Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 11
With apologies to those on this board who don't care, can't stand it or have already
made up their mind.

I have to say that the posts on this board have put me in a less bearish postion on
QCOM - like hjelmerus I'm doing the DD in earnest.

However the following posts on the NOK bard may be of interest

First off is the market share
(http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?id=1190244001630000) bur reproduced here

Period Subs Growth % Note
GSM
01/00 303.5 12.0 growth numbers for 1 month
12/99 271.0 19.1 growth numbers for 2 months
10/99 227.5 15.1
07/99 197.6 16.2
04/99 170.0
CDMA
03/00 57.2 14.2
12/99 50.1 21.9
09/99 41.1 22.3
07/99 33.6 17.9
03/99 28.5

Secondly is a bunch of posts on SI by Tero Kuittinen referenced at
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?id=1190244001629000 . Of them all the posts
that I was most interested in was
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=13849765 where Tero
states (with some plausibility) that GG techniques are in fact a problem in the
wireless world.

To develop the theme a bit further does the GG only apply in a purely competititve
world? I.e. if you do end up with 2 or more companies cooperating as well as
competing will this altered situation automatically ensure that a GG does not form
and that looking for one is pointless?

For example the basic IP standards we use to access this board today were created by
cooperation. The obvious protocols they were up against were DECnet, SNA, IPX and
Netbios. In the early 80s it would have been a brave man who said that IBM's SNA
was not destined to be the dominant data protocol in the world for ever - but,
because it was IBM proprietary, SNA equipment never got the push into new
directions that would ahve allowed it the ability to compete with TCP/IP. Likewise the
Ethernet vs Token-ring LAN protocol war and so on. Another example could be the
DVD system vs Videodisc or Compact Discs vs 8 track.

From my understanding of the book this would be mean that a royalty / king game
has formed which means that a Gorilla is unlikely to emerge.

Wandering slightly back on topic. What does this have to say about QCOM, if QCOM
is trying to be a gorilla in a market that is already (as agreed by many) a royalty one?
It is true that Cisco has managed to become a gorilla despite the fatc that Cisco
competed in an open standards arena but Cisco did manage to create some
proprietary extensions and gain early competitive advantage, but I still can't see how
QCOM can do this.

Why? because their raison d'etre is now to sell their IP at the highest price available.
If other companies have a competeing standard with lower cost IP that does the
same job and costs them less why would they buy the expensive one? This is rather
like how Welfleet LOST to Cisco: welfleet routers had far superior forwarding
capacity to cisco, but they cost more up front. In general the customer bought the
"cheaper" cisco router (and then got stuck in a world of continuous upgrades as his
network traffic doubled every 9 months - but I digress). At present I can see much
the same approach by Qualcomm - telling everyone that their CDMA is better and
thus worth the extra $$$ and so on without really getting down and finding out the
market need AND the price the punter is willing to pay to get better than adequate
performance.

DD
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.