True...but I was thinking more in line with PortalPlayer. At one point, 90 percent of PortalPlayer's revenue came from Apple's iPod design win.
Imagine how devestated they were when they lost that socket. The company, however, was sold to Nvidia in 2007 at about $357 million -- so...may be it wasn't the end of the world...
Like Dylan, I was going to point to TI. I think they show that losing a large customer does not equate to bankruptcy/irrelevance/etc. I think as long as Cirrus plans appropriately and continues to invest in new arenas then if they lose Apple they'd be fine. Sure they'd lose that massive revenue, but I think Cirrus would still be Cirrus. In the end, it was Cirrus that attracted Apple anyway. I would think they could land another lucrative deal, even if much smaller.
Because it is an incredibly risky thing for stockholders. Regulations require them to report it in the 10-Q, but the execs are still hoping to downplay the risk. After all, their own stock and options have seen a 10x gain since 2009.
You asked previously what's in it for Cirrus. Well, the major shareholders and execs were handed what amounted to a 10x gain. No doubt exec bonuses have been nice since 2009. You're right. There doesn't seem to be much in it for Cirrus at this point, but that's because the major shareholders and execs have already been paid in advance. They just have to maintain for a while in order to slowly cash in. BTW, another method to get the price down for a takeover is for the major shareholders to dump their stock and cash out.
The LED lighting is a big market but it is also very crowded and the profit margin is quite thin now. Anyway, it is necessary for Cirrus to expand the market base. Having Apple helps to boost their revenue but sooner it can become a big risk and big hole in business is always waiting ahead.
I agree. Cirrus may be in a precarious situation having so much revenue come from one customer, but on the other hand, at least they are getting that revenue. Is it guaranteed to last? No. But what is? I am sure they are trying hard to get more customers, but in the meantime, might as well keep riding this cash cow all the way to the bank.
I think this is an interesting dynamic in the analyst calls, and it's not just with Cirrus. Executives at many companies bend over backwards not to mention specific companies, even when it's clear to everyone involved who they are talking about. Texas Instruments has at least a few times blamed declining wireless chip sales on "lower demand from a major customer." That customer is Nokia, and everyone knows it. But TI most of the time avoids mentioning this major customer by name. And most analysts, for whatever reason, seem to play along with it. It's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.