Technology Stocks | Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: carranza2 who wrote (72990)1/2/2008 8:35:29 PM
From: Harvey Rosenkrantz   of 117479
 
What ever happened with the Broadcom anti trust suit in New Jersey that Q won on summary judgement and got appealed? I seem to remember that the appeals court ruled that it should be tried.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (73013)1/2/2008 8:39:52 PM
From: carranza2   of 117479
 
That's right. If I recall correctly, only one count got reversed.

Don't know what is going on in that case. Certainly not set for trial.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: slacker711 who wrote (72995)1/2/2008 9:13:10 PM
From: pheilman_2 Recommendations   of 117479
 
I noticed the fine print on Intel's Menlow numbers:

Avg Power: 1 Watt

Standby time: 10.5 hrs

I don't think these numbers are acceptable for portable applications, the device must last one day between charging. But, hey, good look with that marketing.

--Paul

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: pheilman_ who wrote (73015)1/2/2008 9:30:23 PM
From: slacker7112 Recommendations   of 117479
 
Avg Power: 1 Watt

Standby time: 10.5 hrs

I don't think these numbers are acceptable for portable applications, the device must last one day between charging. But, hey, good look with that marketing.


I agree, unlike PC's, the key performance criteria for mobile solutions is going to be MHz/watt rather than MHz/$. Intel is working hard on this, but their first generation of UMPC processors were power hogs so they have quite a bit of work to do. Perhaps the ARM architecture provides an inherent advantage over the x86 architecture? I know as a general rule, I'd rather bet on the low-end architecture than is working up the performance curve (ARM) than the top-heavy architecture trying to reduce power (x86).

Of course, the proof will be in the devices. If Q's customers can announce some devices with battery life specs that dramatically outperform the competition, it will definitely get noticed by the gadget blogs. I'm crossing my fingers that will happen at CES.

Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: carranza2 who wrote (72997)1/2/2008 9:50:47 PM
From: Rich Bloem1 Recommendation   of 117479
 
Well damn it Carranza pay more attention for pity sakes. I love your posts because they are largely well reasoned. Although you tend to put a little more concern into the legal ramifications than I. I understand that the court room setbacks have hurt the short term stock movement but that rubber band is stretching and stretching. Before long it is going to break and that is when we will make a lot of money.

I played golf this morning and was really worried that we were going to take a big hit today. But, I was really pleased when I got home and saw we were only down less than a dollar. I was thinking maybe 4-5 dollars.

Q has shown that they are still on top of their game and has yet to bring out their big guns. And, IMO they won't unless absolutely forced to. The NOK's and the Broadcom's at some point will understand that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Sorry for the vague info. I don't pay as close attention as I used to.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (73002)1/2/2008 9:55:33 PM
From: Rich Bloem6 Recommendations   of 117479
 
Jeffery, I agree with you. Pull back those offers. Let Broadcom wonder where their leverage really is. NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: JGoren who wrote (73010)1/2/2008 10:27:04 PM
From: estatemakr   of 117479
 
"The important legal things are in '08".

Indeed! In these overly litigious times, a focused, cohesive, well-staffed legal team would seem to be of paramount importance. Perhaps even invaluable. So then, I wonder how NOK is doing with their search to replace poor Mr. Belding??? Gee, maybe I missed their press release.............

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: JGoren who wrote (72971)1/2/2008 11:02:05 PM
From: engineer6 Recommendations   of 117479
 
I do not know why Qualcomm does not get the one patent ruled invalid due to not only obviousness, but to sheer basic laws of physics.

If an RFID unit is not in the presence of a radio field, then the Tank charge pump does not work and it shuts off. this is not an invention, it is a physical observation.

If this is the patent which is holding up the world, it is like patenting the fact that when it gets cold, ice forms. So nobody can make ice any more.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: pheilman_ who wrote (73015)1/2/2008 11:11:14 PM
From: engineer   of 117479
 
exactly. I have been working with a guy who has a Moto Q and I have the new 8830 blackberry. I only charge mine every other day or so. He charges his every 4 hours. I get about 250 emails a day plus I do web surfing, make calls, etc.

He is lucky if he can get 25 emails and make 10 mins of calls.

The same is true for Intel. They think that the 1500 to 2400 MaHr battery is wireless portable.

Wireless today is 500 mAHr and 100 gms. 3 days standby plus 3 hours talk time. Anythikng less is stupid.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: slacker711 who wrote (73016)1/2/2008 11:14:11 PM
From: engineer   of 117479
 
Intel made the first Nokia smartphone for them in 1996. They had such bad power numbers it hardly worked at all. Big clumsy, ugley, based on a 386 chip.

At the same time, Qualcomm/Kyocera made a smartphone which ran just like the phone. Days of standby time, lots of features, small size.

Maybe this is why Intel sold the handset chipset group. they have the technology (way ahead of everyone), but have no idea how to use it or design for it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.