Replies to post #17173 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[alanrs]

You can (and I'm sure do) invest based on any premise you wish. I invest based on the premise that WCDMA is CDMA, and that GSM is a different animal. Leads to a different conclusion. Loved your dispassionate analysis.

ARS

[stricklybiz]

BO, The thrust of your post seems to be that you have established unattainable objectives for QCOM/CDMA that neither the CDG or QCOM has mentioned or would acknowledge.

I believe it is NOK that has set out to conquer the world, not QCOM. I am content with QCOM shares so long as they don't threaten an unacceptable loss when my grandchildren sell them or reduce/eliminate the dividend while I own them.

[Michael Allard]

BO:

The GSM subscriber count is significantly flawed, and not representative of the actual GSM subscriber base (but that is another issue).

The GSM association keeps throwing these numbers out there, because they benifit them. The important metric is not subscriber base to subscriber base (due the flaw mentioned above), but rather handsets sold to handsets sold.

Case in point, your ratio of 1:6 represents subs, but the ratio is more like 1:3 if you look at handsets sold. By 2008, it will be more like 1:1 (when WCDMA is taken into acount on the CDMA side), but I'll bet the GSM org counts each WCDMA sub as a GSM sub as well (technically, there is some validity to doing so) Again, the units sold is the real story, not the phony subscriber base.