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: kech who wrote (23318)	6/2/2002 2:15:35 PM
From: pyslent	Respond to of 197250

Hi Tom, i would agree that all other things being equal, a 50/50 split between wCDMA and CDMA2K is better than a 95/5 in terms of QCOM retaining control and economic clout. However, 50/50 split between CDMA2K and some unnamed technology that may or may not be CDMA-based is definitely worse. I don't know what that alternative may be, but the market (and some individual investors <g>) abhor uncertainty. I'm a little uncomfortable discussing stock price on this thread, but let's just say that when I bought stock in QCOM, it was under the assumption that someday, QCOM will get a cut of every cell phone ever sold. I just bemoan the fact that that outcome, although still possible (maybe even likely), is less certain than it was 2-3 years ago. Winning a technology war is fun, but had things gone according to the Euro's plan, wCDMA would have begun to push out legacy GSM networks by now. Foot dragging on the part of GSM operators would not have occurred if wCDMA technology had been viable from the onset. Now the sentiment on this thread seems to that wCDMA may never be economically viable. Anyway, I agree; all these things were outside of QCOM's control.

To: kech who wrote (23318)	6/2/2002 2:17:25 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197250

Two or three years ago, not everyone thought WCDMA would be up and running. This hype was produced largely by GSM manufacturers and service providers who previously agreed to a standard that would exclude CDMAOne from ever being adopted in Europe and many other countries outside the U.S. Recall that the reason for adopting the WCDMA standard was the notion, since proved false, that somehow WCDMA would be able to circumvent QUALCOMM patents, especially those which had been cross licensed to Interdigital Technologies (who hears that name any more?). In fact, for two years at least, we've been hearing from QUALCOMM officers that WCDMA has a lot of problems and is unlikely to be adopted for awhile. They were right on the button, and of course, by stating that opinion, it is also true that QCOM was hoping it might influence some of the GSM-GPRS-WCDMA proponents to consider a cheaper, more reliable alternative. Technology has a wonderful way of solving old problems. Today, the solution for WCDMA is more refined chips that actually work, even though the cost of WCDMA is still higher than for CDMA2000; plus compatibility across systems, which now turns into a selling point instead of a block to further CDMA inroads. It is now clear that the Europeans were more interested in blocking CDMA than in acknowledging that the technical leadership in wireless had swung over to QCOM. Now they have no choice. They have to compete with a better performing lower cost 3G system, and they need compatibility with CDMA just to preserve their own GSM business from losing out to CDMA. What was not clear two or three years ago was that the Europeans would prefer lower growth, lower profits, and worse wireless performance in return for retaining GSM leadership. This is not rational from an economic point of view, but I guess it makes sense to those with other non-economic agendas. Art