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 (17510)	11/1/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Tero, there you are indulging your predilection for necroflagellation of equine beasts wherever they might lie. You have hunted some down in the USA! Careful, the USA is quite religiously conservative and prudish despite the obscenities which permeate television, movies and the private premises of the Lincoln Bedroom. Look what they did to the obstetrician and the young homosexual! They are after Bill C and he didn't flagellate anything. But see how close the word fellatio is to flagellate. Be very afraid! I'm with you on the holistic harmony between the buyer of the handset the object and its abstract functions. There is a tendency for anecdotal self-projection onto others. Hence people assume their fat fingers mean everyone wants a big phone. The same sort of attitude which leads to witches being burned at the stake, crusades, pogroms and slavery in tribalistic frenzies of power over those different. So yes, minute charges, coverage, standby times, form, texture, button size, ringing tone, weight, balance, talk times, voice quality, dropped calls, bounce quality on concrete, bounce quality on cork tiles, ear heating, brain absorption of wave functions, funky name, nice sales people, fashionableness, belt clip, accessories, recharger size, colours, materials and the thousands of other qualities and interactions are all important. Nokia is running away with the GSM market and I suspect they will do the same with cdmaOne handsets. This is a serious competition and QUALCOMM doesn't have the luxury to rest on the few laurels they have gathered. They might not even succeed in maintaining a competitive position. Nokia has got the enormous cash flow from GSM success to fund their cdmaOne developments. They are sitting pretty! But it is true that all those factors interact in a fractal manner for the individuals concerned. There is a broad pattern which fits all, and then the individuals spin off into a kaleidoscope of preferences in infinite array. Hence the need for a profusion of models to satisfy everyone. At the very core of the fractal pattern sits the air interface. GSM is an overbearing weakness which all the form factors in the world cannot overcome. This weakness is common to ALL the organic entities in the GSM world. MANY Americans and New Zealanders too are indifferent to smaller size phones - they have paws, fat fingers and eyes unlike eagles. They also don't want them too light - they like a small amount of 'heft'. They also care little about standby times as long as it covers 24 hours. So not everyone wants the wonderful, teeny Nokia handsets. True, in future, humans are likely to select DNA to give smaller size to their cloned offspring. This will confer enormous economic advantage and efficiencies. They will be able to use tiny handsets for one. Air transport could carry thousands in automated aircraft about 5 metres long. Okay, maybe not THAT small. The successful company will provide the economic balance between design and unit costs and profusion of individual needs. Too many is too expensive. Not enough and people will go elsewhere. Nokia is doing very, very well. In GSM anyway and I see no reason for them not to succeed in cdmaOne and cdma2000 too. The Q! is doing okay. It sure is a serious competition, but given the time and money they have had available and the lead time of GSM, they are doing very, very well. Two years ago, L M Ericsson and others were NOT expecting QUALCOMM to be sitting so pretty. I want a zero weight handset, with no need for recharging batteries, with word commands, IP, Web, GPS, panic rescue command, colour 3D screen, alarm clock, calculator, email, 3D camera, stereo sound, all that jazz. With worldwide coverage. And don't forget the vegemite dispenser! I'm happy to pay SD$1000. Mqurice PS: Nihil, it's micturition! Not micturation...just being picky for fun!

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (17510)	11/1/1998 8:30:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Tero - regarding ... If US consumers are so interested in specs of computers (266 MHz versus 230 MHz, etc.) why would they not care about the specs of their phones? Well, once again, my experience (and the experiences of several people I know) was completely contrary to your point. The most telling detail about my first computer (the one that was recently blown up by a lightning strike) was : it was Hewlett Packard (because a trusted friend said "get Hewlett Packard), and the modem was 28.8 or faster. Everything else was irrelevant. The critical factors on my second computer were : it was horizontal (we were sick of "mini-towers"), and it was under $800. Everything else was irrelevant. On our third computer, the sole selling point (other than the fact that it was produced by a "real" computer manufacturer) was that it was $999 (and much more recently produced than the second one, so I assumed (without knowing for sure) that it had better "specs"). It was only after I had been using the third computer for many weeks, and got into a discussion with my ISP about which phone line to call in on (the 33.6K line, or the 56K line) that I realized I did not even know how fast a modem I had. (It turned out to be 33.6) (I couldn't care less). Talking to other people about what they bought, the usual response is something like "It was a Hewlett Packard, and cost $900." No one has ever said to me "it was a 333MHz, 56K modem, 48 MB RAM, HP $1200 computer," because no one cares. If your point is that ads for computers give specs, and therefore that is the true selling feature, I think you are wrong. Same thing with handsets. Everyone I have ever asked has always mentioned the price of the handset, and nothing else. (I suspect if I ever talk to someone on a TDMA system, the topic of high monthly fees might come up). Jon.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (17510)	11/1/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Drew Williams	Respond to of 152472

<<There are no small and succesful handset companies. All of the early promise of Siemens, NEC, Panasonic, Lucent, Alcatel, etc. has faded away. The differences between the phones of these companies and Big Three models may not have seemed big... but they were enough. The volume is king these days and R&D effort demanded by diverse technologicl challenges of handset manufacturing is sky high. >> I admit to not being familiar with these companies GSM handsets, past or present. In fact, except for Panasonic, I am unfamiliar with ANY of these companies ever attempting to sell any consumer product in the United States. (Business to business sales is a whole different story.) So, while they may be household names in Finland and sell lots of consumer products there, that is not the case here. I am a stockholder in Lucent, and the only Lucent products I ever see anywhere are their excellent business telephone systems. Siemens is one of my company's major clients, so I have been keeping my eyes open for their stuff. I know they employ tens of thousands and have more than sixty manufacturing, distribution, and sales facilities in the USA (we designed and installed the electronic security for some of them), but so far they are invisible at the consumer level. My point is simple: Any product's success depends largely on marketing, and marketing a product is much more than a compilation of specifications. Any or all of these fine companies would have a difficult time marketing any consumer product in this country -- even if that product is markedly superior -- because they have no brand awareness or credibility at that level. (That, and you can imagine the off-color jokes if another predatory company intent on mergers and acquisitions were to attempt to "swallow" Siemens.) (Read the last sentence out loud if you do not get the joke.) Nokia has been very successful at the consumer level, but it took them many years and the substantial assistance of Tandy Corporation. Tandy was a wee bit late to the cellular party and decided to get involved with cellular only after then Tandy chairman John Roach's wife sat in her broken down Cadillac on a Fort Worth, Texas, freeway for several hours in August (read: well above 100 degrees fahrenheit) more than ten years ago. (At least, that's what they told us at a sales meeting!) Tandy traded the financing for a joint venture manufacturing facility for Nokia's technology and also provided sales and marketing through their 7,500 Radio Shack stores. Until two or three years ago, every cellular phone Radio Shack sold was a Radio Shack branded Nokia. Radio Shack chose not to continue the exclusive arrangement, although they continue to sell Nokia phones, largely because Nokia was late to the table with CDMA, which Radio Shack recognized as superior. P.S. In the interests of fair disclosure, I own an Ericsson AMPS phone (purchased before any CDMA/GSM/TDMA service was available locally) that my wife carries around. I carry another Ericsson phone, this one TDMA, that my company gave me. Comcast is also one of our major clients, so we use the phones they recommended. Both Ericssons have given good service. Size and weight do matter, of course, and these are about the right size for my wife and slightly too small and delicate for me. I continually hit the off button with my cheek while I'm talking and have broken two antennas and the flipping keypad cover! As for standby time, they are more than adequate. I recharge mine in the car once a week or so, as needed. Sue charges hers about once every two weeks.