Slacker, Re: Qualcomm/ the competition, biases, etc-
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, and hopefully provide your further thoughts on wireless chipset competition.
Re: your comments-
1. “However, I would never use the phrase "infinitely more trustworthy".
2. During the time you have followed Qualcomm, have you ever posted anything critical of Q's strategy/management?
3. Conversely, is there anything that you have ever posted that could be construed as complementary to the competition? They are doing a couple of things right...
4. . I try to limit those biases to the best of my abilities.....it ends up interfering with our ability to make investing decisions if we "hate" the other companies that are competing or if we "love" the company we am invested in. IMO, it also lessens the utility of message boards when everybody has an entrenched position that they are only looking to defend.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
I started posting about a year & ½ ago in response to Dave Mock’s faulty reasoned article disparaging Qualcomm /CDMA in which he also referred to the love/ hate issues. CDMA is a disruptive technology in which the incumbents, for survival have IMO vigorously ( if not ruthlessly) attacked the challenger (Qualcomm/ CDMA). Being an investor in QCOM since 1996, I’ve experienced and got caught up in the battle so to speak. As far as I can remember, investing in the wireless industry has invoked a lot of passion on both sides of the “holy wars”. As Dave stated, It’s a love ‘em / hate ‘em situation. When I started posting, it seemed some of the “old time crazies” had departed / the disparagers were gaining ground and I stepped end to take up some of the “slack”.
I’m basically an optimistic, happy person, who fortunately has a lot to be happy about. Also, I believe when I was in grade school I learned that one of the traits of the American persona was to root for the underdog. That also fits, as like you, I’m a loyal Cubs and have been such since I was 12 years old (over 50 years and hope to get to Wrigley field- Chicago- some day).
I generally take one at his word giving the benefit of doubt, until proven wrong. Again, over the years (since 1996) Qualcomm has withstood that test IMO with very few exceptions. Sure, they’ve missed some chipset sampling schedules, and I expected the World Phone (MSM6300) should have been released by now. However, when pushing new state of the art technology the pins are not always going to fall exactly as planned. I don’t view missing some of these dates by a few months terribly disturbing (as some do). Especially, when compared to NOK’s and the GSM’s posturing that WCDMA (3GSM) handsets would be commercially viable in 2001 when promoting WCDMA over CDMA2000. Delayed release of the World Phone could have also resulted from delays/ priorities by the handset makers and carriers.
What have I overlooked re: Qualcomm during that time that has been a major disappointment to you?
Have I ever posted anything critical of Qualcomm, yup and took some flack for it. In one of my first posts on SI I expressed disappointed over the way Qualcomm misstated it’s guidance during the transition of CFO’s while moving to segmented accounting with QSI. I believe it was an honest mistake, and not intended to deceive. However IMO the Q and I suffered because of that mistake and the Q may just now be regaining the trust of the “analyst” community.
Re: “is there anything that you have ever posted that could be construed as complementary to the competition? They are doing a couple of things right.”<<<<<
I basically follow the competition’s (NOK/ NOK3/ GSMA) PRs and presentations with respect to CDMA/ Qualcomm. IMO NOK / GSMA have consistently mislead the investment community and continue today to do so with respect to CDMA. I believe most on the Qualcomm threads would not disagree with me on that.
I believe you heard NOK’s CDMA Chief Soren Patterson attack the Q / CDMA, disparaging “integration” over “modular” / EV-DO last fall when presenting to the analysts. In a news article posted today, NOKs CEO comments to Bill Gates that Qualcomm’s HDR was fraud is just another example.
The GSMA attack on Congressman Issa for supporting CDMA in Iraq was relentless.
NOK3’s (TXN) presentation to the analyst community regarding their combined entry into CDMA2000 was a sham IMO, intended only to put fear into analyst community re: Qualcomm’s ability to compete in the chipset arena. They next took it a step further and mislead the public on IPR issues and even divulged confidential information. Almost a year later, after looking at their EV-DV product bulletin again, it appears to me that they still have not provided any further details on their EV-DV plans. The “analyst” community appears only now, almost a year later, to have unmasked the sham as S&P, Modoff, and today SoundView are now reporting that the “threat” isn’t as big as the originally feared.
NOK3 states they’re going the modular route with CDMA, you believe that to be the case, others think they’re moving to the “integrated” approach, who known what they’re doing?
TXN also touted their in-house fab abilities as a significant advantage over Qualcomm’s fabless business. A short time later, I read that TXN was moving to out-source some of its fab operations to save on CAPEX.
Myself and others have asked repeatedly how the NOK3 CDMA business plan can succeed giving may reasons against it doing so, and so far finding no one with a credible answer in reply.
I’ve recently asked after reading the positive Qualcomm research from LG Securities- Can anyone specifically document that TXN has integrated / embedded the same feature rich functions as Qualcomm (QCamera Series- MPEG 4, MIDI, CCP, and ISP) in their current GSM chipsets, and not as peripheral components?
I’ve reviewed the TXN chipset schematics (not a clear as the Q’s) , and, not being a technical person, I cannot understand what is /is not embedded on their chipsets. I’ve emailed both companies and the author of the report. Some have posted long dissertations of TXN’s products, but IMO that basic question still remains unanswered.
Business can be a viscous game of hard ball, especially if the incumbents are facing displacement by a disruptive technology.
I believe that Qualcomm is many times better (if not "infinitely” more so), at being straight with the investment community than their opposition.
I have no problem with anyone posting what the competition is doing, in fact I welcome and appreciate such, so long as its fair and objective (i'll try to keep it balanced).
Now back to the taxes.
JMHO- jim
AI
