Since Microsoft launched Copilot+, the past few months have been a battleground for PC manufacturers. Qualcomm initially had a huge lead, but then AMD and Intel came out with Copilot+ PCs that cut into that advantage.
AMD outperformed Intel with a broader line of compliant products, while Intel focused on the premium market. Meanwhile, Qualcomm saw its design wins decline, and the laptop PC market has shifted more in AMD’s favor, though Intel remains the dominant player overall.
Why didn’t we see the big shift to Qualcomm, and what happened to Intel that cost its CEO?
Let’s break it down — and we’ll close with my Product of the Week, which has been keeping my driveway clear for the last week or so.
Why Copilot+ PCs Struggled To Gain Traction
Microsoft rushed to market with Copilot+ for PCs with two primary features. One was Cocreator, a derivative of Dall-E, which could have been pretty handy (I use Dall-E a lot these days). The other was Recall, an automatic indexing tool designed to help users find hard-to-locate files. That was pretty much it at launch.
However, Microsoft positioned Recall poorly and had to pull it back. Cocreator by itself on a laptop — as opposed to a desktop PC or workstation where folks usually mess with graphics — turned out to be not very interesting.
So, for a time, Qualcomm had only Copilot+ PCs. People weren’t too excited about Copilot+, and by the time Office began showcasing AI capabilities, PCs from AMD and Intel were available to run it. Unfortunately, Qualcomm’s brand name wasn’t as well known in PCs as AMD or Intel. In addition, Qualcomm’s product had a compatibility problem that made it largely unacceptable in large companies, so enterprise and large business sales never really emerged outside of trials.
A heavy marketing campaign was needed to sell people on the features of running Copilot+ locally. That never emerged, so AI PCs became an AMD and Intel project, with Qualcomm increasingly on the sidelines.
What Qualcomm Should Have Done
Qualcomm had three advantages in the market: great battery life, the strongest wireless networking of any of the three vendors, and dominance in premium smartphones, which are basically pocket PCs.
Qualcomm pushed hard on the AI aspect, which Microsoft fumbled badly. It did mention battery life, but it wasn’t successful in making its PCs 5G-capable, which removed that advantage. Finally, it didn’t have a “better together” story to leverage its strong smartphone advantage.
Taking on entrenched vendors like AMD and Intel is very difficult, but Qualcomm almost acted like it wasn’t that important, even though it acted seriously about this market. In addition, because it had a compatibility problem, it needed to do targeted marketing for the low-hanging fruit: users who wouldn’t experience this shortcoming, influencers, small business owners, consultants, attorneys, and others who don’t run a lot of custom apps or need to play PC games on their laptops.
