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 (10125)	4/21/1998 8:46:00 PM
From: califjk	Respond to of 152472

Where's the pooch? Here doggie doggie.Sniff Sniff

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10125)	4/21/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice, listening to cc as I type. Keep wondering about the reason for the mystery behind these to be announced licensees? Has QCOM ever done that before? Logic would suggest that nodic company. The secrecy must be a condition and may even be related to some settlement to avoid the December court date? May be just wishful thinking. QCOM also liked to bundle news releases in the past. May be this is just a repeat. As usual, QCOM manages to leave us investors with some uncertainties, even though it may be all good this time. If Mexico, China, G* and Japan all come through this qtr, we can be off to the races. May be we should all meet at the race track for next qtr's e release and listen in on the cc via our dual mode Qs. Ramsey

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10125)	4/21/1998 10:07:00 PM
From: waverider	Respond to of 152472

>>Diamond H, I enjoyed Ramsey's Jasmine. Jasmine holds many fine memories. It spreads like cdma and is difficult to untangle. Smells wonderful.<< Maurice, you are a poet. Rick

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10125)	4/21/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice; I think you hit it on the head. Was chatting with Renbycage while reading the report. My immediate reaction was Ericy is the "unannounced" licensee. If it were not material, they wouldn't have said anything. Furthermore, Ericy not only got G* contract it got one larger than Qcom's. Ericy has therefore gotten on board the CDMA train, already. And, Ericy has been rather quiet recently I doubt seriously that settling the litigation alone is the reason not to announce, if it is Ericy. My guess would be that the whole deal hasn't been worked out and that it goes beyond just a simple license agreement but partnership arrangements and the like that take a lot of time to negotiate, so the deal is not final and there may not even be a number for the licensing fee agreed to. Let's keep our fingers crossed. If it is Ericy, then the price could jump 10 points even though one can quibble with whether the numbers have been massaged.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10125)	4/22/1998 12:18:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

If I may make the odvious observation. QCOM has only one licensee for this new fangled WCDMA. Could it possibly be that they signed many more? You are all assuming that the licensee was in IS-95, could it be in ASICS or WCDMA where we are expecting more people to sign on? Lets not get ahead of ourselves now!

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10125)	4/22/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice..the more I think about it, the worse I think the quality control problems Qcom had with many of its phone keyboard connectors this quarter was. Not only why did it happen? Also, why did they not have enough quality control to catch that sort of thing? Think about it. We on this thread all give Qcom the HUGE benefit of the doubt because among other things we are impressed with the Saga of their introduction of a significantly better telecoms technology into the market, despite the huge odds of massive opposition from the entrenched and very rich encumbants. (Ericy et. al.) But put yourself in the shoes of the avg. cell phone buyer. Or that of the sales guy who has equipment from several lines to push along with that service contract. What sort of impression do you think this apparantly widespread keyboard quality problem creates? You know, the problem you yourself faced. This comes from this upstart cell phone company that you have seen produce these sort of very fashion forward adds on TV a few times. I mean you know Motorola, and its flip phones and that sexy but very pricy little StarTac. And you are seeing this European Ericcson guys a lot and some Nokia company. They seem to be ok, maybe not the highest end. But who are these Qualcomm guys. Are they some southeast Asian company? Anyway, pretty tacky quality. And they're trying to sell you on the idea that their PCS system is higher quality. But the coverage is still spotty, and only some of their units will roam everywhere. Not their model that supposedly competes with that little Motorola StarTac. And they can't get even their keyboards right. Sounds like a promise big, deliver small company to me. Think I'll stick with what I know and trust. (You understand this paragraph isn't me talking. I'm doing the walk in PCS phone buyer, or the guy selling to him.) Right???? I think its a big no no. Can they recover? Sure. But they blackened their eyes a fair bit I suspect. At least the return and replace policy seems right on. My impressions of HP were indellibly created by a series of calculators, all of which had EXCELLENT mechanical quality (in contrast to say Texas Instruments). And all of which ended up having a lot more features than I shopped for. After the first two I essential never looked at anyone else's models again. Just didn't care about supposedly better features. Wanted the basics to be rock solid and feel good. And besides, I figured HP often knew what I needed better than I did, ahead of time. It created a lifetime loyalty to them for me. Carried over to such things as printers. Big benefit of the doubt, anyway. Same thing with Sony. Makes me willing to pay up for the Brand. Up to a point, at least. Especially if I'm not sure I know all the factors I'm gonna really value before I make the buy decision. I know you are sensitive to this kind of thing. Your thoughts?? Doug