With no easy path to replace Apple revenue, can Qualcomm ever grow again?

Jay Goldberg

Posts: 75   +1
Staff
The big picture: Qualcomm's mobile business has two problems. First is the giant Apple-sized hole in its revenue stream looming on the horizon. Apple is working on its own modem, which will replace the one they currently buy from Qualcomm. That business is worth about $9 billion today (~20% of Qualcomm revenue), and is not easily replaceable. Which leads to the second problem. Apple is gaining share in pretty much every market. So just as Qualcomm is poised to lose its Apple business, all of its other customers are losing business to Apple, reducing Qualcomm's serviceable market.

As we noted on a previous editorial, many on the Street are deeply ambivalent about Qualcomm stock. They recognize the company has made good progress in areas like RF and automotive, but find the stock unappealing because the company's core mobile products will not see meaningful growth any time soon.

Is there anything Qualcomm can do to address this problem with their mobile market, aside from diversifying into new markets like automotive? We see two possible paths.

Editor's Note:
Guest author Jonathan Goldberg is the founder of D2D Advisory, a multi-functional consulting firm. Jonathan has developed growth strategies and alliances for companies in the mobile, networking, gaming, and software industries.

First, there is no guarantee that Apple will actually deliver its modem. These are hard to build and differ from other chips with which Apple has done well. Note that Apple has been working on a Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip for even longer. That is a much easier chip to design, and even after a decade they only use this chip in the Apple Watch, which looks a lot like a tentative experiment, if not a consolation prize. Networking and communications are hard. A Google search on setting up Apple HomePod speakers demonstrates this very clearly – a tiny product line whose networking problems got so bad, Apple had to rush out an update to its software.

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has a pretty good track record on calling Apple component changes, and his current claim is that Apple will start using its own modem in 2024, but only for a new low-priced iPhone. We have no idea if either of those predictions are correct, but if true the limited run of the Apple Modem seems to point at a lack of confidence in the part.

The part may only offer partial coverage (e.g. an earlier release version of 5G), something that would matter less in a lower priced phone. Alternatively, we have heard rumors that the Apple modem is fairly power hungry, and so maybe they are pairing it with a cheaper, less power hungry screen. Or maybe none of this is true and Apple will launch their modem everywhere.

Regardless, hoping your competitor fails is not a great strategy.

Another approach would be for Qualcomm to come up with a product that is much better than what Apple can do. So much better that Apple would have to sacrifice the user experience of their own customer's to not switch. A cheaper product would not be enough, it would have to be noticeably better. Obviously, this would be challenging. Qualcomm has already gone a long way to designing a nearly custom modem for Apple.

That being said, we think there is one approach that might work. Qualcomm can offer more than a modem to Apple, they can also offer RF products, which Apple cannot build itself. Qualcomm produces the entire chain, and if they tied those parts together they could theoretically offer a significantly better total solution than a standalone Apple modem with RF parts from Skyworks in Qorvo. We have talked about this kind of product before, it is the Holy Grail of RF.

This kind of product presents serious technical challenges, as well as significant organizational problems (about which we will have more to say later). It is not something Qualcomm could throw together quickly, and so if it is not in the works already then they will have to look to that to try to win back the socket down the road.

Both of these paths look challenging, but there are still a lot of variables. Apple may not be able to gain share too much longer – we would not bet on that, but it is possible. Alternatively, the other handset vendors are looking for ways to survive, and have recently been releasing more higher-priced phones. There are $2,000 phones coming to the market soon. They will not be able to dominate the mass market, but they will require more expensive silicon from Qualcomm.

Put simply, there are no easy solutions for Qualcomm's mobile business, but they still have a lot of technical heft and a strong position in the rest of the market.

Permalink to story.

 
If they never prepared for the loss of a major client, their management needs to be replaced in full. Every competent manager knows this is a reality of industry and the smart ones always have a 2nd and 3rd back up plan to keep them afloat ....
 
This constant obsession with "growth" is a major contributor to the major boom/bust cycles in out economy.

Why does Qualcomm need to grow? They are huge, they dominate the android sphere (which is 70% of the market) and they are in a good position. They could easily start pushing better ARM chips for laptops, maybe get back into the tablet game, ece.
 
This constant obsession with "growth" is a major contributor to the major boom/bust cycles in out economy.

Why does Qualcomm need to grow? They are huge, they dominate the android sphere (which is 70% of the market) and they are in a good position. They could easily start pushing better ARM chips for laptops, maybe get back into the tablet game, ece.
Every (stock market registered) company needs to make more profit than they did the previous year or investors start pulling out (one-off costs that should result in future profits or cost reductions not included)*.
They don't necessarily need to grow, but their profits must. If they can offset the lost sales to Apple by simply charging Apple and everyone else a lot more then that's fine too.

Well, for healthy product selling companies anyway, with companies providing a service like Spotify things get muddy. All the investors care about in that case seems to indeed be growth with the hope that someday they'll figure out how to extract money out of their userbase.
26773.jpeg


* AMD is a good example of a company that quite often made one-off costs from acquiring other companies that resulted in a net loss fiscal year which otherwise would've been a profitable (or at least less negative :p) year.
 
Apple are fools IMO. No one company can be good at everything. It is ludicrous not to leverage expertise when others can do a far better job. The investment to try an develop a competitive modem that is also power efficient is huge. All Apple will do is stretch their capabilities and struggle to find the required engineers. This obsession with doing all your hardware in-house is ludicrous. Maybe they can waste billions trying to reinvent the wheel and do their own screens too, why not DRAM as well.
 
Apple are fools IMO. No one company can be good at everything. It is ludicrous not to leverage expertise when others can do a far better job. The investment to try an develop a competitive modem that is also power efficient is huge. All Apple will do is stretch their capabilities and struggle to find the required engineers. This obsession with doing all your hardware in-house is ludicrous. Maybe they can waste billions trying to reinvent the wheel and do their own screens too, why not DRAM as well.

Yeah, I mean look at what happened when they decided to design their own APUs instead of staying with stock ARM designs. What a crapfest that's been, right? And then hemorrhaging money as a result!


yes, yes, yes /s
 
Yeah, I mean look at what happened when they decided to design their own APUs instead of staying with stock ARM designs. What a crapfest that's been, right? And then hemorrhaging money as a result!


yes, yes, yes /s
Apples new chips are great but that's mostly because they have bought the manufacturing rights to all of TSMCs newest nodes. Apples new M series chips aren't great because of anything Apple did, they're great because they paid TSMC not give anyone access to those nodes before them.

If there really is so much genius at Apple that they were solely responsible for the success of the M series chips then they should have no problem at all developing their own modems
 
Yeah, I mean look at what happened when they decided to design their own APUs instead of staying with stock ARM designs. What a crapfest that's been, right? And then hemorrhaging money as a result!


yes, yes, yes /s


But did you read the article - lots of ifs and maybes etc in it- But the main point Modems are hard .
Apple have some advantages in designing their chips for as they can optimise it well just for them - They would of got a lot of assistance from ARM as well.

Apple have produce junk as well , and so so software like Itunes for windows - but for their core they do a good job.
They had years of experience upgrading their custom chips
They would of made mega $ even if chips were so so

Let's wait and see - what happens when 6G comes etc - plus even on chip from in 5 years there will be a lot of powerful SOCs. APUs running on 3 to 15 watts - people will buy mostly on the OS they want - not the speed.

However a modem is different - it needs to work tirelessly pumping even bigger bandwidth - a slightly slow CPU - most won't notice it - but modem troubles oh boy - then their is the security side as well

Qualcomm and Apple will both do find enough
 
Oh Qualcomm can die an agonizing death. They can take their proprietary, forced bullcr@p like QuickCharge and aptX up their....
The same QuickCharge that was present long before USB PD, the one that most fast charging standards, like samsung quick charge, motorola turbo power, and mediatek pump express are built on? The standard that is near universal in phones?

Or aptX, the standard that FINALLY fixed the bluetooth audio garbage?

You certainly have an interesting list fo things you dont like.
 
It’s simple: keep making a superior product.

No company, including Apple, can be great at many things. There is a reason Apple keeps pushing back when they are making the switch: their own modem is not as good. Cheaper yes, but not better, and they sell a premium product, not a discount one.
 
Did you read company financials and forecast? They haven't factored Apple revenue in their models for many quarters, and they show robust top and bottom line growth.
 
"If you fail to plan, then you are planning to fail"

"A failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"

"Hindsight is 20/20 in plain view, but foresight is genius in disguise"

This applies to any business, large, small or in between...
 
I'd just like to point out, so far every company that has tried to make a competing modem has come out with a chip with god-awful performance, then come back to Qualcomm.

Samsung, I actually had a phone with no Qualcomm modems in it -- it used a Samsung 4G chip, and a Realtek (I think?) 2G/3G chip? The RF performance on it was bad (luckily the signal strength in my home town is good so this wasn't too big a problem), the 4G speed was rather poor too.

Then there's Intel -- a few of those lines of Apple phones that had all sorts of RF problems? Intel modems. They left the cellular modem business.

It's like a natural monopoly -- Qualcomm is doing absolutely nothing to keep anyone else out of the business; they don't "pull a Microsoft" (pull some type of anti-competitive behavior). They don't use their patents as a weapon, you pay Qualcomm some fee and you get a full patent license to use as you see fit. They don't play "fast and loose" with the standards (I.e. their chips are not designed to work well only with their own chips and not others). It's simply that Qualcomm has been making modems for like 30 years now, and have top-notch technical experience, so it's years and billions of dollars in R&D for anyone to catch up (at which point, Qualcomm would have moved ahead with several new generations of chips). Qualcomm prices their chips for a healthy profit, but low enough that companies that consider making their own chips usually run the numbers and find spending the billions on R&D would cost more than continuing to buy from Qualcomm.
 
Back