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: Maurice Winn who wrote (129449)	6/1/2003 7:06:18 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

MQ, we observe the same thing and see different conclusions. Yes. I think it depends on where we stand. If you stare at the equator from the southern hemisphere and will find yourself looking North. Me, in the northern hemisphere, I'll find myself looking south. So even if we stare towards the same thing, and both of us with stars in our eyes... chances are we are looking at different constellations entirely. And not all things are safe to look at either. For example, as one gazes upwards towards a Globalstar satellite, important to ensure that it does not simultaneously transit the sun. Or else. Same with investments. Metaphorically speaking. Folks posting to this thread continuosly bring up the relative technological efficiencies of CDMA versus TDMA versus OFDM and so on. As if this was some of some major relevance. It isn't. [provided that they are close] Betamax was superior on any technology scale to VHS. No doubt about that. And even today, high quality studio recordings use Betamax over VHS. What determined that most illustrative battle of competing technologies was channel to market and market development. Or in other words, the vested interests of a select few. And rest assured the only thing that made one technology preferable to another was that one of them was "not theirs". In a battle of vested interests, unless consumers pull out their wallets to vote, their interests sink rapidly to the bottom of the pile. The same is happening to Qualcomm with CDMA. I suspect the eventual battle of the bits won't be decided by spectral efficiency or power consumption, provided that they are not obviously too disparate in capability. Since I see that the technologies are not miles apart, I suspect the outcome will be decided by the confluence of vested interests and how they interact. My thinking regarding the dominance of 4G is influenced more by the players at the table and their relative spheres of influence than on the technologies they bring to the table. John

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (129449)	6/2/2003 10:56:29 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

By including radio frequency in GSM, OFDM, 802.11g, CDMA2000, WCDMA and maybe some other stuff too, we could have Google right there in our brains anytime, anywhere, and the ability to talk with anyone, anywhere. I'd like that. Nice to see that someone gets it. The services and modes are going to be a smorgasbord with Q as the provider of a lot of the applications and a whole lot of the RF stuff. You unwittingly also pointed at the "killer" app issue. There will be no "killer" app, simply a big menu from which each user will customize as he sees fit. Customization is the killer app. Dr. J. is once again in the vanguard on this point. It is the reason why Q has its hot little hands in so many areas. Academic derelicts with their heads in the clouds once again have failed to appreciate the future.