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 (20690)	1/3/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

tero - One strategy that I've seen work in business is: Play to your strength and source your weakness Seems to me that some sort of "arrangement" between NOK.A and the Q could benefit both groups of shareholders. Inorder that this post shouldn't be considered in any way defeatist I would like to point out that I did last year have a few posts with Gregg suggesting that the Q stick to the more cerebral parts of the business and find local "partner(s)" around the World who are good at manufacturing, marketing and "dealing" with local politicians around the World outside the US/UK. Gregg had some very cogent reasons for the Q not adopting such a strategy and of course in the long run he may well be proved right. But that is not to say that the alternative strategy would not also work out well for both companies. Just a thought. Regards, L

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20690)	1/3/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Here we go again Tero, I'm not baffled by your fascination with handsets, I understand that there is profit in handsets. I'm baffled by your refusal to substantiate your wild claims that W-CDMA is an innovative new technology developed in Europe and not a regurgitated Q product. This thread has been waiting for you to substantiate this claim for some time now. Speaking of handset profits, I understand the major players want a CDMA solution for 3G....

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20690)	1/3/1999 12:57:00 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 152472

Why is it unfair to compare PDQ to three year old Nokia models when you constantly do the same with QCP models? You keep telling us how bad qcp-2700's are compared to 61xx's however the Qcp is 2-3 years old and are soon to be replaced with Qcom's new Asic's based phones. Another example of your deteriorating credibility and hypocracy. I would also mention that you felt that it didnt matter how bad the NOKIA Cdma phones are as long as the were at selling capacity. Why wouldnt the same hold true for QCOM? P.S. we are still waiting for your critique on the difference between CDMA2000 and WCDMA. A question you refuse to research or answer. As a journalist,you,this is very unprofesional.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20690)	1/3/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: Quincy	Respond to of 152472

Hi Tero... Again, GSM operators in North America don't have anything that can compete with Sprint or AT&T. We keep telling you: Nokia's handsets are not filling GSM stores with customers. This observation doesn't extend past California. But, I have a feeling this isn't unusual, since no one offers it anywhere in the Central and Midwestern US. Consumers love the QCP2700 and cheap calling plans from Sprint. We want a phone that works in rural areas, and free long distance and roaming. We are getting that with CDMAOne. There isn't a GSM provider in North America offering any of these features. Even more damning is the complete absence of any GSM service in the Midwestern United States. OT: Escaped from California to visit the parents in Illinois. QCP2700 roams like a ($0.60/min) champ, even in the analog cornfields over here. Former classmate runs a car stereo/cellular phone store. Loves the PCS calling plans but don't have anything in the area but AMPS. Most popular phone? The current Motorola Microtac/DPC550 flip phone. Can't keep them in stock. Apparently, they are reliable and no one wants to throw away their collection of batteries, chargers, and other accessories collected over the years. Worst snow storm since '82. 14 inches. Waiting for the streets to be plowed. My parents are driving me crazy. Remember the movie "The Shining"? "Here's Johnny!"

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20690)	1/3/1999 4:35:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, I don't think anybody is disputing Nokia's success in handsets. But you make it sound like there is a lesson to be learned from that. I don't think there is. It is a historical oddity. So enjoy the ride, while it lasts. If there were 3 or 4 operators with equally good handsets involved in a price war, and if Nokia was one of them, the results would be a lot different, as far as 3 billion pre-tax profit. Don't you see - it doesn't matter that Nokia's CDMA phones aren't currently competitive. They are selling every phone they can manufacture in USA. I believe QPE is also running at capacity. So running at capacity is an excuse for a Nokia's substandard phones, but it is not for Qualcomm's substandard (in your view) phones? It seems like a double standard. Of course they are not going to subsidize Qualcomm if they can sell a GSM model instead! If the Nokia phones are so much better, I am sure Nokia would be able to charge premium, well over the fees Nokia pays to Qualcomm. I thought you argued that royalties and cost of ASICs were meaningless. Anyway, I think it would make sense for Nokia to pay more attention to CDMA. If they do, they will be rewarded for the experience with CDMA when the WCDMA / CDMA2000 arrives. Joe

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20690)	1/12/1999 3:24:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 152472

Tero, Nokia has already launched the new 9110 smartphone in Europe. Comparing pdQ specs to the 9000 is not very constructive What exactly does it mean they launched it? Can you actually buy one today? Qualcomm has "launched" pdQ as well, but it is not be available yet. Comparing the 2, it looks like 9110 runs on an Intel compatible processor (AMD-486, under Geos, somewhat non-standard OS) while pdQ runs on Motorola processor - somewhat non-standard, but under PalmOS, the dominant OS for these devices (at this time). Nokia 9110 has longer talk times and standby times, has a speakerphone, pdQ is lighter. From the US point of view, 9110 is irrelevant, since it seems to be GSM 900, and as far as I know, nobody in the US is providing GSM service at 900 MHz. pdQ will be available in both 800 and 1900 MHz CDMA. 9110 looks a little clunky, but has a keyboard, pdQ has a more streamlined look, but no keyboard. Joe PS: do you know how much will unsubsidized 9110 cost?