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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Duane L. Olson who wrote (7911)	11/24/1997 3:42:00 AM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

Duane, > Qualcoam was able to grow from vitually nothing, against much > larger, well-entrenched competitors, based on its development > and licensing of "superior technology"--CDMA. Tests appeared > to indicate... I note that you put "superior technology" in quotes, and that's where it largely deserves to be. You also correctly used the term "appeared to indicate." In fact, many of the claims just don't prove out to be true in the field. They were initially claiming up to 20x improvement vs. analog, now it's looking like 6x at best, putting it in the same range of capacity as GSM. They marketed it well, but that could hurt them too (see below). All this was substantiated in a major article in Telephony (a trade weekly) article a couple of months ago which absolutely rips them apart and essentially says they lied up-front about the capability of the technology. Mike Murphy follows this one on the short side, and he notes that this brings a huge liability risk. Many of the newer entrants to the cellular biz spent billions on frequency auctions, then more on QCOM equipment. If the technology is really only 1/3 as capable as QCOM indicates, that leaves a lot of companies with wrecked biz plans, and good grounds for lawsuits. I have mixed opinion of Murphy in general, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do see the risk if the expectation and results are so dramatically different. Another issue is that they are being sued by both Motorola and Eriksson over patent issues. Messy stuff, but they can probably afford it least. mg

To: Duane L. Olson who wrote (7911)	11/24/1997 3:54:00 AM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 25814

Duane, Just another thought. GSM, at this point, is the absolute entrenched standard in Europe, having virtually eclipsed analog and with no attempt to create a second digital standard. It is also widely embraced in many Pacific Rim countries, and is designed with the idea of quick portability from one area to another (using smart cards) as well as global roaming. In the US, most handset sales are still analog. It'll take a while for digital to take over, and I expect a shakeout before a final "standard" is established. So your assertion that CDMA has "grown" is also somewhat false. Their stock price has grown nicely, as have their costs and (recently) their revenues. But they still have only a tiny installed base, when compared to the entire world, and they are no longer in development mode. They need to perform and sell against some of the biggest and most sophisticated consumer electronics companies around, all of whom will be pushing the non-proprietary standard. IMO, they are the one most likely to fail in the likely "shakeout" in the US. They've already lost in most of the world by being so late to market. mg

To: Duane L. Olson who wrote (7911)	11/24/1997 1:11:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

****off topic****** Duane, If you are still interested in QCOM, I would strongly recommend the thread on SI: "Qualcomm--Coming In to Buying Range?" I am totally prejudiced, long on QCOM, and think the thread is the best. Posters tolerate lots of pro-con, great mixture of telecom professionals, EE's, finance pros, etc. Almost zero flaming and much good humor. I will refrain from commenting on Michael Gat's posts here because the discussion is more appropriate to one of the telecom threads, Ericy or QCom. Suffice to say that the GSM/TDMA v. CDMA argument approaches religious intensity at times, and that Mr. Gat's views are not, shall we say, universally held. The Telephony article he cites has been refuted conclusively, IMO, and the publication itself is considered little more than a TDMA mouthpiece. If you're still long QCOM, join the thread and keep the stock! Best, Mike Doyle