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 (31638)	6/3/1999 3:18:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

However Gregg in either case Qcom is in a very good position.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (31638)	6/3/1999 3:21:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, remind me not to play poker with you--your theory re: the Balkanization of the various modes playing into the Mighty Q's hands might not have crossed my mind before my wallet was in your wallet if you get my drift. Bet you're getting a kick as the analysts now discover that their prior fears of Korean meltdown knocking Q's earnings for a loop was a little whoopsie, and, by golly, we're actually gonna have to revise them thar earnings up again. Pride goeth before a fall but I swear these guys are looking like a replay of 'dumb and dumber'. My sincere thanks for making the game so transparently obvious. Kind regards, Mike Doyle

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (31638)	6/3/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To Gregg: Many thanks. Much appreciate your wisdom. Viva la nonconvergence !!! Or some such fractured language. (Maybe some of the many linguistic experts here can give us our new slogan in the proper language). Since you have been kind enough to weigh in on this, are you able to give us a clue on how (which of the 3 flavors) Ericsson will use its new infrastructure resources just purchased from the Q - for WCDMA or CDMA2000 ? Or will the same infrastructure serve both? Recognize you may be unable to say much on this yet, but any clue would be helpful. And, if you would, do you expect Ericsson to buy any (or all) Q ASICs - at least for the CDMA2000 arm of Ericsson's business - again if Ericsson competes in the CDMA2000 area at all. Last, do you forsee the CDMA rollout in China to be the CDMA2000 flavor or the WCDMA flavor - or both? Respect and best regards. Chaz

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (31638)	6/3/1999 10:53:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Convergence is GOOD And another thing! < Had convergence been achieved, and the world settled on one mode, then everyone's resources would be directed at manufacturing ASICs, infrastructure and handsets compliant with a single standard. All of those resources, chasing a single standard, probably would have led to an accelerated commoditization curve...this would have been good for the carriers, but less attractive for the equipment vendors. Instead, we now get multi-modes...everyone's resources are split chasing a semi-proprietary strategies; Qualcomm gets royalties on everything AND Qualcomm is ideally positioned to protect (and expand) its ASIC franchise (since it will take far longer for everyone to sort out the multiple mode technologies).> Forget about commoditisation. As you pointed out, the development and functionality and multiplicity of devices based on 3G CDMA is going to be huge. There is a LONG time to go until commoditisation. There is no value in costs of inefficiency and splintering of development costs to create artificial problems and higher unit costs for each device. This is like a vote for increased entropy. Entropy is bad! If we can overcome it, that is good. Qualcomm has done a brilliant job. Now, get convergence on all technical parameters where there is no real merit in having differences and stretch the envelope [to coin a phrase]. We are so far away from commoditisation that it's not funny. We are at the Model T stage of the car industry. Let's standardize on some things and create the differences in functionality, performance and the zillions of other things where they really matter. There is NO need for making differences unless there is some benefit to the customer. So let's make them all run on gasoline and focus on engine size, torque, leather upholstery, colour, 4 door, automatic etc, etc, you know the story. Cars still aren't commodities after 100 years! Qualcomm is far ahead. Let's keep it that way by going flat out in the right direction. Not wasting time on pandering to Ericy's W-CDMA fantasy of incompatibility for marketing advantage. If convergence is good for the carriers, as you said above, then they sure won't be going for artificial differences unless [such as NTT] there might be barriers to entry type advantages they can construct against some who went with cdmaOne who can't migrate effectively to W-CDMA or there might be product differentiation advantages such as better data rates. I'm betting on a common chip rate because that seems to be an area where trivial costs in a handset can't bridge the gap. The MSM5000 seems able to bridge some of the other gaps. Consumers won't go for multimode handsets unless there are real advantages - artificial differences causing higher costs will see one or other mode drop off. A bit like languages. Little languages around the world are dropping like flies and big languages are amalgamating. [Though the silly French seem to think they can keep English words such as restaurant, sushi, computer and glasnost our of their sacred language by having a language police]. We want an accelerated adoption curve, not a multi-mode mess with low rates of adoption. Compare Finland's cellphone adoption with that of the USA with multi-mode. I'd prefer the Finnish model for 3G CDMA adoption. And I prefer Irwin's strategy of convergence [though he handed the decision to 'the market' of service providers, government agencies and so on to squabble over and come to an agreement]. I bet Irwin knew what he was doing and knows that the right level of convergence will come out of it. Mqurice PS: Asymptotic? Is the asymptote 2002, 2010 or 2020? I'm sure you realize that at an asymptote, the revenue will be infinite, which means even my market capitalisations are conservative.. Maybe you have some secret information about EudoraCoin [TM]?