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: BDAZZ who wrote (102905)	6/16/2011 1:38:55 AM
From: waitwatchwander	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197297

You are hopefully just confused about "Jacobs "Platter". Here is a link to that article. It was written in 1996 and has nothing to do with PJ. Message 26261999 To set the record straight a copy of the PM's I sent to you in response to your request for clarification is pasted below. Your PM response to me on this matter has been excluded. In response to slacker's request for a return to sanity, I requested of SI Admin that my supposedly off limits post be deleted and they obliged. As far as name calling goes, I was trying to explain to you that I find it challenging discussing matters of difference with you given your "all is great and wonderful" stance. If you consider my choice of words there name calling, I apologize. That certainly wasn't my intent. ------------------------------------------ (previously posted material follows) To: BDAZZ (who wrote) 6/14/2011 7:41:02 PM From: waitwatchwander I don't see the world in the same manner as you and, at times, I find it hard to follow your logic. As far as tablet comments from 2 years ago, whatever I said or you said is not that important. What is important is what the company said and they were pretty clear that always-on smartbooks (aka tablets) were an upcoming product category to which they were very interested in promoting. They pumped the category at CES in 2010. They also noted the ipad kiboshed those deliverables last fall. In order to play, they needed Snapdragon II. That was delayed. We are now on the verge of whatever they and their partners plan for in their "always-on smartbook" category. I didn't buy the ipad of which we are now proud owners. The person would did paid close to a grand for it. It is top of the line. I paid an additional $50 for the nifty magnetic cover. That outing was an eye-opener in itself. I went to our local Apple Store which is in a Regional Plaza I arrived about 30 minutes after its morning opening. Most of the parking lot was still gated to deter commuter parking. The only part of the plaza that I noticed as being busy was the Food Court. As I entered the Apple Store, I immediately noticed it already 20 to 30 people milling about. An Apple envangelist immediately approached me and I had my cover and was out the door in less than a minute. Given the lack of Qualcomm enabled tablet product, serious opportunity is being missed. If I was to buy a tablet device today, it would have been a Nook Colour for $249. I also checked out the Blackberry Playbook and found it adequate but not really worthy of a price twice plus that of the Nook. I have posted on numerous times over the last 10 years about areas where I have questioned Qualcomm's forward progression. Way back in 1997, lack of progress with cdma is what brought me to SI. I am quite use to their two steps forward in thought and one step backward after action. I see that as their "Partnering Effect". Small term pain for long term gain ... hopefully. I don't see the SI game as a competitive matter of debate. I am here solely to share things that I find of interest and think about and to take in the similar actions others. ---> company is one of the best success stories in history That was the dream ... I now bet and believe much less in that outcome than I did back in 1999. Experience has tempered my enthusiasm and I have much less confidence in the ability of Qualcomm related people to deliver timely and desirable product. ---> Qcom should be more than it is? I don't set their expectations. The above "should" is based upon my understanding of the words coming out of their mouths. I'm just a realist who listens intently to what they tell the world. All the best. ps Common ownership of stock has nothing to do with being in agreement. We all have different levels of tolerance, expectation and reasons for owning the company. I have a substantial investment of my time and effort in Qualcomm. It is mostly just water under a bridge but it does help me understand the potential of the company meeting its immediate goals. These days, my major interest is just to stay current of their immediate undertakings because most of their 5+ stuff has now moved well beyond my risk profile. I'd be surprised if a lot of Qualcomm retail shareholders are not in an identical position to myself. ---> We both own the same stock, but I own it more intelligently than you." ... you are satisfied ... Interesting! What's most tiring is having to deal with the attempts of others to attach words and thoughts upon those they desire to challenge. I find Jeff does that a lot. It would be most pleasing if folks would just speak for themselves. I PM'd this because I suspect others are getting tired of all this bantering. Please feel free to post a copy of it if you feel otherwise. ----------------------------------------------- To: BDAZZ (who wrote) 6/14/2011 10:53:16 PM From: waitwatchwander ps Whatever you are sorry about, it's not at all clear to me. Do you care to expand on that matter?