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: Clarksterh who wrote (53066)	7/2/2006 3:40:20 PM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197008

The report of a breakdown in negotiations and the death of "CDMA" at Reliance could be exaggerated. There has been almost pure misinformation in the press. The whole concept of the cost of a chipset as part of the royalty is dumb ["Qualcomm charges a royalty in the range of $13 to $15 per CDMA chip, it's much less at around $3 in countries such as China and Korea, the source added." ] How much does Qualcomm depend on India's 2G? How much of fiscal '07 earnings is or was expected from India? I appreciate Jim's optimism, which has been based essentially on numbers and prospects for future earnings, and I'd like to see his and others' analysis for earnings -- not sentiment-- given the new challenges to Qualcomm's business. I believe Jim has allowed for some PE compression, but we may need more. edit: Hooray! GSM operators have switched to CDMA and Qualcomm has gained revenue from 70 million former GSM subscribers!!!!!! A billion are expected to try to ride IJ's train in the next few years!!!!

To: Clarksterh who wrote (53066)	7/2/2006 4:07:11 PM
From: scratchmyback	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197008

Clarksterh wrote: Jim - you are in absolutely no position to talk about "volume of posts" and FUD. Yours just happens to be FUD the other way. Have we just degenerated into YMB. I think we are coming close. I mostly agree on this comment, although that "yours just happens to be FUD the other way" quote kind of hints that also Eric's posts are FUD. Which they are not, they are just Eric's personal views based on his unique knowledge and experience of wireless. If Eric and slacker wouldn't be writing here, this whole thread would be (mostly) just a cheer leader party filled with comments on how great a company Qualcomm is and how bad GSM is and how many conspiracies there are going on just to drive down Qualcomm's share price. But then again, I'm just a euro-nut enjoying his regular 4 week summer holiday right now, so what do I know? Well, I would like to know what the communications market will look like in 2015, but I suppose I won't find the answer here. But I do enjoy (in a perverse way) reading all the comments here, so please keep up the good work! BTW, my view on 2015 is a completely techonlogy agnostic one. I believe in multiradio technologies, and I honestly believe that the end-user won't (or maybe even shouldn't!?) be aware of the technology that he is using. As long as I can do my (wired) web surfing without any problems, I'm not even interested whether it is through ADSL or cable modem or something else. So why should I be interested in the mobile technology in itself, when I am just a stupid end-user of the mobile device? When it comes to mobile, I am currently using GSM & WCDMA, and will probably start using also WLAN (and VoIP) by next summer. I have no idea what it will be in 2015, but I would guess that here in Euroland we might be using some upgraded version of WCDMA for truly mobile stuff, and whenever in a stationary mode, maybe some evolutionary versions of WLAN, Wimax, Bluetooth or something else. But please don't ask me what kind of royalties Qualcomm is going to collect from 2015 version of WCDMA, I have no idea of that. Except that it probably won't be very high. Sorry about disturbing your party...

To: Clarksterh who wrote (53066)	7/2/2006 5:15:01 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197008

Jim - you are in absolutely no position to talk about "volume of posts" and FUD. Clark, I respectfully disagree: Jim does not present “fear, uncertainty and doubt” to this board regarding Nokia, as far as I have seen over the years. Jim may follow Maurice Winn’s comments about Nokia’s tactics from time to time, but Jim tries hard to reign in his cheerleading when ask. How does Eric L. respond to challenges to his points compared to Jim? Have we just degenerated into YMB. I disagree vehemently with this comment as well. Is one man’s FUD another’s cheerleading? I don’t believe so, but I’m willing to be educated – if you have the time. Some time ago, I suspected that Eric L. was paid to post on these boards. There is no sin in presenting a case for GSM over CDMA, and there is no sin in pointing out Qualcomm’s shortcomings. However, I have found Eric’s attempts at impartiality to be deeply flawed. I rarely agree with his reasoning, but then again, I have an engineer’s bias against sales people going back many years. I must quickly state that I do agree with your appraisal of his understanding of standards - without reservation. The upshot here is that I have convinced myself some time ago that Eric was/is paid to post here. I’ll continue to read his posts with that understanding. As a disclosure and a mea culpa, I created a post about GSM’s delayed development in GPS and inserted a sentence denigrating GSM carriers. I openly admit that this was to goad Eric L. into a defensive response. This worked as plan: His response and defense of the GSM carriers was fulsome and had the usual denigrations for Qualcomm. IMO, his defense of GSM involves a trashing of CDMA, and not a review of comparative advantages of the technologies. This is where FUD comes from, IMO. Respectfully, GPS Info