Qualcomm reveals MediaFLO's 2007 numbers (hint: profit-free)
Qualcomm's proxy statement filing with the SEC last week revealed some juicy tidbits regarding subsidiary MediaFLO USA's performance in fiscal year 2007, and as might be expected, the numbers aren't so hot. The mobile TV outfit's revenue isn't broken down specifically, but Qualcomm calls it out as largely accounting for its QSI (Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives) segment's poor '07 showing thanks to a $118 million year over year increase in losses. To be fair, MediaFLO launched for the first time anywhere on any carrier in 2007, and the statement blames $70 million of those losses on expenses associated with the March '07 rollout on Verizon -- but these cats have another big push coming up with AT&T, and we can't imagine that service launches are getting any cheaper these days. Hopefully the economies of scale start to kick in before too long and put 'em on the road to black ink.[Via mocoNews]
Filed under: Multimedia, Misc
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rich @ Jan 21st 2008 9:21AM
"...can't imagine that service launches are getting any cheaper these days"?
Say wha? Well, it depends on whether you're including major capital expense; they only had to build the network once. Building a new wireless network from scratch is definitely not cheap, but once they got the network up and running for the Verizon launch, that was it. Now the network is already there, so capital expense for the AT&T launch will be a *tiny fraction* of what it was for Verizon last year.
Since it's a broadcast-only network, they don't even need to add capacity. The exact same network can support 500 carrier partners just as easily as one (Verizon,) so looking at it that way, service launches are MUCH cheaper these days!
Chris Ziegler @ Jan 21st 2008 5:50PM
Rich - I agree with you on all points. I think that statement was worded poorly; I wasn't suggesting that AT&T's launch will demand more than $70 million of MediaFLO USA's investment in infrastructure (though I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T's exclusive channels required some amount of additional equipment on their end) -- I was merely saying that, in general, things don't get cheaper as time goes on. One unit of marketing in 2008 likely costs more than one unit of marketing in 2007, and the like.
Chris