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: JeffreyHF who wrote (62318)	4/10/2007 1:46:17 PM
From: Q8tfreebe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196961

My thoughts exactly. Nokia is trying to paint itself as the white night. The B.S. about QCOM's royalty rate causing the cost of devices to be so high as to limit 3G's success is laughable. Just look at LG's recent 3G for all win. And they probably pay a higher net royalty rate than Nokia.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (62318)	4/10/2007 2:09:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196961

Jeffrey, one of the reasons I continue to own QCOM is because the arguments on the other side are so absurd that it's hard to believe they believe them themselves, but so many people repeat them that I think they really do believe their own idiocy. I have seen so many examples of totally stupid false ideas that having some more out on the rampage isn't surprising. You picked up on this one, but I'm going to labour the point because it annoys me so much: <the negotiations carry big consequences for how much consumers and equipment makers will pay for WCDMA phones and will help determine how quickly the standard takes hold. > If QCOM cuts royalties to Nokia, it will make not a dollar difference to what they charge for their cyberpones. If QCOM gives their technology AND ASICs to Nokia for NO CHARGE AT ALL, it would increase spectrum prices and not affect service charges or phone prices. The price subscribers pay for phones and service is NOT a cost-plus price where suppliers add up their costs and charge a percentage on top. The service providers charge what the market will bear. If they can get any supplier to cut their prices, that doesn't cause a lower price, it causes a fatter bottom line for that service provider and that's what they want. If everyone got a lower price for some input, such as QCOM royalties, then the service provider prices would probably drop. Perhaps. But maybe not because there are so few that they are running an oligopoly in which none want to cut their prices. It's only if a Ryanair enters their markets that they might be forced to take action. But that would be if phone prices halved, not if they dropped by $5. The big component in what service providers charge is for minutes and megabytes, not handsets. Over a two year period, with arpus around $50 or so and even the cheapest "plans" being something like $30 a month, the cost of service is about $720 at the very least. Phones are replaced about every two years [and more often for young people]. With wholesale prices of about $200, that's a total of $1000 for the total cost of phone and service. That's on a very cheap plan. At a more normal $80 a month, the total cost is more like $2000. The royalty at QUALCOMM's full price is $5. If QUALCOMM reduced their royalty to $2, that would be a $3 saving. Taken off the $1000 total cost, do you or anyone really think that the market for 3G will take off, or even slightly accelerate? So, IF the savings are passed on to subscribers, there will be near-zero acceleration in 3G uptake. If the savings are NOT passed on, which is far more likely, then there will not even be the slightest change in rollout rate. The main reason 3G in the form of W-CDMA has been slow to rollout in Europe [it is not slow in Japan, New Zealand and some other places] is because the dopey W-CDMA proponents put it in 2GHz where it takes a LOT of base stations to fill the aether, aka provide coverage. Nokia sells base stations. I suppose they weren't very worried about service providers and subscribers paying for a LOT of base stations. Nokia also enjoys huge market share in GSM, for which handset makers outside the slimeball GSM Guild pay 16% royalty. THAT is THREE TIMES as high as QCOM's charge. Do the journalists and others not know that or are they simply morons, insane, criminals in the pay of Nokia, anti-Jew, or what? Nokia's approximatly 40% market share in GSM at the peak was NOT something they wanted to lose any time soon. So every day that they could delay 3G was another day they enjoyed huge monopolistic trust-based profits. Putting their property into the GSM Trust, like the early oil industry before the trust busters went on the rampage, enabled them to run a global scam against hard-working Asians who had to pay the full royalty rate. Build 450MHz CDMA2000 EV-DORB with 6% royalty and OFDM as an option in a wifi multimode, multiband Anita [TM] cyberphone with lots of service providers and we'd see how fast 3G is adopted. DELIBERATELY crippled by Nokia and the slimeball GSM Guild, in 2GHz, it's no wonder W-CDMA has been slow. Don't forget the total 12% royalty on W-CDMA either. Why use W-CDMA if CDMA2000 total royalty is only 5%, if high royalties are the barrier to demand as claimed? The greedy GSM Guild is charging 12% for something which does LESS than CDMA2000 for which TOTAL royalties are only 5%. King George II, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Barak and others are going to have to wade in and whack Nokia and their money-grubbing thieving pack of hyenas including their EU political backers. The Euroserfs are stuck in the GSM mire. Brent Scowcroft had better phone some of his Washington mates, like King George I, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Hillary et al. Uncle Sam is being robbed, the Treasury supplies cut off, USA citizens burgled, technological development slowed, American business stymied. All because a greedy pack of slimeball GSM Guild hagfish want to run a cartel and rip off Euroserfs and everyone else. Mqurice