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: Steve Hamilton who wrote (12402)	7/15/1998 6:31:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Steve - Who ever said any GSM phone has a longer battery life than a Qualcomm phone? If you look at manufacturer's spec's, (as most potential customers would) you see longer standby/talk times for GSM phones. Of course it is very hard to guage this because there is a lot of obfuscation (e.g. they quote weight and size in one configuration with duration in another), and I have never seen any independent trials. But, nonetheless, after looking at the specs it is the obvious impression. Do you know of actual trials? If so, Qualcomm would do themselves a big favor by broadcasting them. Clark

To: Steve Hamilton who wrote (12402)	7/16/1998 7:47:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi, Steve. Some of the world's leading mobile phone magazines, such as "Connect", "Mobil" and "TM", as well as dozens of American contributors to alt.cellular are saying otherwise. With the correct SIM card Nokia's 6100, 6120, 6160, 6190 and 5100 models reach five to nine days of stand-by times in real world use. The test conducted by these magazines are rigorous and fair; these people are pros. The verdict: "Superhandy" foams "Mobil"; "Vaerlds baesta" concedes "Mobil". They all report stand-by times superior to any phone ever tested. Here's what the leading Australian phone web site by Phill Bertolus says: webwombat.com.au "Battery life on the 5110 is so good its academic. There just isn't another phone out there that is ahead in standby and talk times." There's some Canadian geek gushing over Nokia for pages at arcx.com "With the 900 mAh Litium Ion battery, Nokia claims 60 to 270 hours of standby and from 3 to 5 hours of talk time. I haven't been able to confirm these numbers, but the battery does seem to keep "going and going". A friend of mine recently reported getting 48 hours of standby on his battery WITH over 2 hours of talk time." You get plenty of evidence from alt.cellular that American customers are flabbergasted by the specs. There's a woman reporting ten-day stand-by time with ordinary use. It's obvious that no Qualcomm phone gets anywhere near. And Nokia phones weigh 167 grams with ordinary batteries, still well under 200 grams with booster batteries. If even Qualcomm itself isn't promising more than "up to 60 hours" for its QCP phones (presumably with the heaviest batteries and no talk time) Nokia is currently outperforming these heavier QCP models by about 300%. Let's be really pessimistic and say Nokia is only 200% better. Nokias cost 100-200 dollars in USA with subscription. Qualcomm will have to either undercut them in price or come up with superior quality to stay competitive. It attempted to sell the Q-phone for 500 dollars last year and got burnt... and that was before Nokia's new launch. I have this suspicion that it will once again try to price the new model above 200 dollars. Lots of luck. Tero