SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksQualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: N.Novick who wrote (122636)11/1/2014 2:38:26 PM
From: Jim Mullens
1 Recommendation   of 170141
 
NN, re: China issues………………………..

re: Whatever the current LtE rates

current devices are using Q's multi-mode (CDMA/WCDMA/ LTE) license, not its standalone LTE license.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Well, I guess China has to do a cost benefit analysis in regards to

(1) nullifying QCOM contracts and losing out in the world marketplace, being publicly identified as an IP pilferer / legal contract violator in order to save a percentage point or two in royalties,

(2) or having their home-grown mobile chip makers compete in the world marketplace as everyone else does (along with having the largess of Chinese govt money funding those enterprises) and benefiting from QCOM’s business model that enables new China companies such as Xiaomi to flourish against the likes of long established world leading companies such as Apple and Samsung.

Also, I wonder how successful Spreadtrum (especially w/ INTCs “help”) and its device manufactures will be in the China LTE market against companies who use QCOM chips (Samsung, Apple, Xiaomi) and pay FRANDly QCOM royalties

Side notes-



1) I wonder how extensively Xiaomi used QCOM’s QRD (reference designs) to bring its devices to market as rapidly as it did?

2) QCOM potential reward as an early Xiaomi investor if IPO’s at $40B

…….1% equity share...$400M
…….5%........................$2B
. …..10%........................$4B


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: N.Novick who wrote (122632)11/1/2014 2:39:32 PM
From: JeffreyHF
   of 170141
 
NN, the differential deal on CDMA royalties was signed in 2001, and expired 10 years later.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jim Mullens who wrote (122638)11/1/2014 8:54:48 PM
From: Jim Mullens
3 Recommendations   of 170141
 
Re: QRD, actual headline- "Xiaomi Owes Smartphone Success to Qualcomm..."

"...1) I wonder how extensively Xiaomi used QCOM’s QRD (reference designs) to bring its devices to market as rapidly as it did?... "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Feb 2014 Japanese article discusses Xiaomi's early success.

snips>>>

+ A teardown analysis of Xiaomi's popular Mi3 model, released in October last year, by Tokyo-based Fomalhaut Techno Solutions reveals that the device uses U.S. company Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 as its main processor for handling communications and image processing.

+ Winning formula


The company sells the Mi3 for 1,999 yuan ($329), less than what Apple's iPhone sells for. Xiaomi is able to pull off this mix of high performance and low price thanks to so-called reference designs, or basic designs for smartphones that chipmakers provide to smartphone manufacturers. Reference designs provide such details as parts makers and model numbers. They enable manufacturers that lack technological prowess to develop smartphones, but they also promote a situation in which many companies are making virtually identical products.

From the beginning, Xiaomi has mainly used reference designs to manufacture its devices, allowing it to slash development times and minimize the size of its engineering staff, thereby holding down costs. The teardown shows that Xiaomi adopts parts described in Qualcomm's reference designs. Kashio said this was evident in part because of the many Japanese electronic components it uses.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Xiaomi Owes Smartphone Success to Qualcomm and Japanese Technology.


asia.nikkei.com

February 13, 2014 12:00 am JST

Xiaomi owes smartphone success to Qualcomm, Japanese technology

HIROKI YOMOGITA, Nikkei staff writer


Its phones are winning a lot of domestic fans thanks to their reputation for offering considerable bang for the buck. The company has vaulted into the top 10 Chinese makers by market share in just four years since its establishment in April 2010.

The secret to Xiaomi's success lies in the use of board designs and components employed by big-name foreign rivals, such as Samsung Electronics of South Korea.

A teardown analysis of Xiaomi's popular Mi3 model, released in October last year, by Tokyo-based Fomalhaut Techno Solutions reveals that the device uses U.S. company Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 as its main processor for handling communications and image processing. Qualcomm is the world's largest maker of semiconductors for smartphones. The processor was introduced in early 2013 and has been used in high-end models released by Samsung and Sony.

"Xiaomi has made big progress in its product design," said Minatake Kashio, director at Fomalhaut Techno Solutions. "Its exterior design is very similar to that of Sony's. The way it has mounted the inner components is just like Samsung does it."

Winning formula

The company sells the Mi3 for 1,999 yuan ($329), less than what Apple's iPhone sells for. Xiaomi is able to pull off this mix of high performance and low price thanks to so-called reference designs, or basic designs for smartphones that chipmakers provide to smartphone manufacturers. Reference designs provide such details as parts makers and model numbers. They enable manufacturers that lack technological prowess to develop smartphones, but they also promote a situation in which many companies are making virtually identical products.

From the beginning, Xiaomi has mainly used reference designs to manufacture its devices, allowing it to slash development times and minimize the size of its engineering staff, thereby holding down costs. The teardown shows that Xiaomi adopts parts described in Qualcomm's reference designs. Kashio said this was evident in part because of the many Japanese electronic components it uses.

For instance, the company uses Sharp's IPS (in-plane switching) liquid crystal panels for the display and Sony's CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) image sensor for the camera. Similarly, it uses many connectors made by Hirose Electric and Japan Aviation Electronics Industry. These are all more or less the same components used in smartphones made by Apple and Samsung. Xiaomi also uses filters and other parts by Murata Manufacturing. and Taiyo Yuden, whose components are also listed in Qualcomm's reference designs.

Parts makers are shifting their focus to how to pitch their products to Qualcomm and Taiwanese "fabless" semiconductor maker MediaTek. This is because parts makers can expect a huge increase in sales if these chipmakers employ their products.

Parts makers have been finding in recent years that a heavy dependence on Apple and Samsung presents certain risks. Weak earnings or other setbacks at these phone giants could take a big toll on their suppliers. Japanese electronic parts makers therefore welcome the rise of China's smartphone makers, particularly Xiaomi, because it spreads out the risk.

Growth opportunity

The competition is relentless among China's smartphone makers, big and small. Such major players as Lenovo Group, Huawei Technologies and Yulong Computer Telecommunication Scientific -- maker of the Coolpad smartphones -- are going head-to-head with such small and mid-tier makers as Oppo and Gionee Communication Equipment. Survival means embracing the latest components in order to offer attractive new functions. That is why there is strong demand for Japanese components, which they regard as a way to significantly add value.


Now that these Chinese smartphone makers are moving into India, the Middle East and Africa, Japanese electronic parts makers are looking to ramp up their shipment volume.

As for Xiaomi, the company is scheduled to launch this year 4G (fourth generation) smartphones compatible with the TD-LTE (Time Division Long-Term Evolution) standard, which could impact the electronic parts market for LTE-compliant products as well.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: N.Novick who wrote (122636)11/2/2014 12:05:23 AM
From: waitwatchwander
   of 170141
 
Your TD-LTE thoughts are interesting. The problem is that the success of Xaomi has lttle to do with Spreadtrum and Huawei and lots to do with Qualcomm. Effort like IP can't be just confiscaed. With Huawei and Spreatrum moving forward without Qualcomm, a transfer of reward from those who helped to those who expended effort elsewhere is hard to justify.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: JeffreyHF who wrote (122639)11/2/2014 12:26:37 AM
From: waitwatchwander
   of 170141
 
CDMA might have proliferated much more around the world if the Chinesse had beEn incentivized to support it with cheap exported handsets. Funny how unintended consequences sometimes work out.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: waitwatchwander who wrote (122642)11/2/2014 6:54:21 AM
From: JeffreyHF
2 Recommendations   of 170141
 
Korea was already exporting it, and China lacked the credible handset industry to be an international factor. You seem to be revising the history of the MENS cartel, and its stranglehold on GSM. Yet the deal Qualcomm gave China was far cheaper than the 10-13% stacked GSM royalties, and the technologies were not equivalent.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: JeffreyHF who wrote (122643)11/2/2014 8:19:05 PM
From: waitwatchwander
   of 170141
 
---> revising the history of the MENS cartel

Huh?

Not in the least. My comment was only that cdma might have done better if it was also supported globally by the Chinese in a bigger manner. The industry was young back then and the greater the advantage one could muster over the GSM variants couldn't have been all that bad. As it was the Chinese were likely critical in bringing cheap cdma infrastructure and handsets to Africa, the middle/far east and eastern Europe/Russian markets. Many of the other non North American areas of the world ended up being dominated by the GSM cartel even where cdma got started with a small competitive footprint.

In the end, cdma became rather irrelevant which has been good for Qualcomm. Effort now is much more focused than ever before.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: engineer who wrote (122628)11/2/2014 10:30:45 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH
   of 170141
 
There is an interesting take on Intel. Notice the design they are competing with is on 40 nm at TSMC and NOT on the highly touted 14 nm worlds leading fab, like everyone postures..

.....no one, except possibly the cheerleaders on this board, ever claimed the Intel designs were on the 14nm Intel process. Intel is far behind having only acquired any communication expertise in the Infineon and Fujitsu deals. It takes a lot of time to redesign these chips into a 14nm FinFET process I do not expect any stand alone or integrated modem on an Intel; process until 2016 at the earliest. But, I believe this board is missing the point. Intel in the short and intermediate term will be very happy to reduce their quarterly loss in mobile to a manageable level of perhaps 300-400 million $ per quarter. Even such a modest result will be heralded as a sure sign of future success to the analysts and they will pump the stock further. Intel's immediate goal is to take share and will do so by selling at cost once they get a fully integrated design for the low end. That will happen next year albeit still on 28nm. As long as they are not challenged in servers and in in PCs (laptops and desktops), they can continue plugging away indefinitely......outlasting any low end competition.. They are not going away..........and will lose billions more to get a foothold. Luckily for QCOM, Intel is painfully slow at bringing a competitive solution to market and will not on an advanced process until 2016 at the earliest. QCOM should use that time well to head Intel off
with additional levels of integration and further cost reductions and quicker times to market.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Jon Koplik11/3/2014 1:03:47 AM
1 Recommendation   of 170141
 
WSJ -- Google’s Android Begins to Top Out ............................................

[ Personally ... I had no idea that Android was (roughly) 85% of smartphones shipped globally, and Apple was not even the remaining (roughly) 15%. Uh, why do we always hear about Apple so much ? ]

**********************************

Nov. 2, 2014

Google’s Android Begins to Top Out

Market Share for Smartphones Slips as Firm Gains More Control Over Devices That Run Its Software

By Rolfe Winkler

Google Inc.’s dominance over the smartphone landscape appears to be topping out, but the company is gaining more control over the devices that run its Android mobile operating system.

Android ran 84% of smartphones shipped globally in the third quarter, according to research firm Strategy Analytics, down slightly from 85% in the second quarter.

“Android’s global smartphone market share is peaking,” said Neil Mawston, executive director of Strategy Analytics. “Unless there is an unlikely collapse in rival Apple iPhone volumes in the future, Android is probably never going to go much above the 85% global market share ceiling.”

Market share for Apple Inc.’s mobile operating system was 12% in the third quarter. Microsoft Corp. ’s Windows Phone captured 3% market share and BlackBerry Ltd. ’s devices had 1%.

Even if Android’s market share doesn't go any higher, there is still good news for Google.

For starters, the market overall is still growing. Strategy Analytics forecasts 12% growth in smartphone shipments in 2015.

Google also appears to be turning the tide on the growth of so-called Android forks -- ­versions of the mobile operating software that are developed independently and don't come with Google’s lucrative mobile apps.

As a percentage of total Android shipments, forks made up 37% in the third quarter, down slightly from 39% in the second quarter.

Google makes no money on Android itself, since it gives away the operating system free to device makers. It profits from revenue generated by advertisements that appear in apps like Google Search, Google Maps and YouTube, as well as a cut of sales of apps, files, subscriptions, and the like sold through the Google Play Store.

Mr. Mawston chalks up the decline in Android forks to a “maturing” China smartphone market, where most forked Android devices are sold.

In addition, Google is asserting control over its operating software through its newly launched Android One program, which is designed to provide cheap, reliable smartphones to consumers in emerging markets such as India. Those phones come with Google’s various services installed.

Meantime, Samsung Electronics Co.’s dominance over other Android handset makers is waning, reducing the threat that the Korean hardware maker could wrest more control from Google. In the third quarter of this year, 25% of smartphones shipped were Samsung devices. That figure fell from the year prior, when it stood at 35%.

Samsung ships mostly Android devices and long has been dominant among Android vendors thanks in part to big commissions it pays to smartphone distributors, particularly in emerging markets. That gives them an incentive to push its devices over rivals.

Yet Samsung is losing out to startups like China’s Xiaomi Inc., which are undercutting the Korean giant on price.

Samsung sells its smartphones at a premium and captures bigger profit margins on each device sold, while Xiaomi prices its devices closer to the cost of making them and makes its profit instead on the sale of accessories and software add-ons.

In the previous two years, as Samsung’s market share peaked, it tried to assert more independence from Google by distributing more of its own services on its Android devices while simultaneously playing down the fact that Google’s software powered them. That sparked concerns inside Google that it could lose some control over the operating system, according to people familiar with the company’s internal deliberations.

Earlier this year, Samsung and Google reached a detente of sorts, when the companies agreed to a broad patent cross-licensing deal.

The biggest challenge to Google’s mobile dominance could come from regulators. European Union antitrust authorities are poised to unleash a formal investigation into Android in the wake of concerns that Google shuts out rivals in promoting services such as Google Maps.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year about Google’s strict agreements with handset makers that required them to feature those services prominently if they wanted access to the services in the first place.

A Google spokesman declined to comment.

Write to Rolfe Winkler at rolfe.winkler@wsj.com

Copyright © 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: waitwatchwander who wrote (122644)11/3/2014 6:42:29 AM
From: JeffreyHF
1 Recommendation   of 170141
 
The Europeans had a lock on China's mobile technologies, when the CDMA deal was signed. China had two objectives in doing the deal, removing U.S. objections to WTO admission, and ripping off IPR to develop TD-SCDMA. They accomplished both, but failed to make balky and cumbersome TD-SCDMA "sufficient" for 3G, and attractive for export. This time around, they've decided to rip off TD-LTE, and damage Qualcomm's business model. The outcome has yet to be determined.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10