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: Gregg Powers who wrote (20445)	12/27/1998 12:54:00 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

Gregg - Calm reflected and good analysis. Despite my exorcising my frustration with quips about "Natuaral Home" etc I think the Q is going to be a big winner in 1999 ( and onward). There is a quote on wsj.com today about Nokia. NOK.A has:- (a) now achieved a penetration of over 50% in Finland (b) now mobiles exceed fixed wirelines (c) NOK.A is now mpore than 50% of the Helsinki Stock Exchange. (d) Is expected to grow still further. I haven't bothered with the web reference as you have to be signed up and I find restricted references a little frustrating. Those that have it can easily find it. Anyway thats Finland. IMHO the Q can do something similar in the US. Here the Q is the local company and its product is very good having now had our 2700 in Houston. It is very good and gets better as you get to learn to work with it. The main problem as I see it is the one I've been harping on about and that is the political muscle that NOK.A and ERICY are undoubtedly going to pull to bring down the Q. The recent investment of $200m by NOK in Germany was no doubt part of that program. I hope that the Q will use every ounce of its DC muscle to defend against the coming onslaught and defeat them. Sorry to put in in such pejorative terms but IMHO NOK and ERICY are fighting for their survival and they will treat it as a war. I'm sure Dr Jacobs and his colleagues are fully aware of what they face but it doesn't hurt to discuss it here as it is a subject that is going to be a key and growing component of everyday life in the first years of the coming century. Anyway a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and all our regulars. Regards, L

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20445)	12/27/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, thanks for a painfully honest review of the Q in '98. One of the reasons that this is a terrific board is the balance of pro and con views expressed here. Obviously there is an underlying bullish bias, but when the Q screws up there's no lack of critics to jump. And that is how it should be. Along that line, I wonder if we all might take a shot at the little offspring that hopped into our portfolios this year in the form of Leap Wireless. From a strictly portfolio point of view, does it make sense to own a slug of QCOM and LWIN? Is there overlap or is an investor spreading bets among different markets? Does little LWIN stand a chance against the likes of ATI which itself has been mentioned as a takeover target? I think these questions are particularly important with reference to your own comments on the Mighty Q--"I knew I was investing in a start up . . . ". In my own career and investing experience, I have a fair slug of experience with the start up syndrome. With due recognition for the YHOOs, et. al., for every one of those there are a couple of thousand road kills wandering around. Frankly, but for Harvey White, I would quite likely have flipped LWIN. Now having read the 10Q, I'm intrigued. But I also own RMBS, LOR, GSTRF, WCII and a few other outfits that ain't exactly IBMs. If folks want to start a separate thread for LWIN I guess that's okay but if you all wouldn't mind, it would be great to hear from you. Okay, I know Ramsey's probably short but how about everybody else? Happy New Year guys. Mike Doyle

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20445)	12/27/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: sag	Respond to of 152472

What does Qcom's management need to negotiate or perhaps compromise on to end the "destructive antipathy" against itself and CDMA, after all QCOM is holding the four aces. What does ERICY want from QCOM, short of free IPRs ?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20445)	12/28/1998 1:22:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks Gregg for the good summary. That all looks about right. What about the narrow escape from bidding on Brazilian telecoms and the money lost in Australia because of some rules muckup? QUALCOMM has plenty of opportunity for feats of clay. I suppose we should expect some more in 1999, hopefully of the stumbling rather than fatal variety. It was nice to see the rave about 'most underhyped product' and that QUALCOMM handsets were one of the items listed. The first and main one! It was worth repeating here: cbs.marketwatch.com By Rebecca Lynn Eisenberg, CBS MarketWatch Last Update 11:07 AM ET Dec 24, 1998 I want to disagree with one item in your year in review, all of which I liked apart from this bit. This bit: "As for 3G, I will go out on a limb with this prediction, but here goes. The compromise agreement that will, and must, be worked out between Qualcomm and Ericsson will end the destructive antipathy that has existed between the two companies. Ericsson will gain a direct sequence spread spectrum solution for its customers and Qualcomm will see an end to the powerful PR campaign against it in particular, and CDMA in general, plus a greatly expanded market opportunity that encompasses the GSM universe." I don't agree that a compromise agreement must or necessarily will be worked out. I do think it would benefit both parties, but if one party is obtuse and self-destructive, which heaps of people are, then QUALCOMM might well have to proceed without Ericy. Neither do I believe that an agreement would end destructive antipathy - Ericy is destructive and has antipathy to Q! Even with an agreement, I think that Ericy would retain their destructive character and adopt short-sighted positions on later developments. They would also retain antipathy. Competitiveness and winning and losing is part of commercial activity. Just as in sport, some 'sportsmen' become hostile and unpleasant, so in the commercial world, some people are naturally like that. They won't change. QUALCOMM does not exhibit those characteristics [obtuse, antipathy, destructive] and adopting them wouldn't help. I put out enough antipathy towards Ericy to make up for Q! being reasonable, reasoning and constructive. Neither do I wish them to. It wouldn't help them in their commercial efforts. They are doing just fine. Persevering with negotiations, barely raising a word of ire let alone counter-accusations to what Ericy and Frezza have said. If an agreement turns out to be in QUALCOMM's interests, Ericy will gain a great deal. But QUALCOMM won't see an end to the PR campaigns against them. Though the anti-CDMA campaigns might cease. Of course the anti-cdmaOne campaigns would continue unabated "redundant, old-fashioned legacy systems blocking the adoption of Ericy's brilliant new WWeb[TM] products and cdmaOne systems should be replaced or upgraded forthwith". Q! as you say, should see a greatly expanded market opportunity though = access to fortress Europe, China etc. But that should come with or without a 3G agreement. It should result from free trade telecommunications agreements signed by European countries. One last bit of pickiness; you said: "Ericsson will gain a direct sequence spread spectrum solution for its customers..." People talk about 'owning markets' 'owning customers' and this hints in that direction with '...its customers...' Okay, I know it is picking nits, but nobody 'owns' customers and they are not 'Ericy's customers'. If Ericy doesn't have cdmaOne or cdma2000 or WWeb then they won't have those customers either. Q! or another licensee will have them. Ericy does not 'own' those customers and cannot use them as a negotiating plank. Anyone who has had much or even a little to do with customers knows that they do not 'own' them. Customers are about as tenuous as love partners and the relationships are similar. Picky, picky, I know, but it's important to me. Overall, thanks for the summary. 1998 was not quite as good as I hoped, but not far off it. 1999 should be better than I hope [since I've been softened up a bit]. $80 is now nearly 6 months old - markets are amazingly slow to get the right idea! Maybe they will. They've got a couple of days left before it hits that spot. Yahooligan and Web investors must get vertigo soon and the money will flood elsewhere to the real Web builders. As George Gilder said recently - the last mile is the big value adding place and QUALCOMM is sitting right there like a funnel Web spider, catching all who enter. Well, he didn't use those words, but that was the gist of it. Mqurice