SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Drew Williams who wrote (25442)3/28/1999 9:23:00 PM
From: Ruffian  Respond to of 152472
 
pdQ>

3/28/99 - Smart Phones a Difficult Accomplishment

Mar. 28 (San Jose Mercury News/KRTBN)--Talking may be the least important thing you do with your next mobile telephone.

Wireless-phone makers are blending hand-held computers and personal digital assistants into mobile telephones, creating what
they call smart phones: devices that intelligently process data, not just make phone calls.

Smart phones handle e-mail as easily as voicemail, provide remote access to your company's network without a laptop computer
and allow you to surf the Web on the go.

Eventually, every wireless phone will become a simple smart phone. As we increasingly rely on digital information, we will need to
dial in to data sources, like the Internet, as often as we dial each other. Although almost 30 million wireless phones were sold in
the United States in 1998, Dataquest of Santa Clara projects that sales will jump 43 percent to $43 million by 2000, and more than
4 million of those will be smart phones.

"Cell phones and voicemail were a perfect fit," said Andrew Seybold, a wireless-communications analyst in Boulder Creek. "But
now e-mail is equally important. Only having voicemail access is not good enough."

Smart phones are great in concept. Reducing the number of gadgets we carry in our pockets is generally a good thing. But in
reality, first-generation smart phones fail to make the merger of your computer and your phone something that's very easy to use or
comfortable to carry. Not to mention the fact that some wireless carriers are not even ready to provide the kinds of data services,
like fetching e-mail or accessing the Web, that will make your phone as smart as you'd like it to be.

Sending data over the airwaves requires the wireless carriers to upgrade their networks, a process that has slowly taken place over
the last several years in the U.S. And in the process of making these upgrades, U.S. carriers are following three divergent paths, in
contrast to Europe and Asia, which have embraced one transmission standard.

The primary purpose of the upgrades is to increase voice capacity. Turning on data services is a second step that most service
providers have yet to implement.

Already an array of smart phones exist, from super smart phones that are like small, mobile PCs, to high-end wireless phones that
don't have PC applications built in, but serve as a conduit to any kind of digital appliance. In between are smart phone hybrids that
provide a simplified set of data features but still feel like a phone.

Which one fits you best will depend entirely on how much you think you'll use your phone for tasks that don't involve talking and
how long you are willing to wait for them to become affordable and useful digital sidekicks.

Nokia Inc. created the smart phone category with the 1996 shipment of the Communicator 9000, the first blending of a wireless
phone and a handheld computer. At 14 ounces (which feels like a brick when held at your ear for more than a minute) and a price
tag of $699, Communicator's best selling point is that it eliminates the need to carry both a wireless phone and a laptop, common
baggage for business travelers and field professionals but not for the mass market.

Communicator and other super smart phones that follow in its footsteps will probably find their way into the hands of very mobile
professionals like insurance adjustors who can process an auto accident claim in your living room or at the scene of a house fire.

One step down from Communicator is the pdQ from Qualcomm Inc. The pdQ combines a wireless phone with the PalmPilot, the
popular personal digital assistant from Palm Computing Inc., a division of 3Com Corporation.

Another effort to merge two gadgets commonly carried together, the pdQ prototype succeeds in bringing the best of those two
worlds together. Imagine this: when you look up a phone number in the Palm address book, you can simply tap an icon to have the
pdQ place a call for you.

But the pdQ is still not much lighter or cheaper than Communicator. Getting information like an address from the Palm Pilot
interface while talking on the phone is next to impossible. And waiting for the pdQ may be a long prospect. It is built to work only
on Code-division Multiple Access (CDMA) networks, but those networks have yet to provide for data services.

According to Paul Jacobs, president of Qualcomm Consumer Products, CDMA carriers like GTE and Sprint should be ready for
data services by mid-1999 and so will the pdQ.

When that happens, the pdQ could be a good option for people who use both a wireless phone and a Palm Pilot regularly. But
because of its size, many of those same folks may also choose to have a smaller wireless phone to carry when all they need is
voice communications.

"There's a downside to smart phones," said Matt Hoffman, an analyst with Gartner Group. "You give up all the advantages of
today's smaller phones only to get a device which requires you to carry around much more than you regularly need."

Instead of convergence, Hoffman thinks the most exciting advances in mobile phones are smaller devices that do voice
exceptionally well and have the ability to connect to data devices only when necessary. "Think of the phone as a conduit, not an
appliance," said.

To be convenient, that conduit has to be small enough to go everywhere. Size continues to be the defining factor in high-end
wireless phones.

This year alone, Qualcomm will introduce its CDMA Digital Thin Phone and Nokia its 8800, which looks more like a Zippo lighter
than a phone. Samsung Telecommunications America Inc. will roll out its 3.1 ounce SCH-6000, the lightest CDMA phone for the
U.S. market, and Motorola Inc. plans to introduce its V series, a degree smaller and sleeker than Motorola's current StarTac line,
with phones that are about the size of a stack of 20 credit cards.

Between these two extremes -- super smart phones on one end and high-end wireless handsets on the other -- a new category is
beginning to emerge. Smart phone hybrids, also called simple smart phones or "voice plus" devices, have made the handsets as
small as possible while still enhancing the screen as much as possible for data transmission.

"Consumers don't fit neatly into voice-centric and data-centric categories," said Seybold. "People who need some combination of
the two will be the biggest market."

Hybrid smart phones will be priced as mass market products and serve as receptors for new data services like short messaging
from Sprint, an option to receive text messages of up to 100 characters on the phone. These hybrids are more intelligent smart
phones, said Phillip Redman, an analyst with Yankee Group. "They offer only the functions that most people want in a size and
with a price that the mass market will buy."

The most interesting entry in this new market is the NeoPoint 1000 from start-up Innovative Global Solution Inc. of San Diego.
"NeoPoint is a phone first and communications device second," said IGS founder and chief executive William Son.

A large display, big icons and easy-to-use menus make the data functions of the NeoPoint simply better for people who want to
use them like they use their phone, not like they use their computer.

But whether the NeoPoint will be able muscle past similar phones from industry giants like Motorola, with its new i1000 plus, and
Nokia with the upcoming 7110, remains to be seen.

Whatever the outcome, simple smart phones are soon to become the standard offering for many network carriers, as they work to
get wireless phone users to spend more on-air time by using their phones for e-mail and other data services.

Like the phones, smart phone data services are in their infancy. The industry recently established WAP, the wireless application
protocol, which is designed to help information providers like the yellow pages or a stock quote service make their information fast
to download and easy to read on a smart phone and, in turn, encourage consumers to spend more time on the phone.

From traditional news media to Internet publishers, businesses with lots of information are busily working out deals to be the
exclusive sources of content for wireless phone users. For example, on March 18, IBM, Nokia and the Sabre Group Inc. announced
they were working on a travel service to be delivered via mobile phones. Travelers will be able to make flight changes and receive
updated information from airlines about flight times from anywhere. "Carriers are desperate for an alternative to voice to boost their
revenues," said Redman, the Yankee Group analyst. "But it is a chicken and egg situation. Until there are useful data delivery
services available, there won't be much of a rush for consumers to buy smart phones."

By Deborah Claymon



To: Drew Williams who wrote (25442)3/28/1999 9:24:00 PM
From: Ruffian  Read Replies (7) | Respond to of 152472
 
Tero Speaks>

Chart of
the day
3/25/99

RESEARCH | METASTOCK | COLUMNISTS


Click Here to Visit our Sponsor

FREE CHARTS
Delayed intraday
and daily
Research any stock
for free at
Invest-O-Rama!

Home

Research

MetaStock

Columnists

Search
Contact Us
Sponsors
Advertise Here!
Disclosure/Disclaimer




Related Links

Comparative Performance Chart of NOK.A, ERICY,
QCOM, and MOT

Article Archive

Tero's Q&A Page

The view from Finland
The Ericsson-Qualcomm aftermath

By Tero Kuittinen, Guest Columnist
Last Update: 3:00 PM MT Mar 28, 1999

The short term benefits

Sighs of relief all around. The biggest winner of the Ericsson-Qualcomm dispute is probably Qualcomm - they could have
ill afforded a protracted legal fight and the deal finally rids the company of the disastrous infrastructure division. Losing the
network business entirely weakens Qualcomm's ability to influence third generation digital standard development and
probably affects the long term success of the handset division. The network technology evolves so rapidly that handset
development has to take place concurrently with infrastructure development. But Qualcomm's network business wasn't
robust to begin with - it was based mostly on selling base stations at a loss. The digital switch expertise that turned Lucent,
Ericsson, Nortel and Nokia into network powerhouses didn't exist at Qualcomm. After the deal was disclosed Wall
Street backed the "good riddance" view of Qualcomm network business enthusiastically. Qualcomm finally looks like a
focused company; licensing income, chipsets and handsets.

The benefits Ericsson derives from the deal are a great deal fuzzier and depend largely on how much leverage the
company gained in the 3G development. The immediate prospect of folding a loss-making CDMA network division into
Ericsson and launching an expensive CDMA phone project should be sounding alarm bells. Let's review some of
Ericsson's PR coups from recent months. After announcing the weak fourth quarter results Ericsson deftly moved the
spotlight from shrinking handset sales into the future by unveiling the new T18 handset. Then Ericsson used a huge Turkish
GSM network deal to mask a simultaneous announcement that their vaunted GSM/TDMA/AMPS phone will be pushed
into next year. Most newspapers fell for it; the network deal buried the product delay. More recently, the persistent
worries about the delay of T18 and continued market share losses have eroded Ericsson's stock price. Then came the
master stroke: Ericsson's first quarter profit warning was timed to be released just days before the Qualcomm deal was
announced. Once again, the bad news was lost under upbeat press releases.

Pure chance? Or skillful manipulation of Wall Street? Take your pick. Ericsson is now milking the CDMA manufacturing
angle for all it's worth - but like in some tacky horror movie, the mouldering corpse of Ericsson's 1999 profit picture is
going to claw its way to daylight, no matter how deeply the company is trying to bury it. It's not that Ericsson's long term
prospects are bad - the year 2000 handset line-up looks bright and a power position in W-CDMA development can be a
genuine boost for profits in 2002-2005. But it seems unlikely that Wall Street will swallow the string of bad 1999 quarters
Ericsson is poised to feed it. In contrast, Qualcomm's profitability is instantly improved by the deal. The CDMA division
Ericsson bought is notoriously weak. We caught a glimpse of just how much synergy exists between GSM and CDMA
network technologies after Motorola's attempt to leverage their GSM know-how into launching a CDMA network
business - the CDMA specialists Lucent and Nortel pretty much knocked Motorola out. The CDMA handset situation is
even more desperate. Nokia and Motorola are now invading the high end CDMA handset market after years of
preparation. I doubt that Ericsson's belated CDMA epiphany will result in much headway in either infrastructure or
handset markets.

Welcome to Spin City

The deal has plenty of real impact on the telecom industry - but as usual, the hype surrounding the agreement spun rapidly
out of control. The premise that Qualcomm and Ericsson will now have a genuine interest in collaboration and smooth
technology transfer is absurd. Vicious backstabbing, byzantine intrigue and outright slander - following the past relations
between these two firms has been like watching a rerun of "I, Claudius" without the orgy scenes. The ink on the agreement
wasn't dry when the companies already started to leak conflicting information on the specifics - Qualcomm hinting at high
licensing fees and Ericsson insisting that they were able to push the fees down considerably. I wouldn't take the word of
either party at face value until all the fine print has been deciphered.

The big issue concerning 3G is the one that few are willing to discuss. Is there actually a market? Will the consumers go
for handsets that cost around 1'000 dollars and weigh a lot? The Iridium project was based on the premise that people
will pay practically anything for a satellite phone, even if you can brain a bull moose with that lump of metal Motorola is
currently pushing. Consumers disagreed. The current "creeping" improvement of existing, second generation digital
networks is bringing the data transfer rate above 100 kbps with much smaller investments from operators. It's a long way
to 2002 when 3G solutions are expected to premier outside of Japan. Valuing a company based on 3G revenues is a risk
investors are assuming - not a one way bet.

The giddy media reaction to the deal seems slightly unhinged. The Wall Street Journal gushed over "short term benefits"
like multi-mode phones - apparently ignoring the fact that a GSM/CDMA phone is highly unlikely to surface before the
year 2002. GSM/TDMA phones that are much easier to produce are arriving next winter after several years of
development. And these two standards are kissing cousins technologically. Combining GSM and CDMA in one unit is a
monstrous challenge. The leading companies *can* build these kinds of models right now. But they couldn't sell them.
One consumer poll after another has shown that people are not willing to accept a substantial price or weight premium in
multi-mode phones. That's the reason Nokia and Ericsson are debuting GSM/TDMA phones only next winter - it's the
earliest they could come up with models that weigh under 150 grams and can be sold on US market under 300 dollars.

Risk

I'm not sure just how serious Qualcomm's hints at "expanding to Europe and China" are. In the long run, operating a
succesful handset business demands synergy benefits with the infrastructure side. Moreover, total lack of brand
recognition and distribution networks would make Europe and China fiendishly difficult markets to enter. There are no
examples of succesful handset companies that do not have a double digit global market share; Siemens, Philips, Samsung,
LG, Denso, etc. are not making any profit at handset manufacturing. The only exception is Alcatel, which seems poised to
enter the front ranks of mobile phone companies this year, largely at Ericsson's expense. And that success is rooted in
Alcatel's 30% market share in the phenomenally growing Mediterranean markets and a solid 10% on China. Meanwhile,
Qualcomm would do well to finish 1999 with 10% market share even in its US home base - not a good launch pad for
global expansion.

Qualcomm's share of CDMA chipset market in USA has topped 90% and has provided the company with a
near-monopoly position with all the associated benefits. That share is set to collapse in 1999 - Nokia and Motorola are
not using Qualcomm chipsets for their new CDMA phones. By next autumn Sony is also switching to non-Qualcomm
chipsets. The end result will be a rapid market share erosion for Qualcomm. Even more worryingly, leading American
CDMA operators are showing signs of embracing Motorola and Nokia as their preferred handset providers. Sprint is
elbowing Q-phone aside and positioning Startac as their top high-end model; Primeco is considering using Nokia 6185 as
their leading spring model. Qualcomm had several years to consolidate their position as the premium CDMA brand before
real competition arrived. That wasn't enough. What Qualcomm needs to do is to consolidate their position in the American
market; if they yield the 200$-plus market segment to Motorola and Nokia they'll end up with a very tough competitive
position in the future. The product cycle of this company is excruciatingly long. Apparently the new smartphone, pdQ, has
spent three and a half years in development when it finally debuts this summer. Launching a global expansion without a
solid home market showing would be the most likely risk for Qualcomm's future success.

Similarly, Ericsson's CDMA expansion is a chancy move. Being years behind competition is bad enough - but Ericsson is
also saddled with interminable product cycles. They have not kept up with GSM phone development with Motorola,
Nokia or even Alcatel. So where will the extra zip to catch up in CDMA phones come from? Qualcomm is so small that
they can use their licensing revenues to fund considerable R&D projects. Ericsson's licensing revenue from GSM and
CDMA patents is dwarfed by the sheer size of the company. While Qualcomm's handset profit margins have risen due to
lack of stong competition in the US CDMA handset market, Ericsson's margins have been eroded by going head-to-head
with their big competitors in the fiercely contested GSM market. I would think that Ericsson's near term risk of profit
problems is considerably higher than Qualcomm's.

Nokia now faces the prospect of Ericsson's hegemony in determining the future of third generation standard. W-CDMA's
position was strengthened by last week's deal - but it's no longer an ostensibly equal Nokia-Ericsson project. Ericsson
probably will get higher licensing revenue thanks to a cross-licensing deal with Qualcomm. They are also well positioned
to fine-tune the technical details of the standard to suit Ericsson better than other companies. The CDMA2000 looks
embattled. Now the development of this standard rests mainly on Nortel and Motorola - both of which have considerable
investments in W-CDMA as well. Whereas several W-CDMA handset prototypes already exist, CDMA2000 product
development seems to be falling behind. For Qualcomm, this may not mean much, since they get licensing fees from both
standards. But North American companies like Motorola and Lucent may fall behind in W-CDMA development if they
split their early R&D among two, separate standards, both demanding enormous cash infusions.

One big question the Ericsson-Qualcomm deal poses is how it will influence the sales growth of second generation
standards GSM and CDMA. That's hard to gauge - now that W-CDMA is free from litigation worries the development
of this GSM upgrade standard can be accelerated. Qualcomm is stressing that all 3G standards will be "compatible" with
IS-95, the second generation CDMA standard. That may be - but it appears that Ericsson now has the power to
determine the actual meaning of "compatible". And these guys could teach a thing or two about hair-splitting to Bill Gates.
What is certain is that Ericsson will do their damnest to keep W-CDMA much easier to overlay on GSM than CDMA.
Operators now making choices between GSM and IS-95 will have to weigh the implications<TK>.

I appreciate any feedback and try to address issues you raise on the Q&A page.

Tero Kuittinen

Tpkuitti@operoni.helsinki.fi

Tero Kuittinen is a Finnish-based writer with an intense interst in telecom stocks. The opinions expressed are his
own and should not be construed as investment advice. Readers should assume that both Mr. Kuittinen and
associates of DeBry.com have positions in some or all of the securities mentioned, and may change their opinions
and positions at any time.



Top of page
Search DeBry.com



To: Drew Williams who wrote (25442)3/29/1999 8:47:00 AM
From: Sawtooth  Respond to of 152472
 
*OT* <<Just in case nobody else told you, Alfred E. Neuman first said, "What, me worry?" way back in the fifties. I had to hide my copies from my mother, who thought MAD MAGAZINE was a terrible influence, which, of course, was the whole point.>>

LOL!!! Thanks for the correction, Drew. Obviously, one can not be too careful with the facts surrounding items of this significance!

Do you remember how there was always a little ad in the front of Mad where you could by 8.5 X 11 headshots of Alfred E. with his famous sh!t-eatin' grin in quantities of 1, 10, 100, 1000, ... . Oh, how many times I thought as a fifth-grader that the ultimate would be to wallpaper my bedroom with those little posters.

My mother always had a keen eye for a stray Mad popping a corner out from under my mattress. 'Course when National Lampoon came along it made Mad look comparatively like a bible tract. ; )

Thanks for rekindling some great memories, Drew! (Remember Spy vs. Spy?) ...Tim