Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf retiring in June

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2021
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf has announced that he is stepping down, and being replaced by current President Cristiano Amon effective on June 30, 2021.

Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf


Mollenkopf's oversight helped push Qualcomm through each major cellular transition as 3G, 4G, then 5G became more important. The company is the industry leader for providing cellular modems to the world, and has expanded into Internet of Things processors and even automotive.

Mollenkopf has been CEO since 2014. The stock has increased by 96.7% since his tenure began, 71.7% within the last year.

Apple and Qualcomm have seen a rocky relationship over the years, culminating in 2020 in a truce as Apple prepared to launch a lineup of 5G iPhones. Apple agreed to settle a patent battle between the companies by paying around $4.5 billion and signing a contract for Qualcomm modems. This move pushed Qualcomm to the number one spot for chip designer revenue in 2020 despite a late iPhone 12 launch.

"Steve navigated through unprecedented circumstances during his tenure, facing more in his seven years as CEO than most leaders face in their entire careers," Qualcomm Chair Mark McLaughlin said in a statement to CNBC.

Qualcomm President Cristiano Amon has been with the company since 1995, and became President of the company in 2018. He has been responsible for Qualcomm's semiconductor business that creates the Snapdragon processors and other chipsets.

"I am honored to be named the next CEO of Qualcomm and appreciate the confidence that Steve and the Board have in me," said Amon in an article by StreetInsider. "Qualcomm is an incredible Company. We have been at the forefront of innovation for decades and I look forward to maintaining this position going forward."

Amon is set to become the CEO during the peak of Qualcomm's operations. The company plans to ship 500 million mobile chips with 5G by the end of 2021 and continues to expand its presence in mobile devices around the world.

The Qualcomm processors are used in flagship Android devices and provide competition to Apple's own chipset efforts. While never quite reaching Apple Silicon levels of performance, the Qualcomm processors are industry leading and power most everything non-Apple related in the mobile space.

Apple isn't satisfied with just designing its own industry-leading processors, however, as the company seeks to build its own modems as well. Even as Qualcomm and Apple begin a new partnership for 5G modems, Apple is seeking a way out.

In 2019 Apple purchased the rights to Intel's 5G modem business for $1B in July. This purchase was right after going into contract with Qualcomm.

Apple intends to build its own modems in the future. Once the Qualcomm contract expires, the companies will likely be at odds again. The 5G rollout has been a big business for Qualcomm despite tepid consumer response, yet it will play an important role in the future of computing, with a great deal at stake.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    mike1watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    This article directly puts your linked article into doubt:

    "The company plans to ship 500 million mobile chips with 5G by the end of 2021" 

    Less than half of those will be in Apple handsets, according to the estimates that have been quoted. 

    That's just QC. Now throw in Huawei, Samsung and Mediatek et al.

    Now add on non-handset devices. 

    If you want to niggle and say but it claims 'outpacing growth' then that is effectively worthless as competitors have been shipping 5G modems for a while now. 

    Yes, the situation cost Apple dearly. 

    They will be shipping a bolted on X55 (announced almost two years ago!) for the best part of the whole year. They are scrambling to get a homebrew modem out via acquisitions and hiring away engineers from competitors.

    Let's not try to paint things otherwise. The complete Apple 5G plan imploded before its eyes. The bet on Intel backfired. 

    We are witnessing the fallout from that. 

    That's ok. Things backfire for everyone at some point. 
  • Reply 4 of 21
    cloudguycloudguy Posts: 323member
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    Nah, there is absolutely no way to spin the idea that Apple won Apple vs Qualcomm. 
    Apple had an existing agreement with Qualcomm at an industry standard per device rate.
    Apple stopped paying licensing fees under that existing agreement and tried to get Qualcomm to agree to a much lower per device rate.
    Qualcomm sued Apple over the unpaid fees.
    Apple countersued claiming that Qualcomm's licensing terms were an abuse of FRAND and unfair.
    When it was OBVIOUS that Qualcomm was going to win their suit and Apple was going to lose their countersuit they announced a "settlement" where:
    Apple paid Qualcomm the previous unpaid licensing fees
    Apple agreed to make Qualcomm the exclusive supplier of modems through 2024 at the same rate that Apple objected to in the first place.

    Only the most "fanboy" Apple-centric sites even attempted to spin it as a win for Apple. The rest of the Apple-centric sites spun it as a "win-win." But the reality is that Apple heard feedback from the legal and regulatory bodies in multiple jurisdictions that nearly all of them were going to rule against Apple on the licensing terms issue - because Qualcomm was charging Apple the same per device fee that they were charging Samsung and everyone else - and some were even going to grant Qualcomm's request to ban the import and sale of iPhones.

    Yes, Apple will create their own 5G modem tech. Good for them. But this suit wasn't about what was going to happen in the future anyway. Also, had Qualcomm allowed Apple to get away with it, Apple could have arbitrarily decided to try to lower their licensing payments to a point below where Qualcomm was making profits again (or possibly not pay at all). Yes, it would have been better to lose Apple as a customer entirely than to allow Apple to get away with paying a fraction of what all their other customers were paying, especially since Samsung and the other customers would have demanded the same rate as Apple, and Qualcomm would have had no ability to tell them no. Samsung to Qualcomm: "give us the same rate that Apple has. Qualcomm to Samsung: "honor your contract with us." Samsung to Qualcomm: "Apple had a contract with you too. See you in court." Court to Qualcomm: "You have no legal basis for charging Samsung or any of your other customers more than you charge Apple." So yes, if Apple is at any time willing to withhold billions of dollars from you and tie you up in court for years with absolutely nonsense legal arguments while using a PR campaign to drag you through the mud and assail your reputation as a pressure tactic - knowing that the media is going to write a bunch of columns and articles on their MacBook Airs and iPad Pros that regurgitate your propaganda while totally ignoring that Apple expects everyone else to honor contracts and FRAND terms with them - then yes Qualcomm is better off without them. Qualcomm doesn't need Apple's money to operate, turn a profit, grow or thrive. So just take their money today and let Apple take their strongarm tactics to other suppliers.

    And guess what? Even when Apple makes their own modems they will still owe Qualcomm licensing fees for them anyway because Qualcomm owns the patents. And Qualcomm isn't even a patent troll NPE that only exists on paper. They are a practicing entity with a (currently) industry-leading product portfolio with those same patents! Apple is going to pay Qualcomm those same per-device patents whether they buy the 5G modems from Qualcomm or make their own, just as AMD still pays x86 licensing fees to Intel to this day. 

    The only reason why we didn't get a bunch of "Apple forced to settle with Qualcomm to avoid losing legal case and iPhone ban" articles from the press is what I stated earlier: nearly everyone in the western press types those articles on iPads and MacBooks. But you had better believe that is what happened, because there is no way that Apple would have agreed to cough up billions and make Qualcomm their exclusive supplier for 5 years if they thought that there was even a 25% chance of winning.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 5 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    cloudguy said:
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    Nah, there is absolutely no way to spin the idea that Apple won Apple vs Qualcomm. 
    Apple had an existing agreement with Qualcomm at an industry standard per device rate.
    Apple stopped paying licensing fees under that existing agreement and tried to get Qualcomm to agree to a much lower per device rate.
    Qualcomm sued Apple over the unpaid fees.
    Apple countersued claiming that Qualcomm's licensing terms were an abuse of FRAND and unfair.
    When it was OBVIOUS that Qualcomm was going to win their suit and Apple was going to lose their countersuit they announced a "settlement" where:
    Apple paid Qualcomm the previous unpaid licensing fees
    Apple agreed to make Qualcomm the exclusive supplier of modems through 2024 at the same rate that Apple objected to in the first place.

    Only the most "fanboy" Apple-centric sites even attempted to spin it as a win for Apple. The rest of the Apple-centric sites spun it as a "win-win." But the reality is that Apple heard feedback from the legal and regulatory bodies in multiple jurisdictions that nearly all of them were going to rule against Apple on the licensing terms issue - because Qualcomm was charging Apple the same per device fee that they were charging Samsung and everyone else - and some were even going to grant Qualcomm's request to ban the import and sale of iPhones.

    Yes, Apple will create their own 5G modem tech. Good for them. But this suit wasn't about what was going to happen in the future anyway. Also, had Qualcomm allowed Apple to get away with it, Apple could have arbitrarily decided to try to lower their licensing payments to a point below where Qualcomm was making profits again (or possibly not pay at all). Yes, it would have been better to lose Apple as a customer entirely than to allow Apple to get away with paying a fraction of what all their other customers were paying, especially since Samsung and the other customers would have demanded the same rate as Apple, and Qualcomm would have had no ability to tell them no. Samsung to Qualcomm: "give us the same rate that Apple has. Qualcomm to Samsung: "honor your contract with us." Samsung to Qualcomm: "Apple had a contract with you too. See you in court." Court to Qualcomm: "You have no legal basis for charging Samsung or any of your other customers more than you charge Apple." So yes, if Apple is at any time willing to withhold billions of dollars from you and tie you up in court for years with absolutely nonsense legal arguments while using a PR campaign to drag you through the mud and assail your reputation as a pressure tactic - knowing that the media is going to write a bunch of columns and articles on their MacBook Airs and iPad Pros that regurgitate your propaganda while totally ignoring that Apple expects everyone else to honor contracts and FRAND terms with them - then yes Qualcomm is better off without them. Qualcomm doesn't need Apple's money to operate, turn a profit, grow or thrive. So just take their money today and let Apple take their strongarm tactics to other suppliers.

    And guess what? Even when Apple makes their own modems they will still owe Qualcomm licensing fees for them anyway because Qualcomm owns the patents. And Qualcomm isn't even a patent troll NPE that only exists on paper. They are a practicing entity with a (currently) industry-leading product portfolio with those same patents! Apple is going to pay Qualcomm those same per-device patents whether they buy the 5G modems from Qualcomm or make their own, just as AMD still pays x86 licensing fees to Intel to this day. 

    The only reason why we didn't get a bunch of "Apple forced to settle with Qualcomm to avoid losing legal case and iPhone ban" articles from the press is what I stated earlier: nearly everyone in the western press types those articles on iPads and MacBooks. But you had better believe that is what happened, because there is no way that Apple would have agreed to cough up billions and make Qualcomm their exclusive supplier for 5 years if they thought that there was even a 25% chance of winning.
    Qualcomm won; Apple is on its way to sell 230 million iPhones, $180 B in iPhone revenue, in FY 2021, and on path to $3 trillion valuation in 2022. 

    Apple didn't "pay dearly" for that deal.
    edited January 2021 watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 6 of 21
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,976member
    Qualcomm won the battle but like Intel they will be designed out of Apple products and will lose the war (Samsung), Qualcomm will be spending more money on their lackluster Surface cpu going ahead or Microsoft will be moving on.

    And the same will apply to some of the smartphone makers who will move on to Nvidia in time (when they get their hands on ARM), the era of making a profit with a cpu design (the big three Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm) without a in house OS is over and that is the Apple disruption with their in house chips.
    tmaywatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 7 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    This article directly puts your linked article into doubt:

    "The company plans to ship 500 million mobile chips with 5G by the end of 2021" 

    Less than half of those will be in Apple handsets, according to the estimates that have been quoted. 

    That's just QC. Now throw in Huawei, Samsung and Mediatek et al.

    Now add on non-handset devices. 

    If you want to niggle and say but it claims 'outpacing growth' then that is effectively worthless as competitors have been shipping 5G modems for a while now. 

    Yes, the situation cost Apple dearly. 

    They will be shipping a bolted on X55 (announced almost two years ago!) for the best part of the whole year. They are scrambling to get a homebrew modem out via acquisitions and hiring away engineers from competitors.

    Let's not try to paint things otherwise. The complete Apple 5G plan imploded before its eyes. The bet on Intel backfired. 

    We are witnessing the fallout from that. 

    That's ok. Things backfire for everyone at some point. 
    LOL!

    The Titanic sailed, didn't hit an iceberg, and arrives safe in NewYork City.

    Naturally, you are sad about Apple's success in iPhone sales rivaling the peak in 2015. 

    Meanwhile, Huawei's smartphone sales are getting ravaged by other Chinese OEM'a; now that's sad.
    lkruppwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 8 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    This article directly puts your linked article into doubt:

    "The company plans to ship 500 million mobile chips with 5G by the end of 2021" 

    Less than half of those will be in Apple handsets, according to the estimates that have been quoted. 

    That's just QC. Now throw in Huawei, Samsung and Mediatek et al.

    Now add on non-handset devices. 

    If you want to niggle and say but it claims 'outpacing growth' then that is effectively worthless as competitors have been shipping 5G modems for a while now. 

    Yes, the situation cost Apple dearly. 

    They will be shipping a bolted on X55 (announced almost two years ago!) for the best part of the whole year. They are scrambling to get a homebrew modem out via acquisitions and hiring away engineers from competitors.

    Let's not try to paint things otherwise. The complete Apple 5G plan imploded before its eyes. The bet on Intel backfired. 

    We are witnessing the fallout from that. 

    That's ok. Things backfire for everyone at some point. 
    LOL!

    The Titanic sailed, didn't hit an iceberg, and arrives safe in NewYork City.

    Naturally, you are sad about Apple's success in iPhone sales rivaling the peak in 2015. 

    Meanwhile, Huawei's smartphone sales are getting ravaged by other Chinese OEM'a; now that's sad.
    As usual, your reply has nothing to do with what I outlined. 
  • Reply 9 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    mr lizard said:
    Interesting to see the outcome of the Qualcomm / Apple skirmish described as a “truce”. Qualcomm dragged Apple through the mud and handed them their backsides on a platter. A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly. 
    "cost them dearly"?

    Uhm, no.

    Seems like whatever the cost of the "truce", that cost has been easily recouped, and then some, with Apple's own Modem expected in the near future.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/apple-outpacing-smartphone-industry-growth-will-dominate-5g-market-in-2021
    This article directly puts your linked article into doubt:

    "The company plans to ship 500 million mobile chips with 5G by the end of 2021" 

    Less than half of those will be in Apple handsets, according to the estimates that have been quoted. 

    That's just QC. Now throw in Huawei, Samsung and Mediatek et al.

    Now add on non-handset devices. 

    If you want to niggle and say but it claims 'outpacing growth' then that is effectively worthless as competitors have been shipping 5G modems for a while now. 

    Yes, the situation cost Apple dearly. 

    They will be shipping a bolted on X55 (announced almost two years ago!) for the best part of the whole year. They are scrambling to get a homebrew modem out via acquisitions and hiring away engineers from competitors.

    Let's not try to paint things otherwise. The complete Apple 5G plan imploded before its eyes. The bet on Intel backfired. 

    We are witnessing the fallout from that. 

    That's ok. Things backfire for everyone at some point. 
    LOL!

    The Titanic sailed, didn't hit an iceberg, and arrives safe in NewYork City.

    Naturally, you are sad about Apple's success in iPhone sales rivaling the peak in 2015. 

    Meanwhile, Huawei's smartphone sales are getting ravaged by other Chinese OEM'a; now that's sad.
    As usual, your reply has nothing to do with what I outlined. 
    ...and as usual, I don't give a shit what you "outlined", and you might want to actually read that link:

    "The iPhone's position in the 5G market is anticipated to grow in 2021 from a 31% market share in 2020 to 35%, further cementing its position as the dominant 5G smartphone supplier with models like the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro."

    Interesting that Honor is now a competitor of Huawei...

    https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/huawei_out_top_six_smartphone_vendors/

    Does that mean you are going with Honor over Huawei?
    edited January 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 11 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    edited January 2021
  • Reply 13 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    The link I provided refers to Smartphones, not modems, so you moved the goalpost so QC wins modem sales, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is selling more 5G smartphones than any other single manufacturer.

    It matters little within the timeframe of the construct of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm, but "Qualcomm having Apple" doesn't change the fact that Apple is the entity generating the massive revenue and profits off of the iPhone, not just off the modem, and sans SOC.

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    It's interesting that you have shifted your allegiances so fast from Huawei, which is estimated to only sell some 45 million smartphones this year, to Qualcomm, who might end up being the vessel that the other Chinese OEM's use to finish off Huawei as a major player in smartphones. I would note that Qualcomm isn't going to be selling anywhere close to the numbers of the Qualcomm 888 SOC as Apple sells A14's so you might want to keep that in mind when Qualcomm gets those half a billion modem/SOC sales, but with less than Flagship performance. 

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

  • Reply 14 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    The link I provided refers to Smartphones, not modems, so you moved the goalpost so QC wins modem sales, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is selling more 5G smartphones than any other single manufacturer.

    It matters little within the timeframe of the construct of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm, but "Qualcomm having Apple" doesn't change the fact that Apple is the entity generating the massive revenue and profits off of the iPhone, not just off the modem, and sans SOC.

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    It's interesting that you have shifted your allegiances so fast from Huawei, which is estimated to only sell some 45 million smartphones this year, to Qualcomm, who might end up being the vessel that the other Chinese OEM's use to finish off Huawei as a major player in smartphones. I would note that Qualcomm isn't going to be selling anywhere close to the numbers of the Qualcomm 888 SOC as Apple sells A14's so you might want to keep that in mind when Qualcomm gets those half a billion modem/SOC sales, but with less than Flagship performance. 

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    And there it is, right on schedule. 

    You are taking a minute snapshot of Apple's sales and reading too much into the situation. 

    Apple has, just like every single year, pent up sales which are fruit of its yearly release cycle. There is no doubt that because of that, Apple spikes every year and that is what you are feeding off here. 

    You will do exactly the same with Apple's quarterly results and start singing and dancing, as you have done every single year, for the last four years but when yearly figures are estimated you have been noticeably absent because sales have been flat.

    This year might be different but if it is different, it will be precisely due to 5G driving sales along with everything else Apple has done to push sales (pricing adjustments, more competitive hardware, wider model spread etc). 

    You are playing off estimates which the report itself plays to an 'optimistic assumption'.

    Perhaps you have already forgotten that the year has barely begun and that this is the year that 5G will reach the low end models. 

    If it weren't for the Trump administration meddling in international Huawei would be the one to follow. It is already estimated to have dominated 5G sales in 2020:

    "According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei is expected to have shipped the most 5G smartphones in 2020 with 79.6 million units and 29.2% market share in 2020. Apple is expected to be the runner-up with 52.3 million units and 19.2% market share."


    http://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.htmlidxno=2112#:~:text=According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei,units and 19.2% market share.


    From a company perspective this year, Samsung and BBK will also have a lot to say in the 5G space. 

    Huawei is only affected by extraofficial US politics. That, from a strategic perspective, is more of a long term problem for US companies. Huawei has already put its plans on the table and they are very simple. Eradicate any reliance on US technologies.

    Latest rumours also claim that HiSilicon's 3nm development is unaffected. Yesterday Huawei confirmed that HarmonyOS will be offered to other handset manufacturers and is already projected to land on over 100 million devices from over 40 companies this year. A year which will reportedly it land on Huawei and Honor phones too. 

    Trump excelled himself by literally sinking US tech's chances of performing to their potential over the coming years. 

    Even QC's gain is limited. Huawei was already reducing use of QC chipsets before Trump got involved. By the time they lose Apple, Huawei may very well be in a position to eradicate QC chipsets to a large degree too. That would paint a picture if night and day regarding the current situation. 

    As for costing Apple, forget shares and ASP. It was irrelevant before and it's irrelevant now. 

    It cost billions in hard cash with QC and intel alone. In terms of strategic cost it was a disaster, the fruits of which are there for everybody to see. The entire industry is soon going to be running basically on third gen, 5nm on-SoC 5G chipsets while Apple hobbles along with old, bolted-on X55s (with the consequences of that on battery life and screen refresh rates. 

    Of course 5G was never about handsets alone. It was about virtually everything, from VR glasses to cars, robotics, science health, education, industry etc. 

    Embedded 5G will be obviously prefer more efficient chipsets. 




    edited January 2021
  • Reply 15 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    The link I provided refers to Smartphones, not modems, so you moved the goalpost so QC wins modem sales, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is selling more 5G smartphones than any other single manufacturer.

    It matters little within the timeframe of the construct of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm, but "Qualcomm having Apple" doesn't change the fact that Apple is the entity generating the massive revenue and profits off of the iPhone, not just off the modem, and sans SOC.

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    It's interesting that you have shifted your allegiances so fast from Huawei, which is estimated to only sell some 45 million smartphones this year, to Qualcomm, who might end up being the vessel that the other Chinese OEM's use to finish off Huawei as a major player in smartphones. I would note that Qualcomm isn't going to be selling anywhere close to the numbers of the Qualcomm 888 SOC as Apple sells A14's so you might want to keep that in mind when Qualcomm gets those half a billion modem/SOC sales, but with less than Flagship performance. 

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    And there it is, right on schedule. 

    You are taking a minute snapshot of Apple's sales and reading too much into the situation. 

    Apple has, just like every single year, pent up sales which are fruit of its yearly release cycle. There is no doubt that because of that, Apple spikes every year and that is what you are feeding off here. 

    You will do exactly the same with Apple's quarterly results and start singing and dancing, as you have done every single year, for the last four years but when yearly figures are estimated you have been noticeably absent because sales have been flat.

    This year might be different but if it is different, it will be precisely due to 5G driving sales along with everything else Apple has done to push sales (pricing adjustments, more competitive hardware, wider model spread etc). 

    You are playing off estimates which the report itself plays to an 'optimistic assumption'.

    Perhaps you have already forgotten that the year has barely begun and that this is the year that 5G will reach the low end models. 

    If it weren't for the Trump administration meddling in international Huawei would be the one to follow. It is already estimated to have dominated 5G sales in 2020:

    "According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei is expected to have shipped the most 5G smartphones in 2020 with 79.6 million units and 29.2% market share in 2020. Apple is expected to be the runner-up with 52.3 million units and 19.2% market share."


    http://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.htmlidxno=2112#:~:text=According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei,units and 19.2% market share.


    From a company perspective this year, Samsung and BBK will also have a lot to say in the 5G space. 

    Huawei is only affected by extraofficial US politics. That, from a strategic perspective, is more of a long term problem for US companies. Huawei has already put its plans on the table and they are very simple. Eradicate any reliance on US technologies.

    Latest rumours also claim that HiSilicon's 3nm development is unaffected. Yesterday Huawei confirmed that HarmonyOS will be offered to other handset manufacturers and is already projected to land on over 100 million devices from over 40 companies this year. A year which will reportedly it land on Huawei and Honor phones too. 

    Trump excelled himself by literally sinking US tech's chances of performing to their potential over the coming years. 

    Even QC's gain is limited. Huawei was already reducing use of QC chipsets before Trump got involved. By the time they lose Apple, Huawei may very well be in a position to eradicate QC chipsets to a large degree too. That would paint a picture if night and day regarding the current situation. 

    As for costing Apple, forget shares and ASP. It was irrelevant before and it's irrelevant now. 

    It cost billions in hard cash with QC and intel alone. In terms of strategic cost it was a disaster, the fruits of which are there for everybody to see. The entire industry is soon going to be running basically on third gen, 5nm on-SoC 5G chipsets while Apple hobbles along with old, bolted-on X55s (with the consequences of that on battery life and screen refresh rates. 

    Of course 5G was never about handsets alone. It was about virtually everything, from VR glasses to cars, robotics, science health, education, industry etc. 

    Embedded 5G will be obviously prefer more efficient chipsets. 




    HiSilicon is fabless and uses TMSC, or at least, they did until last fall.

    TMSC continues to support ban on fab of HiSilicon chips for Telecom or Smartphone use.

    HiSilicon will not see any chip at 5 nm or below in the future, as things stand, so that means, as of today, that HiSilicon will not get anything at the 3 nm node either.

    https://wccftech.com/tsmc-licenses-huawei-business-rumor/

    "Alleged License Grant(s) Will Not Help Chinese Company Produce Leading Edge Smartphones

    Huawei's launch of the Tiangian processor in 2019 was heralded by many as a first of its kinds. In this pre-sanctions era, the company led in the global 5G rollout, particularly as European companies embraced its products with open arms. At the time, its own figures suggested that Huawei had shipped 25,000 base stations globally, and it promised that the Tiangang would serve small and large scale 5G deployment. It would achieve this by being able to integrate a large number of power amplifiers and antenna arrays into small antennas and promised smaller and lighter AAUs (active antenna units).

    Rumors denied by the U.S. Department of Commerce have also suggested that TSMC's investment in a $12 billion chip fabrication plant in Arizona was conditioned on the chipmaker being allowed to continue its business relationship with Huawei. Yet, the future of this relationship still depends on Commerce deciding which products designed and manufactured using American-sourced technology are not a threat to U.S. national security interests.

    TSMC announced key financial metrics for its third quarter of 2020 yesterday. In the quarter that ended in September, the chipmaker earned NT$127 billion in revenue and NT$978 billion in the first three quarters of this year. Both of these figures mark for 25% and 30% year-over-year growths respectively as they come at a time when Huawei was reported to have been stockpiling 7nm and other products before the U.S. sanctions came into effect in September.

    Yet, as mainland China lacks in chip fabrications, these are unlikely to solve Huawei's long-term problem of securing advanced chips. China's Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) has also come under American scrutiny due to it being Huawei's second-best chance at solving its chip problems."

    Your complaints about Apple's "bolt on" 5G are misinformation, since Apple is selling more 5G phones than any other manufacturer, but more to the point, Huawei has no source for any more 5 nm SOC's at all. By next fall, Apple will be using the latest "bolt on" QC modem, and will be delivering the A15, again leading the industry for performance, and QC 888's are going to be very, very, expensive for OEM's. so expect to see more low and midrange 5G SOC's. 

    Not sure why you keep posting your misinformation, since it is easy to counter.

  • Reply 16 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    The link I provided refers to Smartphones, not modems, so you moved the goalpost so QC wins modem sales, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is selling more 5G smartphones than any other single manufacturer.

    It matters little within the timeframe of the construct of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm, but "Qualcomm having Apple" doesn't change the fact that Apple is the entity generating the massive revenue and profits off of the iPhone, not just off the modem, and sans SOC.

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    It's interesting that you have shifted your allegiances so fast from Huawei, which is estimated to only sell some 45 million smartphones this year, to Qualcomm, who might end up being the vessel that the other Chinese OEM's use to finish off Huawei as a major player in smartphones. I would note that Qualcomm isn't going to be selling anywhere close to the numbers of the Qualcomm 888 SOC as Apple sells A14's so you might want to keep that in mind when Qualcomm gets those half a billion modem/SOC sales, but with less than Flagship performance. 

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    And there it is, right on schedule. 

    You are taking a minute snapshot of Apple's sales and reading too much into the situation. 

    Apple has, just like every single year, pent up sales which are fruit of its yearly release cycle. There is no doubt that because of that, Apple spikes every year and that is what you are feeding off here. 

    You will do exactly the same with Apple's quarterly results and start singing and dancing, as you have done every single year, for the last four years but when yearly figures are estimated you have been noticeably absent because sales have been flat.

    This year might be different but if it is different, it will be precisely due to 5G driving sales along with everything else Apple has done to push sales (pricing adjustments, more competitive hardware, wider model spread etc). 

    You are playing off estimates which the report itself plays to an 'optimistic assumption'.

    Perhaps you have already forgotten that the year has barely begun and that this is the year that 5G will reach the low end models. 

    If it weren't for the Trump administration meddling in international Huawei would be the one to follow. It is already estimated to have dominated 5G sales in 2020:

    "According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei is expected to have shipped the most 5G smartphones in 2020 with 79.6 million units and 29.2% market share in 2020. Apple is expected to be the runner-up with 52.3 million units and 19.2% market share."


    http://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.htmlidxno=2112#:~:text=According to Strategy Analytics, Huawei,units and 19.2% market share.


    From a company perspective this year, Samsung and BBK will also have a lot to say in the 5G space. 

    Huawei is only affected by extraofficial US politics. That, from a strategic perspective, is more of a long term problem for US companies. Huawei has already put its plans on the table and they are very simple. Eradicate any reliance on US technologies.

    Latest rumours also claim that HiSilicon's 3nm development is unaffected. Yesterday Huawei confirmed that HarmonyOS will be offered to other handset manufacturers and is already projected to land on over 100 million devices from over 40 companies this year. A year which will reportedly it land on Huawei and Honor phones too. 

    Trump excelled himself by literally sinking US tech's chances of performing to their potential over the coming years. 

    Even QC's gain is limited. Huawei was already reducing use of QC chipsets before Trump got involved. By the time they lose Apple, Huawei may very well be in a position to eradicate QC chipsets to a large degree too. That would paint a picture if night and day regarding the current situation. 

    As for costing Apple, forget shares and ASP. It was irrelevant before and it's irrelevant now. 

    It cost billions in hard cash with QC and intel alone. In terms of strategic cost it was a disaster, the fruits of which are there for everybody to see. The entire industry is soon going to be running basically on third gen, 5nm on-SoC 5G chipsets while Apple hobbles along with old, bolted-on X55s (with the consequences of that on battery life and screen refresh rates. 

    Of course 5G was never about handsets alone. It was about virtually everything, from VR glasses to cars, robotics, science health, education, industry etc. 

    Embedded 5G will be obviously prefer more efficient chipsets. 




    HiSilicon is fabless and uses TMSC, or at least, they did until last fall.

    TMSC continues to support ban on fab of HiSilicon chips for Telecom or Smartphone use.

    HiSilicon will not see any chip at 5 nm or below in the future, as things stand, so that means, as of today, that HiSilicon will not get anything at the 3 nm node either.

    https://wccftech.com/tsmc-licenses-huawei-business-rumor/

    "Alleged License Grant(s) Will Not Help Chinese Company Produce Leading Edge Smartphones

    Huawei's launch of the Tiangian processor in 2019 was heralded by many as a first of its kinds. In this pre-sanctions era, the company led in the global 5G rollout, particularly as European companies embraced its products with open arms. At the time, its own figures suggested that Huawei had shipped 25,000 base stations globally, and it promised that the Tiangang would serve small and large scale 5G deployment. It would achieve this by being able to integrate a large number of power amplifiers and antenna arrays into small antennas and promised smaller and lighter AAUs (active antenna units).

    Rumors denied by the U.S. Department of Commerce have also suggested that TSMC's investment in a $12 billion chip fabrication plant in Arizona was conditioned on the chipmaker being allowed to continue its business relationship with Huawei. Yet, the future of this relationship still depends on Commerce deciding which products designed and manufactured using American-sourced technology are not a threat to U.S. national security interests.

    TSMC announced key financial metrics for its third quarter of 2020 yesterday. In the quarter that ended in September, the chipmaker earned NT$127 billion in revenue and NT$978 billion in the first three quarters of this year. Both of these figures mark for 25% and 30% year-over-year growths respectively as they come at a time when Huawei was reported to have been stockpiling 7nm and other products before the U.S. sanctions came into effect in September.

    Yet, as mainland China lacks in chip fabrications, these are unlikely to solve Huawei's long-term problem of securing advanced chips. China's Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) has also come under American scrutiny due to it being Huawei's second-best chance at solving its chip problems."

    Your complaints about Apple's "bolt on" 5G are misinformation, since Apple is selling more 5G phones than any other manufacturer, but more to the point, Huawei has no source for any more 5 nm SOC's at all. By next fall, Apple will be using the latest "bolt on" QC modem, and will be delivering the A15, again leading the industry for performance, and QC 888's are going to be very, very, expensive for OEM's. so expect to see more low and midrange 5G SOC's. 

    Not sure why you keep posting your misinformation, since it is easy to counter.

    Misinformation? 

    You need to re-read what I wrote. It is very simple. 

    For the best part of 2021, Apple will be shipping a 5G modem that was announced in February 2019.

    That modem is not integrated into the SoC..

    That situation, in all liklihood, is what prevented Apple from using higher screen refresh rates and will have more impact on battery life. 

    That is not misinformation. 

    QC is not the only company making 5G modems. There are more and they aren't US companies. 

    Huawei has installed hundreds of thousands of 5G base stations already. 

    It is quite impossible to know which way Biden will swing on Huawei. 

    Either way, Trump's cowboy politics have already triggered the bomb. Countries have seen his attempts to use government powers to 'sanction' foreign companies doing business with third parties. The damage is done. 

    Countries were already planning for a reduction in US influence/dependency. Things have simply been accelerated. In the case of China they have been accelerated even more than they already had been. 

    It is ironic that the word 'de-coupling' was banded about so much during 2020 when the real de-coupling will eventually see the US tech industry lose influence on the world stage. That is why tech bodies representing thousands of US tech companies protested directly to Trump.

    The results of all this will not be instant. It will take time but far less time than anyone previous imagined. 
  • Reply 17 of 21
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    I am not so sure about the bolded part - i.e. Apple moving 230 million units in this year. Some of reports that I read point to reduction in overall smartphone shipments in 2020 Vs 2019. No one can be so sure that the trend would reverse in 2021 with the pandemic still going on. Holiday quarter results will probably give a good idea on whether the iPhone shipment trend is going to be FLAT for yet another year or will be different and show an increasing trend for 2021.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    I am not so sure about the bolded part - i.e. Apple moving 230 million units in this year. Some of reports that I read point to reduction in overall smartphone shipments in 2020 Vs 2019. No one can be so sure that the trend would reverse in 2021 with the pandemic still going on. Holiday quarter results will probably give a good idea on whether the iPhone shipment trend is going to be FLAT for yet another year or will be different and show an increasing trend for 2021.
    That's fair to be concerned, but the indications of a large sales increase for the iPhone are still there.

    More to the point, Avon b7 argues that 5G is of such huge importance to the customer, and the data so far is proving him right about that, At the same time, Avon b7 wants to argue that Apple has made a huge blunder in its 5G choices, especially the choice of the "bolt on X55 modem", which is absolutely false, again based on data. The customer doesn't seem to care at all.
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 19 of 21
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,757member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    I am not so sure about the bolded part - i.e. Apple moving 230 million units in this year. Some of reports that I read point to reduction in overall smartphone shipments in 2020 Vs 2019. No one can be so sure that the trend would reverse in 2021 with the pandemic still going on. Holiday quarter results will probably give a good idea on whether the iPhone shipment trend is going to be FLAT for yet another year or will be different and show an increasing trend for 2021.
    That's fair to be concerned, but the indications of a large sales increase for the iPhone are still there.

    More to the point, Avon b7 argues that 5G is of such huge importance to the customer, and the data so far is proving him right about that, At the same time, Avon b7 wants to argue that Apple has made a huge blunder in its 5G choices, especially the choice of the "bolt on X55 modem", which is absolutely false, again based on data. The customer doesn't seem to care at all.
    Ah! Context, context. 

    'Blunder' , or whatever you wish to call it, is in a strategic context. 

    When we talk about actual products, having a 5G modem is clearly better than not having a 5G modem at all.

    Strategically, Apple made two key mistakes. 

    If failed to understand what 5G represented. This can be forgiven to a point because to have a hand in the 5G specification, like Huawei does, it would have had to invest billions in a business area where it had no experience or products to sell. This would have to have happened over ten years ago which is what Huawei did but Huawei did have a telecommunications business and products to sell. It also had an extensive 4G patent catalogue. That's a big leg up. Not even QC had that advantage. Ten years ago Apple was a vastly different company with a vastly different approach. 

    Apple probably saw 5G as simply a next generation communications technology. From a CE perspective there is no problem with that but reality is that in a 5G world it helps to have broad experience with 5G and infrastructure influence. 

    5G is much more than a next generation communications network. If you want to make a car that can interact with its surroundings (beyond simply 'seeing' what is around it), you basically have to put a mini 5G equipped datacentre inside the car. Again, Apple had no experience in the field. Nor with AI. That came much later and Apple still has no 'big iron' in the field. Again this is understandable from a CE perspective but all that will have to change if you want (or need) to move beyond CE. A car is not a CE device.

    It also means making huge investments in the 'boring' things like optical interconnects, file systems, memory sub systems etc.

    https://blocksandfiles.com/2021/01/06/io500-huawei-intel-wekaio/

    Strategic mistake number two was risk based. 

    It decided to embark on a lenghty and tortuous, worldwide patent battle with QC and bet on intel being able to deliver the 5G goods - on time. 

    There was no alternative plan. 

    When intel failed to ship on time 5G was basically an industrial and consumer reality. 

    Apple was in very hot water and it new that being late to 5G was far removed from being late to 4G. 5G was expected to reach critical mass about 5 times faster than 4G. COVID-19 stalled 5G infrastructure and when the US government finally woke up to the fact that China was way ahead of it in 5G technology, it tried to sink competition on non-sensical 'national security' grounds which still haven't been backed up in any shape or form. 

    This was simply a bet which didn't win. When you bet like that you can lose big time. You accept the risk. 

    It's a valid proposal. 

    However, when all is said and done, the reality is there staring us in the face - and that's what I pointed out. No more, no less. 




    edited January 2021
  • Reply 20 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,371member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    You don't get it. Apple is not the dominant 5G supplier, not that the phrase even means anything. Qualcomm will be the dominant 5G supplier because it supplies a large part of the industry and, through its own claims, will be supplying more than twice as many 5G modems as it supplies to Apple to the rest of the industry. Without QC, Apple still wouldn't have ANY 5G modem to use. 
    Uhm, but Apple does have QC, don't they, so shoulda, coulda, woulda, doesn't matter. You keep gaming this as a "What if Apple didn't get the Qualcomm 5G modem". What the link was about, is Apple's growing sales share of 5G capable smartphones, with Apple having the largest share. Qualcomm is obviously happy that Apple is using its modem, and that will continue for couple of upgrade cycles. After that, Apple is expected to deliver its own 5G modem.

    More to the point, Apple is noted to have settled for about $4.5B and likely some ongoing large licensing fee. Given the "super cycle", Apple has likely recouped that cost already.
    Nothing changes the facts, as they have been estimated. If it is estimated that QC could ship 500 million 5G modems in 2021. That rules out Apple as the 'dominant' supplier. And it does so to the tune of hundreds of millions. 

    "Apple does have Qualcomm". That is meaninglessness. However, some might say it is Qualcomm in fact, that has Apple! 

    Given that my original comment was a response to this,

    "A miscalculation on Apple’s part that cost them dearly"

    I'm not seeing how, by any measure, it "cost them dearly", given the ASP, Margins, revenue, and profits, that the iPhone generates for Apple. It was, in fact, a last resort deal that is paying off handsomely for both parties, especially when you consider that additional some 30 million iPhones that will be sold this year, for a total that is estimated to be some 230 million units.

    There may have been a short span of time when Huawei sold more units than Apple, but it appears that Apple is back, firmly entrenched in the number two position for units sales.

    I am not so sure about the bolded part - i.e. Apple moving 230 million units in this year. Some of reports that I read point to reduction in overall smartphone shipments in 2020 Vs 2019. No one can be so sure that the trend would reverse in 2021 with the pandemic still going on. Holiday quarter results will probably give a good idea on whether the iPhone shipment trend is going to be FLAT for yet another year or will be different and show an increasing trend for 2021.
    That's fair to be concerned, but the indications of a large sales increase for the iPhone are still there.

    More to the point, Avon b7 argues that 5G is of such huge importance to the customer, and the data so far is proving him right about that, At the same time, Avon b7 wants to argue that Apple has made a huge blunder in its 5G choices, especially the choice of the "bolt on X55 modem", which is absolutely false, again based on data. The customer doesn't seem to care at all.
    Ah! Context, context. 

    'Blunder' , or whatever you wish to call it, is in a strategic context. 

    When we talk about actual products, having a 5G modem is clearly better than not having a 5G modem at all.

    Strategically, Apple made two key mistakes. 

    If failed to understand what 5G represented. This can be forgiven to a point because to have a hand in the 5G specification, like Huawei does, it would have had to invest billions in a business area where it had no experience or products to sell. This would have to have happened over ten years ago which is what Huawei did but Huawei did have a telecommunications business and products to sell. It also had an extensive 4G patent catalogue. That's a big leg up. Not even QC had that advantage. Ten years ago Apple was a vastly different company with a vastly different approach. 

    Apple probably saw 5G as simply a next generation communications technology. From a CE perspective there is no problem with that but reality is that in a 5G world it helps to have broad experience with 5G and infrastructure influence. 

    5G is much more than a next generation communications network. If you want to make a car that can interact with its surroundings (beyond simply 'seeing' what is around it), you basically have to put a mini 5G equipped datacentre inside the car. Again, Apple had no experience in the field. Nor with AI. That came much later and Apple still has no 'big iron' in the field. Again this is understandable from a CE perspective but all that will have to change if you want (or need) to move beyond CE. A car is not a CE device.

    It also means making huge investments in the 'boring' things like optical interconnects, file systems, memory sub systems etc.

    https://blocksandfiles.com/2021/01/06/io500-huawei-intel-wekaio/

    Strategic mistake number two was risk based. 

    It decided to embark on a lenghty and tortuous, worldwide patent battle with QC and bet on intel being able to deliver the 5G goods - on time. 

    There was no alternative plan. 

    When intel failed to ship on time 5G was basically an industrial and consumer reality. 

    Apple was in very hot water and it new that being late to 5G was far removed from being late to 4G. 5G was expected to reach critical mass about 5 times faster than 4G. COVID-19 stalled 5G infrastructure and when the US government finally woke up to the fact that China was way ahead of it in 5G technology, it tried to sink competition on non-sensical 'national security' grounds which still haven't been backed up in any shape or form. 

    This was simply a bet which didn't win. When you bet like that you can lose big time. You accept the risk. 

    It's a valid proposal. 

    However, when all is said and done, the reality is there staring us in the face - and that's what I pointed out. No more, no less. 




    LOL!

    Consider that Jack Ma has been "disappeared", for going on two months, for merely questioning his role in China, of which he is a party member.

    China is absolutely a national security risk to the World. You can't understand that since you still can't wrap your head around the fact that the CCP controls everything in China. Even today, as we speak, China continues to round up democracy advocates in Hong Kong for prosecution and imprisonment. 

    Your POV embarrasses me for its naïveté, and its lack of acknowledgement of human rights.

    As for your continuing comments on Apple, you seem to miss the forest for the trees.
    edited January 2021
Sign In or Register to comment.