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 (20614)	12/31/1998 9:46:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Respond to of 152472

Happy New Year Tero: Might I remind you of your failure to address even the most basic of the questions directed at you in my last post? Have you read the patent that you suggest corroborates your position on W-CDMA? Do you actually believe that TDMA is a viable alternative for 3G if a CDMA based air interface does not happen? You claim that the CDMA patent situation is murky yet offer not a shred of factual evidence to validate this argument beyond a Motorola/Qualcomm patent dispute. Are you really suggesting that a 1986 vintage non-terrestrial patent is relevant to the current debate? If so, please explain why Motorola, as opposed to Ericsson, was the principal in the dispute. Again you have substituted hyperbole for analysis and used a random factoid in an attempt to justify your position. If you were truly concerned with your credibility I suspect you would have read the involved patent before posting diatribe. Beyond this, I am still awaiting the analysis, either your own or that of your "engineer" friends, that discusses the precise technical differences between W-CDMA and cdma2000. Presumably even you recognize that without such an analysis, your opinion regarding the validity of Qualcomm's patents is pretty much worthless. As for the oft-regurgitated handset issue, all I can say is that Qualcomm is selling all the QCP's it can make. If its market share is declining, a claim the company has publicly addressed, then it is doing so because the CDMA marketplace is expanding at a faster than anticipated rate. Since you acknowledged in the Debry forum what I long believed you always understood, i.e. that QC earns royalties on every CDMA phone and ASIC margins on most, then it is obvious that you are being deliberately deceptive with your spin on the economics of QC's subscriber business. Tero...once again...please explain why Ericsson is moving to W-CDMA for 3G if TDMA-based GSM is not obsolete. Please explain why the growth of GSM will not ultimately accrue to Qualcomm as these digital phones are replaced by CDMA-based phones. Or as an alternative, if W-CDMA dies on the vine, please explain why Ericsson and the TDMA-based GSM community will not be at a huge technological disadvantage having acknowledged, by recent deeds, the need to deploy direct sequence spread spectrum? Finally, please give us your insight into Qualcomm's new handset designs for 1999? What do you know of these products and their specifications? I know...you are not an engineer, so I really should hold you accountable for actually "knowing" anything. Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20614)	12/31/1998 9:58:00 AM
From: Valueman	Respond to of 152472

Tero: Your handset fetish has always amazed me. Why do you not address Nokia's CDMA offering? Why do you not address its failure in that arena? That is what we cover here--CDMA. Compare apples to apples. I looked closely at Nokia's offering last night. Pitiful. Cheap colored covers do not make the sale. The handset is far behind Qualcomm's offerings. You mention "painfully slow technological development"--where is Nokia's brilliant CDMA offering? Don't tell me they are focused elsewhere--they have plenty of people working on CDMA offerings. In this case, Finnee see, but Finnee can't do. Maybe using QCOM's ASICs will allow them to compete. I think you are delusional if you believe Nokia's 61XX is responsible for AT&T's success. It is a byproduct of a cheap nationwide plan--period. People are not driven to that plan because of the phone. Don't flatter yourself.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20614)	12/31/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Tero - re: "Happy New Year," how many hours different from "SI time" is it where you are right now ? Jon.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20614)	1/2/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, pdQ will reach a certain following, but being underpowered, expensive and a bit clunky, will not get beyond a niche hit status. In the autumn, the first Bluetooth and Symbian models will start revolutionizing the handset market. How do you know it will not be the other way around? If pdQ was supposed to come out in 2nd half, and Nokia in the first half, I bet you would have said that QCOM is badly late. Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of Nokia. I have a Nokia monitor, and I had a big hope for their 9000 PDA. I really hope they will eventually produce a good CDMA phone. You must admit that what they have now is embarassing. They are trailing Qualcomm handsets, and by your own characterization, QCOM handsets are a failure. (I think the salespeople at Sprint must get an extra commission for unloading a Nokia phone.) BTW, I just got one - QCP-1920, and it is adequate. I think the standby times advertised on the QCOM site are a little conservative. They advertise 4 hours talk or 60 hours standby. After 72 hours of standby time and about 15 minutes of talk time, I still have 1 of the 4 battery bars on. Joe