Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wireless investors should read the following (from the Sonera board) by Tero, whom some may recognize from his occasional insightful analysis on telecom for

We're fortunate to have both Tero and Mycroft as contributors. Good luck to all!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From PaineWebber report>
We believe the catalyst to incite Nokia and Motorola to use
Qualcomm chips will be the rollout of 2.5G (1XRTT)
wireless data services over the next year. Sprint PCS
(PCS-$104.38), a stock we cover, has told us they want all
new phones sold to have the latest wireless data
technology, even if that customer does not activate those
services when buying the phone. Sprint PCS, practicing
what they preach, recently lowered its order of Nokia
phones because of Nokia's inability to deliver a working
web-browser. Rather than develop their own 2.5G capable
chips and risk being late to market again, we believe
Motorola, Nokia and Ericsson will buy Qualcomm chips.<i/>

The same analyst who upgraded QCOM to $1000 also stated that CDMA will comprise 85% of the worlds standard from the present 12%. This was one of the reasons for his price target.

I guess there is just a simple difference of opinions. By the looks of the tape I can see what Mr. Market thinks.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

only time will tell, but, I would never bet on one thing (among others). That one thing?? That an analyst understands the technology of the company they are analyzing.

There is a lot more to selling tech than having the best tech, or APPL would dominate now, not MSFT, we'd watch beta not VHS, we'd all drive porsche 969's rather than chevy/toyota/etc's, and we'd all post from high speed connections at home rather than from modems or at work.

This is also, IMO, what keeps it all interesting. Certainly GSM and its followup variants have the lead in implementation. CDMA is better (only marginally and only for data transfer as I understand), but, is it a disruptive technology??? Power requirements will also play into what wins, since data transfer rates require power as well, as I understand it all.

I think analysts sometimes like to oversimplify things a bit too much. Winners are rarely ever that clear and having a proprietary lock on technology is often not well regarded by the rest of the world. The winning technologies will let you go anywhere and do anything in the wireless space..

Not to say I might not get some QCOM _and_ some NOK in that dip we've all been waiting for since thanksgiving ;^)

Just some random thoughts from someone (or yet another?) who mycroft has got doing some DD on SNRA et al...



Print the post Back To Top