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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: qdog who wrote (7711)	1/29/1998 8:25:00 AM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

qdog --When you can find time please e-mail me the difference between an ASIC (Application Specific Intergrated Circuit ) and a DSP (Digital Signal Processing/Processor ). As you can see I know the definition of them and all I want to really know is in fact they are two different products or the same thing reffered to in a different way ? I would have sent this e-mail but I know you can't be reached for a good reason. Thanks Jim

To: qdog who wrote (7711)	1/29/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

qpup, ah, nothing (with the possible exception of napalm) as likely to generate a little kennel venom like an AM post from tero, tora, tora! Keep those molars sunk deeply into the Nordic infidels pooch--like to help, but I can't find my asymtotes from my erlangs, and this tero dude sounds like he may know his way around the frequency spectrum. Michael, engineer: unsheath your slide rules, the heathen are at the gates. Attack without mercy. (You guys oughta try this--pulse rate is absolutely zooming.) An innocent question in the midst of this war zone. After we kindly obliterated Japan in WWII, those ingrates promptly built new steel mills based on hot stuff '50's technology while we were still sporting Carnegie's finest from the first part of the century. Next thing you know, those dudes were making better steal at a fraction of the price that the Yanks could offer, and promptly buried us with vastly consequential, multi-hundred billion effects that lasted for 30 years or more. Catch my drift? Could it be that by being first to the plate with GSM, that the Europeans have unwittingly found themselves invested in yesterday's news whilst the stumbling, fumbling, chaos of the nutty gringos gave Jacobs and Viterbi time to cook up the Holy Grail? So now maybe we're in the cat bird's seat as a result of historical accident and a, god forgive me, paradigm shift, and I'm gonna be richer than Croesus cuz I mortgaged the Hobie to buy the Q? That's it--no more French Roast--just tell me if any portion of this caffeine induced diatribe tracks with reality. Surfer Mike

To: qdog who wrote (7711)	1/30/1998 3:34:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi qdog, and thanks for refraining from ad hominem attacks. Point 1. Nokia has R&D facilities in both China and USA. This does not mean either are highly developed markets for digital mobile telephony, it just means they are important markets. Point 2. In northern European countries over 95% of the mobile phones now sold are digital. This is one definition of a highly developed market for digital phones. In some countires over 30% of the households have a digital phone. This is another definition of a highly developed market. In USA not even 5% of households have a digital phone: USA is 3-4 years behind. Even countries like Italy and Spain have a higher market penetration of digital handsets than USA. The fact that Nokia sells analog phones in USA does not reflect badly on the company... it does so also in Brazil. It merely reflects the stage the country in question currently is at. Why is this fact that has been verifies by WSJ, Businessweek and Fortune in their recent and well-read articles so hard to admit? I mean, USA is the undisputed world leader in software, computers, etc., etc. Why would anyone want to claim that USA has to be the leader in every high tech field even if it flies against reason? I know you invoke the name of God in your dollar bills (which makes me a bit queasy)... this does not mean USA was destined to lead every market in the world. I'm referring to American media sources here when I state that Europe is more sophisticated and technologically advanced when it comes to mobile phones. I won't bother to tell you what the European media has to say on the matter. Show me one (1) source claiming USA lead in the field of digital mobile phone field. Point 3. "when Motorola decides to dominate they will hurt everyone". Motorola has now had seven (7) years of steady decline in its core market, mobile telephones. It had 65% of the phone market, it will finish 1998 with barely 20%. It was undisputed number one, now it is number three without a bullet. This is all due to the underdeveloped US mobile market. The country hung onto analog model too long and Mot missed the digital boat. It appears to be a little late to climb back. The fact that USA did not agree on one national standard is directly responsible of the consumer resistance to digital phones. The standard situation is an unfathomable mess for the average consumer. In Europe, one standard created a customer friendly environment, drew 20 companies to develop and market GSM phones, created fierce competition, pushed down phone prices, expanded the market. The result: experts now forecast 80% market penetration in digital phones in Europe before the growth starts to cool down. GSM created a product that is doing what the PC was unable to do: break down the resistance of anti-technology consumers and produce a monster consumer hit that is literally ubiquitous. Thanks to one standard approach. Point 4. "Twenty phones?? Anybody in Europe/Asia/US/world sells their wares in this country" Yes... but those twenty GSM models available in Europe are available to one standard. In USA, how many phone manufacturers offer a cutting edge CDMA phone? Three? Of which two have the same chip set? Is this competition? Qualcomm's latest entry, the Q-phone would be literally unsellable in Europe. Nobody would by a phone with that kind of talk time/stand-by time. That technological stage was surpassed circa 1995. The older Qualcomm phones are heavy, bulky, outdated monstrosities. I raised the question of handset quality here almost two years ago. People said that the standard is so superior that CDMA phones will soon surpass GSM phones in quality and several manufacturers are flocking to get their phones on sale. Let's look at the world's top three manufacturers, responsible of 65% of the world mobile phone sales. Ericsson: no CDMA phones; Motorola: phone introduction delayed at least three times: Nokia: two phones based on the 2100 technology introduced five years and two technology generations ago. CDMA phones are not catching up with the technological innovations of their GSM counterparts. How could they? R&D investment in the GSM sector is ten times higher than in CDMA sector. Phillips, Siemens, Sony, Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola are pouring billions of dollars to develop the latest hot GSM gadget. I ask you, what economical model predicts that a proprietary standard will win over an open standard such as GSM when the open standard is approaching 100 million customers and is the main focus of the six biggest spenders in the mobile phone biz? Nokia's GSM phones are three years more advanced than its CDMA phones and Motorola is following the same strategy. The indifference shown to global developments in the field of mobile telephony in this thread is really remarkable. Remember when I broached the issue of third generation mobile systems in this thread and people just laughed at the mere idea? Remember when I said that Nokia/Ericsson model for 3G now has the backing of NTT-Docomo and received a one-line answer: "Really?". Well, yes, really. There still is an air of denial about the 3G here. People cannot believe that USA could be by-passed by Asian-European alliance in the matter of 3G. They cannot grasp that the combined size of European and Asian markets in 2001 will be such that the manufacturers in those continents will not need the approval of Americans in the standard issue. USA can be forced to accept the new standard or it can adopt its own and become a smaller market. It is widely reported here in Europe that the new European/Asian standard is not compatible with Qualcomm's brand of CDMA. Only with GSM. No matter what you think of my opinion, I suggest you look into this matter before Wall Street starts to add it all up. Tero