multiband 'problem' or more positively, multiband market opportunity. 5.7.5 RF Design and Development Dilution Ultimately, progress depends on how motivated the RF design community are to implement change. Partly this is a function of the legacy profitability or lack of profitability relative to other parts of the phone. Table 5.8 shows the large differences in gross margin, operating margin and R and D expenditure for a cross section of RF PA vendors, Anadigics, RF Micro Devices, Skyworks and Triquint and filter vendors (Avago) and compares the margins with baseband vendors. Intel's margins are historically from PC rather than mobile component sales but demonstrate the scaling benefits that can be realised. Conversely not achieving scale can be painful (ST Ericsson as an example). RF component vendors do not have these same scaling opportunities. There may also be market disincentives. For example why develop a broadband amplifier that replaces five narrowband amplifiers if the realised price per unit stays the same. The RF design community is risk averse partly because radical change can introduce either time to market delay or low RF yield on the production line, either outcome being unhelpful in terms of future career progression. As an example, Nokia recently transferred their RF design assets and RF IC assets to Renesas. Moving the design risk to a third party means Nokia can seek redress when things go wrong. The highly variable rates of return from this part of the supply chain explain at least to some extent why RF engineering constraints often seem to frustrate fast market adoption. 5.8 Summary Each individual component in a mobile phone costs money and earns money. The cost includes component cost and real-estate cost balanced against realisable value. The RF front end of the phone is the part that largely determines the network operator's delivery cost and the value realisable from local- and wide-area connectivity. This is the one area where probably the least rapid progress is being made in terms of