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: Maurice Winn who wrote (9102)	3/7/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

What monopoly does tiny Qualcomm have Maurice? Telecommunications is a very large and very vibrant enterprise consisting of many companies and services offered in this country. AT&T, Sprint, WorldCom, MCI, GTE, SBC, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, US West, ATI, Western Wireless, Aerial, PrimeCo, Loral, Comsat, PanAm Sat.....New entrants everyday; LEvel 3, Williams, IWL, IXC, Winstar, Teligent... The LMDS license winners will expand services even more.... cable operators and internet are entering the fray, even electric ute's are joining in. So where is this monopoly in the US in telecommunciations? Yet 90% of the PC are power by one OS from one company. Now that company what's to control the Internet. Bullshit, I say!! Of all those telecommunication service providers above, how many use Qualcomm?? Airlines were deregulated in this country, so now is electric and other energy utilties. Open competition that was unleashed by the US government, overtime. If the governement forces MSFT into pieces, will that be such a bad thing? Worked for AT&T? LU sure as hell out performed INTC in the past year. Oh let me cry for the first billionaire, J.D. Rockfeller because the government broke up Standard Oil. Shareholders and consumers were better off. J.D. didn't lose a penny either. Name me one US company that was ever de-monopolized in the US that failed in a short time?? Railroads, or at least passenger died off, but that was from other forces and not by de-monopolizing. You make it sound as though conservatives embrace monoplies? Well Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and one of the great trust busters in this country. The Sherman Act was fashion and passed in a Republican Congress and blessed by a REpublician Prez. So give the commie, socialist crap a rest. My tax dollars build the Internet. I receive no royalties whatsoever from it. Clinton just extended a moriatorium on imposing taxes on commerce done over the INternet. Seems he digs it. So what is greedy $ill Dollar Gates new venture? Microsoft Store, where he sell his wares at list price. But wait there is a catch, he'll direct you to a reseller for a small fee. Quess what Maurice, Clinton just allowed him to make tons of money without paying taxes!! What a deal!! They are a monopoly and I'll continue to support enforcement of those laws that have worked before. Life will go on and innovation will continue. NO ONE IS THAT IMPORTANT OR VALUABLE!! Life will go on with or without MSFT!!

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9102)	3/7/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 152472

Good rant Maurice - and not OT for weekend QCOM discourse. I was setting up my dad up with his retirement foray into the world of computers and his first Windows 95 $500 machine tonight. I was talking him through the initial set up over the phone. I was trying to explain to my dad the difference between getting on the internet with a Browser vs America Online. Of course, there are basically two browsers to choose from - however one came on the $500 Compaq 180 MHz Gxi (cyrix processor to attack the Intel monopoly) and it was unlikely that my dad would even think about going to the trouble to get the Netscape one. Anyway, having to explain that he could just get on using America Online, without using a browser, I realized that you are right - there are competitive alternatives to browsers besides Netscape and Internet Explorer. Who knows what other ones might emerge? On the other hand, America Online is in some sense an artifact of a pre-Browser world in which easy access to the net was defined in terms of a menu of pre-defined services. So yes, there are competitive alternatives, but I still am a little sad to see the latest glimpse of competition get wiped out so soon. It could have been a contendah... Doesn't that bother you at all? As a champion of a great start-up like QCOM why not a moment of chagrin for the early demise of the promise of innovation in the net world. Maybe there are 100's more to take its place, but what if this was the last best chance for competition and innovation? You put the view that all monopolies are assailable and temporary very well. You said: "If you think Microsoft is such a great monopoly, charging a fortune, then buy the shares - they are for sale! Or find ways to crack the monopoly. Qualcomm found a way around the last mile. Ericsson is trying to find a way around Qualcomm's monopoly. If Microsoft gets confiscated by the mob, then Qualcomm won't be far behind." I can agree that monopolies don't last - but can't you see that they can do a lot of damage to innovation in the meantime? At some point, smart and innovative folks stop trying to fight the dominant firms and are simply bought out or never try. Some great ideas are scrapped for fear that they would damage the installed base of the dominant firm. In the extreme, capital is simply not available to anyone not working within the orbit of the dominant firm. Simply too risky. But so what--you say. All it takes is one David to take on the Goliath. The others simply didn't have the spunk and the brilliance. The prize is the monopoly so don't take away the prize. But the real reason that monopolies don't last is not because finally some David takes them on. It is in the nature of monopolies that after being extremely innovative themselves, (Carnegie in Steel) they reach a stage when the best thing to do is to raise prices (or reduce investment in innovation) and coast. In the meantime, they keep prices up while giving up market share to a competitive fringe. This is the stage when all they have left is the high market share and so they milk it - see AT&T vs MCI. For 10 years did AT&T ever cut price to MCI's level? No, it wasn't in their interest to do so. Just another weekend rant.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9102)	3/8/1998 2:42:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - On Topic - Qualcomm found a way around the last mile. Only if the government regulation (read 'interference') sticks. Currently the baby bells are saying 'It's our switching station, and if you want to be hooked into it you are going to pay through the nose.' Without government regulation WLL wouldn't have a prayer in the US. And even with it, it is going to be a challenge. AT&T is currently taking the baby bells through the court system to make them obey the new access laws. As C. M. Armstrong said 'It's going to take a while.'. Clark PS OT Just for the record, since I appear to be coming across as believing in America, Home of the Regulated. I believe: 1) Monopolies are inherently stagnating compared to a more open system. 2) However, monopolies still have 'rights', if a corporation can be said to have rights. Being a monopoly in and of itself is not reason to be broken up. (Thus, although the OS-2 situation depresses me, it is not, IMO, sufficient justification to be break up MSFT.) 3) Finally, if a monopoly uses its monopoly power to gain a market that it otherwise could not have obtained, then that is where the line must be drawn. (The whole browser/Compaq thing is a perfect case in point.) Or, if it intentionally locks out what would otherwise be substantially better technology (i.e. AT&T in the 70's.). As to whether that means that they need to be broken up, I, like Surfer Mike, do not know. It needs to be prosecuted to see the facts. Thought problem: Suppose Microsoft got a wild hair (not to be confused with a wild Hare) up its b**t and decided it wanted to make X [insert your favorite PC peripheral made by someone other than Microsoft]. They then went to every PC vendor and told them 'You must ship with X or we will not allow you to use our operating system (and you will go out of business because no one else makes a PC operating system).' Is this right? Other than the Sherman Anti-Trust Law they would have violated no laws. What punishment should they recieve given the fact that by the time it hits the courts it is likely to be moot? How many times do they need to do this before it is decided that they are a menace to society? I do not know the answers, but the point is that they are tough questions. PPS Maurice - so that's why 'exhorbitant' was in red.