integration

The following interview took place by email on April 15th, 2013.

1. What are the truth and false about the 'Apple shock' currently? In what perspective should we see this?

First, I'd point out that during Steve Jobs' time the company suffered many such shocks. The stock fell many times far further than it just did for trivial and irrational reasons. Recently Warren Buffett himself pointed out that his own company had 50% drops in value four times in the past. Share prices are not always good indicators of potential and markets are not always efficient. I catalogued the dramatic share price declines in Apple during the last decade here.

Second, I'd point out that the number of people watching and commenting on Apple has grown almost as fast as its sales and earnings. When Apple was small the people who studied Apple were few. (You could see this today for other, modest tech companies. There aren't 50 analysts writing reports every day and 2000 bloggers tweeting about Lenovo even though it's a successful and growing PC company.) Because of this growth, I would guess 80% of the observers have not observed Apple's prior painful episodes first hand. For them this is the first time a "dominant" Apple has slowed. The amplification of so many voices raising alarm makes it seem truer, but it isn't.

Third, the failures being cited are not significant. In terms of increased competition, before Samsung there was Nokia and Motorola and the mobile Operators and Microsoft and Dell and many others long forgotten. They were all about to "defeat" Apple. As a quick example when Apple was "the iPod company," iTunes was considered vulnerable and fragile due to DRM concerns or the Beatles not being on it. Microsoft was launching "Plays for Sure" and Zune and Creative was suing Apple over patents. These battles are long forgotten. Before those there were concerns about the viability of the Mac that go back decades. At the time those were actually very valid concerns. At the time Apple did not have half a billion users. It depended on one product. But what saved them was a process of development of new products not the products themselves. iPod faded, Mac faded. What mattered is that they created new things to replace them.

Finally, what is not commonly understood is that the mechanism for creating things at Apple is unchanged. Its functional organization is inherently unstable and chaotic, sometimes looking like it will derail. But that's the way it was designed to be. You just have to have faith that it's a system that works. Those who did in the past were well rewarded.

2. What possibilities out of 1~10, do you think, Apple will suffer the same downfall as Steve jobs has left the company in the past in current?

The threat is negligible. During the first departure of Jobs, the intention of management was to make the company into "a proper company." The plan was, essentially, to remove the chaotic model that Jobs had put in place and replace it with something more "rational" and "grown up." After he returned he set about not just returning the company to the way it was but to also codifying and identifying exactly what that was so that it did not happen again. You have to appreciate that the greatest thing Jobs ever created was not a product but Apple itself.

Note that Apple managers stay in their roles the whole time they are there, sometimes for decades. There is no "general purpose" manager and the whole company has been organized along these functional lines. The way to think about it is that during his first departure the new management tried to undo what Jobs had built which is why it became dysfunctional: the DNA did not match the body it was operating. His return re-aligned the culture and operations to what was originally developed. As long as new management does not try to undo that, they'll be all right.

3. Apple is now defined by some people, as 'the company who modifies well', not 'the company who innovates' well. What they made was ipad, ipod, iphone, apple tv and all the modifiers of the original products. Do you agree? If you do why?

Innovation is not invention. Innovation is the application of invention in ways that solve new needs. I'm always amazed at how misunderstood this term is even though the definition is easy to understand:

("Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.")

Apple is an innovation machine. It does invent but that's not valuable in itself. Not all inventions are applied and not all innovations depend on internal inventions. Innovation is applied invention just like engineering is applied science. A better way to think about Apple is to think about Pixar. It's a blockbuster manufacturer. It makes blockbusters and nothing else. That means it does not make many of them and not always regularly and that the ideas may not be original, but the results are always very popular. Pixar is not like any other studio that makes some hits and some flops. Pixar is also a functional organization. It's not an accident that they were both built by the same person and that they are both successful after he left.

4. Google is forecasted to release lots of products this year, but Apple isn't really looking forward to so many innovations. Inside Apple, is the innovation team really making a new innovative product? what are their longterm plans to fight with Google, or Samsung and the rest of the competitors?

People outside of engineering organizations, especially large ones, don't appreciate the time scales involved. Products you see today were designed, planned and developed many years ago. We see plenty of evidence of this but we tend to ignore it. Consider that some prototypes end up on ebay showing they were built years before launch. It is the same with evidence presented in trials proving work on the product 4 to 5 years before it was launched. This is not the case just for Apple but all other technology companies.

For this reason, what is happening in the market and what is happening inside the company are two completely different universes. The tendency is to assume a direct relationship between market momentum and current management decisions. These are connected but with many years in-between.

For example, globally accurate Maps require a minimum of five years of development. Decisions on what ended up being Apple Maps had to have been made by Jobs himself. Namely, he must have decided whether to buy or build Maps. Contrast with Nokia's decision in 2007 to buy maps for a cost of $8 billion; instead Apple licensed and then decided to build later. In 2007 Jobs decided that it was more important to work on the product itself, meaning the iPhone (while Nokia didn't prioritize product innovation.) The results are visible today: Apple is behind and needs to accelerate with Maps and Nokia with its great maps must find a way of staying in business.

Apple is not only working on the next product but probably 15 new products, of which 14 will be discarded. Again, I cite Pixar. Each movie is produced with multiple stories, multiple character decisions and different plots in parallel. Much ends up being thrown away. We don't see any of that.

Apple is extremely "myopic" in that it is very concerned with execution and there is no visible "strategy plan".  That's by design. The product comes first and then comes the market and then comes strategy. To create great products you need to tune out almost everything else. However, they do have a "strategy" and that has to do with which problems they should attack and which they shouldn't. Usually they are successful because what they can attack nobody else can. That is due to their integrated, functional approach.

5. Isn't Apple, relying too much on semiconductor manufacturers? Meaning, isn't Apple only try to be 'stable company' to supply their products on time? sometimes when companies have disruptive technologies, they have hard time supplying products.

You're touching on the question of the problems of integration. Yes, there are vulnerabilities but that's the way it has to be. To mitigate this Apple is increasing its integration of the value chains. For example developing its own chip design and owning a lot of capital equipment.

6. If you were Tim Cook, what would you do?

I'd buy Intel and turn them into Apple's microprocessor design and manufacturing group. They won't have much to do in a few years and they'll be cheap.

7. what are the reasons that Apple try to make a 'apple watch', 'apple bicycle'? How do you define these products, since, watchs and bicycles are a total different paradigm which is a totally different industries? Is Apple realizing that smartphone industry is hard for them to innovate?

Computers are becoming more personal, intimate. It's a natural evolution from large to mini to micro to portable to handheld. I don't see this slowing and Apple should re-define the user experience during every such shift. Here again integration is essential.

8. what are some of the stuff that we don't know about Tim Cook?

I can't help you there. Only thing I can say is that people who know him have told me he's not soft and gentle as a manager. He's tough.

9. How will Samsung and Apples patent fight come to conclusion?

Again, I can't add much to this. Litigation is often a decision made outside of market conditions so it can be arbitrary.

10. how does employees or executives inside apple think about their company?

It's hard to describe this without sounding soft, but the employees at Apple tend to love the brand. You can't measure that but I can think of one proxy: the number of applicants to retail jobs are in the hundreds for each opening.

[Update: Bono made an important observation regarding Jony Ive which was published after this interview: What the competitors don’t seem to understand is you cannot get people this smart to work this hard just for money. Jony is Obi-Wan. His team are Jedi whose nobility depends on the pursuit of greatness over profit, believing the latter will always follow the former, stubbornly passing up near-term good opportunities to pursue great ones in the distance]

Apple's products are the envy of the world. They have been spectacularly successful and are widely imitated, if not copied. The expectation that precedes a new Apple product launch is only matched by the expectation of the replication of those products by competitors.

This cycle of product mimicry was succinctly summarized by Marc Andreessen regarding a rumored Apple TV product:

And once the television launches, everyone will scramble to copy it. "There's a pattern in our industry, Apple crystallizes the product, and the minute Apple crystallizes it, then everyone knows how to compete."

This idea that the basis of competition is set by Apple and then the race is on to climb the trajectory of improvement is so well understood that it's axiomatic: "It's just the way things are." Apple releases a product that defines a category or disrupts an industry and it becomes obvious what needs to be built.

But what I wonder is why there isn't a desire to copy Apple's product creation process. Why isn't the catalyst for a new category or disruption put forward by another company? More precisely, why isn't there another company which consistently re-defines categories and repeatedly, predictably even, re-defines how technology is used.

Put another way: Why is it that everyone wants to copy Apple's products but nobody wants to copy being Apple?

Note that I don't suggest that there isn't a capability to copy. It may or may not be possible, but capability comes after desire and without desire there can be no capability. What I'm suggesting is that there isn't a desire to "be like Apple". If there were a desire, we would be seeing a massive search and debate into what makes Apple successful. Management consultants would be pounding the pavement pitching the "Apple way". Wall Street would be sizing up companies to a standard of "Apple-ness" and rewarding those who conform and punishing those who don't.

None of this is happening. I can think of two reasons why:

1. Apple is not to be imitated because it's not worth copying. I.e. Apple is not a successful company.
2. Apple is successful but Apple cannot be copied because its success is a magical process involving sorcery.

There is a great deal of evidence for the first hypothesis. The idea of Apple being successful is not something reflected in its stock price. Being valued at a lower P/E ratio than its competitors, and indeed lower than the average company in the S&P 500, indicates that to whatever degree Apple was successful in the past, it's not seen by the vast majority of observers as successful in the future (no matter when you choose to make this observation).

Why should one bother copying Apple if it results in being punished with a low valuation? You work really hard at innovation and then that innovation becomes commoditized very quickly. Why should one bother?

And yet if we look outside the investor community, especially if we ask operational managers and entrepreneurs, there are some who would say that Apple is actually a success story. However, when asking innovation practitioners what makes Apple successful the answers regarding the causality of this success border on the mythical. Answers which reference "skills", "culture" and "teams" abound. The culmination of this hypothesis is the "chief-sorcerer" theory of success which places one magician in charge of casting all the right spells. These resource-defined explanations are unsatisfactory because they are vague. Without specificity they don't help us understand why they can't be copied.

But what about Apple's own opinion of what makes it tick?

Bill C. Shope: How do we think about Apple's culture of innovation today?

Timothy D. Cook: Innovation is deeply embedded in Apple's culture. The boldness, the ambition, the belief that there are no limits, the desire among our people to not just make good products [but to] make the very best products in the world. It's in the values. It's in the DNA of the company.

Now if you look at some essentials for innovation, there is no formula.
If there was a formula, there would be a lot of companies that have a lot of money that would gone out and bought their ability to innovate.

Some of the essentials for us are skills and leadership. Apple is in a very unique, and, in my view, unrivaled position because Apple has skills in software, in hardware, and in services.

[…] arguably, where you can innovate in hardware, [where] you can innovate in software, [where] you can innovate in services; the real magic happens at the intersection of these.

And you know, the iPad is very magical. And it's exactly because our company was doing all of those things. And so for many years this idea ... [which] some people call vertical integration, ... it was out of favor. People thought it was kind of crazy. And we never did.

And so through all of those years, we continued to build. And these skills, this isn't something you can just go write a check for. This is something that you work decades for. Building this experience. And so I think we bring that. I think we're unique in that. I think we're unrivaled in that. I think there are people trying desperately to catch up in that. And I think they're finding that it's not so easy to do.

Tim Cook refers to integration and a great team as unique Apple advantages (but also note the references to magic and belief.) It's a better explanation but it is still hard to understand why nobody copies this approach. Integration is something that can take a long time, but it is possible with a Herculean effort. A few companies are starting to make moves in that direction (e.g. Microsoft.) But efforts are half-hearted. There is no "move the Earth" panic to become an integrated company from Samsung, Google or Microsoft.

Maybe others haven't quite balanced both the cost and the benefit of being Apple. It's clearly still mysterious and unclear why one would want to do this. It's much easier to use what you already have and how you operate to copy what Apple produces rather than how they produce it.

My own suspicion is that Apple is more aware of what makes it special than they are letting on. In other words, I believe that Apple is self aware but being careful not to share what it knows. However, as Tim points out, it's not a formula. There is no silver bullet, no single trick.

It's complex, it's subtle, it defies explanation but it's not magic. It's a process that requires a degree of faith and fortitude. It's collecting but ignoring data and trusting judgement when data tells you to move in a different direction. It's a lot of willful rejection of conventional wisdom. It's asymmetric approaches to competition. It's art as much as science. And most of all, it's a lot of mind-numbing polishing while trusting that only by doing great work is survival even possible.

In the post reviewing Samsung's Capital Structure I noted that its component divisions have historically taken 90% of capital investments and that the overall capital intensity for Samsung Electronics has increased in proportion to its component revenues.

In another post regarding the capital structures of other technology companies with different business models I noted that Apple has changed its capital structure to a significant degree over the previous three years.

In the following graph I combined these observations to show how capital expenditure patterns may be used to discern the underlying business model.

I would group "cloud" or "platform" based companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft as a cohort which, although spending significant amounts on capital equipment, do so mainly to support services. Their primary employment of capital is to sustain the infrastructure of data centers necessary to deliver the services underpinning their business models.

I would group Intel and Samsung as "component" based companies which use capital to build production capacity that delivers, hopefully, a control point in the value chains they participate in. Note that I am assuming that Samsung Electronics' CapEx primarily targets semiconductors and displays as it did during the 2006 and 2007 period when data was available.

Therefore, given the patterns over the last six years, it might be possible to classify a company's core business by just looking at its CapEx: The services group showing growth but relatively stable patterns and the components group showing more volatility, macroeconomic sensitivity and an overall higher level of spending, especially as a percent of sales.

The question that pops up then is in what category does Apple fall?

My observations for over a year have been that Apple is increasing its capital spending to such a degree that it is neither fish nor fowl. It operates data centers but presumably does not operate fabrication plants. And yet it spends more than Intel and Google combined.

Contrasting Apple and Samsung Electronics tells an even more interesting story. In the following graph I've added two additional items of information: First, although CapEx spending is recorded in the cash flow statement, Apple reported in its yearly (10K) report that it spent an additional $2 billion for equipment which did not pass through cash flow.

If we were to add $1 billion to each of the previous two quarters, the graph would look like this:

The second piece of information is that Apple projected its spending for the following fiscal year. I've added that spending in a pattern matching the last fiscal year.

Apple is still spending less than Samsung. In its fiscal year 2012 Apple spent about $10 billion while during the same time frame Samsung spent nearly $22 billion. However, Apple has begun to bump against Samsung's spending level on a quarterly basis.

I consider this extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary shift in strategy.

For a year we've been debating here to what degree Apple has a "capital intensive" business and what exactly could it be spending capital on. One early hypothesis has been that it's on data centers or on real estate for spaceship campuses. These can be easily dismissed on the knowledge that they can't cost that much (and that the spending happens gradually). Another hypothesis is that the tooling for milled aluminum cases and other mechanical components is expensive and Apple has to buy a lot of it. But, again, the level of expenditure is in the league of Intel and Samsung which make vast quantities of semiconductors in very expensive plants. It's hard to imagine milling machines being cost equivalent to chip foundries.

The comparison with Samsung, whose vast capital commitments are legendary and are its primary strategic asset puts Apple in a new light. Perhaps we can't yet call Apple a semiconductor company or even a fabricator but they are putting their "money where their mouth isn't". We can infer that it's not going where the company currently operates. The capital is being deployed almost silently and, though vast in scale, barely gets a mention from analysts. Not even a single question has been raised at any earnings call about this spending.

So what tale does this capital tell?

One interpretation is to apply the value chain disruption theory and ask whether Apple is acting to counter a potential disruption. In other words, that this is a specific threat response from an incumbent. There is some logic to this because  the antagonism between Samsung and Apple is so strong that it might justify a reaction of this kind.

However, I believe that there is a more measured process at work over a long period of time. The one distinguishing advantage and attribute that Apple has  is its preference for integration. This preference is not a secret and Tim Cook repeats it often. The integration is evident with their move into retail and component design, in other words in both directions along a value chain. So my hypothesis is that this is part and parcel of an ongoing re-alignment of their role in the value chain.

This second explanation suggests that Apple simply wants to control all the areas which affect the value they produce. First because they feel that there are areas that are not good enough and the product/experience cannot be good enough if its constituent parts are not good enough. Second because without control there are constraints to what it can do strategically.

Whatever the reason, I read the evidence of increasing commitment and engagement in parts of the value chain as part of a continuous evolution of Apple's role. Furthermore, it's something that should be seen as a signal of a new era in how technology companies operate. We see hints of "vertical integration" with Microsoft building hardware, and Google buying Motorola and Amazon selling devices. Apple did all these things and now it casts an eye over the next frontier: components.

---

If you want to learn more about the future of the technology industries and the evolution of value chains, consider participating in Asymconf.

As previously noted, Apple has overtaken Microsoft (and Google) in operating margin percentage. This is an astonishing statistic as Apple is still largely perceived to be a "hardware company" while Microsoft is a "software company" and Google is a "services company."

To suggest that "hardware" could be more operationally profitable than either software or services is akin to heresy in technology analysis. This reversal is newsworthy indeed. However, even the most casual observer would note that Apple does not derive its market power from hardware alone. It is, in fact, an integrated hardware, software and services company (with a few more roles besides.)

So the emergent successful business architecture in this technologically transitional period is of integration and completeness of solutions.

This shift explains at least at a conceptual level Microsoft's tectonic Surface shift.

But what about another point of view? What does integration mean for Microsoft's income, cost and profit structure? Is integration self-disruptive to Microsoft?

Here's a reminder of Microsoft's revenues and operating income by division:

The challenge of devices for Microsoft is that the licensing of software for devices is very difficult to sell.

In 2011 Microsoft received about $18.7 billion in Windows revenues and $23 billion in Office revenues. The chart shows that this is a fairly steady growth business. According to Gartner, in 2011 there were about 336 million Windows PCs sold and that this too is a fairly stable and mature business.

If we simply divide revenues by PCs sold we get about $55 Windows revenues per PC and $68 of Office revenues per PC sold [1]. The total income for Microsoft per PC sold is therefore about $123. If we divide operating income by PCs as well we get $35 per Windows license and $43 per Office license. That's a total of $78 of operating profit per PC.

Now let's think about a post-PC future exemplified by the iPad. Apple sells the iPad with a nearly 33% margin but at a higher average price than Microsoft's software bundle. Apple gives away the software (and apps are very cheap) but it still gains $195 in operating profit per iPad sold.

Fine, you say, but Microsoft make up for it in volume. Well, that's a problem. The tablet volumes are expanding very quickly and are on track to overtake traditional PCs while traditional PCs are likely to be disrupted and decline.

So Microsoft faces a dilemma. Their business model of expensive software on cheap hardware is not sustainable. The future is nearly free software integrated into moderately priced hardware.

For Microsoft to maintain their profitability, they have to find a way of obtaining $80 of profit per device. Under the current structure, device makers will not pay $55 per Windows license per device and users will not spend $68 per Office bundle per tablet. Price competition with Android tablets which have no software licensing costs and with iPad which has very cheap software means that a $300 tablet with a $68 software bill will not be competitive or profitable.

However, if Microsoft can sell a $400 (on average) device bundled with its software, and is able to get 20% margins then Microsoft is back to its $80 profit per device sold. This, I believe, is a large part of the practical motivation behind the Surface product.

The challenge for Microsoft therefore becomes to build hundreds of millions of these devices. Every year. Sounds like they need a Tim Cook to run it.

---

Notes:

1. Microsoft accounts for revenues using deferrals due to Software Assurance pre-payment models for many corporate customers so this figure is not a precise value for each license sold.

 

In a previous series of articles we discussed the capital Apple expends on equipment, real estate, leasehold improvements and data centers. Cost structure analysis reveals subtle shifts in strategy and the CapEx analysis demonstrates Apple's increasing integration into its supplier network and integration into the distribution and service infrastructure that sustains its ecosystems.

Another form of investing (spending now, reaping benefits later) is the spending on research and development (R&D). Let’s have a look at Apple’s R&D expenses by quarter since Q1/2006.

Apples R&D expenses as percentage of sales have been declining from almost 4% to close to 2% in the last six years as shown in the following chart:

While Apple's absolute R&D expenses have grown at an annual rate of 33% they have not kept up with the far higher sales growth rate. Apple's current rate of R&D expenditure is compared to a peer group [1] below.

Apple's R&D/sales ratio is between Dell and HP, companies which do not develop their own software or hardware.

Beside the absolute, relative to sales and relative to peers, another perspective is to measure relative growth. The following chart represents shows the 5 year average growth of R&D expenses and on the y-axis the size of last 12 months R&D expenses as a multiple of Apple's R&D costs [2].

Acer's R&D expenses for example are almost non-existent compared to Apple, but have grown almost 100% per year while Microsoft’s last 12 months R&D expenses are almost 4x that of Apple's and have only grown slightly over the past five years. Google's R&D costs have grown at a similar rate compared to Apple, but remained double those of Apple’s throughout the last five years.

Finally, we should look at the payoff from R&D spending over the last five years.  R&D growth should result in margin improvement, but does it? The following chart shows the relationship between spending (size of bubble), margin improvement (x-axis) and sales growth (y-axis).

Of our sample, only three companies have achieved sales growth AND simultaneous margin improvement over the last five years. But while Microsoft and Dell have achieved sales growth and margin improvement slightly above zero, Apple has improved its bottom line by 13 percentage points and its top line by an average rate of 45%.

In spite of Microsoft's, Google and Nokia's massive R&D growth, their returns from that investment have been meagre to negative in terms of margin and only Google showed appreciable sales growth.

Discussion

R&D expenditures on a stand-alone basis, in absolute or relative terms, do not correlate with disruptive growth. Essentially, you cannot buy innovation.

In fact, sometimes it's nearly free. Most startups spend less on R&D than large companies do on stationery and yet the bulk of wealth creation has come from these tiny companies. The challenge is, in fact, that if you have resources you find ways of spending them (the quaint American cliche of 'cash burning a hole in your pocket'). The temptation is always there to fund a new initiative which bright people can always envision.

Leadership in innovation is not the courage to spend but the courage to focus.

“Focus is about saying 'No'. And the result of that focus is going to be some really great products where the total is much greater than the sum of the parts.”, Steve Jobs (1997)

[1] Our set of peer companies as shown in previous posts but excluding LG, Lenovo and Motorola Mobility due to lack of data, but including Sony Ericsson and Nokia’s mobile phone division Devices & Services.

[2] In this post “year” and “last 12 months” refers to the time frame from Q4/(year-1) year to Q3/year due to lack of published data regarding Q4/2011. Five year data runs from Q3/2006-Q3/2011.

[3] A note on capitalized R&D: Most of the companies analyzed do not have capitalized R&D costs. Some have small capitalization, but so small that the inclusion would not change the decimal points of percentages. The only significant amount of capitalized R&D appeared in Amazon's earnings releases: capitalized R&D cost were USD 100 million in Q3/2011. The amortization of theses costs in included in Amazon's EBIT (Operating imcome).

There is finally enough information to try to give an estimate of the smartphone market as a subset of the overall phone market.

The chart to the left shows the overall picture.

To sum up: The smartphone market has now reached over 30% of shipments. Non-smart devices are at 69% of total. The individual phone platform shares are as follows:

1. Android (and Android-like): 17.6%
2. iOS (iPhone only) 4.4%
3. Nokia Symbian: 4.3%
4. BlackBerry: 2.76%
5. Bada: 1%
6. Windows Phone 0.5%

The past quarter was the first where there is evidence of significant non-seasonal decline in incumbent platforms. Both RIM and Symbian saw two sequential drops in volume. The iPhone had a seasonal (or, more accurately, transitional) decline. Windows Phone had a very modest increase in share from 1.3% to 1.7% share though this is well below a margin of error in the estimate.

Android (and Android-like) shipments ballooned to nearly 70 million but sell-through could be about 10 million less. Nearly one in five phones sold is now powered by an Android variant. A remarkable story since the share was zero less than three years ago

Of the vendors involved, here is the division of share:

Samsung achieved 26% share, nearly swapping share with Nokia over a single year. Nokia reached below 14% while Apple maintained above 14% but down from 19% the quarter prior. HTC overtook RIM with 11% vs. 9%. Sony Ericsson is around 6% and Motorola probably slipped below LG with 4% vs perhaps 5% respectively.

The absolute performance of shipments by vendor and platform follows:

      

  I maintained the historic distinction between integrated (green) and modular (brown) OS strategies to show how the value chain evolved. As Nokia swaps its share to a licensed Windows Phone the share held by integrated vendors is likely to shrink even further.

Does this mean it's the end of integration? Or even more importantly, as I have previously suggested the link, is this the end of innovation in the mobile phone market?

It would appear that with 30% smartphone share, the vast majority of phone vendors are ready to abandon any ambition to obtaining extraordinary profits from mobile devices.[1] Apart from Apple, there seems to be complete capitulation to being manipulated by platform orchestrators with unpredictable or opaque intentions.

The thesis of perpetual innovation rules this out. While new input methods offer a clue that visual interaction and the platforms that depend on it are not permanent, the fact remains that cloud computing and the coupling of additional intelligence that comes with it will enable new points of integration and the positioning of these points on new jobs to be done.

Stay tuned as we discuss the future of mobile computing. The best is yet to come.

Notes:

1. By extraordinary I mean margins above what a component assembler and distributor would be able to obtain--see the PC industry.

When a company is acquired, the price paid is usually higher than what the company is worth. This is because there is a "control premium" that needs to be paid so that the acquiring company can control the destiny of the acquired company (while the seller loses that right). So the question has to be what does the premium (or excess cost) buy? What is the value of that control? What will be the new destiny? Whose destiny is changed?

Clayton Christensen succinctly defined the value in any company as the sum of three constituent parts: resources, processes and business models. Market value can be nothing more and nothing less than these three things.

An acquisition has to be positioned on one of these targets just like a product is positioned on a specific market. The problem with being deliberate about where the value lies is that once positioned a certain way, the integration team will begin to execute on that plan. This means that the thing you decided was worth most (e.g. resources) gets all the attention and the other potential sources of value (processes or profit models) are discarded.

This argument reduces to there being three separate companies being available. The buyer pays for all but gets to keep only one.

When you look at it this way you realize that the reason most acquisitions fail is that the buyer throws away most of the real value in the company.

For example, when looking at Skype through Microsoft's eyes, they could be valuing it for its resources (employees, management team, customers, or intellectual property.) Or they could be valuing its processes (how it makes software and how it recruits customers) or it could be its business model (viral distribution, very low prices with wide distribution, plan to disrupt telecommunications). Each of these is a separate, mutually exclusive deal with separate integration plan and separate strategic justification. Each is targeting a separate Skype.

If Microsoft were to pay a premium for Skype's resources then they will probably not make use of the processes or business models. There is some value in this Skype. Microsoft could use the customer base to sustain their existing businesses and to up-sell services.

But what if the real value is not in resources but in the business model? A model which would allow for Microsoft to disrupt its core business. Perhaps Microsoft could use the Skype approach to creating new customers, eliminating its partner network and expensive direct sales force. This would be a different Skype. It would have the potential to transform Microsoft. Microsoft could become what Skype is now: a communications network or carrier that disrupts the way people use network operators.

This type of value exists in Skype but its asymmetry with Microsoft's core would make it a very tough sell internally. A recent article pointed out that when Skype was up for sale last time, Google's acquisition was sabotaged internally by people who realized that peer-to-peer would be "incompatible" with the centralized architecture of Google's services. If not for the effort of certain individuals, Google might have ended up with Skype and destroyed it with internal antibodies.

Chances are that Microsoft paid for Skype's customers and engineers but will not apply the innovations of viral peer-to-peer distribution or disruptive voice pricing. If that happens then perhaps Microsoft will pay $8.5 billion for the wrong Skype and telecom disruption will find another home.

Notes:

Adapted from an answer published in Capital.bg. My thanks to Adrian Georgiev for asking the right questions.

Michael DeGusta created beautiful and informative charts on how The Newspaper Business Implodes.

With charts, he also told the story of how the recorded music industry followed a similar path:

Image (media.tumblr.com)

He writes:

As in the music business, digital revenue is failing to make up for the loss of traditional revenue. Ominously, online revenue is largely flat, basically unchanged from 5 years ago and still below its 2007 peak.

What I find fascinating is how both industries reacted to the crisis of old media. They embraced the new "digital" distribution model, earnestly tried to transplant their business models and found no succor.

Many observers may say that both print and music businesses were "foolish" and that they ignored the new medium of web. That somehow management dithered and missed the new wave blaming failure on incompetence. Putting aside the fact that all industry participants seem to have conspired to be foolish at the same time, this is not supported by the data. As the charts show, both industries built digital businesses. Newspapers have some of the most desirable web properties and digital music is a growing business with clever new distribution deals. They became quite smart in their respective adaptations of web distribution.

They may have started slowly but there are many cases where incumbents reacted slowly to technological change, and won.

But it's not working.

The reason is that what we have here is a disruption. Unlike a sustaining technological shift, the new medium of the web did not permit the same business models to continue. Money was being made, just not in the same way and thus could not support the cost structures of the incumbents. Consumption of news and music is increasing but the way that it is valued is changing.

Furthermore, it's become modularized. All the objects contained in a newspaper could, with the web, be offered independently of one-another (opinion, news, classifieds, lifestyle can each be built by specialists.)

This is because the technology of the printing press benefits the integration of content while the technology of the web benefits the disintegration of content (similar phenomenon to the music industry's bundling into albums, vs. unbundling of digital downloads.)

Now I'm going to take a leap and suggest that a re-birth of the container of the newspaper in the tablet medium will require a re-integration once again. As I've pointed out before in The integrated iPad news daily: Read all about it! the answer is not in integration or disintegration per se. It's in approaching the question of value chain evolution with an eye toward what is good enough and what isn't. Integrate when the product is emerging and unsatisfying, modularize when the product is mature and over-serving.

We're observing the same phenomenon with television. Netflix, a distributor, is vertically integrating by entering production with an exclusive top talent series.

Developers are not the only innovators that see disruption happening. Just like in "The Daily", in music and television, talent follows where business models lead.

Yesterday I attended the first meeting of the Forum for Growth and Innovation. It's an initiative where practitioners of Clayton's Christensen's theory of innovation can review new academic research before it's published.

The Forum has another goal: to disseminate and propagate key learnings and ideas. As a keen student of the theory and a blogger, I am eager to provide a gateway for you, my audience, to this management theory.

My modus operandi has been to discuss an industry or a set of competitors in great detail while occasionally stepping back and suggesting a cause for the patterns of behavior we are witnessing. More often than not, the causes are described very well by the theories in Christensen's writings.

There are cases where the theory does not seem to match. That's actually the most exciting part of this process. Exception (or anomaly) handling is what allows the theory to evolve and improve.

Yesterday's event focused on M&A. It's a cliché to say that M&A is a recipe for failure but there are recipes to follow that minimize the chance of failure. The forum debated these recipes and we were treated to the wisdom from those who learned the hard way what works and what doesn't. (For example, the ex-CEOs of Best Buy, Arrow Electronics and a senior executive who worked under Jack Welch at GE.)

What I came away with was a new respect for the counter-intuitive and contradictory nature of acquisition integration. What often makes sense on paper like synergies or new growth can quickly turn to a loss of the core business. Recipes for deciding what to integrate and what to keep autonomous are an active area of research.

For this and many other reasons, it's easy to understand why Apple is reluctant to make large acquisitions. The market discounts Apple's cash because it is expected to evaporate in a mis-guided acquisition (since that's what management has shown a propensity to do in most other large US companies.)

I've written about why I think Apple's cash is worth more than other companies' cash (e.g. Microsoft.) Apple's reluctance to make large acquisitions and no record of such should provide some hope.

However, I don't think that reluctance is simply a coincidence or a lack of suitable candidates for acquisition. I think it's more a result of the company's processes and priorities. As long as the team in charge is focused on the details of execution and integration, and as long as acquisitions are complex and fraught with unknowable risk and lack of control, I see no acquisition in Apple's future.

Chris Whitmore predicted 2.0 million iPads would be sold in 2010 soon after the product launched. (asymco | Analysts predict iPad sales)

More recently, Chris Whitmore writes for Deutsche Bank:

"We believe Apple's lead in the tablet market will prove difficult to close by the onslaught of competing products coming over the next several quarters," he writes in a note to clients issued early Monday. "Ultimately, we expect the slew of upcoming competition to fall flat from a user experience standpoint while struggl[ing] to materially undercut the iPad on price."

How far ahead is Apple (AAPL)? According to Whitmore:

12-18 months in content (see chart)

2 or more years in terms of other media acquisition and integration via iTunes

Untold dollars in terms of component pricing

via iPad lead seen as 'overwhelming' - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Tech.
Compare this fresh (re-)assessment with the following points I made in May of this year:

The iPad comes with an even bigger value chain [than the iPod] bolted on: the App Store. Apple is flogging not just an “app player” but also a new way to develop and distribute software. If you cut “music” and paste “apps” you see the immediate parallel between iPod and iPad. The app ecosystem will quickly grow to be larger than the music ecosystem with the mobile software business already eclipsing the music business.

...

So the iPad challengers face five daunting obstacles:

Recognition of a threat from a seemingly benign product

Execution on hardware against the best integrator on the planet

Execution on software against a new UI metaphor fortress surrounded by a patent moat

Integration of hardware and software to a sublime whole

Re-building a value chain for which they have no handle vs. a broad and deep existing universe of app/content creation distribution and consumption enjoying logarithmic network effect value.

asymco | Will Apple rule the iPad market? (part II)

Welcome to the club, Chris.

Continuing from Will Apple rule the iPad market? | Asymco.

The first claim is that

it is unclear if [Apple] will end up dominating the market the way it has come to rule the digital music player market with the iPod.

After hearing a thousand voices cry out that the iPad is nothing more than a bigger iPod touch (which, plainly, it is) it's amusing to read that its similarity with a sibling ends when it comes to market performance.

Let me make one claim up-front: the iPad is more of an iPod than the iPod.

The original iPod was successful because it had a significant integrated value chain bolted on. Apple disrupted music with a value chain, not a product. It changed the way music is bought, consumed and even how it is produced. It changed the economics from retail down to songwriting.

This is why it came to dominate its market. Every competitor that took a run at it did so with a partial solution to the value chain. Often it was nothing more than a music player, and in some cases (e.g. Zune) it was bundled with some other pieces of technology, but poorly executed and too late.

The iPad comes with an even bigger value chain bolted on: the App Store. Apple is flogging not just an "app player" but also a new way to develop and distribute software. If you cut "music" and paste "apps" you see the immediate parallel between iPod and iPad. The app ecosystem will quickly grow to be larger than the music ecosystem with the mobile software business already eclipsing the music business.

A competitor launching a tablet device will have to somehow overcome the momentum of billions of downloads fed by hundreds of thousands of apps built by tens of thousands of developers for hundreds of millions of users.

The iPod juggernaut pales in comparison to the iPad supernova. The iPod had no apps or dedicated developers. Its ecosystem consisted of a handful of music companies. The only thing that made it "sticky" was the tie-in with one type of content.

The iPad on the other hand has a thousand other jobs to do for its users. It has a rich tapestry of functionality and a multi-dimensional (literally) user experience.  It's a platform. It's even powerful enough to impose new standards on the web itself and to suggest that search is a bygone activity.

So to suggest that Asus or Dell will somehow build "iPad killers" sounds asinine. These competitors don't even grasp what the product is and what it's for.  Sony said they don't see a market for it. Microsoft, trapped in the innovator's dilemma and overshooting the market by miles, said they don't understand what the point is because users want full PCs.  Google asked what's the value of a big iPod. I could go on, but there was not a single company in the industry who recognized what they were looking at in January. Apple keeps a tight lid on new products so that competitors don't get a head-start on copying, but in the case of the iPad, advance knowledge would not have had any impact. Competitors look at the iPad and see nothing.  They'll only react once the market explodes and they start to feel belated pain.

If, and it's a big if, they do recognize what an iPad is, their response cycle is going to be measured in years. On hardware, they were blown away with a product that had twice the power, half the bulk, twice the battery life with half the price of what they had on the shelf. They may catch up on hardware in a year or two and launch some sort of iPad-like assembly of components, but that is like making the first iPod killer in 2002.

Then there is software. Their software supplier (Microsoft of Google) will have to build a platform that works. That will take years. Years during which the iPad will penetrate every geography, demographic and vertical market.

Google might move more rapidly than Microsoft, but they will produce an open source poster child of a platform. Fragmented and rough around the edges to the point of looking like a hobby project. Their flea market store will also have the smell of fresh glue about it. Microsoft is so far behind the curve that I don't even think they will try to move the tiller.  Their view of the market was betrayed by the recently knifed Courier demoware. To suggest a challenge to the PC/Windows model inside Microsoft is a career-limiting move so don't expect their brightest to be lining up to propose new platforms to management.

What about HP? Assuming they overcome the pitfall of NIH that kills 80% of integration efforts, they will still need to perform an enormous amount of heavy lifting to get WebOS to be a competitive experience on a tablet. Most opinions were that Palm came pretty close with a smartphone, but that was nowhere near enough to stay alive, never mind challenge iPhone.

Then there is the ecosystem. Building it is just not something I can even begin to roadmap. What about developer tools, SDKs, frameworks and evangelism? With a Palm division, HP is the best positioned of the PC vendors but it has a chance at being a player as much as Creative did vs. the iPod, or needless to say, Palm vs. the iPhone.

So the iPad challengers face five daunting obstacles:

1. Recognition of a threat from a seemingly benign product
2. Execution on hardware against the best integrator on the planet
3. Execution on software against a new UI metaphor fortress surrounded by a patent moat
4. Integration of hardware and software to a sublime whole
5. Re-building a value chain for which they have no handle vs. a broad and deep existing universe of app/content creation distribution and consumption enjoying logarithmic network effect value.

That does not even touch the logistics, sourcing, margin and pricing challenges of world-wide distribution of the whole value chain. Nor does it cover the lock-in of advertisers to new tools for creatives or the billions of daily views from a platform that is blindingly dazzling.

To put it in the language of disruption, by the time the competitors launch symmetric attacks on the iPad, Apple will be the incumbent. And we all know that symmetric attacks never work against entrenched incumbents who have all the levers of power at hand to deploy in a withering counter-attack.