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: Raymond who wrote (17508)	11/1/1998 8:41:00 PM
From: Ramus	Respond to of 152472

Hi Raymond, I think what Qualcomm is saying is that W-CDMA was created with an eye towards not just being incompatible with any system but specifically being incompatible with IS-95(the only current CDMA in mobile). They point out that the differences are not driven by performance advantages....something certain European companies want us all to believe. So....to be fair....Qualcomm says "ok prove that your differences are really driven by performance". Raymond, let me put it another way. Qualcomm does CDMA for 2G. ITU proposes 3G performance goals. Most proposals for 3G are based on CDMA. Qualcomm, who knows how(they have foresight) to relatively easily upgrade their technology to 3G(meet ITU specs) puts forward their proposal(already doing CDMA...years of experience). Their competition(who understandably don't want to compete or pay royalties)(it's just business) comes up with a version which isn't all that different, but just different enough so that it will derail, as effectively as possible, Qualcomms intentions. Then they claim convergence with CDMA-2000 is horrible, their standard is superior and converging will only degrade performance. In short, they are intending to use the standards process and public opinion to stop Qualcomm. And they intend to use the courts and any means they can to get around Qualcomm IPRs. Qualcomm is saying...we have CDMA right here...we have the 3G solution right here but we are willing to compromise. If you have something that should be incorporated into the standard than bring it on...lets all look at it..but lets decide on the basis of technical superiority...not for business/competition reasons. Lets just be fair. But don't think that we are going to abandon our customers just to satisfy convergence .... and not if there is no technical reason for it!! So we wait to see what ETSI, ARIB, Qualcomm et al will do. Raymond, I'm just saying that when I read the proposals I get the feeling that Qualcomm has done their homework...they have mucho experience with CDMA and it shows in their proposal. On the other hand the UTRA proposal seems to lack a lot of supporting data...field experience, simulations that they have yet to provide. Yet, supporters of UTRA will tell you that CDMA-2000 is inferior....and as an example I have heard things like the chip rate mentioned. Raymond I appreciate your comments...I can tell you are thinking...but the W-CDMA guys are the ones referring to the chip rate and saying that is one indication that W-CDMA is superior. They brought it up first. I'm glad you know there is more to it than that. Finally, I don't think a lot of the major differences( like chip rate) need to be field tested an nausium...although some would like you to believe that. An impartial informed analysis would suffice....but might be hard to find on this planet. Best Regards Walt