iPad

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.

And a lot of folks in this tablet market are rushing in and they're looking at this as the next PC. The hardware and the software are done by different companies. And they're talking about speeds and feeds just like they did with PCs

Steve Jobs, iPad 2 launch event March 2011.

I'm not above doing a feeds and speeds comparison.

All the products above have dual core processors, 512 MB of memory. The iPad processor is a bit slower. The iPad also has a slightly smaller resolution screen than a MacBook from mid 2006. However, unlike the others, the iPad has cellular broadband connectivity, loads more sensors, and a battery that will last at least 5 times longer.

It's also a lot cheaper and a lot smaller.

Although five years old, nobody would question that the MacBook or iMacs shown above are still computers. They still run the latest versions of OS X and are probably still in widespread use.

The new iPad is still not considered a computer by the majority of market analysts. One wonders how long this will go on. The specs of the iPad are just going to keep getting better...

I was only half-joking when, on first sight, I tweeted that I will buy a new iPad 2 to go with my new Smart Cover. The new iPad cover is enchanting.

It also seems to be enchanting to many.

I'm estimating that at least 60% of iPad buyers will get one. Based on an estimate of 36 million iPads sold in 2011 and an average price of $48 (70% polyurethane and 30% leather mix), the total revenue for Smart Covers will top $1 billion this year.

I further estimate that with a very modest gross margin of 75% (average cost to produce of $12), the Smart Cover could contribute $777 million to Apple's gross margins.

The iPad by itself should generate $23 billion in revenue and a contribution of $7.7 billion. That means that the Smart Cover will add 4% to sales and 9% to gross profits. If taken as a bundle, the iPad+SC will increase gross margin over the iPad alone by nearly 200 basis points (taking it from 33% to 35%).

It will be interesting to compare the Smart Cover business with competitor tablet businesses.

Microsoft's Steve Ballmer argues that the tablet computers (aka slates, media tablets or iPads) are PCs. Steve Jobs argues that they are post-PC devices. There are analogies to trucks, cars and various metaphors for what these new devices symbolize. Some argue that because the iPad needs a PC, it's not a post-PC device.

But how to define a new generation of computing? Since the PC is not the beginning of computing, it may make sense to look to the eras of computing that preceded it.

The first post-mainframe computers worked alongside mainframes and were typically used by engineering departments (vs. the finance and accounting departmental role occupied by mainframes.) They did not require a dedicated (often external) mainframe service team and could be administered by in-department system administrators. Input was not through dedicated data entry personnel and output was not a ream of folded paper. Users could use a CRT terminal to interact with the computer directly. Digital Equipment Corporation, Control Data, HP, Honeywell, Prime, et. al. grew up in the shadow of IBM but thrived. Their products were cheaper and simpler to operate. Initially, the products were not more powerful.

The first post-minicomputer microcomputers (also known as PCs) were used alongside mainframes and mini-computers. They were typically used for 2-dimensional spreadsheets analysis by individuals in many departments and were easier to justify cost-wise than the time-sharing cost structure of the incumbent computers. Many microcomputers were able to access mini-computers and mainframes through terminal emulation software (and sometimes special hardware boards) so they were still able to work with existing business processes. They did not require dedicated personnel for administration but had a shared support department. Input and data storage were on the "desktop" as was printing. Compaq, Dell, HP, Apple and IBM embraced this new form factor. Their products were cheaper and simpler to operate than the previous generation of computers. Initially, the products were not more powerful.

The first post-microcomputer tablets are used alongside microcomputers for tasks such as presentations and entertainment. They have software available that allows access to desktop computers and services dependent on PC-architectured servers. They depend on PCs for data backup and software updates. They do not require IT support. They do not require a keyboard or a desk. Apple and many mobile phone vendors are embracing the new technology. They are cheaper and simpler to operate. The new products are not more powerful.

To define a new generation of computing by its isolation and exclusion of the previous generation is not sustained by the history of computing.

I would suggest that the definition of a new generation of computing is that the new products rely on new input / output methods and allow a new population of non-expert users to use the product more cheaply and simply.

I might add that the consequences of each generational shift are:

1. Consumption increases
2. Skill required decreases
3. Support required decreases
4. There are new applications and use cases
5. The economics are not favorable for incumbents
6. The economics are favorable for new entrants
7. The older generation slowly fades through diminished growth but never disappears

As iPad shipment volumes increase and as the iPod touch becomes the de-facto iPod, it's time to look at the overall split between iOS devices.

I will focus the discussion between iPhone and iOS "others" because I believe the two categories differ greatly in terms of their positioning and market strategy due to the different channels.

The company does not provide iPod touch units shipment data but it can be estimated that, based on overall iOS numbers released in September, iPod touch represents approximately 50% of iPod units sold.

If we put all we know together about volumes, we have the following chart:

Note that iPod touch has, occasionally outsold the iPhone. The pattern of approximately equal volumes for the two types of products is likely to continue depending greatly on the growth rates.

Next, I turn the spotlight on revenues.

 

Over $10 billion flowed in from Operators, and a bit under $8 billion from other channels.

Note that I labeled the iPod touch and iPad as non-operator channel (Consumer electronics) distribution. Although this is not entirely true (and conversely iPhones are often sold through Apple stores) this gives a rough indication of split.

The iPhone business is staying ahead of the other iOS businesses but the gap is narrowing.

As previously noted, the iPhone is a unique product in Apple's portfolio. It depends on a distribution channel that no other product was designed around. This has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is a high margin due to service revenue sharing but the disadvantage of network incompatibilities, politics and a range of telecom-related regulations.

What I believe is that the non-operator channel will grow as a proportion of iOS revenues. This is both as iPad grows to disrupt personal computing and as the iPad emerges as a communications tool.

As time passes, I believe Apple is motivated to also move revenues to its traditional channels. Whether, or to what extent, cellular phones will move in that direction remains to be estimated.

The last time I took a snapshot of the iPad death watch it was March 9th, 2010. Almost a year ago. The now-classic quotes are reproduced here.  Last May I wrote:

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.

I thought that would be that. As the success of the product would become self-evident, predictions of imminent demise would trail off. The pain of share loss would prompt a wave of challenger copycats. Imitation would be the the best form of flattery.

But no.

Critics were not silenced. One year, 15 million units, and $9.2 billion later I went back to the source of the quotes and found the following (published quotes dated after March 9th 2010). (Cited from aaplinvestors.net with some editing for brevity and relevance):

“Problematically, the Android competition is just as expensive as the iPad lineup, so Apple obviously feels free to continue gouging consumers on iPad pricing.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 3 March 2011

“Apple’s iPad 2 might be ‘magical’ but it still should’ve been better ... It needs more G’s. It’s still just a toy” Zach Epstein, Boy Genius 2 March 2011

“11 reasons NOT to buy an iPad 2 ... Reason 5: Competition David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 23 February 2011

“Given what I’ve seen of Honeycomb and Motorola’s excellent tablet, Cupertino will have some serious catching up to do with their iPad 2.” J.P. Mangalindan, Fortune, 4 February 2011

“We very carefully chose our tablet processor, the Nvidia Tegra 2, and to really compete it will take [Apple] some time. You know, [Nvidia] is well known for graphics.” Jonney Shih, Asustek Computer, 3 February 2011

“If you were to ask me in two years time, will Apple have less than 50 percent of the global tablet market, I think that’s a certainty. Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics, 31 January 2011

“We have an extreme focus on the innovation of LePad and LePhone because these products will dominate the future market. Though Apple is winning a significant share in the Chinese market, it has not gained a clearly leading position yet. Our advantage is we know this market better.” Liu Chuanzhi, Lenovo, 27 January 2011

“The iPad may still be the lone leader, but with 100+ competitors on the way, it won’t likely keep its majority market share unless the pending next generation iPad really addresses all the complaints about the current version, like a missing camera and a lack of a USB port, and the company has to add those features without a major price increase - a tall order, to be sure.” James Brumley, Investopedia, 13 January 2011

“Hands-on PlayBook demonstrations at CES showed its differentiation in multitasking and performance, which may be difficult for Apple/Android to rival.” Mike Abramsky, Royal Bank of Canada Analyst, 11 January 2011

“Apple Inc.’s popular iPad is getting its strongest competition thus far as consumer-electronics manufacturers unveil tablet computers with bigger screens, front-facing cameras for video chatting and more.” Rachel Metz, AP Technology Writer, 3 January 2011

Apple may be simply trying to get in ahead of Research in Motion’s aggressively priced PlayBook or combat the early success of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab.” Rick Aristotle Munarriz, The Street, 29 December 2010

4. Competitors are coming. Brett Arends, Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2010

Reason 6: WiFi is still unreliable David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 16 December 2010

“I can’t imagine anyone under the age of 30 wanting an iPad. A PS3, Wii, GameBoy, or even a useful laptop maybe, but an iPad? Furthermore, I do not recall ever seeing anyone under 30 actually using an iPad.” John C. Dvorak, PC Mag, 13 December 2010

“We hope our tablet PCs can reach a global market share of 10-20% initially, and become the market leader in two to three years.” Gianfranco Lanci, CEO and President, Acer, 26 November 2010

“It’s a nice-to-have product, for those of us who don’t have a budget, but is it a must-have product? I don’t think so.” Ashok Kumar, Analyst, Rodman & Renshaw LLC, 12 November 2010

“Steve Jobs never says anything without thinking through it carefully. But I think in this case he may be a little afraid of this category. And he’s finding whatever he can to attack because he sees [seven-inch tablets] as a challenge to the dominance of the iPad.” Adam Hanin, VP Marketing, Viewsonic, 1 November 2010

“There could literally be millions of first-generation iPads gathering dust in people’s home offices already. This product is the tech industry’s biggest MacGuffin yet.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 23 October 2010

“I cannot see a need for the thing.”John Dvorak, MarketWatch, 22 October 2010

”For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that 7″ tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.” Jim Balsillie, Research In Motion, 20 October 2010

“iPhone and iPad have been amazing products that have opened new markets. But I do not think they will own either market in a few years. Android will.” Fred Wilson, AVC.com, 18 October 2010

“The constant search for an ‘iPad killer’ and the sheer multitude of tablet computers launching in the next 18 months should make Apple aware that its competition is fierce and will only become tougher.” Barbara E. Hernandez, PCWorld, 5 October 2010

“HP’s New Tablet Could Be an iPad Spoiler HP’s decision to bundle a tablet computer with its new $399 printer could make trouble for competitors.” Cliff Edwards and Aaron Ricadela, Bloomberg Businessweek, 23 September 2010

“Our tablet will be better than the iPad.” Chang Ma, VP Marketing, LG, 20 August 2010

“Not only is Apple typically lost in the enterprise, but it focuses very little of its time there. And with a new, potentially more compelling tablet coming — the Cisco Cius — the iPad’s success in the corporate world could be short-lived. Here’s why:... 10 The power of Windows” Don Reisinger, Channel Insider, 5 August 2010

“I don’t think there is one size that fits all…I’ve been to too many meetings with journalists who spent the first 10 minutes of the meeting setting up iPad to look like a laptop.” Steve Ballmer, Microsoft, 29 July 2010

“ [...] It still isn’t the device that I’d take to a meeting because it has no input.” Bill Gates, Microsoft, 2 June 2010

“Which means I end up on the iPad — and tablets more generally — where I started. Tablets will not create a new category, but will supplant (or merge with) one or more of the current substitutes: smartphones or netbooks.Here I am less optimistic about the iPhone and webOS than I am about Android. ” Joel West, professor of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, College of Business at San José State University, 30 May 2010

“The iPad is useless. Beautiful, but useless. The iPad is too heavy. It’s awkward to hold and view in public. It’s fragile. It requires expensive accessories to protect it and extract more functionality. ”Josh Belzman, MSNBC.com, 20 May 2010

“Mum, the iPad is not ‘amazing.’ It’s just marketed very well, both by Apple and its culpable partners in mainstream media. ” Paul Thurrott (in response to comment by Mum), Paul Thurrott’s Super Site for Windows, 26 April 2010

“In short, I don’t get the ‘magical and revolutionary’ vibe that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs touted at the iPad’s January unveiling.” Rob Pegoraro, Washington Post, 9 April 2010

“The first troubling sign is the fact that you can still get an iPad today. They didn’t sell out. The pure slate form factor has failed all these years because, other than for vertical applications, people want and/or need a keyboard for regular use. The fact of the matter is that a touch screen or bluetooth keyboard just doesn’t compensate.” Jonathan Yarmis, Ovum, part of Datamonitor Group, 6 April 2010

“I don’t get it. It costs $500 for the basic model, when you could get a laptop with a lot more functionality for about the same price. The iPad hype machine has been in full effect this week, and I still think it’s just that—hype. ” Alex Cook, Frontier Outlook, 3 April 2010

“As far as what this means to Apple, one thing to keep in mind: Even if the iPad sells more than the iPhone did in its first year, it’s still only around 5% of the company’s revenue. So it’s a very small slice. From there, it probably doesn’t grow as large as the smartphone market. So, if you’re buying under rumors, keep perspective in mind. The iPad’s a great product, but it’s probably not a game-changer.” Eric Bleeker, Analyst, Fool.com, 31 March 2010

“The iPad will remain an expensive, niche device compared to all-purpose netbooks.I think that one of the iPad’s most important uses will be for reading ebooks and publications. Even so, though, when it comes to the marketplace, netbooks will sales still far outstrip those of the iPad.” Preston Gralla, PC World, 30 March 2010

“Don’t Believe the iPad Hype. Apple has sold out pre-orders of the forthcoming device, but it could all be a marketing tactic. By not manufacturing enough iPads for the initial launch date, is this a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot?” Mike Schuster, Minyanville.com, 29 March 2010

“‘iPad Killer’ May be Palm’s Last Hope”Tom Bradley, PC World, 20 March 2010

“Even if your company has relented and now supports the iPhone, as growing numbers of businesses do (70% of the Fortune 100 are at least testing it, says Apple) you’ll want to say “No” to the iPad and other tablets. Here’s why: 8. Speaking of money, there is no money in the company budget to pay for iPads. 9. Not supporting iPad will be the enterprise norm. Robert McGarvey, CIO Update, 16 March 2010

“This morning, the fool’s parade gets started. Apple is taking online “pre-orders” for its iPad tablet, which is supposed to begin shipping on April 3. Buying a new kind of product sight unseen is foolish. Especially given how mysterious Apple has been on what the iPad can do and what restrictions on capabilities and media access it will place on users and content providers.” Galen Gruman, InfoWorld, 12 March 2010

“The recent launch of Apple, the iPad tablet, has won the award for the second edition of Fiasco Awards delivered this Thursday in Barcelona. From the more than 7,000 people who voted via the website www.fiascoawards.com, 4,325 have considered it the fiasco of the year. Fiasco Awards, 2010, 11 March 2010

“I think I’ve mentioned this once or twice before, but it bears repeating until it sinks in: the Apple iPad is not unique, nor necessarily the best of breed in the media tablet sector it is spearheading. And it ain’t gonna help Apple shareholders any.’” Anders Bylund (TMF Zahrim), 11 March 2010

From this critical review, it looks like 2011 will indeed be the year of the iPad 2.

On the eve of iPad 2.0, it's time to think again about this curious new computer. My intuition tells me that this product category will behave very differently from the iPhone and will not be subject to the same sales ramp.

The iPad has been on the market for less than a year but it's still a puzzle for many. It's a product that's often seen as an iPhone product line extension. From a hardware point of view, it certainly seems to be. It has an almost identical internal architecture and uses almost the same software. An engineer would look at it and reasonably say it's the same thing.

However, from the way it's used and the way it's sold, it has very little in common with its smaller cousin. There are plenty of experts who can detail how the products are used differently, but I would highlight the portability of the iPhone makes it suitable for a completely different set of tasks than the less portable but more immersive iPad.

But what I want to dwell on here is how differently the products are sold.

I'll build the case from evidence that Apple provides. The most important observation is that the iPad is an unlocked product. Although you can hire an operator to provide you with data services for it, the product is designed not to rely on that. As a result the product is effectively "divorced" from the operator channel. This means it does not typically benefit (or suffer) from subsidy.

This may seem an interesting side-note to the iPad story, but I think this is a central pillar of the market strategy. The iPhone was designed around a high-ARPU data plan. I've even suggested that the iPhone is nothing more than a data plan wrapped in glass and polished metal. Because it was designed to enable migration of cellular voice users to data plans, it's priced to skim profits from the migration. At some future point in time when a skimming strategy is no longer optimal, the iPhone might be re-positioned for penetration, but that time is not now.

As part of a skimming strategy, the iPhone has a limited distribution channel. It's only sold through special agreement with selected operators. Again, timing is crucial. That channel is expanding, but for nearly four years the product has not been positioned for sale through any channel other than Apple retail and Operator retail.

On the other hand, the iPad is marketed for penetration. It had a low price and an unlimited distribution strategy. It could be sold through any consumer electronics product point of sale. And then some. It could conceivably be sold through as many if not more points of sale as the iPod (i.e. tens of thousands.)

It can be sold in any country, can be distributed through middlemen and can be priced arbitrarily [1]. It can be bought in bulk by companies or schools or hospitals. It can be re-sold in a secondary market. It is essentially a perfectly liquid commodity.

Now we can step back and ask why and what are the implications for competitors.

The reason the iPad was positioned asymmetrically to the iPhone is, I believe, because it could be. I believe that the iPhone is sold the way it is (through operators) because that's the only way it could be sold effectively. Cellular products have always come with lots of fine print, footnotes and asterisks rooted in the regulatory environment that underlies the industry.

The iPad is a product built and sold along the lines of the Mac and the iPod--unrestricted by orifices and aligned with the unregulated environment that computers have always enjoyed. Essentially, for the iPhone, Apple chose to go along with the telecom industry's rules but as soon as it had a product that did not need to comply to those rules, it ran back to its comfort zone: control.

If we take this to be the cause, the implications for competitors become clearer. Apple is more in its element selling the iPad than it is in selling the iPhone. Other tablet contenders however are in an opposite strategic stance. Almost all the credible tablet alternatives rely on the telecom channel for distribution. The rush to build iPad alternatives is as predictable as the derision that was poured on the product when it was launched.

But the alternative products are positioned in different ways. They are positioned as big phones.

Which brings me to my final point: selling big phones is hard.

These products are not compliant with what users expect from an operator: a service plan. As a result they are also not competitively priced with the iPad. Apple engineered a price for the iPad that makes comparisons extremely favorable. Buyers know the thing they are buying is not a phone so they look at the price carefully.

But the most crucial weakness of alternative vendors is the fact that operators don't know how to sell tablets. Tablets are small computers. They are bought in the same way that buyers buy laptops: in-store testing. Notice that except for the iPhone operators only provide phone mockups in their stores. This is because they want buyers to discuss their purchase with a sales rep. This is not the way laptop hunters shop. Another tell-tale sign of a disconnect between operators and tablets is that operator shops are physically tiny. PCs (and tablets) need large tables for users to look, touch, heft and fondle. Just on square feet alone, operators and tablets are not a good match.

If you need any more evidence, consider the plight of operator-subsidized netbooks.

 

---

Notes:

1. I realize that this is not currently true and the distribution is limited but that's only a matter of supply constraints. There is no theoretical positioning limitation.

 

The world's largest PC company just launched a "media tablet[1]". Conflating the iPod Touch and iPad brands into "TouchPad" HP joins RIM in announcing an integrated OS/device product to compete as a platform vs. iOS and Android (and to some degree even against Windows).

There are others waiting in the wings. Presumably, Microsoft is hard at work to release a tablet-compatible Windows sometime near the middle of this decade. MeeGo is also going through its gestation period targeting Atom-based tablets. John Gruber notes the excitement around tablet platforms in his article about this post-PC renaissance in computing alternatives. I also noted that the end of the PC era was marked by the end of WinTel at CES.

In that context, yesterday's WebOS event was perhaps anticlimactic. But it's still remarkable. Consider how far we've come. Step back now and remember the dark days only one year ago when, right after the iPad announcement, a  nearly unanimously chorus was pouring derision on the concept.

AAPLinvestors is still maintaining the iPad death watch which I took a snapshot of back in March 2010. To reminisce: It was exactly one year ago, on Feb. 10th 2010, that Bill Gates was quoted as saying "It’s a nice reader, but there’s nothing on the iPad I look at and say, ‘Oh, I wish Microsoft had done it.’" On the same day, Shannon Zimmerman of The Motley Fool wrote: "[Apple's] hamster-wheel of innovation ... may have hit a snag with the iPad." Those are just two of dozens other memorable quotes.

I noted last May that the secrecy surrounding the iPad prior to launch was unnecessary. Nobody understood the product for months after it launched (and many still don't a year later).

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.

Indeed, responses only came after sales figures started to cause consternation among competitors.

How did these presumably keen observers of the market fail to notice the sea change under way? This is not just a rhetorical question. It really is hard. Students of disruption know that spotting such change is a difficult skill to obtain. But it is a skill, not a gift.

So here we are, 12 months later and the derision has turned to flattery by imitation. The only scorn I hear about the TouchPad is that it can't come to market fast enough.

----

1. I find this term repugnant and highlight it here only to ridicule those who coined it.

The iPad and iPhone came, saw and conquered new markets. But since the products launched the question on every analyst's mind has been on how much have these products "cannibalized" their brethren the iPod and the Mac.

This notion of "cannibalization" applies when a product is designed to compete and "eat" the share of another product in a company's portfolio. It has some negative connotations since it implies loss but many times the thinking is that it's better to cannibalize oneself rather than have it done by a competitor.

But have iPhone and iPad taken share from their competitors?

The following charts compare the total units of iPhones vs. iPods and iPads and iPads vs. Macs.

The evidence does not show cannibalization.

Although both iPhone and iPad have crossed over and are selling more units than their internal competitors, the old guard has not faded away.

Indeed, the Mac shows resilience and the iPod, although not growing in units has maintained sales value. What we don't see is a clear gain for the entrants at the expense of the incumbents.

We can't be sure how long this happy co-habitation will last, but for now the new products are fine and young but not cannibals.

Professional analysts' first year iPad unit forecasts (sourced from TMO Finance Board)

• Brian Marshall, Broadpoint AmTech   7.0
• David Bailey, Goldman Sachs           6.2
• Kathryn Huberty, Morgan Stanley     6.0
• Shaw Wu, Kauffman Bros.              5.0
• Mike Abramsky, RBC Capital Markets   5.0
• Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray           3.5
• Ben Reitzes, Barclays Capital           2.9
• Keith Bachman, BMO Capital         2.5
• Jeff Fidacaro, Susquehanna           2.1
• Chris Whitmore, Deutsche Bank       2.0
• Scott Craig, Merrill Lynch               1.2
• Peter Misek, Canaccord Adams       1.2
• Doug Reid, Thomas Weisel             1.1
• Yair Reiner, Oppenheimer             1.1

Here are the predictions from Tech Bloggers:

• Clayton Morris: 9
• John Gruber: 8
• Horace Dediu: 6
• Natali Del Conte: 5
• Ross Rubin: 5
• Mike Rose: 4.5-5
• Jason Snell: 3
• Andy Ihnatko: 3

Apple sold 14.8 million iPads in 2010.

I sometimes use the phrase "unforeseeable growth" to describe the kind of growth that not even the most knowledgeable observers of a market can predict. It's usually an indicator that fundamentally transformational change is taking place.

It's not a sufficient condition, but it's clear that "nobody saw it coming" is a common refrain when disruptions are seen in the rear-view mirror.

If analysts, to a man, fail, you can be sure that competitors are no wiser. This collective shrug amounts to the greatest competitive advantage any entrant could ever hope to obtain.