Strategic Shifts in Taiwan's Tech Industry

A recent article on Business Week highlights that while the tech industry in Taiwan is still doing well with increased demands from China, many of the major companies such as TSMC are getting ready to change their strategies and are starting to diversify into higher margin products. Business Week says:

TSMC is stuck in a maturing industry, and its primary business of making chips for other companies is likely to grow just 8% annually in coming years. So Chang wants to boost TSMC's presence in solar power and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The two have technological overlap with chip production, but they offer far better margins and more potential. "They are going to be fast-growth industries," Chang says.

Executives across Taiwan's tech industry are making similar strategic shifts. Shi-Wei Sun, chief at chipmaker United Microelectronics (UMC), in August launched a division focusing on solar and LEDs. Peter Chou, CEO of smartphone maker HTC, is reducing his company's reliance on Microsoft Windows-based handsets, adding more phones using Google's Android operating system. And Au Optronics (AUO) is plotting a move beyond its traditional LCD displays, which require investments of billions of dollars every few years for companies to stay ahead of rivals. "Coming out of the recession, AUO is a completely different company," says C.T. Liu, chief of AUO's consumer display business. First up, he says, will be e-readers and electronic paper, newfangled displays that can be rolled or folded. Both technologies will let AUO capitalize on its display-making expertise.

The article also highlights how recent developments in relationships between China and Taiwan have been good for Taiwan's tech industry and argues that this integration will continue to stimulate on-island growth. Later the article also describes how Simon Lin, Wistron head, intends to diversify into the PC recycling industry and how he is trying to equipe his company for the post-PC era.

None of this is surprising. I remember reading at least five years ago of how Taiwan's chip giants were looking to moving into manufacturing solar cells and these kinds of stories have been in the news for a while. The real challenge for these companies is to develop the right strategies going forward. As the article rightly states, Taiwanese companies are very strong competitors in low-margin industries as they are, within their culture, very concious of cost. A friend once emphasized the Chinese are a frugal race and know how to save money and reduce expenses. Competing in a race to the bottom in terms of cost is something they know how to do very well.

However, high-margin industries may demand different cost structures that they are not willing to adopt. A conversation I once had with an executive working at a large Taiwanese Mobile phone company said that when he talks to his managers about cost, they struggle to understand the difference between cost-competitive and cost-down strategies and whenever an issue of cost comes up, they just cost down all the time.

So to my mind this would be one of the biggest challenges for the businesses in Taiwan. It is not so much that the executives don't understand this. Rather inculcating these ideas into the nuts and bolts managers will be imperative for the companies to become world class in high-margin industries.

This problem is particularly highlighted in many Taiwanese companies that want to become global brands but refuse to spend the money on the right marketing people that can guide the strategic direction of the products and search for opportunities in nascent markets and spaces.

So well the immediate futrure for Taiwanese companies is seemingly secure, as the PC industry fades and these companies transition into other areas, there will have to be fundamental shifts in strategic thinking throughout organizations and indeed, possibly a large part of the on-island tech industry.

Business Week: Taiwan's New Tech Dreams

The Innovator's Dilemma - Book Review

A friend recommended this book to me a few months back. I read it then but after the recent discussion about Dell, Acer and the netbook market decided to read it again. I also posted a review on Amazon.

The Innovator's Dilemma is a unique approach to understanding corporate failure. Christiansen's thesis is that well managed companies with all the best processes in place do fail. The failure is not due to inefficiency, bad management or bad processes but due to companies being responsible in terms of listening to their customers, investing in technologies that their customers' demand and rationally allocating resources to high-margin products. Christiansen argues that these investments are made on sustaining technologies as opposed to disruptive technologies. He reason's established sector leaders do this because the initial market for disruptive technologies is too small to justify the investment and sustain corporate growth. This provides new entrants with time and space to establish themselves in the emerging market and that when the performance of the disruptive technology intersects the needs placed on the traditional technologies in an industry, these disruptive technologies will start to take over from the traditional sector leaders. [Read Full Review]

I feel this book speaks directly to what is happening in the netbook market. Once again, this is not a prediction of the demise of Dell but netbooks are changing the way people percieve and view computers. The growth of this sector has obviously grown due to the economic crisis due to the low price of these devices but I still cannot help feeling that by not investing in these products, they are missing something. I may be wrong but this book (even the introduction) is a mirror of the current situation in this market and also surprisingly the rise of ARM processors.

So anyway rather than reading the review read the book and let me know what you think. It will be interesting.

Are PC Shipment Volumes Meaningful

Yesterday we wrote that Acer had taken the number 2 spot in terms of volume for PC shipments in Q3 this year (Acer Rises to No. 2 in Q3 2009 ). Tony Bradley comments on this data over at PC World:

The third quarter sales figures brought great news for the PC industry-- sales are up! Following declines in the first and second quarters, global sales of PC's are up 2 percent for the third quarter, seemingly signaling a light at the end of the recession and IT spending glut tunnel. However, the news isn't all good.

See, here's the thing about statistics and numbers: they say what you want them to say. Good news can be extracted by focusing on the total number of actual devices that were bought and sold during the quarter. However, that statistic does not tell the whole story.

Bradley's perspective is that the shipments are not a significant indicator of the health of the company or the industry. His thesis is that absolute volumes are not as important as say revenue or overall profit and that while the small marginal increase in sales and the growth of Acer is not unimportant. There are other issues that need to be addressed. When speaking about Dell, he quotes Michael Dell who said "If we [Dell] wanted [market share], we'd go and sell a whole bunch of netbooks." The point being that Dell are focusing on long term revenue growth, profitability and not looking at incremental market share as it changes each quarter (quarterly myopia is an obsession and has played its part in the economic downturn).

When reading his article a couple of things sprang to mind.

First, while I do agree with Bradly that it is good for companies to focus on "long-term strategy and profit" it is unfair to say (or imply) that Acer or the Taiwanese companies aren't doing that. Of course they are. Getting into the netbook game was a long term strategy for both Acer and Asus and right now they are reaping the rewards of their planning and the advantage they are gaining from their strategic foresight when they launched the netbooks a few years ago.

Second, what is is Dell's long term strategy? No doubt they have some plans but as we have commented here before some industry observers believe Dell's business model is struggling to survive . Admittedly I haven't kept up and a lot might have changed since 2008 when the article was first published, but still, have they managed to realign the organization and their entire business model to be able to drive growth?

Third, what about the share prices? YTD Acer's shares have climbed from NTD40 per share to NTD80 per share (that is a %100 climb) whereas Dell has gone from US$10.54 to US$15.43. Certainly Acer is seeing the reward for their growth strategies (and to think I was thinking of buying Acer at NTD25 way back when, DAMN!)

Fourth, netbooks are a disruptive technology. Both Acer and Asus are aware of this. In "The Innovator's Dilemma" Clayton Christensen has highlighted the way disruptive technologies can bring down market leaders very quickly if they do not invest in these technologies. Yes, right now Dell does have very strong relationships with businesses around the world, but when the push comes to the shove and the netbook computers are increasingly adopted by businesses accross the board, Dell won't be in the game.

To stress, I am not here suggesting that Dell will fail. The world of business is too uncertain for such radical proclamations. The point here is this: Dell can carry on running along the lines they are going but right now technology is moving towards flexible, mobile devices that can be easily moved around and connected anywhere. I dare suggest that although sitting and doing nothing may be a long term strategy, innovation right through the value chain, gaining new market share, and becoming dominant in new market spaces is a valuable long term strategy that will reap reawards later. The experience curve suggests that as Acer, Asus and the others continue to grow in the netbook space, their cost structures will decline and when and if Dell do decide to enter the market space, they will be blown away.

PC WORLD: PC Shipments on the Rise, But at What Cost?

Acer Rises to No. 2 in Q3 2009

In Acer Climbing to No. 2 we noted that IDC reported Acer was the second largest PC distributor behind HP with a market share of 18.5%. Today Reuters reports Acer has surpassed Dell in Q3 2009 as well. Reuters says:

Taiwan's Acer Inc (2353.TW) surpassed Dell Inc (DELL.O) to become the world's No. 2 PC maker in the third quarter as worldwide industry sales proved surprisingly strong, spurring hopes that demand is rebounding.

According to Reuters Acer now has a PC market share of 14% while HP leads with a market share of 20.2% and Dell at 8.4%. Are Dell in trouble? ASUS and Lenovo will be fighting for more market share and both those companies may start to attack Dell's position in the market. Only time will tell.

Reuters: Acer passes Dell as global PC shipments rise

Netbook Chip Demand Rises

An excellent article on The Street argues that while Intel are still dominant players in both the traditional PC/Notebook space and the netbook space, they are being challenged in both the notebook and netbook space. According to Robert Castellano at The Street:

....the Atom is propping up Intel's unit shipments in the mobile PC sector. It's (Intel) making little or no money on the Atom anyway. A more important issue is that it (Intel) may be losing market share in the notebook market. Why? Because Intel had to fill orders for netbooks in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 and made Atoms instead of Penryns, resulting in lower margins on a $29 CPU. Once PC OEMs migrated to the AMD CPU, they stayed with it.

I've also forecast previously that while Intel's Atom will hold more than an 80% share of the 23.5-million netbooks sold in 2009, a movement is underway that will enable the processor from ARM Holdings (ARMH Quote) to gain a 55% market share in 2012.

What I find astonishing (not unbelievable mind you) is Castenallo's prediction that ARM processors will have a 55% market share of the netbook space in 2012. This would be a drastic inversion of the market share for both companies. I am assuming Castenello is making this assumption based on his knowledge of both the Intel and ARM roadmap (as far as he can see it anyway) and so this inversion must be troubling for Intel. Certainly ARM has been pressing them in the mobile phone space for many years and this does indeed seem to be the natural progression for them. It would be interesting to see if ARM in the future plans to move further along the product train and try (at some point) to compete with Intel in the notebook space.

In related news Electronics Weekly reports that ARM-based netbook chip orders are set to max out the 65 nm and 55 nm processing plants at both TSMC and UMC. According to Electronics Weekly:

According to the Commercial Times of Taiwan, both TSMC and UMC will be at 100% capacity utilisation for 65nm and 55nm processes by November, because of a flood of orders placed on them for ARM-based Netbook chips.

The orders are coming from Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Freescale Semiconductor Via Technologies and Nvidia.

Freescale says it has three Netbook design-ins expected to go into production before the end of this year, while Qualcomm says it has half a dozen design-ins. If TI, Via and Nvidia have three or four each, then there could be 20 ARM-based Netbooks on sale before Christmas.

Both Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm and Rich Beyer, CEO of Freescale, point out that the new metric for measuring computing performance is going to be power efficiency rather than CPU speed. This massively favours ARM which has always designed for power efficiency as against Intel which has always designed for speed.

The Electronics Weekly article sheds further light on the growth of ARM chips on netbooks. Of course there is less visibility into the production of Atom chips as (although some of it apparently is being done at TSMC) most of it would still be in house anyway. ARM chips do seem to be making a big bang on the netbook stage and one wonders just how Intel are going to compete in the long term. Remember Intel are used to competing as the dominant market leader and not as one among equals so it will be interesting to see if they have the ability to alter their strategic approach to remain dominant and also to see if they adjust their business model to compete against ARM. One thing is for sure, many people around the world would prefer a weaker Intel.

Electronics Weekly: Netbook Chip-Set Orders To Max Out Capacity At TSMC & UMC
The Street: Intel's Grip on Notebooks, Netbooks Slips

IT Industry not Affected by Typhoon Morakot

More reports are floating in from the South of Taiwan of serious loss of life and damage to property. The BBC reports 'Hundreds lost' in Taiwan typhoon due to severe typhoon induced mudslides. Despite the massive loss of life and damage to property, Digitimes reports the IT industry has remained largely unaffected by the typhoon. Digitimes reports:

Taiwan's electronics industries appear to have seen limited affects from Typhoon Morakot which brought heavy rains over the weekend and caused seriously flooding in many areas in the southern and eastern parts of the island.

Many companies have already reported via filings with the Taiwan Stock Exchanged that their operations and businesses have seen little or no impact from Morakot.

Typhoons always are always dangerous and this one seems to be particularly dangerous. Hi Tech Taipei mourns with all Taiwanese people and with the families and friends of those lost and missing. Lets hope survivors can be found.

Digitimes: Taiwan IT industry not affected by typhoon flooding

TSMC vs. Global Foundries - Let the War Begin

Just caught up with an August 3 article on TG Daily where Morris Chang compares himself (oddly enough) to Joseph Stalin! Seriously. Ah well, its all related to the ground breaking of the new Global Foundries Fab (GF) in New York and the signing of ST Micro as a customer. According to TG Daily:

San Francisco (CA) - The Chairman of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) recently told reporters that he expected to triumph in a protracted and bloody war with GlobalFoundries. The septuagenarian compared himself to Stalin.

"We consider GlobalFoundries to be a formidable competitor," said Morris Chang, who was quoted by PC World. "I really think the battle will be a high casualty one. My job is to minimize the casualties on my side."

According to Chang, the construction of GF's 4.2 billion Fab 2 chip factory in upstate NY indicated a strategy of "total" committment. The opinionated Chang also compared GF's strategy to German attempts to hold the line at Stalingrad after being surrounded by Russian troops.

"Like Stalin, I have no doubt of the outcome," boasted General Chang.

GlobalFoundries spokesperson Jon Carvill responded to Chang's questionable analogy by reiterating GF's "total" commitment to fair competition.

"The groundbreaking in NY and the announcement of our newest customer, STMicro, were huge milestone for us and represents a long-term commitment to delivering the world's most advanced technologies in high-volume to the market," Carvill told TG Daily.

However, Carvill did concede that TSMC was a "strong" and "well established leader" in the foundry industry.

"We look forward to competing with them and offering a true alternative for those companies looking for the world's most advanced technology and manufacturing capabilitities," added Carvill.

Well well, we have talked about GF a bit in the past (see Global Foundries Challenges TSMC and Globalfoundries Getting in on the Game).

This fight will be an interesting one and one that TSMC has not really had in the past. They have dominated the foundry industry for a long time and have been the clear leaders. Although there are other competitors, it would seem that TSMC are way in the lead. This might be a bruising battle and one which the GF execs have had a lot of experience with. After all, they did challenge Intel (and lost a brutal price war) and now they are challenging the behemoth in the foundry industry.

Of course, GF does not have the experience in the pure play foundry industry and while they may have the manufacturing expertise (and a lot of money), and while the industries are related, they will still have to climb the curve. There is no escape. Their advantage (I would imagine) would be that many of TSMCs customers would love to reduce the supplier power that TSMC currently has in the market and for this reason alone, may outsource some of their production to GF. However, although TSMC does stand to lose a lot, I think the bigger fallout will come for the other (smaller players) in the foundry industry.

Time will tell but I still think Chang's Stalin analogy is odd! Why didn't he use Churchill?

TG Daily: "Intel's" TSMC declares war on "AMD's" Globalfoundries