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: marginmike who wrote (18061)	11/9/1998 10:48:00 PM
From: Jim Fleming	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

If you want to take a look at Sprint's "Touchpoint" sprintpcs.com Jim Fleming

To: marginmike who wrote (18061)	11/9/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Personally, the one thing I hate on my handset is the antenna. I would love to have a "no antenna" cell phone, and may eventually get an 800 MHz Q-phone. (MOT's StarTac still has an antenna, I assume). Jon.

To: marginmike who wrote (18061)	11/10/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Let's compare apples to apples. Considering the Star tac is 40% lighter and has a battery life 4X longer is a death blow for the Qphone. First off, the Star tac is ugly. Even the judge (MOT vs. QCOM) said something like the Startac is boxy unlike the Q's sleek appearance. If some fuddy duddy patent judge notices this, what will your average consumer think? If you compare claimed talk times I think you will find they are the same for the small battery and the MOT phone has the edge on the Q, however, talk times are dependent upon proximity to the base and network settings. Also, have you compared battery weights for both phones with extended batteries? Maybe MOT has a real clunker of a battery that chunks right onto that little box. The info you pasted doesn't mention. I would think the differences noted are due more to the way the manufacturer chooses to calculate times and battery size than actual differences in actual energy consumption. As for weight, I don't think most consumers care much about a few ounces, anyway, MOT has chosen to quote a weight with the optional slim battery. MOT only offers this tiny battery so the display model can try to look slim and sexy. The Q achieves this with the standard battery. In short, I think you are over-reacting to the MOT propaganda. What does " standby times up to and between" mean anyway? Does that mean it will never be below the shortest time listed? I think not. QCOM's specs are much more straight-foreward, without this awkward mincing of words. Most consumers in the U.S. anyway buy a phone with a certain number of minutes included for a fixed price. Usually between 120 mins. and 600 minutes. Even 600 mins. is only 20 mins. of talk time per day - who cares if the phone only goes 90 mins? Well, some do and they will either buy the extended battery (up to 150 mins.) or get the MOT phone with a bigger battery. Hey QCOM gets the royalty anywho. Different strokes... QCOM will never have 100% market share (again) but to say the Star Tac is the "deathblow" for the Q is silly.