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 (18468)	11/18/1998 2:32:00 AM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

blind man! What you won't admit is that you understand that Q! isn't Philips; Philips doesn't make money everytime Motorola sells a phone. Or Samsung. Or Nokia (CDMA) or a whole host of others. Awhile back there was an article that speculated that LU might sell $1 Billion in Brazil alone... for which Q! MIGHT make $50 Million. From one licensee's activity (out of almost 60). In only one country (out of +130). Just last quarter Q!, a company that didn't EXIST 10 years ago, had revenues that went from 600 million to +900 million, year-over-year: a 50% expansion. Don't pretend for one moment that Q! is merely a handset manufacturer... that's like the blind man in the Indian fable who touched an elephant in only one place and described him as "very like a snake"!

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (18468)	11/18/1998 3:23:00 AM
From: brian h	Respond to of 152472

Tero, In your area where there is no choice among various service providers. I mean really no choice among CDMA, GSM, TDMA, and analog service providers. Weight, look, and size may count. Not here in California, USA. You can boast all you can on Nokia phones in only GSM coverage area such as your own country or even Taiwan and China. Care to open up your home market for CDMA? Europe? China? Taiwan? Industrial policy does count. Not phone's weight, size, and look. At least for experienced wireless users. As I pointed out the following example. My close friends - they recently purchased 4 Q-820 phones through AirTouch for their salesmen. They chose among AT&T, AirTouch, and Sprint PCS. They did not even consider Pacific Bell Mobil (GSM camp). They are experienced wireless phone users themselves. Among them they already owned phones from ATT (MOT's Startac) and Sprint PCS (QCP-2700). Pacific Bell is the first one out because no national coverage (Free roaming to cover California and Nevada). You know Pacific Bell has many many Nokia phones. Weight, look, and size are never issues to consider among these providers. ATT does has a nation wide coverage. But the plan is only a marketing hype for $0.1 everywhere in USA. The truth is 9 Western States (free roaming charges) are covered under the plan. One still have to pay some form of roaming charges if one does not choose the most expensive plan. You know ATT has all kind of Nokia phones (Show US flag with Nokia logo - how ironic!). Again, Weight, look, and size are never issues. Sprint PCS has spotty national coverage. Though phone quality is very good in its coverage area. But too many holes to be covered just yet. Thus, out of the picture. Weight, look, and size are never issues. AirTouch get everything they want. Digital and analog coverage. mature deployment and very reasonable pricing plans. AirTouch rep. came in recommending Q-820 (Not Q phone) not Nokia's CDMA phone. The rep. was very honest because my friends asked about Q phone. He did not hype Q phone for a higher return for him. Again, weight, look, and size are never issues. After the purchase and using Q-820 for almost a month. All salesmen are so happy on every feature AirTouch provides so far. Weight, look, and size are never issues. Brian H.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (18468)	11/18/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Now now Tero--remember, compare bananas to bananas: "Philips handset division is losing 500 million dollars this year. Their leading model weighs around 100 grams, has voice activated dialing and solid standby time. This company makes better phones than Qualcomm and has a strong brand to boost their sales." That "leading model" is not CDMA now is it? Do they make better CDMA phones?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (18468)	11/18/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: Qualcomm is the leading manufacturer of CDMA phones currently, having shipped 1.4mm handsets last quarter alone and the company remains capacity constrained. But that is beside the point. You seem to believe that QC's subscriber business faces a binary outcome that is somehow congruent to Philips' situation. However, as I keep pointing out, the business case is very different. If QC loses manufacturing marketshare it is offset by increased licensee royalties and ASIC sales. That's the company's major strategic advantage which, for some reason, you continue to ignore. Philips' situation was zero sum; its losses were another company's gains...such is absolutely NOT the case for Qualcomm. Irwin Jacobs is perhaps the greatest PROPONENT of the competitive "blitz" that you suggest is a major risk factor. Competition, as EXEMPLIFIED by MOT's new StarTac, improves CDMA's competitiveness vis-a-vis alternative technologies. Products improve, prices come down and overall CDMA marketshare increases. Think about it...what has better economics? Collecting royalties (and selling chipsets) on twenty-five million phones, with an ASP of $250, sold during FY99 or making a 5% manufacturing margin on a total market of seven million phones sold at a $350 ASP? That was precisely why Qualcomm licensed so many handset manufacturers in the first place. As for the spec's on MOT's StarTac...I hope they are as good as represented because...interestingly enough...they are superior to MOT's similarly sized TDMA-based offerings. Perhaps you are missing another nail in the coffin for GSM? I do not remember indicating that Wall Street is "too dumb to live." I suggested that portfolio managers do not like controversy and few have sufficient conviction to stick with a complicated story. That observation is based on my experience as a portfolio manager and several years, at the beginning of my career, as a Street-side analyst. More to the point, why did you not address my segment-by-segment evaluation of Qualcomm? We would, for a change, be debating something that can be objectively quantified. You comment about QC being a bet on 3G with a two year time clock borders on absurd. BANM announced yesterday its intention to deploy cdma2000. Moreover IS-95 is a deployed and rapidly expanding standard in the U.S., Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Japan and thirty-three other countries (as I have said many times before). W-CDMA, as a standard, has not even been finalized yet and Ericy isn't promising delivery of commercial product until 2002-2003. So..you are suggesting that a technology that is four years away, with no demonstrable technical merit over cdma2000 (available in 1999), will somehow cause the IS-95 universe to stop dead in its tracks within two years? Come on now...let's get real. Tero...have you ever spoken to a network operator? Airtouch operates a number of European networks and several of its subsidiaries/affiliates on the Continent are public. I think you would find it very illuminating if you took the time to educate yourself about the real world realities of the wireless business. You should try to place yourself in the shoes of the head of strategic planning at a small network operator..say DoCoMo. Right now DoCoMo is the dominant wireless provider in Japan. But darn it, DDI/IDO deployed IS-95 and they are rapidly building out their network. The same DDI/IDO will be able to offer 3G-based class data services through either HDR or cdma2000 next year while DoCoMo will be hoping, praying, waiting (and praying) that Ericsson can deliver its W-CDMA solution, presuming that W-CDMA doesn't wind up tied down by litigation for the foreseeable future. Seems to me you would not relish your position. Seems to me that Ericsson's strategy is at risk rather than Qualcomm's. But what do I know? Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (18468)	12/4/1998 8:37:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, Well, today marks the end of the six-month period of our wager on the stock price performance of Qualcomm vs. Nokia. To my chagrin, Nokia wins going away. Nokia gained 64.5% over the six months, including an incredible 22% in the past three weeks. Wow! Qualcomm was up 7.6% for the same period. I congratulate you on your perspicacity. What can I say but that the markets certainly haven't behaved the way I thought they would in the last few months. I guess I'm not alone in that boat! :-) So I guess I owe you a buck. Just let me know where I should send it...unless you'd like to go double or nothing on the next six months? ==John Cuthbertson