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: qbull who wrote (32452)	2/15/2003 5:49:42 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 197804

>> of course there's no mention that intel's chip is gsm/gprs and not cdma. What's even more amazing is that the UBS Warburg "semiconductor" analyst puts Qualcomm in the group who are going to get hammered by the elephants. Isn't it time the SEC and industries looked into setting some sort of certification of credibility (at least ethical standards) for the "industry experts" employed by investment companies? I only say this because Qualcomm (and TI) have led the way integrating "PC like" functions onto cellular silicon which obviously includes the RF that the UBS analyst states has been and may continue to be Intel's Achilles' Heel I'd also expect the UBS analyst to know that the big fabs produce Qualcomm's chips. However, in this matter, the reporter has tactfully structured his article to compare brussel sprouts with donuts. What good is economy of scale if you can't produce what the market demands? The street is milking Intel's announcement for all it's worth. At this time, that may well only be, a way for the "hedgers" to reallocate their funds (especially their Intel funds). Justice for one and all. Trevor

To: qbull who wrote (32452)	2/15/2003 6:07:20 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197804

Qbull, an interesting article “Elephants on a Chip” Mr. william.alpert@barrons.com article, in addition to the point you made “of course there's no mention that intel's chip is gsm/gprs and not cdma”, also contains a number of other inaccuracies and oversights. 1. >>> “These next-generation chips will feature tiny transistors and, eventually, radio circuitry. Technology for producing such chips, said Thornhill, is beyond the capability of nearly everyone but Intel, TI and IBM. <<<< They are hardly “next generation” chips in the sense of 3rd generation wireless as they only support the outdated 2nd generation GSM/GPRS. Currently, radio circuitry is “beyond the capability’ of Intel. Currently, and apparently well into the future ( according to their spokesperson who was quoted in another article), CDMA is “beyond the capability” of Intel. 2. >>>That's bad news for "point solution" chipmakers like Agere, Broadcom, Intersil, Marvell Technology, Nvidia and Qualcomm, according to UBS. Such firms don't have much in the way of their own chip factories, says Thornhill's colleague Alex Guana. If small firms go to IBM for production, says Guana, they'll still lack the economies enjoyed by Intel with its huge PC chip volumes, or Texas Instruments with its cellular handset volumes. <<<< Apparently the UBS “analysts” and Mr. Alpert are unaware that Qualcomm is the worlds largest fabless semiconductor company and that they also use IBM as one of their foundries. 3.>>> Intel's Manitoba chip includes processors and memory circuits, but still lacks the radio circuitry that would make it a true wireless system-on-a-chip. Radio circuitry has proven tough for Intel to perfect, but the UBS analysts think the chip maker will eventually succeed. <<< This statement,“Radio circuitry has proven tough for Intel to perfect, but the UBS analysts think the chip maker will eventually succeed”, along with the other misstatements completely discredits the UBS “analysts” and the author. Eventually “Elephants on a Chip” could also fly given enough BS as is included in this article.