Why Apple Should Buy Infineon: To Own Mobile And Screw Intel
Steve Cheney
Jul 30, 2010

Apple’s earnings and revenue growth in mobile have been awe-inspiring to witness. From zero presence three years ago, Apple is now the most profitable cell phone maker in the world.

Apple’s success in this compressed period has helped it become an enormous buyer of components. In fact iSuppli projects that next year Apple will become the second-largest semiconductor buyer worldwide and may edge out HP in 2012 to become the world’s largest.

Though this scale presents Apple with enormous bargaining power, it also begs the question: Should Apple own its own wireless chip development?

This week’s rumors that Intel is about to acquire Infineon’s wireless chip business to make a run at the smartphone market bring this question front and center. Infineon is Apple’s sole supplier for cellular basebands, the core chipsets used in mobile phones to handle voice and data communications.

Based on Apple’s deep relationship with Infineon, and its famed secrecy around M&A, it is a pretty safe bet that Steve Jobs is analyzing the implications of a deal.

Vertical Integration is Back In Vogue:

We are re-entering a period where companies are integrating vertically instead of horizontally. This is happening at an incredible pace at companies like Cisco and Oracle. Even Microsoft recently hinted at creating its own chips, by obtaining an architectural license for ARM processors.

There are even precedents in the mobile phone market—both Nokia and Ericsson successfully managed cellular chip teams up until 2007 before spinning them off in a quest to move up the services stack.

The fact is that despite Apple’s success with the A4, it trails nearly all other large hardware companies in chip development, including Cisco, Sony, and IBM.

Synergies Between Infineon and Apple are Significant:

In addition to having supplied every cellular baseband chip that Apple has ever bought, Infineon is one of only four companies with an ARM architectural license (Qualcomm, Marvell, and now Microsoft are the other three). This allows Infineon to extend ARM’s basic capabilities, and is clearly synergistic with the charter of PA Semi and Intrinsity, which were acquired by Apple for their respective ARM expertise.

But below the surface, the rationale for Apple owning wireless technology runs even deeper.

Because Apple primarily sells just one hardware version per year, it’s infinitely easier for it to match devices with features. Nokia got rid of its chip business because it was impossible to produce different variants of chips for hundreds of handsets.

In this way, it’s Apple’s minimalistic approach to hardware that makes it the perfect candidate for vertical integration at the wireless level, as R&D can be narrowly focused. For example, if Apple’s not going to release a 4G handset in 2011, they don’t need to worry about cramming in pre-release versions of LTE / 3GPP. Or if they are strategically planning around short range wireless micro-payments, they can begin to integrate NFC technology now.

This edge could conceivably help Apple out-innovate larger competitors like Qualcomm who must produce more generic chips which cater to the needs of the broader market.

Lastly, since Infineon is only the fourth largest 3G baseband provider, there are fewer OEM customer relationships to phase out following the acquisition (LG and Nokia are its next biggest customers and wouldn’t be happy buying from Apple, so would turn elsewhere for subsequent designs). But precisely because Infineon is a smaller player, this issue of buying into the supply-chain is entirely manageable.

Apple could also learn better practices in RF design from Infineon, clearly a weak spot per the recent antenna issues.

Financially, It Makes Sense:

Apple can do no wrong right now with Wall Street. That’s why 2010 is an ideal time for “risky M&A” in the wireless space. With its stock at an all-time high and with over $40 billion in cash, Apple can afford to strategically spend capital on expanding into wireless chip development.

Infineon’s wireless group did $1.2 billion in sales last year, and comparable transactions suggest a premium of about 1.5x sales, or a $2 billion dollar price-tag.

Let’s compare this to the ridiculous rumor in April that Apple was going to buy ARM, the maker of semiconductor IP that goes into all of the world’s cell phones. At that time I outlined why buying ARM for more than $5 billion made zero sense.  Clearly acquiring Infineon for around $2 billion absolutely does make sense.

And here’s the real crux: If Infineon is acquired by Intel or Samsung, Apple won’t ever be able to obtain wireless technology at this price again. Every other chip vendor supplying cellular basebands is enormous and diversified across industries (Qualcomm, ST-Ericsson, MediaTek, Broadcom).

Not Owning Wireless Is Dangerous For Apple:

Aside from the synergies and advantages to owning wireless chip development, you can bet Steve Jobs is thinking about the risks of not doing so.

In the future, handset OEMs will buy “package solutions”, consisting of application processors (e.g. Apple’s A4, which give mobile phones computing power for handling software and applications), integrated connectivity chipsets (GPS, Wi-Fi, FM, Bluetooth, NFC), and multifunction radios—all from one vendor. Qualcomm is nearly there today, and Intel wants to combine Infineon with its Atom processors to get there.

This poses a threat to Apple, since Qualcomm and Intel will start to integrate portions of digital interface logic into their application processors in proprietary ways in an effort to promote bundled solutions. This will marginalize Apple’s ability to marry merchant wireless chipsets with subsequent variations of its A4 application processor.

And it’s why vertically integrating “half-way” is a dangerous journey for Apple as mobile innovation accelerates and integration levels skyrocket. The truth is Apple is a different company today than before it entered the mobile world.  Picking up Infineon would give Apple all the necessary pieces listed above to completely control its future as a mobile device company.

And if Apple misses out, it will likely never get another chance to acquire the wireless technology necessary to do so because the entire mobile component value-chain is consolidating and the remaining players are giants.

Which is exactly why Intel is rumored to be salivating so much at the prospect of snapping up Infineon for itself.  Intel has big ambitions in mobile and understands why it can’t let this one get away.  The only real question is whether Apple wants to get into a bidding war with Intel.

_________________________

Contributor Steve Cheney is an entrepreneur and formerly an engineer & programmer specializing in web and mobile technologies.

Advertisement
  • Related Topics
Advertisement
  • http://www.gadgetguy.de Frank Köhntopp

    That would be fun to watch – you couldn’t possibly find two companies with more different cultures ;)

  • Raza Mehdi

    At last an article on TechCrunch that is right on the money after a long time… :P … I totally agree with what Steve is saying. Apple has to make a decision ASAP about this. But if it comes to a bidding war, i dont see apple winning it..

  • rousso

    [quoting] “Apple is now the most profitable cell phone maker in the world”.

    Why do I find this hard to believe? Where did you get this data from?

  • Jakol

    If Apple loses Infineon to Intel, then Apple has no choice but to buy ARM

  • Worth
  • Worth

    If Apple really wants Infineon, they certainly have the money on hand to win a bidding war – wasn’t it over $30 billion in cash this past quarter?

  • Robin Wauters

    done.

  • physical

    Buying ARM wouldn’t give them a wireless chipset…

    They already have an ARM License, that gives them about as much ARM as they need to develop processors.

  • nick

    What a piece of crap website. GTFO spamming douche. If it’s not you it’s some dlinked.com idiot.

    TC—please delete the spam posts, you’re encouraging others to do it by allowing them to exist.

  • Silk

    Nope
    –When was the last time that Samsung did any substantial or successful M&A?
    –Does Intel really want to throw any more red meat to the Justice Department by using its supply chain power in such a way after the recent payola scandals?
    –If Apple can get so close to Infineon, why couldn’t Apple get just as close to MediaTek and/or Broadcom if Apple really wanted to?
    –Why should Apply buy a business which will require levels and cycles of capital expenditure which will be very different and more burdensome than those which Apple faces now?
    –Why should Apple guarantee itself that it would overpay for Infineon given that several of Infineon’s mobile H/W customers would very likely switch suppliers as soon as Apple bought Infineon?
    I am not convinced that Apple should feel forced to make a move here.

  • http://twitter.com/StartupHotOrNot StartupHotOrNot

    I think you are off…. the risk just increases, the bets get larger… with not much to gain. Margins are so small in that industry.. I just don’t see it. Also you’re stuck with one provider.

    I know everyone is harping the Apple Song, but I think their days are counted. 5 years out they will have lost massive market share to android, not because it’s better but because it will be more or less similar, without locked in hardware.

    And haven’t we seen that story before.. with the Mac’s.. when MS came with no hardware lock and took over… same thing is happening now. Steve is great at design.. but he sucks at strategy or game theory or common sense for that matter.

  • robrob

    Nokia have had a pretty hard time of it lately (as shown – http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/financials/quarterly-and-annual-information/q2-2010) and generally sell high volume, low profit phones. Samsung I can see not making a whole lot of profit, since they seem to have this convoluted market strategy of hitting every segment and never making much off it.

    I’m actually surprised it isn’t RIM, they sell more phones than Apple and tend to have high priced phones. But then, they also maintain multiple models. Apple does a single, very successful phone.

  • http://www.marketingtactics.com Dave Barnes

    I find the argument to be persuasive and $2-3G is chump change to Apple.

  • PA

    Nope, wrong on this one. Developing wireless chipsets is a tough and risky business. It takes many, many years to perfect a chip. Apple already has their chipsets working for them and using Qualcomm chips for Verizon+AT&T will give them even better quality. They should go with the established players in this field rather than trying to start from scratch.

  • Jimbo

    They’re not the biggest as far as volume—that’s still Nokia, but Apple makes the most in *profits* after revenue, which at the end of the day, is really what matters.

  • Jack

    Does Infineon have a stock symbol to buy?

  • Jimbo

    I thought Intel’s big wireless play was their x86 and Meego strategy.

    This, going after Infineon, looks like they’re hedging their bet.

  • Jack

    Remember profits does not equal revenue or marketshare.

    * More profit on 7.4 mln iPhones than Nokia’s 108.5 mln

  • nick

    You deleted the post but left the reply…oh well I guess it can stand as warning to other spammers.

  • Anon

    Intel and Apple, two companies who like to keep margins high.

    If either of them buys Infineon, its the consumers who will get “screwed”

  • Matt Oesterle

    This is a very well-written article. Thanks for sharing.

  • pret

    A good financial advantage for Apple, but nonetheless to early to predict. Just like the Apple V Microsoft ordeal. Everything is not yet finished. http://2su.de/xBV

  • Stephen

    Qualcomm and the like will never stop offering stand-alone baseband processors for companies like Motorola (using TI’s AP) and especially Apple (using the A4). I don’t think Apple has much to worry about if Infineon gets eaten by Intel.

  • http://www.vincenttobiaz.com Vincent Tobiaz

    yea because screwing the manufacturer that makes all of Mac’s processing chips in their computers is a real smart idea, ya ok.

  • Dr.Evil

    Why do I need to remember that? They did not say Apple is the leader in revenue or Apple has the largest market share. What do those things have to do with profitablility? If Apple makes more selling an iPhone to consumers than some other company and their offering then Apple will be more profitable. If they sold 3 million of them in the first three weeks of availability then Apple going to make a shit-load of profit.

  • MC Jiggler

    I’m all for it. Apple is all about vertical integration.

  • pazuzu

    Because he wasn’t talking to you, maybe?

  • johan

    White iPhone 4 Clone By Chinese http://bit.ly/ddtWyy

  • Garion

    If it were Apple’s objective to “screw Intel” as the headline so elequently puts it, wouldn’t it make more sense to buy AMD and get ATI as a bicatch?
    Just wondering.

  • Nick

    Yeah, but Steve really loves money, too. They will not crazy overbid for any acquisition.

  • Nick

    He probably wanted to say: “so they can revoke all other licenses and keep arm chips just for themselves”.

  • Andre Richards

    FFS, people keep citing the early Mac vs. PC era as some kind of proof that Apple is going to be crushed by Android, but when you think about it carefully, that parallel doesn’t add up.

    With the early days of the Mac, Apple was closed and proprietary in a market accustomed to open hardware and software. With the iPhone, Apple is closed in a market already made up of closed hardware and software. Phones have always been a closed market. Can you download the Blackberry OS source code? No. Know anyone who has built their own smart phone lately? Not likely. That’s *NOT* an open environment comparable to the early Mac and PC days.

    Frankly, this time around, it’s Android playing the role of Apple in going against the grain. If you’re looking for parallels between the early Mac-and-PC days and the current smart phone market, then you should logically believe that Android will eventually be marginalized like the Mac. (FWIW, I don’t believe that will happen, but then I’m not the one pushing this comparison either.)

  • NolF

    You are forgetting that at the Mac vs MS battle, Steve Jobs was fired, the next CEO did not seem to have the magic and vision Steve had and MS won, albeit ruthlessly. It can be argued that Steve wants to prove that he could have done it then, the same way he is doing it now.

    Also don’t forget that for Steve to “win” he doesn’t need 80/90% of the market as Ballmer mentioned, for him a lucrative 20% is far more than enough, although he won’t mind having more ;)

  • Nik

    “Apple can do no wrong right now with Wall Street”

    Apple doesn’t care about Wall Street. Steve Jobs says it every time he’s asked, and you can see it very clearly in Apple’s actions and strategies: A high stock price is not a priority for Apple. They don’t care if investors “lose” – they don’t play the game.

    Apple figures that it wants to provide great products, and when it can do that, then it will make money and the stock price will go up. In that order.

    A few years back Apple’s stock price halved overnight. You know what Apple did? Nothing.

  • siegfried & roy

    I´m pretty sure that the apple executives thinking right now “…maybe we should do what this Steve Cheney guy on techcrunch wrote “

  • Nik

    This leaves me cold. Infineon is not an attractive target for Apple.
    “Even Microsoft recently hinted at creating its own chips, by obtaining an architectural license for ARM processors”

    Well – in that case. What’s stopping Apple from doing the same? Getting that license, and then putting it’s amazing PA Semi people on making the best baseband chips on earth sounds much more like a Steve Jobs plan than acquiring a huge lumbering company that does many things, most of which are uninteresting to Apple.

    I think they’ll hire some more RF engineers, then design their own chips.

    I think it’s possible that Apple will at some point build their own semi-conductor factory. It’s in their control-freak nature… they might get silly with their money.

  • mAzzam1988

    I’d like to see how that would work, of course should that happen let us bear in mind that Apple will level up the innovation in the semiconductors industry/

  • aardman

    Sorry, MS did not beat Apple. It was IBM that beat Apple. But then because of the colossal blunder of not buying or getting exclusive rights to DOS, IBM lost control of the microcomputer industry to Microsoft. How? Without exclusivity, Microsoft encouraged the PC clone industry which smothered IBM’s PC business. If IBM retained exclusivity, they would probably still be the dominant (and closed) PC vendor and we would not be talking of ‘open’ beats ‘closed’.

    Summarizing. IBM beat Apple. The ‘open’ nature of DOS was not what beat Apple, but it did make it possible for MS to wrest control of the PC industry from IBM.

  • aardman

    I thought buying Infeneon (not that I’m for or against it) is precisely to avoid starting from scratch.

  • aardman

    Yes. That’s why I buy AAPL every chance I get. They know if they build the best products in kingdom come, the stock price will take care of itself. Pleasing Wall Street fat cats, those people who do not really create anything of real value*, is a harmful distraction.

    *Wall Street has managed to create a monopoly in the industry called ‘financial services’ which has allowed them to charge horrifically high prices for the services they offer.

  • aardman

    Apple already has an ARM license. Microsoft’s is just the a copycat move. Again.

    Apple fabbing their own chips? Don’t think so. When there are fab shops out there fighting tooth and nail for business.

  • Dagg

    I don’t think this is a good option for both players. Infineon stoch faces continous fall since establishing 10 years ago, not without reason. They have stiff competition in Asia, with lower prices and more nimble Companies.

    True, Apple is the star of the moment. But Apple is also Steve Jobs. If Steve for some reason decides to leave, there will be no more wireless business for Apple. Even if Steve stays, he may shift his focus in the near future, because Apple makes whatever is popular now. So for a Idea company like Apple it is unnecessary to buy manufacturer. When they shift their focus, they also change manufacturers.

    For Infineon it is also not good idea. Being dependent on Apple trends, they may be completely abandoned after trends change. Being abandoned and also left without old customers is a very scary future.

  • iDENYtheTRUTH

    What a moronic argument for engaging in a bidding war with a company Apple has nothing to gain from. This purchase would be as useful as buying RIM, which is to say a total waste of money. Buying a baseband manufacturer?

    1. They would lose all other customers and would be producing baseband chips only for Apple products.

    2. Because they would be their only buyer, they would have to save enough money from designing their own chips rather than outsourcing to other designers like Broadcom, etc.

    3. The $2 billion has to be recouped solely by the iPhone (and potentially iPad 3G) in cost cuts resulting directly from the purchase of Infineon (the baseband chip is a tiny portion of the component cost of manufacturing an iPhone or an iPad 3G), which is impossible, no matter how many units they ship.

    4. Screw Intel? Why on Earth would Apple want to do that? These companies exist to make money, not engage in wasteful spending for a vendetta you think Apple has against Intel.

  • Kaffa

    does no one understand that Apple isn’t a manufacturer, only an outsourcer?

  • Hamranhansenhansen

    Apple is not Steve Jobs. Apple is OS X. It’s 20 years ahead of everything else and it’s immortal.

  • http://www.ipodmactransfer.com Mark

    Apple is a smart company. They hold tens of bucks and only focus on a few products. Buy or Not is not a problem to Apple. They step by step to the goal wich only they known.

  • Jake

    ALl the fanboys got pwned.

    Just like that.

  • Luis Alejandro Masanti

    quote:
    “because Apple makes whatever is popular now.”

    I think you must rephrase this as follow…

    because whatever Apple makes is popular now.

  • david

    agreed. If Intel buys Infineon they will marry it with Atom to try to force Apple away from ARM. I think Apple should take a massive equity stake at minimum.

  • cak

    Yes, but it comes down to who wants it more. Intel needs this if they want to get serious about mobile, Apple can get by without it for quite a while.

    When CPU bundling does occur, Apple may have other options.

  • cak

    So if Intel buy Infineon, then Apple should give them a huge boost, and drive lots of other companies to Intel? Genius idea.

  • Rack

    Totally agree with iDENYtheTRUTH. This is totally not in Apples interest.
    Making chips is expensive. Apple will then have to invest in developing the next chip for the next iPhone themselves, and have no other customers to help pay for the R&D and also to test!
    Buying infineon makes no sense. As long as Apple are selling iPhones like hotcakes, they can demand terms on the devices they buy.

    Want an example? Mot dropped their microchip business into Renesas to avoid the issues created by this.

  • shub

    Intel purchasing Infineon for Modem and Modem does not need ARM there are still using Teaklite DSP.
    What Apple gains is having there Modem but even if they dont have they dont loose because same Modem solutions (RF + Modem (LTE/3G/EvDo/CDMA/GPRS/GSM) they can purchase from Qualcomm/ST-E/Renessas all of them will leak there feet to get business which might not be big but its prescious.
    If Intel Looses, then they will pay very very heavy price because they already left Ericssion Mobile and Nokia Modem.
    They will left with no company which can give them full solution (Modem + RF + PMC) with all 5 top customers so this is must for them and going forward they want to give Netbook/Mobile Phones delivery of HW (Atom(Application Processor) + Modem + Connectivity) + SW (MeeGO)
    So its intreseting to see how much they will pay $2B or more.

  • Jez

    Can someone remind me of one important detail that wasnt discussed…how does Apple enter into a bidding war for Infineons wireless biz without ending up bidding for the entire company ?

  • Mark

    If we start hearing rumors of Apple investigating AMD chips, we’ll know it’s their not-so-subtle way to remind Intel who buys their chips, and maybe to back off of any Infineon purchase.

    The value to Intel makes far more sense than to Apple. Apple can get solutions from other vendors who will be more than happy to do what Apple wants.

    Hold onto your $billions, Mr. Jobs.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us