Is it 4G ex Qualcomm that you're concerned about?