Who else sees Qualcomm going the way of HP?

Once renowned as one of the best tech firms to work for: positive work environment, innovative, high-flying stock, generous benefits...

Sought growth through acquisitions, many of which were only marginally successful or abject failures.

Continued to engage in serial acquisitions in desperate attempt to shore up eroding position.

After those failures tried to save itself by shifting jobs to lower paid geos. (Engineers are interchangeable, right?)

All remaining talent heads for the exits, leaving behind “sustainers.”

Conclusion: exists on life support as a sad shell of what it once was.

Comment! It's anonymous!

9 replies (most recent on top)

But something something 5G!!!!!!!

What about Qualcomm's Bluetooth project?

Nothing to do with age. Q lacks visionary leadership that knows how to execute. Mr. Mollenkopf has to go and the executives needs to be replaced.

Intel pivoted to datacenter - New management team

Microsoft pivoted to Azure - Nadella

Amazon pivoted to Cloud - Bezos

Nvidia pivoted to AI and Auto - Jen Hsun

Qualcomm failures -> G'star, Handset, Mediaflo, Display, Server

@-itn : But due to the time-to-market and competitor pressure, companies cannot afford long time to invest R&D and set up business. I

Yes. And this is something Hock Tan could see. Something the size and age of Q is going to be slow, clumsy and unoriginal in innovation. Better let smaller companies do the fast paced innovation and invention stuff. Let them grow a bit and show some success and then be acquired by something like Q or BCRM with the resources to grow it 'huge'.

Hock would take Q and cut the R&D and 'invention' stuff from its budget and focus on acquisitions.

BoD has been trying to innovate its way out of a corner with a large, over weight and past middle aged org. Not likely to work well. As we can all now see.

@dfs Well there is innovation. But due to the time-to-market and competitor pressure, companies cannot afford long time to invest R&D and set up business. It is faster to come to the market by buying the company which has market shares proven track record, than to spend zillions of dollars to R&D with uncertainty that product can be b.ad

What is HP?

Hahahaha

There is no law of nature saying for profit companies should last forever. Indeed, they often seem to have a useful life of 35-45 years. Many come to end of their useful lives while overpaid senoir management continue to extract every last $$ from them.

At a certain corporate age there is no more innovation left; it becomes mergers and acquisitions and defensive moves to stave off young startups and modern innovation.

I worked for both during their golden era. Nothing is forever so just try to make the best out of every experience.

Having worked for both companies, I'd say you're 100% correct

Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Who else sees Qualcomm going the way of HP?

9 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply