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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (141172)	5/3/2018 5:49:30 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217910

What Qualcomm could do and what they do do are two different things. They have lost huge opportunity after huge opportunity for a couple of decades. They need to have some blood and guts attitude to succeed. Back in the day George Gilder even argued that they should set royalties at 0%. I explained to him that that was ridiculous and that royalties should be double GSM royalties which were 16%. The bulk of Qualcomm profit is from royalties so 0% would have been the end of Qualcomm. The proof that royalties were absurdly low was the price at which 3G spectrum was sold in Europe and around the world. If the royalties were higher the spectrum payments would have been lower because the total money available was what the subscribers would be willing to pay and with more money going to Qualcomm less would be available to go to spectrum. It's true that Qualcomm could still become world champion but they need the gravel in their guts and the grit in their eye. Being attacked by governments including their own makes it difficult. Mqurice