Folks who follow the ups and downs of SIRF’s stock price in the hopes that it goes up more than down, have likely heard many time more than they care to admit how SIRF is a one trick pony in the rapidly commoditizing and increasingly competitive business of producing GPS chipsets.
I recall similar arguments about both Garmin and Navteq for a quite a while, about all the competitors that plan to enter Garmin’s PND market or how super high resolution photography would tank Navteq’s old fashioned map making business. Meanwhile shares of both companies have continued to see tremendous success despite these challenges which indeed have materialized, yet been slow to hamper either Garmin or Navteq’s growth. They succeeded because 1. The did one thing, and only one thing and did it well and 2. the overall market was growing so fast that any bumps created by competitors were smoothed over by the torrid overall growth.
Those arguments of the intense competition in PNDs is what led me to follow SIRF in the first place… logic being: heck if I know who will win the PND race, but they’ll all need top of the line GPS chips to have a go at it.
Keeping their technology at a premium price seems like the right approach for SIRF in the face of oncoming competition. What's the alternative? Drop price on even the latest and greatest models to keep market share up?
Here are five reasons why I think SIRF still has many bright days ahead of it:
1. Huge Category Growth Ahead
What’s that saying, a rising tide lifts all boats? LBS is a nascent market, with in dash navigation not even hitting mid single digits in North America let alone any other mass adoption of location awareness services. PNDs (personal navigation devices) are growing 100%+ a year with similar growth outlook ahead for the immediate future, and GPS chips seemingly going into everything these days, from portable gaming systems to package tracking and vehicles of all sorts.
2. Market Leadership Position
For folks who live and die by performance and features like PNDs, and OEM solutions (75-80% of SIRFs current biz), I just don’t see them trying to save $3-4 dollar on the GPS chip and risk poor performance for such an important component, particularly since most of these devices will retail in the hundreds of dollars. I think they’ll tend to stay with the recognized market leader. Reminds me of the early days of Internet ad buying, no one ever got fired for buying Yahoo, but if you recommended 100Hot.com, it was a heck of lot more work and well you were taking your chances. Same with recommending IBM computers in the 1980s.
3. Handset Market Will Be A Big Growth Driver
Only 20% of SIRF’s current biz is cell phones, and GPS in handsets is becoming more a necessity rather that a luxury. For one, U.S. based GSM carriers selected device based solutions for adhering to government e911 requirements, which for now means required GPS chipsets. Typical handset churn is something like 18 months so all new replacements phones will need GPS. Europe and other countries are also looking at mandatory e911 requirements. Also carriers and MVNOs are looking for ways to raise ARPU through data services and will increasing want LBS as a way to accomplish this. The U.S. is way behind in adoption of LBS applications, and if they ramp as has been seen in Japan and Western Europe then there is huge potential growth there in terms of revenue, and you need GPS chipsets in phones in order to earn this money.
4. Software based alternatives will likely supplement GPS rather than replace
Software based positioning solution are all over the place… if it propagates a signal in any mass way, someone has tried to triangulate off it. But at the moment many are commercially un-viable. One big structural problem with many software based mobile solutions is that they often require 'talking' to the network to get data points to triangulate from, talking to the network means paying big money to a mobile carrier or satellite service provider which makes them economically unattractive to many. In reality for the foreseeable future it’s likely these technologies would just be used as compliment or backup to traditional GPS rather than an outright replacement. And guys like SIRF should in theory be first to know of anything that's making traction, since enabling location awareness is their sole business. I'd expect that they'd more quickly adopt alternative location awareness technologies into a single solution more quickly than someone not 100% focused on the sector.
5. Major online players embracing location and mapping in a big way
Digital search guys are looking at location awareness quite aggressively. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask are all investing and developing significantly in mapping space. It's just a matter of time before people will want to see more real time stuff around those maps… and local advertising is new fertile ground for expansion for folks like Google who will need to aggressively identify new growth areas in the form of local and mobile search.
Continue...






