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: tero kuittinen who wrote (12447)	7/16/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: Steve Hamilton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero - you are so wrong! Only in standby time does Nokia excel. I just received some numbers from the manufacturers themselves: Nokias 6190 (Best numbers on any of there dual phones with best battery): 270 min talk, up tp 300 hrs standby Qualcomms QCP-820 (Most sold dual mode phone) 300 min talk, up to 65 hrs standby The talk times on QCP phones is almost always significantly higher. The weight of these phones is almost identical. BUT... you are missing one of the biggest points. The sound quality of the 820 blows away any of Nokias GSM phones. As a development engineer, and working with service providers, this is without question. In Seoul and in the US, GSM is not popular at all, from an operators perspective, because of capacity. With the customers, the biggest issues are clarity and no dropped calls, at which the QCP phones excel. S

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (12447)	7/16/1998 9:47:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

To Tero: Yes in a culture where only appearance matters, not substance - you claim that is the case in Finland - at least for the young - color coordinated handsets (to match what?) and lightness sell phones to the ultimate consumer. But the consumer who chooses GSM or CDMA is the company that sets up and runs the wireless network. There CDMA is winning in a walk. GSM (again to my knowledge which is admittedly limited) is winning contracts only rpt only as extensions where the wireless network operator already uses (is stuck with) GSM. Can you cite any band new GSM system anywhere now or planned anywhere in the world (outside your beloved fortress Europa) which is not either by an operator using GSM in the past or tied to GSM in some direct way - such as membership in a consortium of GSM operators. To my knowledge all rpt all new systems have chosen CDMA from Australia through Latin America. Even in Brazil and Mexico the "new" GSM systems are by "old" GSM ownership, no? This is the real world where the rubber meets the road and where the future is determined not by teenagers or the otherwise young who choose phones by color or weight not function and future uses. Cheers. Chaz

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (12447)	7/16/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Off Topic Tero wrote, "Swedish pop sensation Meja: "It's all about money, it's all abut dum-dum-duh-deh-dum-dum, I don't think it's funny, to see you fade away!" I suspect Meja is trying to convey the basic lesson in technology marketplace: the importance of economies of scale." Tero, I think you have misinterpreted this artists musings, a common and forgivable mistake amongst inexperienced critics. In order to fully understand the complex imbedded richness of Meja one must take a hard and objective look at the use of rhyme and more importantly, the innovative lack of it. The artist could have cleverly incorporated the word "bunny" in the fifth, but non-existent line. His admirable ability to resist this seemingly fitting conclusion is a clear reference to the Energizer Bunny and the implication is clear - his Nokia has died, bringing him great sadness. At least that is how I read it.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (12447)	7/16/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero - "It's all about money, ... Qualcomm cannot afford to undercut Nokia and Ericsson [on handsets]. Actually, the logic isn't quite valid. The reason is that it is the operators who pay most of the cost of a phone. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Qualcomm's handset costs are greater than GSM costs. As long as the service itself is significantly cheaper to run it doesn't matter. The logic is as follows: An operator is making a decision to set up either a CDMA system or GSM system and discovers that in order to compete on phone price point he is going to have to subsidize the CDMA phones to a greater extent than he would have to subsidize GSM phones. But CDMA offers significant savings in infrastructure since each base station can handle many more users. The result is that, even with greater handset subsidies, the total operator costs are lower for CDMA, so CDMA is what he chooses. And the consumer sees a handset cost that is the same for either CDMA or GSM, but he sees lower per minute costs for CDMA. Clark