Horace Dediu

Last week Frank X. Shaw, VP of corporate communications at Microsoft stated:

 ... most of the people around me were using their iPads exactly as they would a laptop – physical keyboard attached, typing away, connected to a network of some kind, creating a document or tweet or blog or article. In that context, it’s hard to distinguish between a tablet and a notebook or laptop. The form factors are different, but let’s be clear, each is a PC.

Actually this "admission" that iPads are PCs is not something new. Steve Ballmer made the same assertion in 2010 pre-iPad (though calling them slates). Arguably, the notion that tablets are PCs has been dogma at Microsoft for over a decade and Windows running on all form factors has been a strategic guiding principle.

Which is why I've always added the tablet data to the PC data to create a picture of the "personal computing" market. And this is what that picture looks like today:

Note how the share of various platforms has evolved over this brief time span:

Seen this way, Windows has now reached 60% market share and it's likely to dip below 50% during this year. What happens beyond then is harder to imagine. If Windows tablets start growing as fast as the tablet market overall then Windows could stabilize in share. But if Android and iOS tablets follow their phone brethren in growth then it will be far harder for Microsoft to maintain share. But is that cause for concern?

Not necessarily.

The total computing market[1] is likely to expand to over 4 billion users with 1.5 devices per user in the next five years. That expansion implies that 20% share equals more than one billion devices, making such an ecosystem "good enough" for the average developer. It certainly has been good enough for Windows developers to date and they have kept hiring it throughout the new mobile app revolution.

So even if Windows dips to only 20% of the world's computing market it will still be perfectly "viable" for some time to come.

--

1. I define the computing market as the total number of devices which have (a) a CPU (b) a broadband connection (c) a native application execution environment which is open to third party apps. This definition implies the presence of an "ecosystem" which is bound specifically to a platform.

By the end of May there will be 100 billion mobile apps installed on iOS and Android devices.

 

Not bad for a five year old medium.

With respect to attach rate, the total downloads/install base are currently 83 apps per iOS device sold and 53 apps per Android device activation. The history of this is shown below:

The sheer weight of Android units will generate more downloads but on a per device basis the iOS devices do seem to consume more apps and the gap is not narrowing. What would be valuable would be the revenue per app on Play (the figure for iOS is about $0.23). That, as far as I know, remains unknown.

Although discussions related to how Apple will "use its cash" center on acquisitions of companies, Apple's has been busy acquiring, just not companies. It has been buying capital equipment. Capital meaning (in the original sense of the word[1]) the means of production.

Since the launch of the iPhone Apple has spent $21.1 billion on the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. The company has already stated that they will spend another $10 billion or so for the current fiscal year. This has been mostly machinery and equipment used in manufacturing.

The result in asset value is shown below:

[The Net value, shown as a blue line, is after accumulated depreciation. The red line represents spending as reported on the cash flow statement.)

The change in spending year/year (fiscal) is shown in the following graph:

So these are very large numbers, even compared to other capital-intensive semiconductor manufacturers:

Given this enormous spending one could imagine it's the subject of intense scrutiny. However the only question on the subject that I've ever seen was from Steve Milunovich of UBS to which Peter Oppenheimer, CFO offered an explanation:

Steve Milunovich - UBS
…second question would be on CapEx, you spent almost as much Intel does. I think you guys have said you’re not going to become vertically integrated per se but in a sense you are since [you buy] equipment for your partners, could you talk about the strategy here and how much of a differentiator this gives Apple in terms of your ability to ramp new products over time? And maybe a little bit more about how deep you will go in terms of semiconductor components for you, etc.?

Peter Oppenheimer - Chief Financial Officer
Sure. Steve it’s Peter. We expect to spend about $10 billion in CapEx this fiscal year that will be up little under $2 billion year-over-year. We expect to spend a little bit under $1 billion in the retail stores. And the other $9 billion is spent in a variety of areas. We are buying equipment that we will own that we will put in partners’ facilities. Our primary motivation there is for supply, but we get other benefits as well. We are also adding to our datacenter capabilities to support all the services that Tim spoke about in answering Ben’s question and in facilities and in infrastructure. So, that’s where the capital is going.

I would say that this is not a very satisfying answer, which is why I thought it merits further questioning[2].

Alas, no.

Whereas there is a constant clamoring for Apple's to use its cash to "acquire" or "buy" something, anything, maybe people not looking hard enough. If you need the satisfaction that comes from knowing that money is being spent, a glance at the Cash Flow statement and Balance Sheet shows that Apple buys the equivalent of one Yahoo! every three years[3].

The main difference with this type of acquisition is that there is less value destruction. Using the capital to ensure access to capacity, differentiation and hence a high margin is better than writing off the goodwill after a few years.

--

1. The term capitalism, in its modern sense, comes from the writings of Karl Marx
2. I am prepared to be alone in this quest as it seems to merit no mention from others
3. or 10 Tumblrs every year

Tim Cook was asked the first question (on the iPhone portfolio). His answer is paraphrased here:

We haven't so far. That doesn't shut off the future. Why? It takes a lot of really hard work to do a phone right when you manage the hardware and software and services in it. We've chosen to put our energy on doing that right. We haven't been focused on working multiple lines.

Think about the evolution of the iPod over time. The shuffle didn't have the same functionality as other products. It was a really good product, but it played a different role — it was great for some customers it was strikingly different than other iPods. The mini played a different role than the classic did. If you remember when we brought out the mini people said we'd never sell any. It was too expensive and had too little storage. The mini proved that people want something lighter, thinner, smaller. My only point is that these products all served a different person, a different type, a different need. For the phone that is the question. Are we now at a point that we need to do that?

…

At a macro level, a large screen today comes with a lot of tradeoffs. When you look at the size, but they also look at things like do the photos show the proper color? The white balance, the reflectivity, battery life. The longevity of the display. There are a bunch of things that are very important. What our customers want is for us to weigh those and come out with a decision. At this point we think the Retina display is the best. In a hypothetical world where those tradeoffs didn't exist, you could see a bigger screen as a differentiator.

Full interview here, answer begins around minute 37.

Here is how I interpret the answer:

• The iPhone portfolio may still arrive. It hasn't so far because the cost/benefit is not there for Apple. On one hand it would take a great deal more sourcing effort and risk while dealing with constraints in production. On the other it would not not offer meaningful additions to the customer base. At least so far. The economics and the demand may change (or have changed) and the time will come for a broader portfolio.
• The comparison to iPod is not entirely appropriate because as a music player, the iPod had a relatively small set of jobs to do. It was hired for exercise, escapism, isolation, etc. It was not hired for apps and services which extend the medium itself. In other words it was not a computer. As a computer, the iPhone has a near infinite set of jobs to be done and it's the hundreds of thousands of apps which help it perform them. But as a result the iPhone needs to conform to the dynamics of ecosystems and that means consistency of APIs and user experience. It cannot vary in terms of input methods, or be below minimum requirements of screen size or memory and power.
• Because of the rapidly expanding job space, Apple believes the iPhone was not "good enough" for all these years. The improvements shipped for each generation were all "meaningful" in that they were valuable and absorbable. Users would use the new features (like better screens, cameras, battery, etc.) and they were willing to pay for them (as evidenced by the sustained high average price).
• On the question of what the extension might be, changing screen size is one dimension but it has to be balanced by performance gains that don't detract from other dimensions. Engineering is all about compromise and consumers pay Apple to make these compromises in an intelligent way. Apple does not come to an answer to the question of balance by launching many products and seeing what works. It cannot afford to dilute its brand with a long list of failures. Other brands may not be affected by trial-and-error approaches to the market but they are discounted by the customer accordingly.

 

Questions for Tim Cook; a brief look at the grammar of the organization; Xbox One vs. the Spruce Goose and how to avoid knowing too much.

via 5by5 | The Critical Path #86: Staying Foolish.

Next week at AllThingsD's D11 conference in LA, Apple CEO Tim Cook will be interviewed by Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg.

Here are some questions I'm hoping they will ask:

1. Why is the iPhone not sold as a portfolio product? Meaning, why, after six years, is there no iPhone product range being updated on a regular basis. Having a portfolio strategy is not only followed by every phone vendor but also by Apple for all its other product lines, including the iPad, which came after the iPhone. In other words, please explain why the iPhone is anomalous from a product portfolio point of view.
2. There are more than 800 operators world-wide so why are there only about 250 of them carrying your phone? Competitors large and small (from BlackBerry to Nokia to Samsung) have cited relationships with more than 500 operators so Apple is being uniquely selective. My question does not stem from a lack of patience: this total number of iPhone distributors has not increased markedly for over a year. Are you limiting distribution through conditions placed on operators (like the availability of sufficient quality data services) or are operators finding the distribution agreement too onerous (e.g. too high a minimum order quota)?
3. In 2012 Apple's capital spending has reached the extraordinary level of $10 billion/yr, higher than all but the most capital-intensive semiconductor manufacturers. This is unusual for Apple as it was less than $1 billion in the year before the iPhone launched. It's also unusual for Apple's competitors in phones, PCs or tablets. It's on a level matched only by semiconductor heavyweights. What is the purpose of this spending and what should we read into it leveling off at $10 billion for 2013?
4. Depending on one supplier is an operational faux pas, and yet Apple has found itself in that situation with Samsung for mobile microprocessors. It may be excusable in PCs with Intel having an architectural monopoly but it's not excusable for a chip that you designed yourself and purchase in massive quantities. Why did you give Samsung such a concession, especially knowing their potential as a competitor vis-à-vis alternative suppliers who had no such potential? Does the answer have something to do with the previous question?

An update on Airshow, the state of Apple retail, and beginning dialogue on the open question of what is Google's greatest weakness

via 5by5 | The Critical Path #85: Achilles' Heel.

In the US, on a sales per square foot basis, Apple retail continues to perform twice as well as Tiffany & Co., the second best retailer, and three times as well as lululemon athletica, the third best retailer.

The latest quarter showed a 7% growth in visitors and a new record revenue of $57.6 per visitor.

As a result, the average revenue per Apple store per quarter reached $13 million, the highest level for a non-holiday quarter.

Here are some additional metrics:

Average visitors per store has steadied to 250,000 per store per quarter (average for trailing 12 months). This is a quantum increase from about 170,000 per store per quarter in the twelve months ending Q1 2010. The reason for this might be the increase in floor space of newer stores and the renovation of older stores. The new store throughput rate might be an upper bound due to fire regulations.

Employment has steadied at about 110 per store. This is a remarkable increase from less than half this level in 2007.

Hiring remains closely correlated with visits with visitors per employee per quarter holding to slightly more than 2000.

Profit per visitor also holding steady at about $12/quarter.

Retail performance remains constrained by store size (hence maximum number of visitors) and the number of stores. The strategy seems to be expanding US stores while opening new stores outside the US.

That would allow growth in visitors and hence in achieving the primary purpose of the stores: maintaining the brand's relationship with customers.

My estimate of last quarter's iTunes gross revenues suggested a spending rate of $40 per iTunes account. It would make sense to consider how that figure changed over time. The following graph shows the pattern:

You can read each bar in the graph as the total "ARPU" or average revenue per iTunes user[1].

I overlaid a graph showing the total number of accounts as reported by Apple to the (retroactively) estimated revenue structure. Account totals are measured with the right axis and ARPU with the left.  Note that I also broke down each component of iTunes as currently defined (Music, Video, Apps, Books, Software and Services.)[2]

The time frame covered is from Q2 2007, or the quarter prior to the iPhone launch. A few patterns emerge:

• When there were no iOS devices (and hence no iOS apps) the revenues of iTunes consisted mostly of music sales. Those revenues were, on a per account basis, roughly comparable with Apple's Software revenues.
• As iOS devices proliferated, the number of accounts (and users) grew. They doubled in the first two years (2007 to 2009) and doubled again in the following year (2010) and doubled again the following year (2011) and doubled again in the following 18 months. This rate of growth was accompanied by a reduction in the iTunes ARPU of about 50% (from $99 to about $45).
• The reduction in ARPU has moderated in the last few quarters. ARPU fell 10% from $50 to $45 during the last doubling of accounts (from 225 million iTunes accounts to  500 million accounts.) In contrast ARPU fell 20% from $74 to $58 during the penultimate doubling (from 100 million to 200 million)
• However, growth in accounts is broadly inversely proportional to growth in ARPU. In other words, the faster the growth in users the faster the decline in ARPU. The recent moderation in ARPU erosion is also coupled to a moderation in user growth (most recent doubling took 18 months vs. 12 months for previous doubling.) This is as would be expected as a broader, later user base tends to consume less than a narrow, early base. This can be seen in the following scatter plot:

• When seen as a percent of mix, Apps have grown to be the largest component of iTunes spending. Apps have 35% "share of wallet" while music has dropped steadily from 40% to 27% (or $39 to $12/yr.) This is shown in the following graph.

As apps have grown to consume more and more of users' time it stands to reason that they should consume more and more of users' wallets.

And as accounts reach one billion, we can begin to think about the disruptive impact on other media types. Whereas video, books and music are targeted to smaller user bases, apps are broadly consumed. Developers like Rovio or Supercell can offer their products to billions while TV producers can only hope for millions. Apps are becoming the universal medium for entertainment and iTunes the universal distributor.

Talent is catching on to this faster than those who manage and distribute their work. The inevitable result will be a mass migration of talent away from the established content industries. Old media won't fade due to a loss of users. It will fade due to a loss of talent.

--

Notes:

1. An account is not necessarily a user so perhaps more appropriately the acronym should be ARPA (average revenue per account). Unfortunately that acronym is taken.
2. The complete model is available for purchase through Asymco Store.

A new theory of device-enabled presentations; the iTunes ARPU average revenue per user and its putative erosion; a definition of smart devices, the cycles of computing as a continuum.

via 5by5 | The Critical Path #84: Blessed Are the Apps.

In the latest quarter the iTunes top line grew by 32%. Additional newly reported items:

• Quarterly revenues topped $4 billion (a new high) and the company suggests that this rate is maintainable by stating it has a “$16 billion annual run rate”. The pattern of revenues is shown below.

• The content portion of iTunes revenues was $2.4 billion, up from $2.1 billion sequentially. Growth into Q1 is not unusual as many holiday iTunes gift cards are redeemed during January.
• Revenue growth has been surprisingly steady, averaging 29%/quarter for more than six years.

• Music is now available in 119 countries.
• The Music catalog now consists of 35 million songs.
• Movies are available in 109 countries. 60,000 titles are offered.
• iBookstores are present in 155 countries offering 1.75 million iBooks.
• There are iTunes App Stores in 155 countries whose residents make up about 90% of the world’s population.
• iOS developers have created more than 850,000 iOS apps, including 350,000 made for the iPad.
• Cumulative app downloads have surpassed 45 billion and are on track to reach 50 billion at time of writing (estimated to be reached mid May).

• The company reports that over 800 apps are downloaded per second. Including all media, the download rate is now above 1000 items per second. Estimated download rates by media types are shown below (note: first graph is plotted on a log scale):

 

 

• App developers have been paid over $9 billion for their sales through the App Store including $4.5 billion in the most recent four quarters. I estimate the split between media types as follows:

• Canalys estimates that sales from iTunes App Store accounted for 74% of all app sales worldwide in the March quarter.
• iOS app revenues more than doubled year-over-year.

Including all (gross[1]) content revenues, the sales rate is now nearly $5 billion per quarter ($4.94 billion). Including services, the iTunes consolidated business cleared over $5.5 billion.

In March Apple reported that they have 500 million iTunes so one way to think about the iTunes business is to say that  iTunes users purchase content and services at the rate of about $40 per year.[2]

Bless them.

---

Notes:

1. "For third-party applications sold through the App Store and Mac App Store and certain digital content sold through the iTunes Store, the Company does not determine the selling price of the products and is not the primary obligor to the customer. Therefore, the Company accounts for such sales on a net basis by recognizing in net sales only the commission it retains from each sale. The portion of the gross amount billed to customers that is remitted by the Company to third-party app developers and certain digital content owners is not reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations." From Apple SEC filing 10-K, October 2012.
2. Apple users spend about $1/day for each Apple device in use making the iTunes franchise an incremental 11% marginal revenue source (assuming one device/user.)