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: Ingenious who wrote (12565)	7/18/1998 9:09:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

On Monday morning quarterbacks.... I am really struggling to understand how people can question the marketing prowess of a management team that has grown revenue from $800mm to roughly $3.5bb in two years (100%+ compound growth). Tero can talk all he wants about Nokia's products and consumer preferences, but the bottom line is that QC has been capacity constrained for the last nine months and continues to be so. The company has had some manufacturing issues with both the QCP's and the Q1900, but problems such as these are hardly isolated to Qualcomm. Nokia's 2180 CDMA was initially a disaster; GTE (for example) rounded the things up enmasse and shipped them back because of an unacceptable amount of dropped calls. While NOK eventally fixed the software (and the product now seems more stable), you don't hear anyone calling for management's head on a platter. Such is the advantage of being a bigger, more diversified company. I won't start on MOT's problems, because by the QC-thread's standards, Galvin would have been burned at the stake by now. People seem to believe that Irwin and Harvey do everything at Qualcomm and that the company is hopelessly inbred. Such is not the case. Look no further than John Major, who was recruited out of MOT, to turn around the infrastructure operation. Oh well, it's late and I am in a foul mood, so I better stop ranting before I (inadvertantly) piss somebody off. Best regards everyone, Gregg

To: Ingenious who wrote (12565)	7/19/1998 8:42:00 AM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 152472

The bottom line is that for builders and carriers there is a benifit, and cost advantage. As CDMA becomes more proloific it will increase. The Analog and GSM's cant improve their efficiency's and now compete by cutting into Margins. The curve will evetially tilt towerds CDMA. Right now Cdma is cheaper in most markets to TDMA. Analog carriers have cut prices dramaticly to compete. Eventially when Cdma gains more users its effiencies will have alot of room for improvement. If im correct The CDMA infastructure is most effiecient at a certain volume as percentage of capacity. This will alow CDMA carriers to lower prices further. As with the bandwith issue, I have heard differing opinions. However if a car is 3X more fuel effient its still a signifigent advantage. Enough so that CDMA has been chosen for next 3G by all major manufacturers.