Someone give me a few reasons why Apple has not purchased Qualcomm yet?
Such a deal would likely run into extensive antitrust regulation in every jurisdiction around the globe. Even Google's purchase of Motorola ran into global scrutiny and delays.
Also, QCOM is currently valued at $117B (at least before the market opens today!) So it would be difficult for even Apple to acquire. And much of that value comes from selling products Apple wouldn't want to continue selling after buying the company. And there are far cheaper alternatives, from licensing QCOM IP to building its own.
Comparing Qualcomm to TI is more bullshit. The writing was on the wall for TI for a long time. Their support to manufacturers was abysmal and their chips often caused product delays. They were never one of the big players and couldn't get up with the competition. Even staunch allies like Nokia were trying to move away from TI's OMAP chips when the iPhone landed in 2007.
Your opinion of TI makes it curious why Google and Samsung would select TI's OMAP as their processor of choice for the 2012 Galaxy Nexus. And Google Glass, and the Nexus Q.
What were they thinking if TI was already out of business and nobody used their products?!? Also: all those Amazon Kindle products, like the Kindle Fire HD that Android fans were adoring. And all of those BlackBerry Playbook / BBX releases. And the Palm Pre and Pre 2 before that.
And the Nokia N9. Motorola Droid 2 & X. Nook Color. Yeah TI's OMAP was "never one of the big players and couldn't get up with the competition." "More bullshit" exactly RichL. Keep trying to frantically rewrite history.
Qualcomm is a profitable (and increasingly profitable) company. They could afford to develop Snapdragon in 2007 when the smartphone market was just taking off. They can certainly afford to develop new Snapdragon chips in the current smartphone market.
QCOM's quarterly profits have been pretty flat since 2012 (the last 8 quarters).
Developing a chip in 2007 was a simpler, cheaper task that in 2015. There was no real market for advanced APs when the iPhone appeared.
It doesn't matter how much money Apple puts into chip development as Apple aren't selling their chips to anyone else. Qualcomm is competing against everyone else selling mobile ARM chips on the open market and Qualcomm is king right now. Also, please remember that mobile ARM chips aren't just used in Android smartphones. Even if Android collapsed tomorrow, Qualcomm would have enough business to stay afloat for some time.
That's like saying Apple had no problems getting Mac PowerPC chips back in 2005 because Freescale and IBM were making PPC game console chips. You keep forgetting that chips have an audience. Nvidia hopes to make chips for cars, but that's only because it can't sell valuable chips for phones anymore. Having a product doesn't mean you have a buyer, but not having any buyers makes it hard to risk investment in sophisticated products you can't actually sell in volume. Also, you're developing this theory that Apple doesn't compete with or participate in the chip market. Abandon it, it makes you look stupid every time you pull it out and wave it around.
Ultimately, you're interpreting the pattern wrong - high-end mobile ARM sales aren't collapsing, it's just that no-one on the open market can compete with Qualcomm. Qualcomm has created itself a virtual monopoly.
QCOM has a monopoly with its patents, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it can't currently sell many expensive chips to anyone outside of Apple and Samsung because there isn't a demand for expensive high end APs from all those low end commodity phone makers. Without Samsung, it loses a big chunk of its market, and most of its Snapdragon market.
Just because you hate to agree doesn't mean you have to make up an insane contradiction of reality and keep repeating it.
Don't have all of your eggs in one basket. It seems that Apple's strategy of flipping between various key part suppliers and spreading manufacturing amongst a number of companies will give it greater long term protection that other phone companies who appear to relie on one supplier for key parts. On top of this, if Apple's plan B is development of key chips in the background, they would seem to have out manovered the competition. My only concern is that if this strategy eliminates competition will Apple loose the impetuous to innovate or take advantage of its monopoly position by reducing production and raising prices?
This is a time of celebration, amigo! Don't miss the opportunity to finally celebrate this Apple win with... well, what if they get complacent now or at some point in the future?
And this whole Samsung chip issue seems like a big mess of you don't ask me.
There's really not too much that needs to be said here, as the extra core and minor clock speed bump make for ridiculous amounts of performance. The A8X is class-leading here despite generally having fewer cores and lower clocks than the rest of the competition. However, in comparison to A8 we don't see a massive jump in performance. This seems to suggest that even a third core will invoke diminishing returns in general, although these changes mean that it's enough for the iPad Air 2 to be one of the fastest ARM-based devices on the market. One can see an odd regression in the Basemark OS II storage test, but this is likely to be production variances in NAND quality rather than anything notable.
Not that you care, but they are measuring the iPad Air 2 against other devices on the market that are clocked much higher… and the iPad Air 2 still leads in performance and, of course, the more important metric of performance per watt.
That is horrible way to comment on a forum. As you can see, there is nothing in the body of the quoted post which defeats the purpose of using the quote button.
Why not simply save a shortcut that includes the markup closed quote, a couple returns, and then the open quote that you can call quickly and easily to segment a comment? I use the letters qqq to call this shortcut.
Well, 64 bits is a lot of bits to deal with. Maybe they should try 63 bits, or possibly even 62 bits. Regardless, everyone knows 64 bits is just a gimmick anyways.
Go get em Samsung!! /s
That would be a mistake. They already claimed the next phone after the Galaxy S4 would have a 64-bit chip. So that must mean the S5 is already 64-bits. /s
You can always spot the idiots posting. One is when they post an Antutu benchmark, the laughing stock of the benchmark world. Then you go to Anand and find the iPhone 5S from a year ago beats the Note 4 in 6 out of 9 CPU benchmarks. Utterly pathetic for Ssmsungs latest & greatest.
The other way to spot an idiot is when they bring up shipping estimated from IDC.
What absolute bullshit. Even without Samsung, there's more than enough Android manufacturers around to keep Qualcomm's APs profitable. Qualcomm gets paid whether the manufacturer makes a profit or not. Around 350 million non-Samsung Android devices were sold last year and that doesn't even include non-Android devices that also use Snapdragon. That's a healthy market for Qualcomm.
The vast number of those, at their price points, probably don't actually make phone calls. They are probably used for playing games at bed time.
That would be a mistake. They already claimed the next phone after the Galaxy S4 would have a 64-bit chip. So that must mean the S5 is already 64-bits. /s
They seemed to be hinting they would have something in 2014. Did that not happen? At all? In any market with any device so they could say, "We did it!"?
Here's a different way to compare the various CPUs using Geekbench benchmarks. The numbers are as of today using released and tested devices. (Too many to simply make a chart so I'm only listing URLs with the top CPU in each listing.)
From these results, the Apple A-series shows very favorable. The A8X is the fastest in both tests when only including CPUs that are still shipping. If the Tegra is still shipping then the A8X is still the fastest multi core CPU.
Here's a different way to compare the various CPUs using Geekbench benchmarks. The numbers are as of today using released and tested devices. (Too many to simply make a chart so I'm only listing URLs with the top CPU in each listing.)
From these results, the Apple A-series shows very favorable. The A8X is the fastest in both tests when only including CPUs that are still shipping. If the Tegra is still shipping then the A8X is still the fastest multi core CPU.
There's an ever better way to look at Geekbench. If someone posts a single test of a device (often seen in forums) there will be a little box on the top right of the page. Clicking this brings up a graphic with points to plot up to 2,000 of the same device and their scores.
If you look at the Note 4 the scores are all over the place. If you look at any Apple device, all the results fit into a little tiny bar with all the dots clustered around it.
It's hilarious how inconsistent Android devices are when benchmarked and how consistent Apple devices are. Also funny to see the "loaded" Samsung scores where a few devices score way higher than normal, and how these tests are the ones always referred to in forums as to Note 4 performance (instead of the average score).
What absolute bullshit. Even without Samsung, there's more than enough Android manufacturers around to keep Qualcomm's APs profitable. Qualcomm gets paid whether the manufacturer makes a profit or not. Around 350 million non-Samsung Android devices were sold last year and that doesn't even include non-Android devices that also use Snapdragon. That's a healthy market for Qualcomm.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
There's an ever better way to look at Geekbench. If someone posts a single test of a device (often seen in forums) there will be a little box on the top right of the page. Clicking this brings up a graphic with points to plot up to 2,000 of the same device and their scores.
If you look at the Note 4 the scores are all over the place. If you look at any Apple device, all the results fit into a little tiny bar with all the dots clustered around it.
It's hilarious how inconsistent Android devices are when benchmarked and how consistent Apple devices are. Also funny to see the "loaded" Samsung scores where a few devices score way higher than normal, and how these tests are the ones always referred to in forums as to Note 4 performance (instead of the average score).
The variance is extraordinary in Note 4 tests, so much so that many many people will have horrible subpar performances most of the time. The variance is so large that it is even probable that those with good results will have very bad results on the next run (unless there are major failing Note 4 batches that explains the discrepancies... But, I don't think, so variance is just too large on too many devices). Just pathetic performance of most Android devices!
In statistically testing if one device is truly better than the other, variance and average of both sampled devices would be used (plus sampling size, but in this case it is large enough it wouldn't matter). With the huge variance, I don't even need to put the math down... Its obvious that the Note 4 is totally trounced.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
I don't buy that 80% figure. If you look at the gazillion sub $100 Android devices being sold, I never see a Qualcomm processor inside. It'a always something like Mediatek. I'd say Qualcomm has almost 100% of high-end Android devices.
These articles are getting worse with each iteration.
DED has for some time in his articles been trying to portray Samsung processors as rubbish. Once again, he references his own previous and outdated article to 'prove' his point.
Claiming that Samsung's own Exynos processor will be significantly lower in performance than Qualcom's 810 is an amazing feat of prescience, since the Samsung S6 looks like it will feature the unreleased and un-benchmarked Exynos 7420.
The already released Samsung Note 4 comes in two variants - one with Samsung's own Exynos 5433 64-Bit processor, running in 32 bit mode - probably because 64-bit lolipop isn't out yet - and Qualcom's Snapdragon 805. In Benchmarks, the Exynoss 5433 variant seems to outperform the Snapdragon 805
The link provided is to DED's own earlier article. Referencing your own wild speculation which is predicated on Apple ignoring Qualcomm patents, giving the impression the link is an authoritative source, is disingenuous at best.
Apple does not develop it's own GPUs, they use Imagination PowerVr products.
Completely ignoring the possibility of Using Samsung's Exynos processors of course.
If you add Oppo, One Plus, Meizu, Huawei and Xiaomi - the number one smart phone manufacturer in the tiny Chinese market ,and some other brands, that gives Qualcom at least 54% of the world market for smartphones to develop for, assuming Samsung don't use any of Qualcom's processors for models other than the S6 - which they do in spades. Gee, I wonder if they will manage to turn a profit or be able to afford to develop new processors with such low sales.
An article not even worth the paper it's printed on - oh, that's right!
Those charts you're showing are really screwed up. They don't match anything else. In particular, Samsung's marketshare is now about 25% worldwide, and Apple's is about 16%. The processor scores are also screwed up. Just go to Anandtech for real comparisons. Samsung's processors are not great performers, which is why they use them in markets that care less about that, and Qualcomm's in markets where they do care. That chart's a real humdinger.
Xiaomi is not the biggest manufacturer in the Chinese market.
Imaginations GPUs are considered to be the most powerful in the market for mobile use. Nvidia is moving at that level by using a lot of cores.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
I'm thinking that the X-1 will never see a smartphone. It looks like a good fit for a car; less so for tablets, though I expect a Shield and maybe a few others to offer the X-1. It's quite possible that Nvidia will disappear from mobile devices entirely. It's not cost effective in low volumes and almost certainly not as power efficient as it needs to be.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
It also puts a dent in its ability to put money in R&D, since margins on the cheaper chips are much less (less money), even though the volume is very high. They will be hurt by that for sure, though saying they'll be run out of the market is a bit ridiculous.
Apple is doing the same thing Intel has done for a long time, starving the competition by taking the top of the market. Intel right now is producing less and less of the world wide processors (yes, I'm counting mobile), but because they own the mid to top market, they're sitting pretty compared to AMD and even Qualcom. I'm betting that this will provide an overture for Intel in the top of the Smart Phone market eventually .
Yes there are lots of non-Samsung Android phones, and QCOM does indeed get paid for its components whether or not the manufacturer turns a profit.
However, it doesn't get paid if the Android maker is in China and decides not to pay for Qualcomm IP (which you see the company notes quite prominently in its own, latest earning statements as a serious problem it faces), and when all those thousands of low volume Android licensees / AOSP users crank out low end products using budget chips, Qualcomm doesn't make enough money to warrant investing in state of the art APs that can compete with a company that brings in so much money it can give away $100 billion to its shareholders and still have $150 billion left over. That's what happened to TI and Nvidia, and pretty much what happened to PowerPC. It's called a pattern.
So really, the only "absolute bullshit" is really just your ignorant comment.
Whatever you might say, Qualcomm's processors power 80% of the worlds Android smartphones, no matter where they're made.
Comments
Someone give me a few reasons why Apple has not purchased Qualcomm yet?
Such a deal would likely run into extensive antitrust regulation in every jurisdiction around the globe. Even Google's purchase of Motorola ran into global scrutiny and delays.
Also, QCOM is currently valued at $117B (at least before the market opens today!) So it would be difficult for even Apple to acquire. And much of that value comes from selling products Apple wouldn't want to continue selling after buying the company. And there are far cheaper alternatives, from licensing QCOM IP to building its own.
Comparing Qualcomm to TI is more bullshit. The writing was on the wall for TI for a long time. Their support to manufacturers was abysmal and their chips often caused product delays. They were never one of the big players and couldn't get up with the competition. Even staunch allies like Nokia were trying to move away from TI's OMAP chips when the iPhone landed in 2007.
Your opinion of TI makes it curious why Google and Samsung would select TI's OMAP as their processor of choice for the 2012 Galaxy Nexus. And Google Glass, and the Nexus Q.
What were they thinking if TI was already out of business and nobody used their products?!? Also: all those Amazon Kindle products, like the Kindle Fire HD that Android fans were adoring. And all of those BlackBerry Playbook / BBX releases. And the Palm Pre and Pre 2 before that.
And the Nokia N9. Motorola Droid 2 & X. Nook Color. Yeah TI's OMAP was "never one of the big players and couldn't get up with the competition." "More bullshit" exactly RichL. Keep trying to frantically rewrite history.
Qualcomm is a profitable (and increasingly profitable) company. They could afford to develop Snapdragon in 2007 when the smartphone market was just taking off. They can certainly afford to develop new Snapdragon chips in the current smartphone market.
QCOM's quarterly profits have been pretty flat since 2012 (the last 8 quarters).
Developing a chip in 2007 was a simpler, cheaper task that in 2015. There was no real market for advanced APs when the iPhone appeared.
It doesn't matter how much money Apple puts into chip development as Apple aren't selling their chips to anyone else. Qualcomm is competing against everyone else selling mobile ARM chips on the open market and Qualcomm is king right now. Also, please remember that mobile ARM chips aren't just used in Android smartphones. Even if Android collapsed tomorrow, Qualcomm would have enough business to stay afloat for some time.
That's like saying Apple had no problems getting Mac PowerPC chips back in 2005 because Freescale and IBM were making PPC game console chips. You keep forgetting that chips have an audience. Nvidia hopes to make chips for cars, but that's only because it can't sell valuable chips for phones anymore. Having a product doesn't mean you have a buyer, but not having any buyers makes it hard to risk investment in sophisticated products you can't actually sell in volume. Also, you're developing this theory that Apple doesn't compete with or participate in the chip market. Abandon it, it makes you look stupid every time you pull it out and wave it around.
Ultimately, you're interpreting the pattern wrong - high-end mobile ARM sales aren't collapsing, it's just that no-one on the open market can compete with Qualcomm. Qualcomm has created itself a virtual monopoly.
QCOM has a monopoly with its patents, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it can't currently sell many expensive chips to anyone outside of Apple and Samsung because there isn't a demand for expensive high end APs from all those low end commodity phone makers. Without Samsung, it loses a big chunk of its market, and most of its Snapdragon market.
Just because you hate to agree doesn't mean you have to make up an insane contradiction of reality and keep repeating it.
This is a time of celebration, amigo! Don't miss the opportunity to finally celebrate this Apple win with... well, what if they get complacent now or at some point in the future?
And this whole Samsung chip issue seems like a big mess of you don't ask me.
Yes, it's devastating for Apple's competition.
Not that you care, but they are measuring the iPad Air 2 against other devices on the market that are clocked much higher… and the iPad Air 2 still leads in performance and, of course, the more important metric of performance per watt.
That is horrible way to comment on a forum. As you can see, there is nothing in the body of the quoted post which defeats the purpose of using the quote button.
Why not simply save a shortcut that includes the markup closed quote, a couple returns, and then the open quote that you can call quickly and easily to segment a comment? I use the letters qqq to call this shortcut.
That would be a mistake. They already claimed the next phone after the Galaxy S4 would have a 64-bit chip. So that must mean the S5 is already 64-bits. /s
Is there any way of including the carriage return in the iOS keyboard shortcuts?
The other way to spot an idiot is when they bring up shipping estimated from IDC.
The vast number of those, at their price points, probably don't actually make phone calls. They are probably used for playing games at bed time.
They seemed to be hinting they would have something in 2014. Did that not happen? At all? In any market with any device so they could say, "We did it!"?
Here's a different way to compare the various CPUs using Geekbench benchmarks. The numbers are as of today using released and tested devices. (Too many to simply make a chart so I'm only listing URLs with the top CPU in each listing.)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks Single core test Android, HTC Nexus 9, NVIDIA Tegra K1 Denver 2499 MHz (2 cores) 1895
Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Exynos 5433 1300 MHz (8 cores) 1175 (included 2nd place since Tegra no longer being sold per this article)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks Multi core test Android, Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Exynos 5433 1300 MHz (8 cores) 3982
http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks Single core test iOS, iPad Air 2, Apple A8X 1500 MHz (3 cores) 1807
http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks Multi core test iOS, iPad Air 2, Apple A8X 1500 MHz (3 cores) 4531
From these results, the Apple A-series shows very favorable. The A8X is the fastest in both tests when only including CPUs that are still shipping. If the Tegra is still shipping then the A8X is still the fastest multi core CPU.
fixed links----
Here's a different way to compare the various CPUs using Geekbench benchmarks. The numbers are as of today using released and tested devices. (Too many to simply make a chart so I'm only listing URLs with the top CPU in each listing.)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks Single core test Android, HTC Nexus 9, NVIDIA Tegra K1 Denver 2499 MHz (2 cores) 1895
Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Exynos 5433 1300 MHz (8 cores) 1175 (included 2nd place since Tegra no longer being sold per this article)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks Multi core test Android, Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Exynos 5433 1300 MHz (8 cores) 3982
http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks Single core test iOS, iPad Air 2, Apple A8X 1500 MHz (3 cores) 1807
http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks Multi core test iOS, iPad Air 2, Apple A8X 1500 MHz (3 cores) 4531
From these results, the Apple A-series shows very favorable. The A8X is the fastest in both tests when only including CPUs that are still shipping. If the Tegra is still shipping then the A8X is still the fastest multi core CPU.
There's an ever better way to look at Geekbench. If someone posts a single test of a device (often seen in forums) there will be a little box on the top right of the page. Clicking this brings up a graphic with points to plot up to 2,000 of the same device and their scores.
If you look at the Note 4 the scores are all over the place. If you look at any Apple device, all the results fit into a little tiny bar with all the dots clustered around it.
It's hilarious how inconsistent Android devices are when benchmarked and how consistent Apple devices are. Also funny to see the "loaded" Samsung scores where a few devices score way higher than normal, and how these tests are the ones always referred to in forums as to Note 4 performance (instead of the average score).
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"Samsung+Galaxy+Note+4"+platform:"Android"+architecture:armv7+bits:32+
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"iPad+Air+2"+platform:"iOS"+architecture:aarch64+bits:64+
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
There's an ever better way to look at Geekbench. If someone posts a single test of a device (often seen in forums) there will be a little box on the top right of the page. Clicking this brings up a graphic with points to plot up to 2,000 of the same device and their scores.
If you look at the Note 4 the scores are all over the place. If you look at any Apple device, all the results fit into a little tiny bar with all the dots clustered around it.
It's hilarious how inconsistent Android devices are when benchmarked and how consistent Apple devices are. Also funny to see the "loaded" Samsung scores where a few devices score way higher than normal, and how these tests are the ones always referred to in forums as to Note 4 performance (instead of the average score).
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"Samsung+Galaxy+Note+4"+platform:"Android"+architecture:armv7+bits:32+
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"iPad+Air+2"+platform:"iOS"+architecture:aarch64+bits:64+
The variance is extraordinary in Note 4 tests, so much so that many many people will have horrible subpar performances most of the time. The variance is so large that it is even probable that those with good results will have very bad results on the next run (unless there are major failing Note 4 batches that explains the discrepancies... But, I don't think, so variance is just too large on too many devices). Just pathetic performance of most Android devices!
In statistically testing if one device is truly better than the other, variance and average of both sampled devices would be used (plus sampling size, but in this case it is large enough it wouldn't matter). With the huge variance, I don't even need to put the math down... Its obvious that the Note 4 is totally trounced.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
I don't buy that 80% figure. If you look at the gazillion sub $100 Android devices being sold, I never see a Qualcomm processor inside. It'a always something like Mediatek. I'd say Qualcomm has almost 100% of high-end Android devices.
Those charts you're showing are really screwed up. They don't match anything else. In particular, Samsung's marketshare is now about 25% worldwide, and Apple's is about 16%. The processor scores are also screwed up. Just go to Anandtech for real comparisons. Samsung's processors are not great performers, which is why they use them in markets that care less about that, and Qualcomm's in markets where they do care. That chart's a real humdinger.
Xiaomi is not the biggest manufacturer in the Chinese market.
Imaginations GPUs are considered to be the most powerful in the market for mobile use. Nvidia is moving at that level by using a lot of cores.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
I'm thinking that the X-1 will never see a smartphone. It looks like a good fit for a car; less so for tablets, though I expect a Shield and maybe a few others to offer the X-1. It's quite possible that Nvidia will disappear from mobile devices entirely. It's not cost effective in low volumes and almost certainly not as power efficient as it needs to be.
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.
But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
It also puts a dent in its ability to put money in R&D, since margins on the cheaper chips are much less (less money), even though the volume is very high. They will be hurt by that for sure, though saying they'll be run out of the market is a bit ridiculous.
Apple is doing the same thing Intel has done for a long time, starving the competition by taking the top of the market. Intel right now is producing less and less of the world wide processors (yes, I'm counting mobile), but because they own the mid to top market, they're sitting pretty compared to AMD and even Qualcom. I'm betting that this will provide an overture for Intel in the top of the Smart Phone market eventually .
Whatever you might say, Qualcomm's processors power 80% of the worlds Android smartphones, no matter where they're made.