The Story of Texas Instruments

A structural look at how choosing the boring end of semiconductors created one of the most durable franchises in technology.

Introduction

Texas Instruments (TXN) is one of the oldest names in semiconductors, yet it occupies almost none of the public imagination that surrounds the chip industry. When people think of semiconductors, they think of processors, GPUs, and the companies racing to build the most advanced transistors at the smallest geometries. TI operates in a different world—analog chips, embedded processors, and signal conversion devices that do quiet, essential work in everything from industrial equipment to automobiles to consumer electronics.

This positioning is not accidental. Over several decades, TI deliberately shed its higher-profile businesses—defense electronics, digital signal processors for mobile phones, DLP projection technology—to concentrate on analog and embedded chips. Each divestiture removed a business that was either cyclical, commoditizing, or required unsustainable capital investment to remain competitive. What remained was a portfolio of products with structural characteristics that favor long-term value creation: long lifecycles, diverse end markets, fragmented customer bases, and high switching costs.

Understanding TI's arc reveals how strategic retreat from glamorous markets into structurally advantaged ones—combined with manufacturing discipline and shareholder-focused capital allocation—can produce compounding returns that outpace flashier competitors over decades.

The Long-Term Arc

How did Texas Instruments grow as a diversified conglomerate?

Texas Instruments' early history is one of aggressive diversification. Founded as Geophysical Service Incorporated in 1930 and renamed in 1951, the company expanded into military electronics, consumer products, industrial computing, and semiconductors simultaneously. TI built the first commercial silicon transistor, produced the first integrated circuit alongside Fairchild, and developed the first handheld calculator. The company's engineers were prolific inventors operating across multiple frontiers at once.

This breadth, while impressive, created structural complexity. TI was competing in consumer electronics against dedicated consumer companies, in defense against specialized contractors, and in digital chips against firms that could concentrate all resources on a single product line. The diversified model spread capital and management attention across businesses with fundamentally different competitive dynamics. A calculator business and a missile guidance system share almost no operational synergies, yet both competed for the same internal resources.

The structural lesson of this phase is that breadth can mask the absence of depth. TI was present in many markets without dominating the structural economics of any single one.

Why did Texas Instruments prune its businesses?

Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating through the 2000s, TI undertook a deliberate pruning. The defense electronics business was sold. The consumer electronics lines were wound down. The mobile phone baseband chip business—once a significant revenue contributor—was exited after it became clear that competing with Qualcomm in digital baseband would require unsustainable investment with diminishing structural returns. The DLP projection business, while technically innovative, was eventually de-emphasized as a growth driver.

Each divestiture followed the same structural logic: exit businesses where competition is intensifying, product lifecycles are shortening, capital requirements are escalating, and customer concentration creates dependency. What TI retained—and doubled down on—was analog semiconductors and embedded processing. These businesses shared characteristics that made them structurally superior: product lifecycles measured in decades rather than years, tens of thousands of individual products serving hundreds of thousands of customers, and switching costs driven by design-in complexity rather than contractual lock-in.

The narrowing was not retreating from competition. It was moving toward terrain where TI's specific strengths—breadth of catalog, applications engineering, manufacturing scale—created durable advantages rather than temporary ones.

Why did Texas Instruments bet on 300mm wafer manufacturing?

TI's decision to manufacture analog chips on 300mm wafers represents one of the most consequential capital allocation decisions in semiconductor history. The industry standard for analog production has long been 200mm wafers. Larger wafers produce more chips per cycle, but the transition requires enormous upfront capital and process re-engineering. Most analog competitors—typically smaller firms—cannot justify or afford this transition.

TI made the investment aggressively, converting existing facilities and building new 300mm fabs specifically for analog production. The cost advantage is structural and mathematical: a 300mm wafer has roughly 2.25 times the usable area of a 200mm wafer, but does not cost 2.25 times as much to process. The per-chip cost advantage compounds with every wafer run. Over years and decades of production, this gap widens into an insurmountable cost position.

The manufacturing bet also created a capacity advantage. As competitors run constrained on older 200mm equipment—much of which is no longer manufactured—TI has modern, expandable capacity that can absorb demand growth without scrambling for production. This turns industry-wide capacity constraints into a competitive advantage for TI specifically.

How does Texas Instruments allocate its capital?

TI's modern era is defined as much by capital allocation as by products. The company generates substantial free cash flow from its analog and embedded portfolio—products with high gross margins, low capital intensity once fabs are built, and minimal customer concentration risk. Management has committed explicitly to returning all free cash flow not needed for organic investment to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.

This discipline is codified, not casual. TI publishes detailed capital allocation frameworks and tracks performance against them. The combination of growing free cash flow and consistent return of capital creates a compounding mechanism: as the share count declines and dividends increase, per-share value grows at a rate that exceeds the underlying business growth rate. The capital allocation becomes itself a structural advantage—predictable, transparent, and self-reinforcing.

Structural Patterns

Long Product Lifecycles as Moat — Analog chips can remain in production for ten to twenty years or more. Once designed into a customer's product, the switching cost of re-qualifying a new chip—testing, validation, regulatory approval—far exceeds any marginal cost savings from a competitor. Revenue from a single design win compounds quietly for years without requiring re-engagement.
Fragmentation as Stability — TI sells over eighty thousand products to more than one hundred thousand customers across industrial, automotive, personal electronics, communications, and enterprise markets. No single customer or end market dominates revenue. This fragmentation smooths cyclicality and eliminates concentration risk that plagues companies dependent on a handful of large buyers.
Manufacturing Scale in a Fragmented Market — Most analog competitors are small to mid-size companies operating older 200mm fabs. TI's 300mm manufacturing creates a structural cost advantage that smaller competitors cannot replicate without capital investment disproportionate to their revenue base. The advantage is permanent as long as TI maintains its manufacturing position.
Design-In Switching Costs — Customers integrate TI's chips at the design phase of their products. Changing suppliers means redesigning circuit boards, re-running qualification tests, and potentially re-certifying finished products with regulators. These costs are real and recurring, creating retention that persists without contractual obligation.
Direct Sales as Information Advantage — TI has invested heavily in shifting sales from distributors to direct channels, including its own website. Direct relationships provide visibility into demand patterns, customer needs, and application trends that intermediated competitors cannot access. This information feeds product development and inventory planning.
Capital Return as Compounding Mechanism — Disciplined return of free cash flow through buybacks and dividends creates per-share growth that exceeds business growth. The shrinking share count amplifies all other value-creation activities, turning steady-state business performance into above-average shareholder returns.

Key Turning Points

The exit from the mobile phone baseband business was TI's most structurally significant decision. In the early 2000s, TI was a major supplier of digital baseband processors for mobile handsets. The business was large, growing, and high-profile. But the competitive dynamics were deteriorating: Qualcomm's integrated modem-processor approach was gaining share, design wins required increasingly large R&D commitments, and product lifecycles were shrinking to eighteen months or less. TI recognized that staying competitive in digital baseband meant escalating investment in a business where structural advantages were accruing to a single competitor. Walking away from significant revenue to concentrate on analog was a decision that required seeing structural trajectory rather than current-period financials.

The 300mm wafer transition represented a second inflection. Committing billions in capital expenditure to build analog-specific 300mm manufacturing capacity was a bet that the analog market would grow enough to justify the investment and that the cost advantage would prove durable. Both assumptions required conviction about structural dynamics rather than near-term demand signals. The payoff has been a per-unit cost position that widens every year as production volume grows over a fixed capital base.

The formalization of capital allocation discipline—explicitly committing to return all excess free cash flow to shareholders—was a third turning point that reshaped how the market valued TI. By making the commitment transparent and measurable, management reduced the uncertainty premium that investors typically apply to technology companies with large cash balances. The result was a re-rating that reflected not just TI's business quality but its explicit promise about how value would flow to shareholders.

Risks and Fragilities

The analog semiconductor market's stability—its long cycles and gradual evolution—creates complacency risk. TI's dominant position in a slow-moving market could mask erosion at the margins. Competitors investing in new process technologies, new packaging approaches, or integrated solutions could gradually capture design wins in emerging applications. Because analog product lifecycles are long, competitive losses manifest slowly—a declining win rate today may not appear in revenue for several years. The structural advantage of long lifecycles cuts both ways: it protects existing revenue but also delays the visibility of competitive deterioration.

The automotive and industrial end markets that drive TI's growth are themselves subject to structural shifts. The electrification of vehicles, the automation of factories, and the proliferation of sensors all increase analog chip content per system—but they also attract new competitors and new architectures. As systems become more complex, integration pressure could favor companies that combine analog, digital, and software capabilities in ways that a pure analog supplier cannot match. TI's structural position assumes that analog remains a distinct category; if the boundaries blur, the competitive landscape shifts.

Capital allocation discipline, while currently a strength, depends on management continuity and shareholder alignment. A future leadership team facing revenue pressure could redirect free cash flow toward acquisitions, new market entries, or capacity builds that destroy the capital efficiency the current model delivers. The discipline is a choice, not a structural inevitability, and choices can change. Investors benefit from monitoring not just what TI spends but whether the framework governing spending decisions remains intact across management transitions.

What Investors Can Learn

Boring can be structurally superior — The least exciting segment of an industry often has the best structural economics. Long lifecycles, fragmented customers, and high switching costs create durable value that high-growth, high-profile segments frequently do not. Glamour and structural advantage are often inversely correlated.
Strategic exits create value — What a company chooses not to do reveals as much about its quality as what it pursues. TI's decision to exit large, growing businesses that lacked structural advantages freed resources for businesses that had them. Pruning is a value-creation act.
Manufacturing advantage compounds over time — A cost advantage from superior manufacturing does not erode with competition—it widens as cumulative production volume grows over fixed capital. In capital-intensive industries, the first mover to a superior process technology can build a lead that becomes insurmountable.
Capital allocation is itself a competitive advantage — Disciplined, transparent return of capital creates a compounding mechanism that amplifies business performance into shareholder returns. Companies that codify this discipline—making it measurable and visible—reduce uncertainty and earn valuation premiums.
Fragmentation is underrated as a moat — Serving tens of thousands of products to hundreds of thousands of customers creates resilience that concentrated businesses cannot match. No single loss is material, no single customer has leverage, and no single end-market downturn is existential. Diversification at the product and customer level is a structural defense.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.