Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Qualcomm and Intel, respectively the worlds leading mobile phone and PC chipmaker, announced deep incursions into each others territory in duelling speeches at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Tuesday. A range of devices will form the battleground for semiconductor superpowers that are now closer to matching each other on battery life and performance. Paul Jacobs, Qualcomms chief executive, said its latest S4 Snapdragon processor would find its way into laptops before the end of the year. Paul Otellini, Intels chief executive, introduced the first smartphone to feature its Atom chips a Lenovo device that will go on sale in China in the first half of the year. The growth of smartphones and tablets as alternatives to the PC is also producing new alliances. Qualcomms processors, based on designs of the UKs Arm, have enjoyed exclusivity in Windows-based smartphones a relationship that echoes the old Wintel PC partnership between Microsoft and Intel. Intel has established a partnership with Google, adapting its Android operating system to work on Intels x86 designs as well as Arms. Mr Otellini and Sanjay Jha, chief executive of Motorola Mobility, the handset maker being bought by Google, announced a multiyear, multidevice strategic relationship, beginning with Motorola shipping smartphones using Atom processors with Android in the second half of the year. Lenovos K800 smartphone, available in China in the second quarter, will also run Android and use the Atom Z2460 processor, formerly codenamed Medfield. This is the first system-on-a-chip from Intel to be competitive with chipsets from established mobile phone chipmakers it marks a dramatic reduction in size and power requirements. It still lacks the multicore capabilities of smartphone and tablet rivals both Qualcomm and Nvidia are moving to quadcore chips but Intel said the chips hyperthreading technology still enabled multitasking. On the sidelines of the show, Intel executives have been demonstrating a prototype smartphone with features such as its cameras ability to take 15 8Mp pictures a second in a burst mode.
In depth: International CES 2012
They also claim that their work on software means many Android apps will be able to run faster on Intel chips than comparable Arm-based ones. Qualcomm will take advantage of Microsofts decision to bring Arm compatibility to its latest operating system Windows 8 when it is launched later this year. Mr Jacobs, who demonstrated a prototype Windows 8 tablet running on a Qualcomm S4 Snapdragon processor, said 20 manufacturers had more than 70 designs in the pipeline for Snapdragon devices that were not phones.
The worlds largest consumer electronics show this year sees 2,700 exhibitors displaying their wares in Las Vegas between January 10 and 13
Your next PC will deliver an always-on, always-connected experience ... something we in the mobile industry know something about, he said, adding that Qualcomm was talking to PC makers about building thin and light computers with long battery life, based on its chips. These could challenge the new ultrabook category being pushed by Intel at the show, which has the same features.
Mr Otellini said Intel would raise the bar on tablet experiences when Windows 8 was introduced. Its chips would ensure compatibility with the millions of existing applications and devices, as well as supporting Metro, the operating systems touch-based interface for tablets that
www.ft.com/cms/s/2/828b38dc-3be1-11e1-82d3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2c5AVYH7L 1/2
8/16/13
State of emergency declared as forces storm Cairo protest camps Microsoft to fund remake of BBC's sci-fi cult classic 'Blake's 7' Berlin and Brussels credit fiscal discipline and reform for eurozone recovery Private schools are heading for a crunch Android's momentum eats into Apple's bragging rights Egypt takes a step back towards bloodshed and tyranny Central banks struggle to convince investors Joan Edwards - a curious case of a generous donation A simple word of advice - plan ahead EM de-coupling story was always over-hyped
www.ft.com/cms/s/2/828b38dc-3be1-11e1-82d3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2c5AVYH7L
2/2
E # 6
Mobile: Intel Will Overtake Qualcomm In Three Years
By Mark , JANUARY 17, 2012 9:00 PM
A Difference Of Opinion White papers and architectural analysis are very different from actual implementation and real-world testing. When most tech writers discuss a companys developments, they use the abstract. But companies dont create technologies; individual people do. Take sports teams as an example. The Lakers might be better some years than others, but players like Kobe Bryant and coaches like Phil Jackson make Los Angeles a championship team. Put simply, when a company gets bought, rarely does the buyer want the whole company. Rather, its paying a premium for access to certain patents and, more importantly, access to critical human talent within the company. To that end, the future of MSoCs will depend on, first, SoC architecture, second, fabrication skill, and third, graphics technology. FTC disclosure: We own no stock in any of the companies discussed today. We work with all of them, though, and we review hardware that includes technology from each of the involved organizations.
as what Intrinsity did for Apple and Samsung) can improve performance. Companies can also develop a brand new chip on their own, without using any of the ARM design. Thats what Qualcomm has been doing with its Scorpion core, and soon, its Krait design. Nvidia is doing the same thing with Project Denver, relying on its patent/technology acquisitions and human expertise from PortalPlayer, Transmeta, and ULi. But the computational core only plays a small part of the overall systems performance. You have to deal with variables like memory bandwidth, bus architecture, and cache policies. Its not just bandwidth either, but also memory latency. That was one of the many reasons why AMDs Athlon 64 was superior to Intels Pentium 4, and the biggest reason why Apples iPad 2 does so much better than its competition in terms of responsiveness and performance. Its not simply an off-the-shelf design. In order to predict which company will have the dominant MSoC in three years, we have to figure out two different things: which team is best set up to achieve the highest raw performance, and which team is most likely to go the furthest with power consumption?
Raw CPU Performance Lets talk about raw performance before we discuss power consumption. There is no question whether Intel has the best resources to achieve the fastest processors. ARM and Qualcomm are going to face the same growing pains that the x86 world has already struggled through. In the next processor generation, Qualcomm is transitioning from its partially out-of-order Scorpion architecture to Krait, a full out-of-order design. Krait should more effectively facilitate peak CPU utilization, maximizing efficiency.
At the same time, Qualcomm is now navigating uncharted territory, where its engineers have less expertise. ARM already has some experience with its Cortex-A9, which is out-of-order-capable. But even with the upcoming Cortex-A15, the company will be relying on dedicated reservation stations (the instruction queue) for each of the execution units. While Intel and AMD used dedicated reservation stations in the past, both now employ unified reservation stations to improve performance and utilization. Unlike ARM, Qualcomm is attempting to jump directly to a unified reservation station design. The original Pentium Pro used a unified reservation station, so its not inconceivable to think that a company could pull this off successfully. The Atom architecture doesnt incorporate any of Intels advanced technology. Its a single-core, in-order design that is more reminiscent of the Pentium CPU than anything modern. But heres the thing: its already faster than the ARM-based competition. As performance demands start to increase, Intel has access to decades of expertise to drop into Atom. Weve heard that Atom would go to an out-of-order core within five
years of its launch, landing it in the 2013 range. So, ignoring power consumption, there is little doubt that Intel can put out faster processor designs.
Intel, on the other hand, has always done pretty well with the performance of its platforms (just look at its current Sandy Bridge-E architecture). Again, the challenge for Intel is power consumption, rather than performance.
Raw Wireless Performance Intel has zero expertise with wireless 3G/LTE. But it has an excellent track record with 802.11-based performance. The companys Centrino platform was responsible for Intels dominance in the PC laptop world. With the acquisition of Infineon Wireless, Intel gained significant expertise with 3G/LTE. Qualcomm, on the
other hand, has always had a strong 3G/LTE offering. But its 802.11 had to be acquired, and that was achieved with the purchase of Atheros. For wireless, Qualcomm has the lead in 3G. The advantage isnt as clear in LTE, though. Both Intel and Qualcomm also face pressure from Nvidia, which owns Icera, a software baseband company, and Samsung, NTT DoCoMo, Fujitsu, and NEC, collaborating to develop 3G/LTE products.
Performance Summary In the next three years, ARM and Qualcomm need to invest significant resources to advancing CPU performance. Their engineers are navigating uncharted territory, attempting to push technology in the same way that the x86 segment had to struggle through several decades ago. From a pure performance standpoint, and ignoring power consumption, Intel, AMD, and Apple (through its acquisitions, which include Intrinsity and PA Semi) have the most human equity in high-performance mobile computing, particularly in the areas of bus architecture and memory management. Nvidia is a wild card, with a seemingly rich portfolio of technologiesthough weve yet to see an implementation of its more complex bus and memory designs. But of course, an emphasis on power efficiency is what makes MSoCs so unique, and that is supposed to be Intels unconquered challenge.
You hear a lot about the relative pros and cons of the ARM and x86 architectures, and it is true that Qualcomm and ARM have more success with low power consumption. Until Medfield, no one was sure how much betteroff those companies were compared to Intel. Now we can say that they had a four-year head start, since it took Intel that long after the launch of Atom to come up with a competitive mobile platform. What happens in the next three years, though? Given that Medfield is competitive with currently-shipping ARM MSoCs, we have to look to the next generation. On the previous page, we suggested that ARM and Qualcomm face at least as significant of a challenge scaling performance up as Intel faces in scaling power down.
We can be perhaps most objective in looking at manufacturing technology. Intel has the best chip fabs in the industry, which allowed it to out-compete AMD during the K6 and K7 era, and maintain its position when AMD introduced the successful K8-era processors. Medfield is currently based on a 32 nm node and is already competitive with ARM-based solutions. Intels next move is to make a jump to 22 nm on a 3D FinFET design, representing two steps forward in process technology. Intel has never failed to execute with a fabrication process, and it will already have plenty of experience from its Ivy Bridge-based processors. If the company stays on track, its about 18 months ahead of the competition in manufacturing. As soon as the competition starts shipping 28 nm, Intel will follow with 22 nm, and it will be even longer before competing fabs can implement FinFET. This gives Intel another 20-30% improvement in power consumption over its current technology, while basically doubling density.
High-K/Metal Gate ARM-based vendors are also in a race to enable MSoCS manufactured with high-K/metal gate technology. Besides Intel and Samsung, all of the other players are dependent on outside foundries like IBM, Globalfoundries, and TSMC. Samsung opens its foundries to other companies, so theyre on that list too. Qualcomm signed on with Globalfoundries to manufacture its 28 nm MSoCs. Globalfoundries uses a gate-first high-k/metal gate 28 nm process. This is also what IBM and Samsung will be doing. They wont attempt to make the switch to gate-last until 20 nm lithography is available. TSMC, the original foundry-for-hire (and the expected manufacturing partner for Apples A6) is going with a gate-last approach. Intel has always gone with a gate-last approach.
Gate-first and gate-last describe the way you implement modern high-k insulators with metal gates, and the laymans explanation is that were talking about a shift from pure silicon dioxide-based chips to those containing a different insulator called hafnium. In a gate-first design, you put the metal gate and hafnium components on the wafer before heating it, and in a gate-last design (like Intels) you do the replacement afterwards. Gate-first buys you more density, which is great for performance, but it comes at the expense of yield. You have more failures in manufacturing. Gate-last is more reliable for manufacturing. But there are more restrictive design rules that you have to get around. Intel has been shipping high-k chips since its Penryn core in 2007. Globalfoundries didnt successfully ship high-k chips until 2011. Intel isnt wrong for choosing gate-last. It has a proven track record with its Penryn, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge architectures. Qualcomm may be wrong for choosing gate-first. Globalfoundries has a working gate-first process, used to manufacture AMDs APUs. Unfortunately, as noted in AMDs third quarter earnings report, yields werent as good as previously hoped, leading to lower-than-expected revenue growth.
Summary Intels 32 nm high-k design (Medfield) is competing favorably against current 40/45 nm ARM-based CPUs. In the next iteration of its product, Intel will jump from 32 nm to 22 nm FinFET, equivalent to two process jumps. Qualcomm is going from 45 nm to 28 nm (1.5 nodes). But it isnt able to make a jump to high-K, translating to a loss of clock rate and a power consumption sacrifice. Apple and Nvidia are both expected to rely on TSMC for their next-generation chips. Apple will go from 45 nm to 28 nm high-k (1.5 nodes) and Nvidia will go from 40 nm to 28 nm high-k (1 node). With 28 nm high-k, both Apple and Nvidia should have extra performance compared to Qualcomms jump to 28 nm silicon. All things equal, Intel gets the biggest boosts to power and performance from process technology advances. Qualcomm, gambling on gate-first 28 nm, would have enjoyed more chip density if yields were good enough. Now, though, its forced to back off and go with a silicon-dioxide 28 nm process. But all things arent equal. In order to compete, Qualcomm has to roll out new tricks like out-of-order execution and an improved memory architecture. The companys engineers are doing this for the first time with Krait. They have to be flawless in their execution. Intel, on the other hand, is already doing well with a relatively low-tech Atom that doesnt incorporate any of the advancements seen from many, many years of designing x86 processors. Of course, Intels process technology lead will continue moving forward. While everyone else tries catching up to the firms high-k/metal gate manufacturing, it has already publicly demoed Claremont, a Near-Threshold Voltage Processor that operates at less than 10 mW. Interestingly, this chip was built around the original Pentium core, much like the Atom. So, Intel leads with regard to architectural challenges and on the manufacturing side. Theres just one more piece of the puzzle: graphics.
The problem with PowerVR was that its team was built by visionary mathematicians and engineers without experience in chip-building and gaming. The original PowerVR PCX chip lacked bilinear filtering, which meant that buyers of the $300 graphics card saw the same pixelated textures as anyone gaming on the original PlayStation, rather than the smooth, bilinear-filtered images associated with the Nintendo 64 and 3Dfx graphics cards from the same time period. It wasnt that bilinear filtering was a particularly challenging concept; it just wasnt something that the engineers thought to include when they developed the chip. VideoLogic quickly came back with the PowerVR PCX2, which had a higher clock rate and bilinear filtering. Unfortunately, the PowerVR team wasnt run by people with game development expertise. And as a result, they did not anticipate the need for src*dst texture blending. This was required for colored lightingbasically the effect needed for awesome explosions, laser beams, and alien-looking hallways. Again, that wasnt any sort of technical challenge, but rather an issue of just not thinking about the need for this texture blending mode. Everything was supposed to change with PowerVR Series 2, the platform used for Segas Dreamcast. A PC equivalent could have been the most popular graphics chip in the industry. Unfortunately, VideoLogic ran into problem after problem with its chip design. Itd tape-out and get prototypes back, only to discover a fatal glitch somewhere. One of the last problems had to do with the Windows hardware mouse cursor. Again, that wasnt an engineering challenge, but a mistake nonetheless. The failure of PowerVR Series 2 in the PC world was ultimately what caused the company to exit the high-performance market and focus on low-power designs. It did have a short run of Series 3 chips, which lacked a hardware transformation and lighting engine, and it saw some financial success by powering digital poker machines in casinos, where the magic of deferred rendering was immediate. PowerVR then switched from a true graphics chip manufacturer to a designer, selling its efforts the same way as ARM. This was the smartest move it could have made because it meant concentrating on core competencies based on math and block design, rather than making sure the logic was laid out ideally for a physical product. Since the companys original architecture from the late 90s was already engineered for multi-chip design, it has been easy for PowerVR to continue to grow and evolve into the superb platform it offers today.
Now, anyone who knows tech history will remember that BitBoys is one of those companies infamous for its vaporware. But products based on its technology really did exist. Its a crazy story, actually, and we like telling crazy stories. Everything starts back in 1991. In the early 90s, Finland was home to the demo scene, which is where programmers (many of whom were just high school kids) would get together and write software able to push computer hardware to its limit. The idea was to pull off visual effects so awesome that you couldnt believe they were running on commodity components, and to pull that off so efficiently that the data would fit into an absurdly small file. These demos combined creativity, video and audio talent, and pure programming genius. Competitions included stuff like the best intro (with graphics and audio) in 4 KB of space, or the best 64 KB demo (you owe it to yourself to check this out). And then there was the best mega demo, which had no constraints. Think of it like Step-Up 2: The Streets, only with software engineers instead of dancers.
This all happened back in 2001, during the first dot com crash. Memory prices were dropping quickly and Infineon, the only factory in the world that could manufacture Axe, was going to shut down its embedded DRAM unit. This meant that BitBoys had a functional chip that couldnt be manufactured by anyone. (Incidentally, this is the same problem Qualcomm faces by gambling on a foundry with gate-first high-K). But Axe wasnt vaporware either. A limited number of Axe chips were produced before the end of Infineons embedded DRAM business so that BitBoys could show venture capitalists what they were capable of doing. You cant keep a demo coder down. The team started working on Hammer, which would have been a flagship PC graphics product. This proved to be a challenge for the small team because, in 2002, Nvidia had its GeForce 4 and ATI was selling its Radeon 9700/9800some of the best products ever seen from the two companies. Somewhere along the way, Nokia approached them. They did a Finnish secret handshake and the BitBoys started working on a design for a mobile graphics chip. Thanks to Kajs early work with the C-based chip development system, they were able to quickly code a mobile GPU and export it to a FPGA, a programmable general-purpose chip. Even though it wasnt actual silicon, performance was superb. BitBoys had found its niche. By 2006, the company was purchased by ATI and driving the Imageon product line-up. After ATI and AMD merged, Imageon was sold off to Qualcomm in 2009, meaning about 50 employees were transferred from AMD Finland to Qualcomm Finland. And thats where Adreno comes from, built with legendary BitBoys technology. The Adreno 225 thats going to be the used in the initial Krait CPU is supposed to beat the Apple A5 with its PowerVR SGX 543MP2 at high resolutions. Both PowerVR SGX 543MP2 and Adreno 225 are faster than Tegra 3s graphics performance, through Nvidia insists that its investment in extra CPU power will prove more valuable in the long-run.
9. The Prestige
So, on one hand, you have PowerVR with its proven track record in Intel, Apple, and TI chips, and Qualcomm with its access to legends of the Finnish demo scene. Only thats the thing: Most of the key team from BitBoys left Qualcomm a year ago to start SIRU Innovations Oy. SIRU Innovations Oy is a start-up that has been running in stealth mode for the past year. It claims to be developing a licensable low-power graphics IP core. Youve probably never even heard of SIRU, which goes to show you the difference between technology journalists who like to follow companies and talk about the organization's expertise and those who follow the human talent. SIRUs team is still flying low enough under the radar to the point where we dont know who all of the members are. But brothers Mika and Kaj Tuomi are co-founders, along with Mikko Alho. Mikko, SIRUs CEO, was the graphics processor hardware project manager for Qualcomm Finland. Importantly, although Mikko is in a management position, keeping things on-track with project planning, resourcing, design definition, day-to-day project leading, and project status reporting, he was doing the block design for BitBoys in the 90s, including the C- and RTL-model implementation. That means SIRUs management is run by an engineer and not just a suit. Jarkko Makivaara, Qualcomm Finlands former director of engineering, is also with SIRU. Jari Komppa, a senior engineer with Qualcomm Finland, is now with SIRU. He is a demo legend, winning first place at the Text Mode Demo Competition XI, first innovation, second theme in ludum dare 48 game design contest #4, second place at the Assembly99 3d-accelerated demo competition, first place at the Assembly98 demo competition, and first place at the Assembly96 demo competition. There are other engineers at SIRU as well, all from BitBoys. So, the top graphics engineers who joined Qualcomm in 2009 and have almost a decade of experience working on mobile graphics havent been contributing exclusively to Qualcomm for roughly a year. Remember that PowerVRs missteps came from a lack of engineers able to anticipate the needs of software developers and users. Thats not a problem with SIRU, built with a cadre of demo coders, as well as former programmers from Fathammer, a game development studio. Additionally, we all know that graphics hardware is only as good as its supporting software driver. Updated GPU drivers for the Adreno 205 were responsible for an almost-50% performance improvement. And thats where the final piece of the puzzle comes together. The team at SIRU is filled with engineers who are legends and wizards with x86 technology, whose expertise in the early 90s with single-core, in-order execution CPUs remain unmatched. Do you think its still unusual that the Atom and Near Threshold Voltage Concept are built around the Pentium? Can the Qualcomm Finland software team extract enough performance from the hardware, even in the absence of many of contributing members of the Adreno GPU team? Oh wait; a lot of those guys are gone, too. Marko Laiho, BitBoys chief software architect and a director of engineering with Qualcomm Finland left half a year ago to start another stealth start-up, Vire Labs.Joining him is Joonas Torkelli, the BitBoys product manager for handheld IP, who was the graphics software lead in Finland for Qualcomm, Jani Huhtanen, a senior staff engineer with Qualcomm with expertise in GPU drivers and 2D/3D graphics algorithms, and Jusso Heikkila as the Vire Labss lead Android developer.They even have Kari Malmber as their creative director, a graphic designer who was with the BitBoys team and most recently worked at Qualcomm Finland on 3D material for demos and designing mobile phone user interfaces. With the exodus of several important players, there is no question that Qualcomm's graphics division was
dealt a big blow. Human talent that was once exclusive to Qualcomm is now found in two stealth start-ups that clearly intend to license their technology to as many customers as possible.
Closing Thoughts There are exactly zero shipping Intel-based smartphones today. Qualcomm brought in $4.12 billion of revenue in Q4 2011. But things will change over the next three years the same way things changed for Kodak. You have Qualcomm, which faces challenges on the manufacturing side due to gambling on gate-first high-k and now being forced to go with standard silicon, challenges on the CPU engineering side as it moves to a true out-of-order execution design, and challenges on the GPU side from losing a substantial amount of exclusive talent. Then, you have Intel, which dominates manufacturing, has demonstrated a competitive 32 nm product before even tapping into out-of-order CPU designs, and the freedom to choose between PowerVRs graphics technology, whatever emerges from SIRU, or perhaps even a future design derived from its own engineers. I'm calling it right here: three years from now, Intel will overtake Qualcomm in the MSoC business. Discuss.
This ad is supporting your extension Bookmark Sentry: More info | Privacy Policy | Hide on this page
se e kingalpha.co m
planar process at 20nm (that's why Intel moved to Trigate). T SMC talks about running a 16nm "f inf et" process, but not until 2015. Even if successf ul, by that time, Intel will be ramping their 10nm node, so T SMC/Qualcomm will still be 1+ node behind and, theref ore, signif icantly behind on speed perf ormance and power perf ormance, never to catch up. So, af ter six months of "Rubing and Bumping," if T SMC is unable to deliver 20nm sometime in 2013, Qualcomm has a giant decision to make. T hat decision is whether to even stay in the semiconductor business or pull a Texas Instruments (T XN) and withdraw f rom the mobile business altogether. T I stopped leading edge process development at 65nm, deciding that competing with Intel just created f inancial nightmares. T I f urther decided that they, in combination with T SMC, would still be at an ultimate disadvantage with regard to Intel. Qualcomm could well make the decision to withdraw, since they would still retain a sweet IP business, and by the time the "Moment of Truth" arrived, Intel could have priced Qualcomm into a loss position on their f abless semiconductor operation. T he reverberations of such a decision would be violent and wide ranging. T SMC would instantly lose their largest f ab customer. T SMC would then be f aced with the same decision that Qualcomm was f aced with. Apple, if they had not already made the decision to move their f ab business to Intel, would now be crystal clear on that issue. With Qualcomm and T SMC gone, Apple at Intel, the Samsung Semiconductor division would f ind itself in big trouble. T he Samsung smart phone division could well decide to use Intel f or the brains in their products. Within a year, Intel could go f rom "Z ero to Hero" in the mobile semiconductor business. Maybe this is what Morris Chang was thinking when he thought losing the process technology race to Intel was "horrible" to contemplate. T he move here is to buy Intel and sell Qualcomm. Also, owning the overpriced ARM Holdings would not lead to rocking chair money. Source: Intel And Qualcomm: T he Moment Of Truth Is Near
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Intel And Qualcomm: The Moment Of Truth Is Near - Seeking Alpha
Comments (64)
EassaComments (199)
Interesting scenario Russ. INTC longs like me would dearly wish (and expect) for it to come true. Great article.
17 Dec 2012, 02:48 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
techy46Comments (4075)
Sounds pretty reasonable to a retire software systems engineer that's long AAPL, Dell, HP, INTC, MSFT and NOK. Maybe you should change your glasses? 17 Dec 2012, 05:52 PM ! Report Abuse Like 3 Reply
nospam2012Comments (5)
JeffreyHF -- either you are a young person or an Apple devotee. In either case, it doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of Intel's capabilities, R&D, fab plants, etc. 19 Dec 2012, 12:57 AM ! Report Abuse Like 4 Reply
gmmpaComments (125)
Techy46... A word of advice. A retired software engineer should be smart enough to diversified his portfolio before a major market correct drives him back into the work force along with 15 million other Obama unemployed. You should keep INTC. It is yielding 4.17% and still has upside until at least $25. You should dump the rest your tech holders and buy something in the commodities sector before interest rates begin to rise and eat your bank account. 12 Mar, 04:09 AM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Intel And Qualcomm: The Moment Of Truth Is Near - Seeking Alpha
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Intel And Qualcomm: The Moment Of Truth Is Near - Seeking Alpha
Yes, GF is not very good, but Samsung is IBM process as well, and are doing just fine. More importantly, looking at performance characteristics, IBM alliance technology is the only one competitive with Intel. 18 Dec 2012, 03:49 AM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
Like
Reply
newbie06Comments (155)
Ashraf: "Intel is quite advanced on the software side of this equation." This is so true! And it explains why they win some benchmarks over Cortex-A9 or Qualcomm S4 SoCs. Medfield performance is not that good, but Intel did a tremendous work on Android that makes it look good. 18 Dec 2012, 03:51 AM ! Report Abuse Like 2 Reply
AlphaSeeker2Comments (7)
The Intel victory may not be this decisive, but its coming.
17 Dec 2012, 03:30 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
treyanasComments (67)
User,
seekingalpha.com/article/1068881-intel-and-qualcomm-the-moment-of-truth-is-near 3/4
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Intel And Qualcomm: The Moment Of Truth Is Near - Seeking Alpha
I'm long INTC and like the picture painted in the article, but kinda agree with the caveats you raise. First, the smart phone ecosystem is overwhelmingly ARMbased. Even with the best combination of process, design, and costs, the ecosystem represents inertia. Intel will need to build and maintain a lead for a couple years to change it. Second, Intel will not be able to maintain its current margins in this business. It may increase revenue and earnings, and there may be derivative benefits to other parts of the business, but it's hard to see how they'd maintain 55% margins selling silicon into phones. 17 Dec 2012, 07:41 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1068881-intel-and-qualcomm-the-moment-of-truth-is-near
4/4
se e kingalpha.co m
great deal of f lexibility to expand operations or buy back stock/increase its dividend. I would classif y Qualcomm as a classic example of technology growth stock. T he table below compares Intel and Qualcomm against several metrics that I f eel are important when trying to assess which company is not only the stronger of the two, but also the better value. Intel Stock Price Book Value P/E Forward P/E EPS Market Cap Current Dividend Rate Annual Revenue Cash on Balance Sheet Long-Term Debt Net Prof it Margin $20.65 $9.88 9.05 7.67 2.29 102.75 B 4.4% $54 B $16.99 B $7.1 B 22.90% Qualcomm $64.33 $19.65 21.01 13.51 3.06 109.65 B 1.55% $19.12 B $26.83 B $0 25.44%
Intel is clearly the company that is late to the mobile chip party, but the bigger question regarding Intel's f uture is whether the company will take a path similar to that of Yahoo (YHOO). Ideally, this is where the company hires someone f rom the outside with experience and innovative ideas that will reinvent the company and push it to be more competitive. T he other option is f or the company to continue down its current path and stick to what it has traditionally done. By not moving f orward with a new product line, the company would be taking a path very similar to that of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), thus costing the shareholders a lot. Af ter examining both possible options, the f act that Intel's CEO himself has stated that the board is considering an outside hire and the f act that Intel has already approached Apple to move into that market, I am inclined to believe that Intel will choose to be innovative and progressive. T hat said, when looking at the above two f irms I am more prone to be a buyer of Intel vs. Qualcomm. At f irst glance, that logic might not make the most sense, but there are several reasons why I like Intel better and believe that it is the better overall choice and value. When doing a value comparison Intel is the clear winner f rom a consistent growth approach, current and f uture valuation, and dividend growth. I am sure that the arguments against this are that Intel currently is representing a value trap. I understand that logic and argument, but don't necessarily agree. Based on next year's EPS estimate of $2.69 per share, I f eel that the stock has already put in a bottom f or the year and should not go much lower than $18 per share. I f eel that Intel also beats Qualcomm f rom a steady and consistent growth standpoint. Intel has consistently beaten both its revenue and EPS numbers by 4.5%-6% each quarter f or the past several quarters. Now, I will be the f irst to say that Qualcomm has posted some spectacular numbers and has beat its revenue targets in excess of 20% in several of the past quarters, but during last June's quarter it missed EPS estimates by 1.20%. Also, throughout this past year Qualcomm has been continually lowering its overall guidance below analysts' original estimates. As a growth stock, Qualcomm is
lowering its overall guidance below analysts' original estimates. As a growth stock, Qualcomm is inconsistent and tends to be much more volatile, making it very hard to assess a real valuation f or the stock and to avoid overpaying. Due to the f act that Intel is more of a typical value stock, the type of f unds and individuals that own the stock are interested in owning the stock f or the long term and are not as motivated to sell based on day-to-day f luctuations. T his type of mentality creates a strong base in the stock price and creates consistency in pricing. Now, with Qualcomm being more of a growth stock, the type of investor and f und that buy this stock are more interested in short-term bursts (up or down) and are more apt to sell quicker, creating more volatility and less consistency. One of the main reasons why I like Intel better than Qualcomm is the old notion of "buying when there is blood in the streets." Intel has gotten kicked down and is widely hated among the analyst community. Current price targets on the stock range f rom $15-$21 per share. In my opinion, it won't take a lot f or Intel to do something that exceeds the market's expectations and ultimately result in a huge run-up in the share price. Qualcomm, on the other hand, has a lot to live up to and expectations are already quite high. In the case of Qualcomm, it will only take a slight miss or a little bit of bad news f or the stock to sell of f and correct down. Qualcomm was surely f irst to the mobile chip party, but with such high expectations f or it I f eel as if there is greater risk in owning Qualcomm over the long run vs. Intel. Ultimately, with the amount of potential bad news that is already baked into Intel, the chance of increased value coming f rom even a minor amount of good news will be much higher than that of Qualcomm. Source: A Value Comparison Between Intel And Qualcomm
ibt im e s.co m
It doesn't look like a mistake: In the f ourth quarter of 2012, the market value of Qualcomm Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM), the No. 1 designer of mobile chips, exceeded that of Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INT C), the No. 1 chipmaker, f or the f irst time. At the close of Wednesday trading, Qualcomm, of San Diego, was valued at $110.6 billion, about $3.5 billion more than Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif ., the company whose explosive growth will be f orever linked to the era of the PC. Former Intel CEO and Chairman Gordon E. Moore, a legendary electrical engineer, is the inventor of Moores Law, which stipulates the power of a microprocessor doubles roughly every 18 months. His successor, Andrew S. Grove, a legendary chemical engineer, ran the business with the mantra, Only the paranoid survive, which became the title of his memoir. Now, Qualcomm looks to be ascending while Intel appears descending. On Monday night, CEO Paul E. Jacobs, 50, gave the keynote address at the International Consumer Electronics Show, during which he unveiled the second generation of Qualcomms Snapdragon processor, which has been designed into hundreds of mobile products, f rom smartphones to ultralight laptops, mainly f rom Asian manuf acturers, including Lenovo Group (PINK:LNVGY), the No. PC maker that's also moving into smartphones. Since Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) f irst started selling the iPhone in 2007, theres been a Qualcomm chip inside, too. Ditto f or the iPad and the newer iPad Mini series. Last year, Intel CEO Paul Otellini, gave a keynote in which he hailed the Ultrabook series of ultralight chips, which shipped late in 2012. So f ar, they havent made much of a dent in Intels perf ormance. Moreover, Otellini, 62, announced his sudden retirement this year, leaving Intel without a designated successor. To be sure, Qualcomms Jacobs had it easier: His f ather, Irwin, now 79, f ounded the company in 1985. Irwin Jacobs, a prof essor of electrical engineering, f ounded Linkabit, a f orerunner of whats now M/A-Com Technology Solutions Holdings (NASDAQ:MT SI), in 1968. T he younger Jacobs, who has a doctorate in electrical engineering and computer science f rom the University of Calif ornia, Berkeley, started out designing mobile chips at Qualcomm not long af ter Irwin started it. From the start, Qualcomm exploited high-growth markets in mobile communications, just as the technology got deployed in the U.S. af ter successf ul launches in Europe and Asia. Qualcomm essentially invented the CDMA standard that was the f oundation of the major U.S. networks headed by Verizon Wireless, majority owned by Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ ). Unlike Intel, the company kept its capital costs low by not building its own semiconductor plants. T hat meant close contacts with Asian manuf acturers such as Samsung Electronics (KSX:005930) and Taiwan Semiconductor Manuf acturing Co. (NYSE:T SM) that helped with market intelligence. With hindsight, it may have been those connections that allowed Qualcomm to ride the shif t to mobile platf orms that become apparent last year and is expected in surge in 2013 and beyond. In 1999, Jacobs Sr. pushed the company out of marketing its own mobile phones, when it couldnt keep up with competition f rom Nokia Oyj (NYSE:NOK), the old Motorola Inc. and Ericsson (NYSE:ERIC).
So f or more than a decade, Qualcomm has concentrated solely on designing new products, selling the chips as well as licenses. Jacobs Jr. took over as CEO in July 2005. Since then, shares of Qualcomm have gained more than 90 percent. By contrast, in the same period, shares of Intel have lost 19.2 percent. It's probably no accident that of the 45 analysts who cover the company, 40 have either "strong buy" or "buy" recommendations on the shares. Despite its huge patent portf olio, the chip designer under Paul Jacobs has also moved shrewdly. It has strong licensing deals with ARM Holdings (NASDAQ:ARMH) of the UK, another crucial Apple mobile partner. In May 2011, Qualcomm paid $3.1 billion to acquire Atheros Communications, another f abless chip designer, which had innovative designs f or tablets and the so-called smart home. Qualcomm continues to generate a torrent of cash, too. In the f ourth quarter ended Sept. 30, cash and investments were $26.84 billion, compared with $20.9 billion a year earlier. Net earnings rose to 89 cents a share f rom 80 cents a year earlier as revenue jumped 13 percent to $4.87 billion. Pretty soon, mobile connections are going to outnumber us, Jacobs said at CES on Monday, noting there are at least 6.4 billion mobile connections worldwide, about the same as the global population. Not only will wireless connections speed communications and entertainment, he said, theyll also be the heart of a revolution in medicine, where patients have pacemakers communicating directly with the physicians, or consumers working out on the treadmill will be able to send their daily workout results to the cloud. Qualcomm looks as if it will be riding the new wave. Can Intel catch up?
Race is on
So what can the U.S. do? Top executives arent suggesting the sort of intimate collaboration that exists, say, among business, labor and government leaders in Germany. But there are a lot of things that can help. Most of whats on the corporate wish list is nothing new. Lower business taxes. Ref ormed immigration laws that allow the best and brightest f rom around the world to stay in the U.S. Permanent tax breaks f or research and development. More f ederal grants f or lab research. Whats new is the urgency. T he U.S. has to start changing and f ast or the worlds largest economy will increasingly lose out to upstart nations that do a better job wooing international business. /conga/story/misc/dc.html 275546 T he race today is not between Mississippi and New York. Its between the United States and other countries, said Robert Atkinson, president of Inf ormation Technology & Innovation Foundation. Atkinson has long been a proselytizer in Washington on how the U.S. can become more innovative and boost job creation. Hes constantly bringing political leaders, business executives and academics together to try to f ind common ground to make the economy more competitive.
Open borders
Immigration ref orm the subject of a major push in Congress is one hot-button issue. Executives have complained f or years about the unwillingness of the government to let more f oreign-born students who study in the U.S. to stay af ter their visas run out. Read: CEOs see light at end of immigration tunnel. Foreign-born students, who tend to outshine Americans in math and science, have long been known f or their propensity to start successf ul businesses that eventually become job engines.Yet relatively f ew are allowed to remain in the U.S. Click to Play
a double whammy. By contrast, France only taxes what a French company earns at home, not what it earns in the U.S. or Canada or China. Such a territorial tax system is used by virtually every nation that competes hard with the U.S. American companies can get around double taxation by leaving prof its f rom f oreign operations parked overseas but that does nothing f or the U.S. economy. All that cash could be put to better use at home, executives say. Companies could use it to invest in new businesses or hire new workers, though past studies show they mostly use the proceeds to pay shareholders. Still, more money circulating in the U.S. economy is a good thing. Had a territorial tax system been in place a f ew years ago, Qualcomms Farmer said the company would have given greater thought to building its new chipmaking plant in the United States. Taiwan still may have won out, but the U.S. would have been a more serious contender if Qualcomm didnt have to pay a 35% tax to bring surplus cash home f rom overseas.
Deep suspicions
Getting tax ref orm though a divided Washington, however, wont be easy. And more government ef f orts to partner with business could unsettle both the lef t and right. Republicans blast President Obamas support f or the green-energy industry think of bankrupt Solyndra as a waste of money and they accuse the White House of trying to pick winners or losers. T hats a big no-no to conservatives. Liberals, f or their part, are deeply suspicious of business. Is there any possible way we can help the economy without helping business, an unnamed senator reportedly asked Atkinson not too long ago af ter he gave a presentation to Democrats at a party retreat. Atkinson tells the story with a chuckle, but he knows the U.S. has to do a lot more to promote competitiveness on an enlarged global playing f ield. Other countries are not just sitting around waiting f or companies to knock on the door, he noted.
se e kingalpha.co m
wireless technology LT E. QCOM also benef ited f rom the trend f or larger display f or smartphones. Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon said the outlook was "massively conservative" compared with his estimate of actual growth prospects. However, given the economic environment, it makes sense to be cautious. New Processors QCOM is delivering new Snapdragon 800 and 600 processors. T he new Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processors will deliver up to 75 percent better perf ormance than the Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor with exceptionally low power. T he Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 processor is delivering up to 40 percent better perf ormance than the Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor at lower power. T he Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 processor f eatures a new Krait 300 quad-core CPU with speeds up to 1.9GHz, a new speed enhanced Adreno 320 GPU and support f or LPDDR3 memory. T he Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 processor is expected to be available in commercial devices by the second quarter 2013. Concerns Competitions are growing while Intel is catching up to the mobile segment and Broadcom (BRCM) is seeking to increase its content on popular devices, as wrote by Mark Sue, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets. QCOM might be also negatively impact as Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung (SSNLF.PK) continue to work on their own appprocessor and Huawi and MediaTek also accelerate their internal developments. Nonetheless, analysts expect QCOM to hold its strong position. Citigroup raised its price target f or QCOM with a buy rating on January 31, 2013. Fundamental Comparison Intel Corporation Enterprise Value Revenue Quarterly Revenue Growth (yoy) Prof it Margin, ttm Return on Equity Total Cash Total Debt Total Debt to Equity, mrq Dividend Yield YT D Perf ormance $101.40B $53.34B -3.00% 20.63% 22.66% $18.16B $13.45B 26.26 4.25% +2.62% Qualcomm Inc. $101.41B $20.46B 28.60% 32.33% 18.12% $13.28B $31.00M 0.09 1.52% +6.11% Who leads? Almost Identical INT C QCOM QCOM INT C INT C QCOM QCOM INT C QCOM
Source: Yahoo! Finance on February 1, 2013 How to Invest INT C provides a great value with a very low P/E of 9.3, as compared to the industry average of 21.2. With its strong cash f low and solid dividend, INT C is a good candidate f or short covered call option strategy. QCOM provides strong growth with promising outlooks. QCOM is a great long-term holding with buy-and-hold strategy f or its stocks. For options investors, a credit put spread can be considered to gain credit premiums while having the potential to acquire the stock at a lower price.
Note: Investors and traders are recommended to do their own due diligence and research bef ore making any trading/investing decisions. Source: Intel And Qualcomm Are Both Winners
au.ibt im e s.co m
Intel Dominates Over Samsung, Qualcomm and Nvidia Processors, Haswell Processor Delivers Its Promise
Intel's Z 2580 application processor, also known as CloverTrail bef ore launching, def eated other leading processors in a benchmarking exercise. Intel outperf ormed competitors like Qualcomm, Nvidia and Samsung in a test according to Allied Business Intelligence Inc. Allied Business is af f iliated with ABI Research. ABI Research revealed that Intel Corp. processor is the best in reducing power consumption in smartphones. It is now a top player and lower compared to equivalents based on the ARM architecture licensed f rom ARM Holdings plc. T his type of perf ormance is necessary f or high-end smartphones running many applications. According to ABI, the company is "well positioned f or strong growth over the next f ew years." T he benchmark exercise involved comparing the perf ormances smartphones. T hese included Lenovo K900 smartphone running on by Intel's Z 2580 application processor and supporting XMM6360 chipset. A set of smartphones f rom Samsung were also tested. T hey run on ARM-based application processors by Nvidia. Qualcomm was also included. "T he benchmarks were impressive but the real surprise was the current consumption recorded during the benchmarks; the new processor not only outperf ormed the competition in perf ormance but it did so with up to half the current drain," Jim Mielke, vice president of engineering at ABI research, was quoted in a statement. "Intel did signif icant work to bring the current drain down on their well-recognized high-perf ormance processors but the competitors did not help themselves. T he ARM architecture used by nearly all of Intel's competitors is well known f or its low power perf ormance but in bringing the processing power up closer to PC levels, the current drain has taken a signif icant hit," he added. "Combining the high-end modems - the XMM6360 is used in both the Lenovo K900 and the Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500 - with their application processors f or highto mid-tier solutions and single-chip EDGE chips f or low-cost phones makes Intel a rare f ull portf olio provider." On the other side of the market, Intel's Haswell is receiving great reviews f or its perf ormance. To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com People visit the Intel booth at the 2013 Computex exhibition at the T WT C Nangang exhibition hall in Taipei June 4, 2013. (Credit: Reuters)
it wo rld.co m
No wonder Qualcomm is clobbering Intel in mobile. It's using the Intel playbook. ARM has 100 licensees but one, Qualcomm, is the company that's giving Intel f its. Here's why. Image credit: f lickr/jontintinjordan Intel is enjoying some good news in the mobile space f or once. Its Atom processor now powers Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.3 tablet. Ok, that's one device. Next? Well, not so f ast. You see, the same strategy Intel has incorporated to lock up the PC and server space is being used by Qualcomm to lock up the device space, and it's working. Just as there isn't an Android market so much as it's a Samsung and others market, the chip space f or devices is pretty much a Qualcomm et al market. In smartphones, Samsung holds about half of the Android market, 18 percent of the tablet market and almost all of the Android prof its. Strategy Analytics says Samsung has 95% of the Android phone market's operating prof it. T hat's why I call it the Samsung market and not Android market. In chips, it's pretty much the same with Qualcomm. Although none of the major chip analysts have actual numbers, due to the dif f iculty of tracking so many phones on the market, all you have to do is look at the list of phones in the Wikipedia entry f or Snapdragon, Qualcomm's brand of ARM-based processors, to see how ubiquitous Qualcomm is. Just as Intel locked up all of the key OEM relationships, Qualcomm has a similar position in smartphones and is expanding that into tablets. What little Windows RT ef f ort still coming f rom Microsof t has been centered around Qualcomm processors. So what does Qualcomm have going f or it that other ARM vendors don't? For starters, it has f ocused extensively on integration and system-on-a-chip design. Qualcomm has been aggressively trying to integrate the cellular modem, Wi-Fi, bluetooth, GPS, and FM onto a single chip, and it has had this IP f or several years. Intel is only just getting into that space with the acquisitions of Inf ineon and ST-Ericsson's GPS business. It has some catching up to do. Intel has spent much of its career on more and f aster, while the SoC/embedded market is about more with less. So Intel has had to get power ef f iciency religion f or its Atom chips, which it did. Now it needs to get that same ef f iciency on its other chips. Its Wi-Fi needs more power ef f iciency because right now it uses Texas Instrument Wi-Fi f or its mobile devices. T hen there's rounding up the OEMs, and boy does Qualcomm have a lock. Just look at the Snapdragon 4 MSM8960 licensee list: It's in Samsung Galaxy S III, Asus Transf ormer Pad Inf inity, BlackBerry Z 10, HT C Droid Incredible 4G LT E, HT C One X, Motorola Droid Razr M, Nokia Lumia 820/920 and a whole lot more. T he potential f or Intel to separate f rom the pack comes with the move to 14nm. Once it gets Atom SoCs down to 14nm, that means a whole lot more power ef f iciency. Qualcomm is f abless and dependent on T SMC f or its chips, and T SMC dropped the ball on its move to 28nm last year. So it could come down to Intel once again vanquishes a competitor on its sheer ability to out-engineer and out-manuf acture them.
qualcomm-150x113.jpg Intel, ARM, Qualcomm, mobile, tablet 1994-2013 ITworld. All rights reserved.
se e kingalpha.co m
http://seekingalpha.co m/article/1540492-why-im-staying-with-intel-and-qualco mm
the company's advantage: "One thing I learned early in my career is that I don't make products f or myself . I make them f or my customers. We invest heavily in R&D, we get our capabilities ready, and we match the demand when it arises." Simply put, Qualcomm wins by keeping a close eye on customers and coming up with products to accommodate their needs. T hat's how the company rides the one emerging trend af ter another, most notably the smartphone and the tablet industry where Qualcomm has been the main supplier of chips f or both Apple (AAPL) and Samsung (SSNLF.PK). Analysts expect the company to earn $1.03 per share in the last quarter on $6.05 billions of revenues. What should investors do? It depends on the investment philosophy of each individual investor. Value investors should stay with Intel. Growth investors are better of f with Qualcomm as it of f ers better growth prospects than Intel. Intel versus Qualcomm Financial Performance Statistics in 2012 Intel Dividend Operating Margins Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): Source: Yahoo Finance 1. Size. With $20.46 billion in sales, Qualcomm is less than half of Intel's size. T his means that the law of large numbers works better f or Qualcomm, as do the laws of economies. While Qualcomm is at the threshold where returns to scale takes f ull ef f ect, Intel is approaching the threshold where constant or even decreasing returns to scale begin to kick in. 2. Better company f undamentals. As a pioneer of CDMA technology, Qualcomm enjoys the "f irst mover" advantage in wireless communications; and with the recent acquisition of Atheros Communications, Qualcomm strengthened its leadership in the industry. 3. Better industry f undamentals. While Intel remains the leader in the mature PC industry, (though Intel has made several moves into wireless communications in recent years) Qualcomm maintains leadership in wireless communications - still an emerging industry. Wireless Intelligence estimates that the number of 3G users will reach 2.8 billion by 2014. 4. Riding the industry upgrade cycle. Qualcomm is expected to be the main benef iciary of the wireless communication upgrade cycle. T he GSM Association expects telecom providers to spend $100 billion by 2015 in High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA), 3G, and 4G. T he Bottom Line: Intel is f or value investors while Qualcomm is f or growth investors. But growth and value should be part of every portf olio. T hat's why I own both stocks. Source: Why I'm Staying With Intel And Qualcomm 3.70% 25.18 -25.30% -2.5% Qualcomm 2.30% 30.78 -16.30% 23.90
se e kingalpha.co m
T he key dif f erentiators in this space are the f ollowing: Integration - the more f unctionality that can be integrated on a single chip, the more desirable the product is. Connectivity/cellular integration in particular is key Cost - while in the high end of the smartphone space, perf ormance matters, in this ultra-low-cost market, the "best at a low price" is what matters. Of course, despite the f act that at the low end these chips typically sell f or sub $10, there is massive volume in the low end smartphone market, particularly as these devices are simply replacements f or f eature-phones. While some investors in this space tend to conf late the high-end market with this lower-end market when they
scream "$10 ARM chips", it is important to note the distinction: Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 chips ain't sellin' f or no $10. Anyway, so the issue that Qualcomm has is that, quite simply, the likes of AllWinner, MediaTek, and Spreadtrum (SPRD) can of f er essentially the same product and happily accept lower gross margins. Spreadtrum, f or instance, typically sees gross margins of ~38%. In addition, Qualcomm has the additional headwind of trying to f ight local, Chinese chip vendors that have established relationships with the local device vendors and wireless carriers. Despite this, Qualcomm has managed to maintain ~33% market segment share in this space. But the threat on this f ront is clear as day: there's not a lot of room to dif f erentiate on technology, and margins will continue to come under pressure. T he good news is that the secular growth in this space is likely to more than compensate f or ASP erosion. T he High End: T he Free Ride Is Likely To End At the high end, Qualcomm lucked out big-time over the last couple of years. T he company was the f irst to of f er a multimode LT E modem f or phones, and even took it a step f urther by integrating that modem onto its mainstream applications processors. T he nearest competitors - Intel , Nvidia , and Broadcom (BRCM) - won't be shipping solutions that compete with Qualcomm in this space until the end of the year (likely to show up in phones during 1Q 2014). But what happens when these solutions do ship? Well, here is an interesting snippet f rom Broadcom's recent presentation at the William Blair Growth Stock conf erence,
I mean, to give you a sense, how we are understanding is the price points on an LTE chipset, highend LTE chipset is probably $40, $45 when in fact it probably should be close to $20 or $25, probably $25.
So now you've basically got two major negative f orces: the threat of ASP erosion, and the threat of market share loss. T his wouldn't be so much of a problem if the market were growing like gang-busters, but the high end market is actually showing signs of exhaustion, as Apple's (AAPL) and Samsung's (SSNLF.PK) recent quarterly reports have indicated. What you have, then, is a f lat to slightly up market in which Qualcomm has ~100% market share and is about to come under f ire f rom many strong players. Samsung Dependence A Double Edged Sword Right now, Qualcomm actually gets more than 10% of its consolidated revenues f rom sales to Samsung. On one hand, Samsung's success currently translates into success f or Qualcomm, but on the other, if Samsung were to actually develop an apps processor + modem platf orm that it could use in place of Qualcomm's, then this would represent a pretty dramatic f all-of f in chip revenues. T he 3G/4G royalties, on the other hand, would still remain. Qualcomm needs to stay a step ahead of what Samsung's own chip design team can do, otherwise things could get ugly. Cellular Patent Licensing Still Sweet, But May Suffer From Mix Shift To 4G Only While Qualcomm's semiconductor business gets a lot of attention, the real money maker is the wireless patent licensing business that it runs. In the most recent quarter, the licensing business (QT L) generated $1.5B of earnings bef ore tax while the modems, apps processors, and everything else generated $1B of earnings bef ore tax. T he idea is that f or each 3G/4G device sold, Qualcomm gets a percentage of the selling price. T his
means that as long as 3G/4G device shipments continue to grow, Qualcomm continue to grow this business. Unf ortunately, while Qualcomm now gets paid f or both its 3G and 4G/LT E patents in multimode devices, carriers such as Verizon (VZ ) have expressed interest in moving to LT E-only devices, which would lower the royalty rate that Qualcomm would receive on these devices. Why Bother Owning T he Stock? In light of these threats, it may seem that owning the stock wouldn't really be a good idea. In some sense, this is correct: if you're looking f or "explosive" growth as we saw when LT E became popular, then I think you will be disappointed. T his is a $105B company that already owns the majority of the smartphone apps processor and baseband markets, so there's probably more share price upside in betting on one of the players aiming to gain share in this space (Nvidia, Broadcom, Intel). However, there's a good dividend growth story going on here and I think that f ollowing the recent correction the company may f inally start buying back shares instead of simply having a buyback declared. T his could help prop up the shares in the near-term, and I think that investors may ease up on their bearishness on the name when the excitement surrounding Qualcomm's tablet penetration (where Qualcomm currently has negligible share) makes up f or the gloomy outlook on high end smartphone growth. Also, if it turns out that the af orementioned competitive threats turn out to be more bark than bite, then this could also ease the pressure on the shares. Source: Qualcomm: Understanding T he T hreats
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
Comments (35)
bgessner Comments (13)
Do you really think you're smarter than all the engineers and visionaries at Qualcomm? Do you really have inside information on their strategy for high-end and low-end chipsets? How about the costs, performance, margins, etc.? Do you really know the deals they're making in China, India, and other high growth markets? Do you know the deals they're making with Apple, Samsung, HTC, and hundreds of other wireless phone manufacturers? The answer is NO. My advice to all you readers, is BUY QUALCOMM rather than listening to rant like this guy.
7 Jul, 02:46 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
@Ashraf Eassa - good article. There are threats to Qualcomm and opportunities. In my view, buying back stock is a fool's game in a capital intensive business. It differentiates shareholders - those who sell and those who stay - rather than dividends that treat all equally. It props up earnings per share in a company where growth is slowing masking poor operating performance. The only case for buybacks is really when the company is trading well below fair value, not the case with Qualcomm. Management should invest to meet Intel and the lower priced threats and continue to innovate,and, as earnings grow, increase dividends. The next few years will be interesting as Intel flexes its muscle in the space. Qualcomm can meet Intel on an equal footing if it spends its money advancing and innovating. If it becomes a balance sheet play with major stock buybacks, I will be a short.
7 Jul, 03:19 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
Surprisingly, surfing the web is no great hardship, and something that can be done with remarkable ease--all you have to do is click! Ashraf, FDR once said something to the effect, "If I'm not pissing anyone off, I'm not doing anything worthwhile." You see plenty of writers on SA who receive no comments at all, because their ideas are not strong enough to be worth it. You make compelling arguments, and you have a reader base that reflects that. Some commenters post 10-20 negative things for every neutral/positive comment they have to say. With a ratio like that, who do you think is the problem: The author or the commenter? Keep it up, Ashraf. You're a tribute to this site, and Seeking Alpha is lucky to have you, my friend.
7 Jul, 05:22 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
15
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
way the other way round, you get all bothered and flustered. Self Awareness is something that you perhaps need to have more of.
8 Jul, 01:39 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
8 Jul, 03:04 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
11
Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1536792-qualcomm-understanding-the-threats
5/12
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
8 Jul, 02:15 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
. One more point, by the time competition comes up with some comeptitive LTE integrated solution, qcom would start pitching "LTE-advanced" and competition would be playing catch up. you mentioned all big names you can think of i.e samsung/BRCM /Intel in baseband market. I think real threat qualcomm would be worried would be HiSense ( Huawei) which has very efficient LTE design in market compare to any other competitor you mentioned. 2. By early next year, QCOM RF 360 solution would be in fully available, that means so much fragmented RF bands in 3G/4G worldwide, anyone willing to launch world phone, would be looking at QCOM for solution. So it plays in QCOM's hand. I haven't heard any of your above mention company coming up with something similar. "Advantage " QCOM. 3. You claim QCOM is overdependent on Samsung ,and if i assume that's truth, let's for a minute assume samsung /apple looses market share , who gains. LG -- Major customer of QCOM and feeding on QCOM product line, They revived themselves based on QCOM solutions. HTC - again Major customer and feeds on QCOM solutions. RIM -- Exclusive BB10 supplier of chipset is QCOM. Windows phone OEMs -- QCOM is exclusive chipset supplier. So, i think QCOM would be more than ok for some reason Apple/Samsung looses grip on their market share. QCOM would turn out to be fine and may be "happy" too!!! 4. LTE single mode. ---Really??? Flag barrier for Single Mode LTE devices with VOLTE is Verizon . They want to deploy it fast. But if my information is correct, internally Verizon don't forsee major LTE only devices till 2017 or later. Till the time, they expect flagship devices to carry both 3G/4G. So, all in all, it is competitive market, but in my eyes, QCOM is playing on its strength and they are not sitting idle. They are making it difficult and difficult for competition.
7 Jul, 10:27 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
! Report Abuse
7 Jul, 10:34 PM
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
phones only. But I believe the penetration will be at a higher number and a faster rate. A similar argument can be put forth for China and other developing counties in South America. Now the real growth story is all about developing countries. Even if Qcom manages to keep hold of 33% market share it has in China, that still equates a very good overall growth. But china is moving fast to 4g and that is where Qcom strengths will start showing up. All in all if your dream of Intel eating up Qcom's smartphone lunch comes true than also I see Qcom posting double digit growth for next couple of years just because of the sheer size of the market. And at the same time I find it funny the conversation about smartphone market saturation from Citi bank.
8 Jul, 07:55 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
dividend, the shares will probably remain depressed until investors see better profit margins, and these may not occur for another year. Meanwhile, many other investment firms have downgraded Qualcomm on the premise that sales growth for smartphones and tablets is waning. I'd like to see the data to back up those views. What is known, however, is that, especially in developing nations, wireless phone users are switching from old second generation phones to third or fourth generation smartphones, making the growth in demand for the types of equipment that generate royalties for Qualcomm healthy indeed. There is simply no basis to claim or infer that Intel is about to eat Qualcomm's lunch. Maybe the reverse is closer to reality.
9 Jul, 06:02 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
Like
Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1536792-qualcomm-understanding-the-threats
11/12
8/16/13
QUALCOMM, Inc. (QCOM): Qualcomm: Understanding The Threats [Apple Inc., Intel Corporation] - Seeking Alpha
seekingalpha.com/article/1536792-qualcomm-understanding-the-threats
12/12
se e kingalpha.co m
Intel Or Qualcomm?
Disclosure: I am long QCOM, MSFT . I wrote this article myself , and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation f or it (other than f rom Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...) High-tech leaders Intel (INT C) and Qualcomm (QCOM) are about to report Q1 earnings-Intel is reporting on April 16, while Qualcomm is reporting on April 24. Earnings Estimates f or Intel and Qualcomm Company Intel Qualcomm High $0.46 $1.21 Mean 0.41 $1.16 Low 0.35 1.12
Qualcomm is the winner of the semiconductor industry. Its stock trades near the upper end of its trading range - at a new high; and it has the highest PE among its peers. Intel is the loser of the semiconductor industry. It stock trades near to the low end of its trading range- below its 2000 high. Which one is a better investment bet? Obviously, the def inite answer to the question will be known only af ter the two companies report their earnings. Nevertheless, Intel is a better bet f or value investors, given its low valuation, high dividend payout, and the prospect of riding Microsof t's (MSFT ) Windows 8 roll-out, while Qualcomm is a better bet f or growth investors, f or f our reasons: Company Intel Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Nvidia (NVDA) Texas Instruments (T XN) Qualcomm Broadcom (BRCM) Source; Yahoo.f inance.com Intel versus Qualcomm Price Performance (2000-12) Intel Year Price* Qualcomm Price* Recent Price $21.66 2.43 12.95 35.46 66.18 33.67 Forward P/E 10.51 -15.94 17.4 13.48 10.93
Source: yahoo.f inance.com Intel versus Qualcomm Financial Performance Statistics in 2011 Intel Dividend Operating Margins Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): Source: yahoo.f inance.com 1. Size. With $20.46 billion in sales Qualcomm is less than half of Intel's size. T his means that the law of large numbers works better f or Qualcomm, as do the laws of economies. While Qualcomm is at the threshold where returns scale takes f ull ef f ect, Intel is approaching the threshold where constant or even decreasing returns to scale begin to kick in. 2. Better company f undamentals. As a pioneer of CDMA technology, Qualcomm enjoys the "f irst mover" advantage in wireless communications; and with the recent acquisition of Atheros Communications, Qualcomm strengthened its leadership in the industry. 3. Better industry f undamentals. While Intel remains the leader in the mature PC industry - though Intel has made several moves into wireless communications in recent years. Qualcomm maintains leadership in wireless communications, still an emerging industry. Wireless Intelligence estimates that the number of 3G users will reach 2.8 billion by 2014. 4. Riding the industry upgrade cycle. Qualcomm is expected to be the main benef iciary of the wireless communication upgrade cycle. T he GSM Association expects telecom providers to spend $100 billion by 2015 in High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA), 3G, and 4G. T he Bottom Line: Intel is f or value investors while Qualcomm is f or growth investors. Source: Intel Or Qualcomm? Which Seeking Alpha App is best f or you? Seeking Alpha Portf olio Tech Investor ET F investor Energy Investor 4.20 27.44.30 -26.50% -3% Qualcomm 2.10 30.78 36.00% 28.60
Continue
Sha re t his a rt icle
se e kingalpha.co m
And if you look at the last three years even in a time where the market's been relatively weak, the
Core i5, i7 volumes have been very healthy and if anything we've seen a larger mix overall to Core over that time period.
So you don't have tablets replacing high end PCs, you have tablets replacing the relatively high volume, low end PCs into which Intel shipped a large number of Pentium and Celeron chips. Now, luckily the Pentium/Celeron chips move to the upcoming "Bay Trail" design going f orward, which means that they all become f anless, thinner, and much more amenable to convertible designs at low price points (this could drive volume). Also keep in mind that a move f rom a 2-chip solution to a single chip solution based on cores designed to be much smaller will yield signif icant gross margin benef its at f lat ASPs. But the truth is that Intel needs to get Bay Trail out as quickly as it can , and quite f rankly I don't think even Intel realized how urgently it needed to get this part out until the beginning of the year (as all of the leaks f rom 2012 suggested that Bay Trail was a 2014 part). I am glad that this lineup was accelerated to late 2013. T he Tablet And Smartphone Push: It's Do Or Die Quite f rankly, in terms of the consumer computing space, it is imperative that Intel get into these markets and in f orce as quickly as possible. Now, unlike what some have suggested, the tablet and smartphone vendors appear to want Intel in this space, as Mr. Krzanich noted when asked about customer response to Intel's attempts to enter this space:
I'd say the key message that they've been giving us is, we really want you there, we see the products coming, we want even more and we want a faster line up following those.
But the main problem that we have seen so f ar is that Intel needs to have the right products to play in this space. I think that when Intel can put the old Atom behind it and get the f irst Silvermont based parts to market, then we will see some real volume growth. Intel is lucky that ARM (ARMH)-based competitors such as Qualcomm (QCOM) and Nvidia (NVDA) are essentially locked out of the Windows space (and as a result, Intel captured 90% of Windows tablet share translating into ~6% of the total tablet market), but in the Android space, X86 compatibility is not a barrier f or competitors, so Clover Trail+ isn't going to cut it against an Nvidia Tegra 4 or a Qualcomm Snapdragon 800. Bay Trail had better be good (i.e., best in class), otherwise it will f ail to gain traction on Android. T he long and the short of it is: tablets and low cost convertibles will become the mainstream computing devices of the future for the vast majority of people . While the high margin, high ASP Core i5/i7 will continue to do well, the mainstream parts need to transition to the Bay Trail design as quickly as possible f or Intel to be able to participate in this broad f orm f actor transition. Fortunately, the Atom SoCs that go into this space are likely much cheaper to make than the cut-down Core processors that become Pentiums/Celerons that sell f or ~$40-$50, so gross margins on these parts are likely to remain stable to perhaps slightly up as these chips ramp in f ull-f orce. Blended gross margins come under slight pressure, as it is the low end/low power part of the compute market that will see growth while the high end is likely to be slightly up to f lat. For growth, Intel also really needs to play in the smartphone space on both baseband and apps processor. If Intel can deliver on the perf ormance/power claims in the f ollowing slide, then I believe that this could drive signif icant adoption of the company's parts in mid to high end smartphones. (click to enlarge)
However, I expect that Intel is at risk of having a signif icant marketing problem trying to sell a dual core product into a world of quad core phones, even if the dual core part delivers better perf ormance/watt. I f urther expect that f rom what is currently known about Bay Trail's GPU (4 EU Gen7 GPU), it is unlikely that -- unless Intel is either using Imagination's (IGNMF.PK) next generation PowerVR 6 or a beef ed up Gen7 design f or the "Merrif ield" SoC -- it will be as competitive with the Snapdragon 800 on the GPU side of things, which could pose as an additional headwind to adoption. I also believe that the Q1 2014 launch curtails any hope that there will be a 14nm smartphone product launched in 2014 (although Mr. Krzanich's comments about "acceleration" could be a source of optimism here), which means that the company's process lead could ultimately prove to be ephemeral in this particular end market. Fortunately, product cycles in this space are short, so it may be okay to have Merrif ield be reasonably short lived. Finally, it will be an uphill battle f or Intel to compete with Qualcomm on the modem side of things, although recent hiring and R&D increases suggest that Intel is making a serious ef f ort. It is not clear if the "Merrif ield" platf orm will ship with an LT E-Advanced modem (which both Broadcom (BRCM) and Qualcomm will be shipping in this timef rame). I am expecting a highly integrated part known as "6331" during 2014, which will put the modem on the same die as the apps processor, although it is clear that Intel's modem ef f orts have signif icantly lagged its apps processor ef f orts signif icantly thus f ar. I also expect that Intel will need to f ill out its portf olio with low power WiFi connectivity as consuming the majority of the bill of materials in this space will be key to driving high margin revenue growth. T his can likely be developed in-house by leveraging existing WiFi IP, although I would not be surprised to see f urther acquisitions. A Note On Sentiment I am not oblivious to the f act that Intel has been a f rustrating and disappointing stock. Long-term holders are likely f urious that the company is guiding to f lat Y/Y revenues in this bull market, af ter years of seeing their investment go nowhere at the speed of light. T he opportunity cost to holding Intel shares likely f eels high, particularly as growth names tend to be outperf orming in this market, and Intel is not invulnerable to broad market weakness, which in the near term could create a pretty negatively skewed risk/reward prof ile f or the name. But the bottom line is that Intel still exhibits a f avorable risk/reward f or investors with the patience to stick through at least until the core thesis has played out long enough to drive signif icant upside. What is the thesis, exactly? Intel will gain enough share in tablets (which have a much larger TAM than the low-end PC market today and will continue to grow) to of f set low-end PC sales declines.
Intel's datacenter growth story will remain on track with a double digit revenue growth CAGR through 2016. T he low-end PC will merge with the high-end tablet, and Intel will have signif icant share here. T here is plenty of volume in cheap 7" tablets to drive growth, and Intel will have a leadership product here. Intel has the scale and the ability to invest in order to take signif icant share in the Android smartphone space. Intel will be signif icantly expanding its processor TAM into new end markets such as low-end networking, communications inf rastructure, in-vehicle inf otainment, and wearable devices. While the current year's f inancial results more than likely to be disappointing (f ull-year guide being cut was a major disappointment to bulls), Wall Street reacts f avorably to stories that are showing signs of improvement. For Q3 and Q4, gross margins are back into the 60% range. T he CapEx guide has been cut yet again, and total spending has been cut f or the year. T he launches of Bay Trail and the next gen micro-server SoC known as "Avoton" are imminent (which could drive sentiment), the upcoming investor meeting should be a positive catalyst, and I believe that Q1 2014 should be the start of a real growth story f or the company as the f ull-year impact of the new product lineup is realized. More importantly, I believe that the new CEO will be well received by the Street. If you notice on the call, he was very eager to emphasize the "Atom" parts and did not act as though Intel was a PC-f irst company and regarded Atom as a second-class citizen. T his new CEO understands that low power SoCs designed quickly in a f astpace environment is the f uture f or the majority of compute, and I expect that going f orward, he will not be shy about pursuing new and emerging opportunities even if it means "cannibalizing" pre-existing markets (as Intel was apparently af raid of given its historically low f ocus on Atom and attempts to reinvigorate the traditional PC market). Finally, I believe that the f ull-year guide down was done to make sure that Intel is not at risk of missing in Q3 or Q4. I expect that the Q3 guide -- which was at the low end of the traditional seasonal increase -- was very conservative, and if Haswell Ultrabooks do, indeed, pick up, there is a chance f or a beat. Optically, Intel has been "missing" its guidance f or the last several quarters, and I believe that the new CEO and the current CFO are tired of getting egg on their f aces. Paul Otellini did not leave as a CEO who was known f or delivering shareholder value (despite the massive revenue growth and PC/server leadership under his reign), and I get the sense that the company is looking to change this. Intel will -- if I'm right -- become a company that blasts through expectations, not one whose quarterly results causes investors to cringe. While I was initially irritated by the guide-down, I realize that in this uncertain demand environment, I would do the exact thing in Mr. Krzanich's and Mr. Smith's places. T his is the one grace period bef ore Mr. Krzanich's tenure begins properly, and it's best to get that sort of thing out of the way. Conclusion Look, we all already knew the PC market was not doing so great, and the f act that Intel is going to be f lat f or the year isn't wonderf ul, but it's not the worst thing possible. If you are a long-term investor, recognize that this is a marathon and not a sprint, and all of the signs that Intel is doing the right thing to position itself f or long-term growth are there, even if the short-term results take a hit. It takes time (4 years) to design new chips f or new power/perf ormance targets, and what you are seeing now is a company that completely miscalculated when it would need a new Atom. In 2009/2010, when Intel bought Inf ineon's wireless and started taking Atom more seriously, it had no idea that the PC market would go into such steep decline; even 2011 was a banner year in terms of the top and bottom lines. T his was supposed to be an incremental opportunity to spur f urther growth on top of what seemed to be a pretty healthy business.
But the past is the past, and we will see Bay Trail in 2013, Merrif ield and Cherry Trail (Airmont based) in 2014, and I think that the company can f inally return to growth. Long-term investors need to wait a little bit longer f or the growth story to play out, and I don't blame you at all if you just want out to go participate in a much "easier" growth story. But as f ar as I'm concerned, Intel is a top notch, all-star company that made a really dumb decision that it is now in the process of correcting. If I am right and the company can push hard in this new world of ubiquitous compute, then all will be well, the massive R&D investments that have ravaged the net income line will pay of f , and shareholders can f inally move beyond the "lost decade" in Intel's shares. I'm betting on Intel. Source: Intel: Don't Panic
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
Aug 4 2013, 15:36 | 87 comments | about: INTC (Intel Corporation), includes: QCOM
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in INTC , QC OM over the next 72 hours. (More...)
Intel (INTC) has been recently trying to catch up in the mobile space. They have revamped their mobile CPU lineup to place added emphasis on performance/watt, and are using their process advantage over the competition to try and finally enter significantly into the mobile market. But there are a few things that have made me hesitant as to whether they can catch up, including how these factors will affect revenues and margins, and how many units they will need to move to show substantial growth. Why Pricing is Tricky I have pointed out in a previous article that Qualcomm's (QCOM) Snapdragon 600 costs $20 and Samsung's Exynos 5 costs $30, according to data from iSuppli. Image taken from IBTimes.com
So the price of apps processors above range from $30 for an 8 core Samsung (SSNLF.PK) processor to $17.50 for a quad core. Companies like MediaTek probably charge less, but make up for it in volumes; Intel will be competing in a market sector where $50 is higher than the high end. This presents several "red flags" to me. Intel Inside Smartphones Two articles on SemiWiki.com (I, II) were written describing smart phone sells in China, and how companies are able to produce these phones that retail at prices of $50-$75 for the entire phone (and I believe these are not subsidized prices). The following tables taken from IDC.com
First I would like to point out that between 2009 and 2010, Apple (AAPL) and Samsung demonstrated 89% and 318% respectively, compared to 47% and 129% between 2011 and 2012. Also, Samsung's growth seems to primarily come from stealing market share from the other major players
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
1/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
excluding Apple. The "others" category, the place where the cheaper smartphones dwell, has seen sustained growth, and these "others" combined ship more smart phones than either Apple or Samsung. Given that these smart phones are considerably cheaper than what most of us will find in our Verizon store, I assume that Intel will not be participating in this category, leaving them mainly in play for the higher end smart phones. Intel Inside Tablets Source: IDC.com
You can see above that Apple owns the lion's share of the tablet market, followed by Samsung, Amazon (AMZN), and Asus. Note that the developing countries are seeing an explosion of cheaper tablets as well, but again this should not matter to Intel, since they are not in play in these cheaper markets in my mind. Amazon also aims to price their tablets very cheap, and Apple designs their own chips. I will assume that Asus, Samsung, and "others" such as Acer and Sony (SNE) are the only sockets up for grabs from Intel. What Happens if Intel Steals Considerable Market Share? Given that it appears $30-35 is the high end of smart phone and tablet processor range, excluding the expensive Surface Pro tablets, let's assume that Intel's processors are so much better they convince OEMs they're worth an ASP of $50, which represents a 67% premium over the competition at a high end of $30. Now let's also assume that Intel is able to grab all the sockets from Samsung smart phones and tablets. That's 215M smart phones, and roughly 25M tablets, for a total of ~240M devices. This represents an increase in revenues of ~$12B each year.
Given their $53B in revenue from last year, this represents a ~22% increase, if Intel is able to ship 230M devices next year, and charge by my estimates a premium over the competition. Most likely this will not be an overnight transition, and it will take a few years for this to unfold during a time when the PC market is stagnating; Intel derives a majority of their revenue from the PC market. Given that roughly 850M tablets and smart phones combined shipped last year according to IDC data, Intel would have to gain about 30% of the mobile market for this scenario to happen. With no high volume design wins announced yet, I find this highly unlikely. If Intel competes on price to gain market share, I feel they have to worry about lower GM. Gross Margins in Mobile SA contributor Ashraf Eassa published an article predicting margins on Intel's mobile chips. In the article he estimated Intel's Core CPU line selling for an ASP of ~$120. As for a second data point, Intel's mobile Core i3 ULV CPU is $287 per the ARK website. A discount of 50% over the ARK website places OEM bulk pricing at ~$145, so I will use $130 as an estimate for calculations based on the ASP of Core CPUs. For the time being, Intel is using 300mm wafers with plans to transition to 450mm. A 300 mm wafer has roughly 70,000 mm^2 of usable surface area. I will present a range of values that I believe should encompass where Bay Trail's revenue per wafer will fall within by performing a few sets of calculations. Intel's ULV mobile CPUs are 2 core, and come in an array of different GPU sizes. Here, I will assume an average die size of 170mm^2, which is slightly smaller than the 2 core chips with the larger GPU die area. As for Bay Trail, Nvidia's (NVDA) Tegra 4 is ~80mm^2, while Apple's A6X is ~120mm^2. Therefore, for Bay Trail die size estimates I will assume a die size between 80 mm^2 and 100 mm^2.
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
2/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
Regarding pricing, I will assume Bay Trail has an ASP of $30-$50 for OEM pricing. As die size goes down, yields tend to improve, so for ease of calculation, I will assume that Bay Trail yields at 100%, while Haswell yields at 80%. So for Haswell, using the assumptions above, the revenue per wafer should be ~$43,000 (70k mm^2/170 mm^2 * 80% * $130). Bay Trail should fall between ~$24,500 (70k mm^2/100 mm^2 * 100% * $35) and $43,500 (70k mm^2/80 mm^2 * 100% * $50). I know this is a pretty broad range, but these calculations are meant only as demonstration purposes since most of the information needed to make them accurate would be information that only Intel engineers and management would have access to. So in my best case scenario assuming a die size of 80 mm^2 and a $50 ASP, Intel will generate revenues per wafer ~equal to their Core CPUs. In my worst case, Intel is looking at ~60% of the revenue per wafer of Bay Trail compared to Haswell. And this is also assuming Bay Trail yields 20% better than Haswell. GM is calculated using revenue and cost of sales. I am neglecting the increase in cost of sales from packaging, binning and testing a larger number of chips per wafer for Bay Trail. In my best case scenario, it seems to me that Intel will be stretching it to generate an equal revenue per wafer when comparing Bay Trail to Haswell, so I am having a hard time coming to the conclusion that Intel will be able to maintain ~60% GM for their mobile products. This in and of itself is not necessarily a problem provided Intel can sell Bay Trail in sufficient quantities. Assumptions that will affect the accuracy of my estimations are inaccuracies in the ASPs used, yield percentages, and die size estimates. Power Consumption I have made the case before that the power consumption of the competition when compared against Intel needs to be taken relative to battery life and performance, since the end goal of focusing on performance/watt is to deliver the combination of maximum performance and time unplugged. Intel's 22nm process has an inherent power savings advantage. But there are other ways chip makers can make architectural changes to their chips to save power. ARM Holdings (ARMH) uses a "big.LITTLE" arrangement to turn off larger cores and gives control to weaker cores, but this is the less interesting solution to me personally. Qualcomm uses an asynchronous architecture. Rather than me trying to explain it, Qualcomm has provided a video that explains it better than any attempt I could make. These kinds of technology improvements have allowed Qualcomm to increase performance without dramatically increasing power consumption. Motorola (MSI) recently released a new phone with an interesting setup as well. The solution, the X8, features a cheaper custom Qualcomm SoC combined with 2 separate DSP (digital signal processors): a "contextual computing processor" and a language processor. The crux of this is that the contextual processor can serve as the main processor in standby to lower power consumption of the Qualcomm's already frugal S4. To assume that Intel will completely obliterate the competition in regards to power consumption would require looking at the mobile sector in a vacuum with your eyes closed, especially since we have not seen real world benchmarks that compare performance per watt, and we have no idea on pricing. Benchmarks Although recently mobile benchmarks are coming under heavy scrutiny (I,II), the available GeekBench scores for the S800, S600, and Tegra 4 compared to the z3770 (the Tegra 4 is an unfair comparison though because it's taken from Nvidia's Shield which is actively cooled). I have also included a benchmark with the outgoing generation Atom to give a point of comparison for Intel competing in the K900.
Bear in mind, this is a single data point (GeekBench), and the most important performance/watt metrics are missing. There are potential issues with GeekBench in benchmarking x86 floating point performance as well, but for the time being with all available data, I am not seeing a definitive
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
3/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
performance advantage for Intel. And regardless of what benchmarks say, I am waiting for real world tests to make a definitive conclusion. Conclusion I think to assume that Intel stock is going to take off and leave investors playing catch-up is analogous to saying that a turtle is getting ready to start sprinting. I have no opinion on Intel as a long term investment; I have been contemplating to adding Intel to my IRA and forgetting it's in there until I'm ready to go find a mountain lake somewhere to live out my days on. But for at least the remainder of 2013, I am not expecting much growth from Intel. And aside from some unforseen catalyst happening, I am waiting to see how well Bay Trail is received before I revisit my opinion. As far as smart phones, Intel would have to capture significant market share while charging more than the competition (given iSuppli's price of $20 for a Snapdragon 600). I have shown why I feel that Intel competing on price will drive margins down which will limit upside in the stock. The three largest vendors for smart phones are "Others", Samsung, and Apple (in order). Intel is probably not competing in the "Others" category given this is where the cheaper smart phones reside. Apple I feel is out of the question until it's announced they're switching to Intel. Apple has spent a significant amount of resources in developing their own processor, and rumors report that at least for the time being, Apple is going to continue using their own in house chips. Samsung uses a mixture of chips across all their devices, so I do not see Intel capturing every Samsung socket. That was for demonstration only. Major catalysts, like an announcement of Intel-powered iPads or iPhones from Apple, are the reason I keep cash on hand, so I can invest early and ride the momentum. Regarding tablets, Apple also uses in-house designed chips, and iPad variants represent the majority of the tablet market. Amazon tablets compete on price, leaving Intel out of the question here in my mind as well. This leaves primarily Samsung, Asus, and possibly other OEMs such as Sony. However, given the total tablet shipments last year were roughly 130M, and that Apple and Amazon represent roughly 75% of this market, that leaves about 32.5M sockets for Intel to compete for. And the competition is fierce. Qualcomm I feel is Intel's strongest competitor. They use a unique architecture that allows their processors to operate at lower power levels while providing good performance. Here, I will note that there are no independent reviews comparing Tegra 4, Snapdragon 800, and Bay Trail so nothing is definitive yet. I will revisit this conclusion if I see proof that Bay Trail is significantly ahead of the competition in performance/watt and competitive on price; I do not consider PR slides as proof. Considering that Qualcomm is the same size as Intel by market cap, has a very wide and deep moat of IP regarding mobile processors and communications, and Qualcomm is accustom to competing in mobile where $35 is the ASP of a high end processor, Intel will face hurricane-force headwinds from a competitor that is equally sized and heavily entrenched in mobile. If Intel is competing on price, I cannot see them maintaining GM, which I feel will limit the upside potential to the stock. Potential ways I could be wrong are if the die size of Bay Trail is considerably smaller than I have assumed, or if the performance is much greater than the competition so Intel is able to command a higher premium. R&D spending is accounted for between GM and operating margin, so Intel needs to maintain healthy gross margins to maintain a healthy R&D budget, or it starts eating into their bottom line. The biggest advantage I see going forward for Intel is their x86 ISA and a cheap, competitive x86 solution in Bay Trail. OEMs need to put together competitive Windows based solutions not subsidized by "bloatware" that can compete on price and functionality with tablets, and not give off the vibe of a disposable computer.
This article was sent to 46,282 people who get email alerts on INTC.
Get email alerts on INTC
Intersil Delivers A Comeback Quarter, Is It Time To Buy? Atmel Needs To Show That Touch Can Be A Growth Business Again
by Stephen Simpson, CFA 64 Comments Aug 1, 2013
Emailed to: 46,289 people who get INTC real-time alerts, 131,058 people who get SA Tech Stock Report daily and 325,577 people who get Investing Ideas daily. Author payment: $0.01 per page view, with minimum guarantee of $500 for Alpha-Rich ideas plus free access to Seeking Alpha Pro. Become a contributor Tagged: Investing Ideas, Long Ideas, Technology, Semiconductor - Broad Line Problem with this article? Please tell us. Disagree with this article? Submit your own. Articles that link to this one
Nvidia: Significant Headwinds BuildingFri, Aug 9 New Never Settle Bundle And Potential GPU Refresh May Boost AMDThu, Aug 8 Advanced Micro Devices Responds To Kaveri Delays, New Never Se Tue, Aug 6 Revisiting The Potential For Bay TrailMon, Aug 5
INTC's management discussing earnings Intel Corporation (INTC) CEO Discusses Q2 2013 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
Wed, Jul 17 5 Comments
Comments (87)
All (87)Author's Picks (7) Justin JaynesComments (1360)
Wanted to add this before someone else top posts - no Intel did not miss the mobile boat, but now they are stuck playing catch up. They did miss the explosive growth phase that occurred. Tablets, taking away Amazon's Kindle and the Ipad, account for roughly 50M sockets or so (very rough quick estimate). AFAIK, mobile phones are a Q4, CY2014 Q1 event, so those will probably get baked into the stock later, but we *should* get a performance preview in tablets to see the kind of potential where Bay Trail architecture lies a quarter or so before the phone SoCs start showing up. Phones are where, in my mind, the real chance for growth is. But that's a couple quarters away. 4 Aug, 03:41 PM ! Report Abuse Like 5 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
4/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
I agree, and that's why I sold my INTC position and moved everything to AMD. AMD is embracing ARM architecture, and custom silicon. There are a few things that I think could help, and one of those being that Intel made their chips compatible with Android. I included the Lenovo k900 to show users that if you look at benchmarks running clovertrail/clovertrail+ in windows vs android, it seems to run just as well. The one thing that makes me hesitant is I do not (for reasons stated in my article) think GM will maintain at 60%. If Intel cannot maintain good GM, they cannot fund their R&D as well to maintain their process lead. That's why I'm waiting until later to see if this ship can come ungrounded, so to speak. 4 Aug, 07:33 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
Like
Reply
pfifla1Comments (349)
just took back the windows 8 tablet i bought last week. absolutely worthless piece of hardware! Hoping the new chips Intel will release at xmas will bring the processing power up to where it needs to be to make the unit run smooth. 5 Aug, 07:27 AM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
flux8Comments (122)
Excellent article Justin. Very objective and level-headed view of Intel's realistic prospects. I agree with pretty much all of it, except that I think your scenarios are a bit too generous with regards to potential market share and revenues. If Intel prices Bay Trail at a 67% premium over the competition, Bay Trail will be DOA. No OEM is going to go for that. Even if they have more processing power, as an OEM, how do you market that to the consumer public that isn't currently complaining about tablet processing power? "Intel Inside" doesn't mean anything in the mobile market. Okay, so the next argument will be that it can run Windows 8. So what? Is there a huge demand by buyers of tablets to run Windows 8? To my knowledge there isn't, so why would OEM's pay a premium to do so (a premium for both the chip AND the OS)? Then either the OEM or the consumer has to pay for a "feature" he/she never asked for or needed. It's like telling a buyer of an automobile that $200 of the vehicle's cost is due to the satellite radio, and that while it's an "option", you can't choose to NOT buy it. Except by going to a different car company. I feel like a big part of the problem in the recent debates over Intel is that most of the pro-Intel articles are being written and supported by tech geeks who can't understand why anyone might not care about paying more for more processing power. In my experience, many tech geeks just can't fathom that >90% of the buying public don't view tech gadgets in the same way they do. From my experience, most people I know who are buying tablets don't know and don't care what's under the hood. They just want it to be able to run apps, last the entire day on a single charge, and cost a reasonable amount. If the cost difference isn't something they can easily see or feel, they won't pay for it. 5 Aug, 01:09 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
5 Aug, 01:38 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
mikeurlComments (389)
Intel missed the boat, of course they did. But maybe it is a boat they don't even really want to be on. All of these devices are becoming more and more data hungry
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
5/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
and they use more and more cloud services. In order to feed that demand there have to be servers. And powering those servers are Intel chips. Intel is still the 800lb gorilla in the datacenter. Not only that but once the market is clearly shrinking in PCs regulators may finally allow Intel to acquire AMD. That would actually tend to boost cash flow from the x86 line. Intel is in a rough spot right now because they had become addicted to the marginal growth in PC sales which sent their total revenue to the moon. That is now gone and they're adjusting. 4 Aug, 04:09 PM ! Report Abuse Like 3 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
6/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
expect them to be more competitive in tablets than in smart phones given the fact that tablets are better suited for running Windows, and tablets represent a smaller market. 4 Aug, 05:22 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
ash187Comments (102)
Justin, in that anandtech article, anand mentions software side to it and the lead intel has there; small startups may be willing to recode and try the software solution that calxeda comes up with, I don't think enterprise will take that risk. It'll be just like that old adage, "nobody got fired for buying intel" And for all that talk of Facebook moving to arm servers, that served to hype up arm server talk, but just recently intel came out and said Facebook and ebay are big customers for custom designed chips for micro server use. With krzanich at the helm, intelmis going to prioritize these customized CPU deals and big customer relationships, and that ultimately may keep the odds titled in their favour. gigaom.com/2013/07/22/...
4 Aug, 07:17 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
dRINTELComments (87)
Arm will not and cannot compete with Intel in the server market this is just a pipe dream... 4 Aug, 09:10 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
7/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
thanks for clarification Samir -
I wasn't sure what you were getting at by the dismiss data points comment. If you look through my article disclosures you will see that I was long Intel, and have since sold my position. Ultimately it comes down to how Intel will be able to compete in smart phones in my mind, since it seems tablet sales are cannibalizing PCs. Just based on my complete guesstimation of $50 as an ASP of Bay Trail-T, and Ashraf's $120 ASP of desktop CPUs, tablet sales would have to outpace lost PC sockets at a >2:1 ratio. I am not long qualcomm because I have most of my money tied up in AMD, but research into Qualcomm was another huge reason. Intel is competing in a market where $30 is high end, but I look at every smart phone SoC sold as incremental revenue. Based on their smart phone SoCs not appearing until next year, I plan on looking at tablet performance as a preview to see what to expect in smart phones. I plan on revisiting Intel after I see what news comes out of Hot Chips and AFDS 2013 regarding HSA, and see real world benchmarks of Bay Trail. I like Intel's prospects post 2013, and I could be wildly off, but I am looking at 2014 and beyond as when I feel they have potential for real growth, and plan on revisiting Intel after I see how Bay Trail does. Now I hope that if Intel wins iPad/iPhone sockets it's not before I re-instate a long position :) 4 Aug, 09:11 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
techy46Comments (4060)
Intel did not miss the mobile boat they purposely decided not to get on the boat and cannabilize their PC chips prices with $30-50 Atoms prior to combined PC, smart phone and tablet unit sales making the move accretative as the author points out. Now taht the PC and mobile boats are one and the same they have no alternative but to turn direction and paddle really fast. 4 Aug, 09:15 PM ! Report Abuse Like 2 Reply
ash187Comments (102)
@Justin My ipad was acting strange, wasn't URL shortening. Here's the link: http://bit.ly/13evMbP You do raise a valid point about Sun and disruption in the server market; there may be some space for ARM servers to take hold, but enterprise lock in is the big beached whale that they have to move. I would say back then Sun's RISC/SPARC servers couldn't compete against Intel, because intel were offering a) MUCH better pricing b) better software ecosystem. Calxeda's custom solution can't compete on price at the moment or even software, and unless they start to build volume, they never will. I believe AMD will capture a lot more than these small bespoke makers. Which makes going long AMD/INTC a lot more palatable to me over the next year. Appreciate your articles, always a good read!
5 Aug, 03:45 AM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
amagusComments (18)
Studies have the microserver market at between 10%-15% of the overall server market by 2015-2016, and they will never take over the market as they are only suitable for certain types of workloads. With Avoton, Intel is going to have a significant time to market advantage over 64-bit multi-core ARM solutions, with probable technical advantages too. So ARM is going to be later with 64-bit solution, with probably no technical advantages vs Intel, with minimal software ecosystem (vs Intel's which is fully built out), minimal OEM/ODM network, entering a market that is still only going to be a fraction of the server market in a couple of years. Yeah they might be cheaper but how much cheaper can it be when companies still need to recoup the R&D from developing ARM based enterprise solutions, which will not be particularly high volume. Also, remember in the enterprise space, the cost of CPUs is a drop in the bucket when compared against the cost of software, services, storage, memory, etc. I'm not particularly the most bullish person when it comes to Intel's chances of breaking into the mobile space, but I think ARM has even less of chance of breaking into the datacenter space. 5 Aug, 01:56 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
5 Aug, 02:11 PM
! Report Abuse
Reply
mikeurlComments (389)
With respect to servers it helps to remember that Intel both designs the chips AND build's the fabs. That is an enormous advantage when you have clients that MUST have chips that work. It is also an advantage when it comes time for the next "leap" in design/fab technology. That isn't to say "don't worry"; every good investor worries. But I don't think I'd be worried about Intel losing the datacenter anytime soon. But ARM is a credible competitor with a ridiculous amount of cash...they will certainly keep the pressure on. What I'd be looking out for is whether ARM starts to deploy
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
8/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
some of that cash to start building its own fabs...then I'd be more worried. 10 Aug, 12:05 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
Like
Reply
dRINTELComments (87)
They don't need 50% percent of the market at 15% there stock will start growing like it should... 15% next year 30% a year later then who knows from there...... 4 Aug, 09:10 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
GeorgemikaComments (65)
I have paid very close attention to Intel's comments in company events including earnings calls. Here's my understanding. Intel can sell their smartphone chips and tablet chips at a small premium (not double) of what competitors sell them for with much better performance and comparable battery life. As for interest by customers, they are currently being told by customers that they can't wait for Intel to release their latest products such as the baytrail and the merifield. For growth purpose, the smartphone market can slow down to no growth at all and the same can be said for tablets, yet Intel's market share growth will give them the growth they need to attract new investors. And if we want to quote IDC, even they have claimed that PC numbers, such as laptop sales will grow to around 350 million units in the next 3 years. At the worst case, even a flat revenue for this group in the foreseeable future, will give Intel a very strong base while stealing huge market share in mobile area. All in all, Intels revenues may exceed the $60 Billion mark for 2014. And even if it is delayed and it happens in 2015, that's much better than what is expected. So it's $53 Billion expectation for 2013, $55 Billion for 2014 which is a 4% growth year over year. At $60 Billion for 2015 (which is very much possible), that's a revenue growth of over 9% year over year. After that will be the continuation of gaining mobile market share by Intel which could push revenue anywhere from $70 Billion to over $80 Billion. The key for me is that if Intel is willing to go after the market that involves processors, they will dominate it. I have full confidence in that outcome. Gross margins? They made it very clear that gross margins will remain in the 55% to 65% range. Or 60% midpoint. 4 Aug, 04:26 PM ! Report Abuse Like 2 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
9/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
@George - these are a few rebuttals: "Intel can sell their smartphone chips and tablet chips at a small premium (not double) of what competitors sell them for with much better performance and comparable battery life." - After re-running AnTuTu Intel's scores dropped. Geekbench does not show Intel having better performance. Intel can claim better performance and battery life - but there's no proof yet, and the benchmarks we do have point to a competitive scenario, not a unanimous victory. I plan on revisiting this sometime later when there are real world usage scenarios. Regarding GM, again, they have not sold a single product yet. GM will depend on how aggressively they want to price their parts when going after marketshare. Again, nothing is set in stone until it happens. Regarding PC sales coming back and IDC forecasts - IDC forecasts PC sales barely growing between now and 2017 from 322M to 333M in 2017. This is down from an average of ~355M for 2011/2012. Intel owns roughly 85% of the PC market (I believe), and revenues in 2012 of $53B, and about 65% of their revenue comes specifically from PCs. Given a PC revenue of $34B last year, I roughly expect (322/355 * $34B) $31B in revenue this year if IDC numbers turn out to be true. This would be made up for by Bay Trail sales back half and expansion in the data center in back half, which is why I feel Intel's management given flat revenue guidance is believable. IDC Link http://bit.ly/12grru7
4 Aug, 04:40 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
GeorgemikaComments (65)
I don't know if you are looking at current chips for sale. I'm talking about the baytrail, which is not even out yet and the Merifield for smartphones which should be formally introduced in new smartphone products in the consumer space during the 2014 MWC. This is what Intel is claiming that performance will be much better than the best out there. Both are on 22nm process and Silvermont architecture. Like I said, I'm confident that Intel knows much more about what they are talking about. Even IDC has been way off in estimates on PC sales. I trust Intel. They know they will win in the end and I believe they will. They just will not enter a market which they think they will not dominate over time. Given Intel's possibilities in the future, this is the best time to bet on the stock. 4 Aug, 05:51 PM ! Report Abuse Like 2 Reply
GeorgemikaComments (65)
Justin, You say you may initiate a position in Intel in the next 72 hours. Did you read Ashraf's article a day ago titled Intel: This may be your last chance to buy. Meaning that you don't want to wait while everybody else believes in Intel as well. The stock will have appreciated accordingly by then. For now, I would just take the many clues that are available the show Intel is on track to gain some significant market share in a very short time. If you are truly interested in the stock and are trying to time it, just read that article. The guy knows what he is talking about. Intel many times has surprised even its most bullish investors when it comes to earnings. 4 Aug, 05:58 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
dRINTELComments (87)
The real take over in phone market will not be until 2015 everything until then is just gravy...... 4 Aug, 09:10 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
10/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
on price and performance is the real issue. From what I see they can. Will that make the stock more valuable? Time will tell. I also see an upsurge in mobile devices like hybrids and ultrabooks now that battery life is less an issue, and believe tablets will decline in relative terms. 4 Aug, 05:16 PM ! Report Abuse Like 3 Reply
leechyComments (11)
@michael blair where do you see an upsurge in Intel and how do you know about their battery life makes less issues than the powerful competition coming from the high end QCom chips and the lower end allwinner,mediatek chinese that are creeping up the markets? your wishfull thinking ?! tablets will decline in relative terms ? when that happens why would Intel benefit with their strategy of entering this market with baytrail-t? if a decline is going to happen my guess would be not before 2015. not much time for intel to steal the honey... 4 Aug, 06:36 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
11/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
I gave a range of values that I thought should encompass it. I expect it will be closer to the 80 mm^2 than 100 mm^2, which would put it at the same size as Tegra 4. But with no concrete data it is a *very* rough assumption, so that's why I said it could throw my calculations off. I have asked Ashraf to steal one if he attends IDF so he can benchmark it and give us actual die size :) 4 Aug, 08:20 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
4 Aug, 08:28 PM
! Report Abuse
Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
12/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
It's already happening. You can buy dongles that will turn your TV into an android based PC via the HDMI input, and they're *CHEAP* 4 Aug, 09:33 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
Like
Reply
Reply
axarmComments (6)
First with you using i3core for pricing. Baytrail will replace the lower end Celerons and Pentiums, which sell from $40 to $80. This processors are based on the core platform and have margins less than the 55 to 65 percent(it takes a lot of these to bring the ASP down for the $4000+ high performance processors). The margins for the much smaller Baytrail platforms will be higher for Intel. As for the phone market, Merrifield will have an integrated "stand bye hub". Because they are only dual cores, their energy consumption will be much less than any high end ARM processor in the market(Meditek use low end A7 and even the 8 core will not be competing in the high end market). Intel will also have a single core phone platform, which should be highly integrated and will compete in the lower mid range phone market. As for your benchmarks, these are old numbers and newer leaked information show the Baytrails running at a higher GHz. Your benchmarks show that Baytrail is really no better than the Clovertrail and everybody(who has look at the design) knows that this platform will easily double that performance.
4 Aug, 09:12 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
13/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
architecture, and is implemented in conjunction with a QCOM S4 in the Moto X or whatever the new motorola phone is. 4 Aug, 09:15 PM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
jstrattComments (1511)
I enjoyed this well thought article! In a much less scientific manner I do believe in Intel's ability to produce high quality chips. On the other hand a lot of steps between creating such chips and maintaining huge margins exists. Thus I have a small position and I am watching closely. While I root for Intel privately my money is agnostic and invested elsewhere waiting for the right entry point should one occur. 4 Aug, 09:56 PM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
edboot01Comments (152)
Justin, I always enjoy all you INTC writer guys, and the articles you write, and learn a lot from your words. Really appreciate all the research and time you all spend developing these articles. Plus, I enjoy the on-going debate between the fanboys and the haters club. To be up front - I am ex INTC manager - spent 9 years with them back long ago and still have a ton of their stock from the late eighties, with a current cost basis under $2.00 - so I've made my decision on them years ago and am not going anywhere (love those INTC options - with dividends and CC writing make an annual 100%+ return on my investment - so don't cry for me Argentina). Now, here's what I don't understand. IF INTC has access to more data and more intelligence from many more sources in this industry than all of us together X 1,000 about Mobile, and INTC has also been around for 40+ years and has a very large number of partners, clients, contacts, and probably more business friends than we all know which equates to intelligence in this area; plus, if they have some of the best and brightest people - paying among the highest salaries in the Tech world - why then 3+ years ago did INTC start building Fab capacity up the ying yang spending an insane amount of money (around the time they said no to APPL mobile for a nickel by the way) which probably now totals well over $12-15 Billion. Also, why does INTC currently have over 2,800 people working full-time on their Mobile products at what I would guess is an annual cost of well over $300 million? And why, if you all know that mobile is a low margin product, why doesn't INTC have this data, and know exactly what their margins will be? Do you think they do not understand, are on an ego trip, or that they have not accepted this? So, my question is - do you all really think INTC is really that stupid and has made a continuing mistake for the last 2-3 years, or is there an INTC grandiose plan that you guys can't figure out??? Are they going hell-bent for leather done a dead end highway? Or is there something else afoot? Maybe the question is - does INTC have a plan and can they achieve it? By the way, Micron just closed on the purchase of Elpida, and that deal has INTC fingerprints and money all over it! So, how does that tie into their plan, if they even have one? By the way, watch MU for $18-20 price by end of 2013 (long 20,000 shares). I still have a lot of friends there and for the first time since 2010 they are all buying the stock - are they all dumb too? (don't be mis-led by Insider Program selling as they all have very large amounts of shares on scheduled sell dates). I know that INTC is always (underlined) working on new products 2-3 years ahead of release with their new product development teams and is usually working with 50-100 customers in developing new products for their needs. Could they really be missing the boat that badly? Well everyone, this is all very confusing, and either they are really under-estimating a bunch of things, or they have a plan. Like all things dealing with investments it will eventually become clear, and time will tell. Eddie B
4 Aug, 11:27 PM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
14/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
Justin JaynesComments (1360)
Eddie -
As an individual investor I don't have access to that kind of information. As such, I never try to kid myself and forecast too far out. The reason I specifically stated I don't expect much excitement before the end of 2013 is because it's hard to predict, at least in technology, anything more than a few months out. And as such, my investment timeframes are very narrow and I revisit them often. "I think to assume that Intel stock is going to take off and leave investors playing catch-up is analogous to saying that a turtle is getting ready to start sprinting. I have no opinion on Intel as a long term investment; I have been contemplating to adding Intel to my IRA and forgetting it's in there until I'm ready to go find a mountain lake somewhere to live out my days on. But for at least the remainder of 2013, I am not expecting much growth from Intel." I whole heartedly plan on revisiting these types of analysis once we see real Bay Trail silicon in the wild. Don't know if that clears things up for you or not, but the extent of where I feel about Intel is that given flat revenue guidance, the limited upside potential given tablets and no real smart phone solutions until *I believe* the beginning of next year. Don't know if that clears up anything or not. But I will start digging further down the roads you suggest, and I appreciate the comment! 5 Aug, 12:08 AM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
edboot01Comments (152)
Hi Rudester, No, the bind they are in right now is because they passed on mobile, which was a terrible decision, and had no grandiose plan. In their market place, your results today come from decisions made 2-3 years ago and missing mobile has put them way behind in that growth area. Currently they are applying massive resources toward both mobile and TV, and we'll see what happens when their new products start hitting the market. I do not see INTC at more than 5-8% of mobile market be end of 2014, but that is a good start and a significant increase from where they are now. By the way, I'm not sure that any company netting $2 Billion per quarter is doing all that poorly, but agree that they are way behind in mobile, yet have lots of potential opportunities. So, we'll see what happens - in the meantime I'll continue writing Calls, selling Puts and collecting dividends on INTC. To each his own. Eddie B
6 Aug, 02:28 AM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
Jeach!Comments (789)
Excellant article! I have yet to see such a detailed analisis from the Intel camp in trying to prove that Intel can gain market dominance AND the margins above the 60% area. Keep these great articles coming...
5 Aug, 12:02 AM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
hksche2000Comments (377)
@edboot01: Just look at INTC stock over the last 10yrs to see "how smart" the company has been, turning its 900 pound gorilla power position into shareholder value. It's absolutely pathetic isn't it! And a huge part of it has been INTC's "missing the mobile boat". Of course, if you (as a past INTC employee receiving discounted stock options for 9yrs) are "sitting on a ton of INTC stock at $2 cost basis since the 80's", this whole conversation is as muet for you as it would be for Bill Gates listening to people discussing MSFT's future. You obviously made your fortunes in the dawn of (computer) times and with great privileges. Good for you, though you could (should?) have made a lot more money by selling your "tons" of stock when INTC was worth above $70/share! However, if it's true that "(you) still have a lot of friends (at INTC)", ask them for the real reasons why INTC missed the mobile boat and what it is going to do about that. Until then, most of us should be forgiven for "really think(ing) INTC is really (sic) that stupid". And who wants to invest in a "stupid" company?!. 5 Aug, 12:23 AM ! Report Abuse Like 2 Reply
edboot01Comments (152)
hksche20000, You are quite correct about missing the mobile boat - blame to the Ottellini regime, that's probably why he's no longer there. That is their big mistake, and they continue to play catch up (which is very difficult in the tech world). What
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
15/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
they are doing, is throwing tons of money and resources at it, but in my mind still a difficult catch-up. I think they will have a good mobile product, but doubt they will get to 25% of this market in the next 3 years, but watch the TV product, it will revolutionize the old technology of cable, dish, and directv (this has not been a tech world to date) and make them a lot of money. I agree that they made a stupid mistake and were stupid in mobile, but that is the past, and at the $22-23 stock price, the question is can they go from 1% to X%, and will the stock go up? Yes, they were 'the good old days' and I did sell the vast majority of my shares in late '99 (too early) when the whole tech world got a little crazy. Made for a nice Christmas present and an early retirement. Part of INTC problem is below (although not at the time) as they split the stock 4 times in the 9 years I was there and 5 times after I left - mostly 2-1 (see below). A lot of wealth was created for a lot of folks. 07/30/00 07/02/00 2/1 04/11/99 03/23/99 2/1 07/13/97 06/10/97 2/1 06/16/95 05/16/95 2/1 06/06/93 05/06/93 2/1 10/28/87 09/28/87 3/2 06/30/83 06/16/83 2/1 10/08/80 09/08/80 2/1 05/31/79 04/30/79 3/2 09/01/78 08/04/78 5/4 05/26/76 04/26/76 3/2 05/15/74 04/15/74 3/2 05/17/73 04/16/73 3/2 Thanks for your response. EddieB
5 Aug, 10:30 AM
! Report Abuse
Like
Reply
redarrow5150Comments (577)
Of course INTC missed the boat. Long INTC but phones have been around for decades and now they are just starting to hit the market? Could you imagine GM waiting 20 years later to the hit the truck market? INTC will easily take a minimum of five years before making an impact in this category and by then gross margins will be razor thin. 5 Aug, 07:44 AM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
edboot01Comments (152)
HI redarrow5150, Actually, GM did miss the last technological move in auto's (as did Ford and Chrysler) as the Japanese and Koreans attacked with energy efficient cars, and American car sales died as they fell behind Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia. The Pruis, Sonata and others ate their lunch for a few years, but both GM and Ford (Chrysler went away) have fought back and fully recovered, although GM did have some help from the U. S. Government. If it takes INTC five years to make an impact in Mobile, they will have failed their new products either work and they start gaining market share in 2014, or
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
16/17
8/16/13
Intel Corporation (INTC): Did Intel Miss The Mobile Boat? [QUALCOMM, Inc.] - Seeking Alpha
they miss this cycle - which will be extremely bad news for them (and their shareholders). While I don't believe this will happen, it is a possibility. Eddie B 6 Aug, 02:48 AM ! Report Abuse Like 0 Reply
redarrow5150Comments (577)
How long has Android been around? Isn't Android one of the top platforms in phones? This is my point as we are how many years into phones and INTC doesn't really have a market yet? If and when INTC does get into this market the margins are going to be razor thin. 5 Aug, 09:12 AM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
redarrow5150Comments (577)
Things can quickly change so I wouldn't declare Android the winner now or in the future. I think you have to look at the fact that many companies in this space are doing quite well without INTC chips. The idea that INTC is going to have an impact because they aren't a player in this sector is where I have issues. It is assumed that any sales or shares can be only a good thing when I say none of these companies need INTC. As I've stated I'm giving INTC 18 months to see where they are heading. 5 Aug, 10:09 AM ! Report Abuse Like 1 Reply
seekingalpha.com/article/1603012-did-intel-miss-the-mobile-boat
17/17
ne t wo rkwo rld.co m
Microsof t is sitting on a potentially winning strategy of supporting ARM and x86 equally. Clearly, Intel would benef it more f rom this, but if Qualcomm sees an opening to get closer to Microsof t, it could and should take it. Links: [1] http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/whats-happening-clover-trail-and-windows-8 [2] http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/intel-boss-otellinis-f ace-palm-evoking-comments-violatetrust-microsof t [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip) [4] http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/81621 [5] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/apple-qualcomm-spurned-in-bids-f or-exclusive-tsmc-chipsupply.html
se e kingalpha.co m
Notice that Qualcomm is viewed as providing the "best in class technology and experience", while Intel is listed as a "strategic play only". Now, f or 2013, this makes perf ect sense; Snapdragon 800 is simply a better platf orm than Intel's current Atom Z 2580 as it has f our cores (and can be marketed as such), LT E-Advanced, and substantially f aster graphics. Now, while it remains to be seen how production devices perf orm under battery lif e/power constraints, the point is that Qualcomm's solution is the crme de la crme today, and Intel's next chance to really break in will be in 1Q 2014 with "Merrif ield". According to slides presented at the launch of the "Silvermont" micro-architecture, it should f inally have a signif icant perf ormance per watt advantage - at least on the CPU side of things - over the Qualcomm and any other competition: (click to enlarge)
But that's not going to be enough. Intel Needs Leadership In Modems And Integration Tablets aren't so dependent on cellular connectivity, which is why you are seeing Intel push hard there f irst, where the computer perf ormance and power consumption of the system on chip is king. However, in smartphones, the trend is towards integration of everything possible onto a single chip. T his does a couple of major things:
Mo' Integration, Mo' Money - the more that a system on chip vendor can integrate onto the chip, the more that the vendor can charge f or the chip, as it will have f undamentally more value/content. T his is why Qualcomm has been aggressively trying to integrate the cellular modem, WiFi, bluetooth, GPS, and FM onto a single chip. Once Intel has all of the right IP in place (which means getting its cellular modems caught up to speed with the latest Qualcomm parts and developing its own in-house low power WiFi), then it will be in a much better position than it is in today and would be poised f or leadership. More Power Efficient/Smaller Footprint - the more you have on a single chip, the smaller the board f ootprint will be, and the lower power your system will be as any power overhead involved in connecting more chips disappears. For very low power devices in which battery lif e is key, it is generally much more ef f icient to have a single chip than multiple chips. Intel has most of the puzzle pieces; the f irm's acquisition of Inf ineon, coupled with organic expansion ef f orts (Intel has a modem development team in San Diego...right across the way f rom Qualcomm) shows that it is going to seriously f ight on the modem/RF side of things (not to say that this will be an easy f ight). Further, I believe that Intel is developing its own low power WiFi (its WiFi chips are f or higher power settings, so it currently uses chips f rom Texas Instruments (T XN) as a stopgap), and the recent acquisition of STEricsson's GPS business put it in a good position f or f uture chips. But the point here is simple: Intel can't just show up with the f astest, most power ef f icient CPU and call it a day, and the company knows that. Qualcomm and Broadcom (BRCM) both have extensive experience in such integration without too much concern about tweaking f or maximum f requency/perf ormance, while Intel's heritage is very high speed, laid out by hand processors that are incredibly f ast, so there's a bit of a learning curve f or the company (although I think af ter the Medf ield/Clover Trail experiments, the worst of it is over) to get into that "SoC methodology" mindset. Can Intel Do It? I believe so. Anybody f ollowing the company knows that the f irm has been on a hiring and acquisition spree f or the last several years. Intel has been quietly assembling the pieces that it needs to really take the f ight to Qualcomm. T hat's not to say that I think that gaining any sizable market segment share is going to be easy; it's not, and it's going to take a combination of world-class products, the development of key partnerships (Qualcomm's in bed with HT C and seems to be penetrating f urther into the Samsung lineup), and a clear technological lead in order to gain real design win momentum. "Clover Trail+" and "Medf ield" were nice and all, but it's going to take "Bay Trail" and "Merrif ield" - two parts designed with leadership in mind and not simply as a proof -of -concept - to really get a sense of what Intel can do here. My guess is that leadership in tablets comes this year with "Bay Trail", but smartphone leadership probably won't be up f or discussion in terms of the f ull system (I expect CPU leadership) until the 14 nanometer generation, and even then it depends on how aggressively Intel's modem f olks can stay on the cutting edge of mobile standards and integration. Long term, I expect the high end smartphone chip market to be a f ight between Intel and Qualcomm, although it's too early to tell what kind of market share balance to expect over the next decade. In any case, Intel's problem ain't ARM, it's Qualcomm. Source: Intel's Problem Isn't ARM, It's Qualcomm Additional disclosure: I will go short ARMH when the opportunity arises.