Acer

Yesterday's post described the history of personal computing platforms over the past 37 years. It showed a distinct shifting of "eras" between traditional personal computing and the emergent mobile computing represented by device-based platforms.

Underlying these lives (and deaths) of platforms were the growth (and decline) of fortunes of companies and people. I hoped that by observing these patterns insight could be gained into the conditions for success or failure.

The following graph shows the companies which were predominant (in the top five ranking by shipments[1]) during each year of the industry's history and the volumes they were able to obtain during that period. I also added Nokia and RIM as examples of the challengers coming from mobile devices.

It's a difficult graph to interpret. The pattern I observed was that most companies were not able to sustain presence in the top five ranking for long. Indeed, regardless of having one's own platform or being a licensee, companies seemed to fade reliably. Some were acquired, some sold their operations but there is a distinct impermanence to their prosperity.

To sharpen this perspective of longevity I indexed each company to the point when they entered the "prosperity zone" and measured their staying power within it. The following graph shows these indexed lives.

 

Apart from Apple, IBM remained in the business the longest (24 years). Compaq was second with 20 years before being bought by HP. HP and Dell are still operating after 15 years, having tied Atari and Commodore. After these ancients, the upstarts Nokia and RIM are struggling to remain relevant after 10 to 12 years.

Then there are the transients like Packard-Bell/NEC, Toshiba, Radio Shack and Fujitsu which lasted less than 10 years. The newest PC companies are all from China or Taiwan: Acer, Asus and Lenovo. Their longevity cannot be called yet though Acer seems to be in decline. Lenovo, which took over IBM's brands continues to grow. However, as yesterday's post showed, without diversification into devices, pure PC makers are likely to fade.

But besides this interesting history lesson, there is a deeper, unsettling observation. The scale of these periods of prosperity is far shorter than the average person's career. Indeed, the entire time span of the study is 35 years, about the time an average person will be employed. All the companies failed to maintain prosperity over this time frame.

These are a small sample, flawed by showing only hardware units, but I consider it a proxy for the overall technology market. Software-only or services companies have had no better records.

The implications for company managers and workers is profound. Chances are that the business you work for will not prosper for more than a decade and will reward you for an even shorter period. Similarly, as witnessed by the P/E ratios, investors have  given up on this industry as one with any quality of earnings.

There is no "rule" that this has to be so. The high mortality rate and short longevity of technology companies is a consequence of a failure to manage innovation and disruption. Apple may be an exception--one I think worth studying. Though not always prosperous, it has managed to survive, being the only company from the early era of personal computing to still be operating in the industry. Indeed, it's now the most prosperous. Maybe it's a fluke, but I rather think it's due to an ability to re-define itself as the market shifts. Its essential quality being an ability to disrupt itself.

And if we think about it this way, ultimately, longevity is more important than prosperity. Without patience there is nothing but chance determining prosperity. The fate of more than company finances rests in the balance.

Notes:

1. Apple did not maintain a position in the top 5 throughout this period but is shown as a benchmark as it remained in the same business throughout this period.

Charles Arthur of The Guardian writes that PC sales "may have passed their peak".  That's a powerful, concise statement. It's backed up by a quote from Gartner's Mikako Kitagawa:

"This was the third consecutive quarter of mobile PC shipment declines in the US"

IDC even lays part of the blame to something called "media tablets"[1]:

"While it's tempting to blame [PC] decline completely on the growth of media tablets we believe other factors [...] played equally significant roles."

But there are several problems with both IDC and Gartner's analysis of the market. It's hard to make out causality from their data. There is separation by vendor but not by operating system and there is exclusion of devices hired to do the same jobs as PCs.

For this reason, I need to do my own analysis. I retrieved Gartner's public statements on the overall market and layered actual Mac and iPad units sold. I also added my estimates for the Q1 2011 quarter just ended to complete the picture.

We can now get an understanding of how the industry behaves with and without various platforms. The chart at the left gives the various growth rates of the market with platforms isolated from each other. I apologize for the shape of the chart but the scale does not permit a concise visual.

Including the iPad, the total PC growth is shown by the blue line. It shows that the market peaked during the recovery but is now slowing considerably.

The green line shows the PC industry excluding both the Mac and the iPad. Although it might include Linux or computers sold without an OS, the label "Windows PC" is a fairly close approximation. It shows that the market excluding Apple entered contraction this quarter and is out of sync with overall economic recovery and growth.

The red line shows the behavior of the Mac franchise. It's well ahead of the overall market with 2x to 3x the growth. This has been a pattern for over 18 quarters.  I had some thoughts on this in a November 2010 hypothesis.

But the most telling line is the orange line which includes both the Mac and the iPad. In an industry where growth is usually measured in single digits, the iPad business brings growth in three digits.

This near tripling of unit sales is symptomatic of fundamental change that cannot be ignored. Although some analysts contend that the iPad is not causal to the decline in other PC sales, teasing out platforms data seems to show a divergent view.

The bottom line is that Windows-only computer units are down 2.0% while OSX-based computer units are up 272% (this excludes both the iPhone and iPod touch).

Correlation is not causation but tests or surveys where substitution can be proven do exist. For example, a recent survey shows that 77% of users reported that their PC usage decreased after getting a tablet. It also showed that 28% considered their iPad as their primary computer.

So coupling the sales data with the usage data does point an accusatory finger for the decline on the iPad.

In addition, some vendors are being hit harder than others which also hints at where substitution is happening. For example, IDC reports that Acer US unit shipments fell 42% in the first quarter and 16% globally (Gartner's numbers are less dramatic but in the same direction). Since Acer is known for its netbook computers it's another telling sign of possible substitution (Acer's own management has indicated as much.)

So the weight of evidence is beginning to be conclusive: the iPad is the new PC. It should be clear by now that the iPad moves computing into new contexts so it does not yet substitute the PC market but extends it and increases consumption. Substitution is happening in low-end grazing type of usage, a place where the PC was ill-fitting anyway. Incumbent vendors might actually be relieved that the lower margin netbook is finally being supplanted and they can concentrate on the higher end.

--

Notes:

1. Analysts like to call the iPad a "media tablet" but the same AdMob survey shows media consumption to be one of its least popular uses.

Two years ago:

With new netbooks, laptops, desktops, and, yes, a smartphone, Acer CEO Gianfranco Lanci explains why he expects to soon overtake No. 2 PC maker Dell

via Acer Boss Lanci Takes Aim at Dell and HP - BusinessWeek.

Today Acer CEO and President Gianfranco Lanci resigned with immediate effect. Acer is in trouble. You can read more on Acer's current problems in the wake of the downward revision of its sales targets for two quarters here: Acer Should Overhaul Its Operation: Stan Shih | CENS.com - The Taiwan Economic News

In a nutshell, whereas Acer under Lanci took aim at Dell and HP, it seems that Apple took aim at Acer. And whereas Lanci missed, Apple's aim was true.

What is interesting here is that Acer had a very disruptive approach. They used the low end "netbook" concept to take share from incumbents motivated to move up-market.

But what went wrong? Part of the answer is that "low end" does not just mean "cheap". Low end disruption is about also offering simplicity and performance along a new dimension or trajectory of improvement.

Mobile computing could not be implemented as a low-end strategy because the modules available to portable computing could not be used to make it expand into new contexts of consumption. Windows and keyboards and all the input methods associated with portables could not be adapted to mobility. You could not use a netbook in places or at times when you did not use any other laptop.

In addition the business model was not a good match. Low margins could not support development or new integration that could improve that which was not good enough. Acer did not have the means to tackle the problems of not-good-enough mobile computing. They did not build software and low margins meant that they could not even try to build software.

Competitors also were motivated to respond. HP and Dell built their own netbooks which, arguably, were just as good (or, perhaps more accurately, just as bad) as Acer's. But more problematic was the fact that regular notebook prices dropped to netbook levels and the category came to mean "cheap" not "convenient".

Finally, Acer's strategy did not have the time horizon necessary for true disruption. It takes many years to polish a product and nurture it up the trajectory. Acer was too impatient for growth and not patient at all for profit.

Contrast this with Apple's tablet strategy:

• It dealt with complexity of computing by removing it. This was not easy as simplification required a new platform altogether--something that portable computers could not benefit from.
• It priced low but held on to margins because removal of complexity also reduced cost
• The margins allow it to rapidly iterate on integrated development and improve the product
• Competitors initially were not motivated to respond. They did not have the tools at hand to respond: no integrated operating system for PC vendors, no distribution for phone vendors.
• Apple is also patient enough to wait for several product cycles. Even though demand is astronomical, the iPad still has a long way to go to become a new computing standard. Time is on Apple's side.

Apple is effectively disrupting the PC with asymmetry. It contrasts with Acer's reliance on a sustaining, symmetric approach. The market was showing clear signs of over-service, declining margins, in-absorbable features and performance and complexity.

Calling the winner in 2009 may have been tough given no iPad was visible, but knowing Apple's resources, processes and motivations should have guided observers to the right answer.