“Broadcom Ltd., a supplier of connectivity chips used in Apple Inc.’s iPhone, forecast more than 20 percent sequential growth in its wireless division this quarter as a major customer gets ready to introduce a new phone,” Ian King reports for Bloomberg. “‘It’s largely the certain North American company that’s driving the bulk of the growth,’ Broadcom Chief Executive Officer Hock Tan said on a conference call late Thursday. ‘It’s the beginning of the ramp for their next-generation phone.'”
MacDailyNews Take: Gee, to which company could he be referring? Microsoft? (peals of laughter ring throughout the palatial MDN headquarters)
“Tan, whose company said Apple’s contract manufacturer Foxconn accounts for more than 10 percent of its sales, predicted that wireless revenue will surge in the ‘mid-20 percent’ range in the three months ending July 31 from the prior period,” King reports. “Broadcom, which supplies the Wi-Fi and other short-distance connectivity chips in the iPhone, may be signaling that Apple is expecting the usual surge in demand for a new version of its flagship product, at least initially.”
King reports, “Broadcom made the comments as part of its fiscal second-quarter earnings report.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This year’s iPhone is going to be bigger than almost anybody is currently forecasting.
“Broadcom, which supplies the Wi-Fi and other short-distance connectivity chips in the iPhone…
Meanwhile, Caltech is suing Broadcom and the companies that buy their Wi-Fi chips for patent infringement. It would be a really good idea for Apple to NOT incorporate the contested chips into the next series of iOS devices.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/05/30/caltech-sues-apple-broadcom-over-alleged-wi-fi-patent-infringements
I don’t really understand how a customer of a patent infringer is financially liable just for buying the infringer’s products. If the courts agree with the university, then only Broadcom should be liable, adding the patent cost to their chip cost. Up until that legal determination, Broadcom’s customers should be in the clear. I understand that Broadcom’s customers have deeper financial pockets, but they’ve done nothing wrong.
I agree. IMHO the only reason Apple was named in the suit was for publicity. If the suit is lost, Apple would have full rights to put the costs of the suit right back on Broadcom, if only through demanding back the payments made for the contended chips.
Again, I hope the chips in question are NOT being put into new iOS devices.
Better to have lower expectations and be pleasantly supprised than be disappointed.