The answer, regardless of when you ask, is: The same as the current iPhone.
Of course, this is the answer to the question of what will the average new iPhone cost. The average selling price (which combines the revenues and the volumes of all units sold and is reported every quarter) has not varied very much since early 2008. To the degree that there is variance (between $600 and $700) it is due mostly to seasonality and reflects a mix of more expensive units during the launch quarters and a cheaper units during later periods when the product is older and due for an update.
The graph below shows the average selling price as a dashed line and the corresponding prices of individual product variants available for sale in the US during the same time frame. ((Prices outside the US vary depending on duties, taxes and currency hedging but generally are based on the US price))
The graph shows a high degree of consistency of pattern: Every year a new iPhone is launched which replaces the one launched the year before. The older product is still offered at a reduced price. Price brackets are very firm and set at fixed intervals about $100 apart.
A few minor changes in pattern over the years can be observed:
The original iPhone price changed due to a shift in subsidy model shortly after launch.
An increase of $50 mid-2011 when the iPhone became available unlocked.
Every three years a new, higher, price bracket is introduced, with a doubling of maximum memory capacity.
The iPhone SE was introduced at a slightly lower price.
The last year saw a slight increase in the highest price.
The overall pattern looks like a staircase with a widening price range where the lowest price remains constant and the upper price rises every three years by $100.
The "floor" of the range is a consistent $400 while the "ceiling" has expanded from $700 to about $950.
This year's ceiling is due for the fourth leg up and if the pattern persists, we should expect it to reach $1100.
This iPhone staircase has been built over 10 years and I don't see it changing over the next three. I therefore drew the blank box over what I thought would be the price range from now until late 2020.
This is what I call the staircase model of Apple pricing. The staircase model must be understood in combination with the flat iPhone average price as the product matures.
As the product matures the user base grows (to nearly 1 billion today). Later buyers will opt for the lower price points, but the availability of higher, more aspirational models (sustained by the brand) means that a minority will gravitate upward, mainly because they can. This ensures that although the median and mode of the price trend downward, the average price stays the same.
The flatness of iPhone pricing is also to be understood in combination with the flatness of Mac, iPod and iPad average pricing (shown below)
The technique of preservation of average price seems to be in effect across Apple. In other words, the evidence suggests that Apple prefers to keep average pricing for all products constant. Individual variants are priced so that, as the category matures, the changing mix leads to consistency in price ownership.
Thus the iPhone can be seen as controlling the $650 point, the Mac $1200, the iPod $200 and the iPad $450. This pricing signals the product's value and the value of the brand.
The signaling is not just to buyers but also to competitors. Ownership of price forces competitors to occupy adjacent brackets. This process begins at launch: the new Apple product is introduced in what is perceived as a premium stratum ((See for example the pricing of the new HomePod)) thus the reaction from competitors is to "undercut" it. But, as Apple climbs the price staircase, preserving the floor, it keeps competitors bunched up at the bottom. Competing in the same brackets with Apple is futile as other brands can't sustain the perceived premium position.
The result is a remarkable consistency of average pricing which, coupled with a remarkable consistency of competitive positioning, coupled with a remarkable consistency of customer satisfaction and loyalty, leads to a remarkable predictability of cash flows and ability to invest in new product creation..
Apple is thus quite easily understood as a remarkably consistent consumer products business. The only surprise that remains is how long it takes for that understanding to propagate.
From the way Apple reports its revenues you might think that the company has several operating segments. There are the iPhone, the Mac, the iPad for which units and revenues are reported. Then there are Services and Other Products for which we have revenues only.
Services is a collection of all non-hardware revenues and is (finally) being recognized as a non-trivial business. With reported revenues of $26.6 billion in the last twelve months, it's big enough to be a Fortune 100 company and set to double in four years. ((Although a non-zero business, the valuation of Services continues to confound observers who cannot separate it from the hardware businesses it attaches to--which themselves are considered near commodity value--thus paradoxically valuing the overlying asset of Services near or precisely at zero. Incidentally, Facebook is Fortune 98 at $27.3 billion and it is also one of the top 5 largest business by market capitalization.))
That leaves "Other Products" which now becomes the revenue segment that is "most likely to be ignored." This segment had revenues of only about $11.5 billion in the last 12 months which would place it at only a Fortune 245 ranking, equivalent to a Toys "R" Us or Biogen. How should we value Other Products?
Other includes many hardware products including iPod, Apple TV, Beats, Apple Watch, AirPods and, soon, HomePod. Each is a significant product, with Watch probably the largest single contributor. But since we don't have specific unit numbers, we are left guessing at the contribution of each.
The Watch itself has been a point of scrutiny as it could be initially teased out of the mix through an observation of the before-and-after launch vs. trend-line as shown below:
This separation of Watch became harder to discern after the launch of AirPods. Though they are still very hard to obtain, they might be "moving the needle" by now with a contribution that would muddy the Other category further. Same with updated Beats headphones.
This separation will be harder still with the launch of HomePod later this year. This product is priced at a point similar to the Watch and the quantities sold will be very hard to estimate without Apple's revealing of actuals.
Fundamentally however, all the "Other products" will have a common relationship to the iOS and MacOS hardware: attachment to and integration with a "parent" platform. Apple TV might be stand-alone but I strongly doubt there are many sold into offices or households which don't have iOS usage.
This means that "Other Products" are very similar to "Services" in that there is a dependency on a primary platform and, as it has been argued, they are therefore fragile. If the core platform declines then the Services and Other Products decline as well.
Given this dependency it makes little sense to carve these categories out as separate businesses. They cannot stand alone. They are very much the "children" of the parent platforms.
This is why it's assumed that Services, (a Fortune 100 company) and Other Products (a Fortune 250 company) can be discounted to zero. By focusing attention on the iPhone one can capture all the essential value of Apple. This is in contrast to the "sum-of-parts" valuation that could be applied to a set of independent business units in other companies.
And yet I started this discussion with the point that you might be tempted to look at Apple on the basis of these reported revenue segments. The choice of what Apple reports is arbitrary. It could report no segment revenues at all and publish just one revenue number. This is roughly what Google Amazon and Facebook do. Or it could report segments in some other way. For instance, app store revenues and AirPods could be reported as part of "The iPhone Division". Or maybe it could bundle all iOS devices and services and accessories into another segment called "The iOS Group". Or it could create a "Devices group" and a "Personal Computing" group. Microsoft famously shuffles its revenues into creative segments based on various organizational structures or choice of what it wants to project as its focus.
There is no limit to the ways Apple could slice revenues into segments. The reason Apple does it the way they do is mostly due to historical reasons. The company used to report the iPod separately as a segment but it no longer does. It also used to report Software separately, because, presumably, it charged for it but now it no longer does. It also separated laptops or portables from desktops.
The current reporting system is tempting us to draw certain "business unit" conclusions. These boundaries are illusions because Apple does not have business units. It has only one Profit and Loss statement (P/L) and is organized functionally. There is no "head of iPhone" or "head of Mac" responsible for each siloed revenue and cost structure. Instead, the entire business should be seen as a whole because it is managed as a whole.
This is easily evident in how the products are designed and marketed and how they are engineered. The iPhone may spawn AirPods and AirPods may have no value outside the iPhone but the iPhone is valuable precisely because it has AirPods and Apps and Music and iCloud. And Apple TV, and HomePod and whatever comes next. The reason the iPhone can be sold at three times the price of competitor products is because of the Services and Other Products and iPad and Mac symbiosis. This integration drives the satisfaction, loyalty, price and brand value. There there are the Apple Stores and the launch events and the countless details that make up the ownership experience.
The fact is that you can't slice and dice Apple.
There is one Apple and it must be analyzed as a unitary entity. That analysis is therefore difficult. It is easy to pick up the numbers given and study them in isolation. The iPhone, the iPad, the Mac. We all do that.. However we miss a great deal in doing that.
The lesson is that data we obtain leads us to see something but it also blinds us by taking attention away from what we cannot see. All data lies by omission. That which is left unmeasured may be where all the truth lies.
The iPad has an installed base of over 300 million. This is a far larger audience than that of the Mac (which has somewhere between 100 million and 150 million). And whereas the iPad acquired this audience in about 7 years, the Mac took 33 years.
Curiously however, it is the iPad that is seen as the more fragile product. The iPad is considered to be failing, with a presumption of an end of life in the near future. The evidence of this failure the year-on-year decline in units sold. This is illustrated by the following graph.
Note that the iPad decline is paired with a steady increase in the Mac. The iPad exhibits a four year decrease in overall volumes. This has, as they say, bad optics.
But what is seen isn't all that might be,
If we look further we see that the iPad is still a much loved and much used product. Data from the Pew Internet Survey shows that tablet ownership among US adults increased from 45% in April 2015 to 48% in April 2016 and 51% in November 2016. The rise has been steady. Although this counts tablets, the iPad had 85% share of the U.S. market for tablets priced above $200 so it's a fair assumption that the iPad audience is growing. Similar data exists for the UK.
In addition, user satisfaction with the product continues to be very high. Apple cited that in November, 451 Research measured a 94% consumer satisfaction rate for iPad Mini, a 97% rate for iPad Air, and 96% for iPad Pro. Finally, browsing, shopping and app usage data also show continuing high utilization for iPads.
Furthermore, iPads are still growing in "non-consuming" markets. iPad posted double-digit growth in both Mainland China and India, it continues to attract a very high percentage of first-time tablet buyers.
Finally, within corporate buyers there is a 96% satisfaction rate with 66% purchase intent. Apps and solutions are continually being developed for the platform.
Taking into account that the iPad has a large, stable, engaged and loyal user base that continues to expand and find new uses the optically bad sales data needs an explanation. The simplest explanation is probably the best: iPads remain in use far longer than phones, and perhaps even longer than some computers.
Anecdotally we can see evidence for this. Few iPads are replaced every two years the way phones are. They are not tied to service contracts or subsidized. They are also less likely to be damaged during usage as phones are dropped and banged-up. iPads are more stationary or carried in protected containers. Phones are in pockets, iPads are in bags.
So iPads are longer-lived products and it's perfectly reasonable that people who have them keep using them and more people are joining them but slowly. Note also that the decline in sales seems to be flattening out and perhaps might show stabilization.
Further countering of the iPad in decline idea is the continual improvement in the product. The latest is a refresh of the iPad with more battery life, a better screen and support for Pencil.
Perhaps the iPad will not return to rapid growth, or perhaps it will. But the more likely possibility is that the iPad will level out maintaining steady levels and, perhaps, grow slightly. This flat rather than up/down trajectory is unusual in devices but it isn't when you look at the Mac. And isn't the goal of the iPad to become a computer? If so then perhaps Mission Accomplished.
Managing the Mac product line must be one of the most challenging problems at Apple. That may not be obvious given the product's success. Consider what it has achieved:
The product is in its 32nd year of market presence. A longevity that in unmatched by any other PC maker.
Apple reached a top five position in the ranking of PC vendors. This was achieved for the first time only this year, far along in the evolution of the market.
With about $23 billion in revenues per year, Apple places among the top four PC vendors in terms of revenue.
With an estimated $5.5 billion in operating margin Apple is the most profitable PC vendor, capturing over 60% of the available PC hardware profits.
The product has retained an average selling price of over $1200 for at least a decade. At the same time the average pricing of Personal Computers has more than halved.
Although volumes have fallen for three quarters, the product grew volumes and sales for 22 out of 29 quarters. As a result, volumes almost doubled in eight years. ((The unit volumes in third quarter 2008 were 2.6 million. Eight years later they are 4.9 million and could easily be over 5 million in the holiday quarter.))
The contribution of the Mac to Apple's revenues is shown in the following graph.
It's attractive and convenient to contrast the Mac with the rest of the PC industry. A David vs. Goliath tale of redemption. The classic comeback story. But the split between the two old rivals (Windows/MacOS) focuses the mind into a limited view of the computing market. The big change in computing has not been a growing Mac vs. declining PC. It has been a huge surge in mobile device use vs. a decline in PC use overall.
This data is visible in many ways. Browsing data shows mobile overtook PC use this year. Shopping data around Black Friday points in the same direction. Data on user interaction captured by comScore is shown below ((Although US only, the global picture is likely to be even more skewed toward mobile as PC didn't saturated global markets before the smartphone swept to power.))
PC use went from half to a third of time while mobile went the other way: from a third to half of time within only four years. All the data is consistent: mobile use has swept PC use aside.
We can see the contrast simply by placing iPhone, Mac and all Windows PC on the same shipment graph.
This contrast is spectacular.
I bring this contrast up because I believe it is what focuses the minds at Apple. For them it's pretty clear where the puck is going. And not just now. Mobile has been foreseeable as a disruption to computing a decade ago–at least to some of us.
And so what do you with the Mac?
To answer this we have to ask what exactly is the purpose of the Mac in the age of the Mobile device?
Note that this is not the same as asking what is the PC in this world. The PC is not having to share a resource pool with an iPad/iPhone. It does not have to answer for its existence to a phone. PC makers and Microsoft are not fighting with an usurper in their midst. They may see the outsider challenger but it's not an inside challenger. This makes all the difference.
Indeed, because no usurper was allowed to emerge, PC/Windows never moved to a mobile evolution of computing. Microsoft's platform future was lost because the antibodies which eat disruptions were left unchecked.
But Apple's immune system was suppressed. It allowed a disruptor to emerge from within. Apple gave birth to its future by suppressing the reaction to that new seemingly parasitic organism. It took an immense willpower to allow this to happen.
But it takes us back to the question of what to do with the incumbent, the donor of DNA and resources. The parent that sacrificed for the child.
The Mac is thus not treated disparagingly. It deserves and gets respect. It is preserved but with limited responsibilities.
Which brings me to the question of what it is allowed to be and hence what it is. It cannot take on the role of being the future. That belongs to the touch screen devices. It will not morph into a touch device any more than a teen's parent will become cool by putting on skinny jeans. What it will do is become better at what it is hired to do.
The key to the Mac therefore becomes that which the iPad/iPhone isn't: an indirect input device. The keyboard and mouse/trackpad are what define the Mac. The operating system, the apps, the UX, are all oriented around the indirect input method. The iPhone's capacitive touch brought about the direct input method, a third pivot in input methods (first was mouse, second trackpad/scroll wheel). Each pivot launched a new set of platforms and the Mac is the legacy of the second.
It's not obsolete but it is a decreasing share of engagement. Alternate ways of doing the jobs it does well with direct input are emerging on the third pivot but they are not yet good enough. The children are still adolescent and making lots of stupid mistakes. There's still life in the parents.
The management thus has to focus on how to make the keyboard/trackpad interface better while still saying and believing that the future is touch.
In this context the newest MacBooks Pro are a logical extension of the second wave of computing while avoiding cramming them into the third wave. They are defined by their constraints. Seen thusly, the move from keyboard/trackpad to keyboard/touchbar/trackpad is pure genius.
The touchbar coupled to the other two inputs is a totally new way to interact with computing products. It's not an "easy" interface as it's not direct manipulation. It remains indirect, a defining characteristic of the second wave. Indirect inputs are powerful and lend themselves to muscle memory with practice. This is the way professional users become productive. The same way keyboard shortcuts are hard to learn but pay off with productivity, touchbar interactions are fiddly but will pay off with a two-handed interaction model. They are not something you "get" right away. They require practice and persistence for a delayed payoff. But, again, that effort is what professionals are accustomed to investing.
This is a leap forward and a big deal. For 32 years the UX model of the Mac has been two-handed typing with one handed gesturing. Now we have the option of two-handed indirect manipulation: one hand on the touchbar and one hand on the touchpad ((the iPad pro already encourages two handed direct manipulation)). Imagine you've been playing guitar with one hand for years and then someone lets you use your left hand. Holy cow.
Even so, it may seem that Apple is pulling punches. The product could have evolved into the full-touch, dual screens, pen input, hybrid model of Windows. But that only makes sense if you don't have a mobile product that is promising the same and tearing up the world at the same time.
You've unleashed a disruptive force and now you're supposed to retrofit the incumbent with the tools to compete. Why not just let the disruptor grow up unhindered.
The Mac is what it is because it's not alone. It's part of a family. It is a parent. It strives to be better but will not take the future from its child.
In Apple's first 40 years it shipped 1,591,092,250 computers ((including Apple II, Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod touch; excluding Apple Watch, Apple TV and other iPods. Includes Q1 shipments estimated at 63,597,000 Macs, iPhones and iPads)).
This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 40 years. Actually there are no other PC makers that are 40 years old. One computer maker (IBM) is older but they only sold PCs for 24 years and what they still sell they don't sell in high numbers.
That does not make it the top seller in a given year. Looking at only the Mac, Apple's traditional form factor personal computer, Apple has only returned to the top 5 last year. Only if including the iPad it was the top computer vendor in 2011 and including iPhone, it was first in 2009.
After having a 40 year run and after selling more computers than all American and Japanese computer companies put together, how should we think about the next 40 years?
First, clearly Apple shifted from being a "computer company". It has already changed its name to exclude the word "Computer" but that has been interpreted as saying that it sells devices (which happen to also be computers.) The word "computer" is already archaic. We stopped using computers to compute in the 40s. We used them to make decisions, keep track of things, speed things up and then to communicate and then to entertain.
Devices, it seems, are what customers mainly use to do, well, everything. Computing has grown to encompass most activities we engage in. So is Apple then a device maker?
More broadly, irrespective of the name, is Apple at 40 still defined as a hardware company? Certainly Wall Street ((i.e. average people)) still think so. The conversations one hears clearly consider Apple's future to be tied to the sales volume of specific products. At one time it may have been the Mac, another, the iPod and now the iPhone. This thinking is again a legacy of where the company was but mainly it's a reflection of how revenues are reported.
We see a line item in the income statement that says "iPhone" and it has a big number next to it so we, of course, fixate on that big shiny number. But if we were to unpack that number and see why it's so big we would discover that buyers are buying something other than what financial statements report.
Buyers are buying experiences, I hear you say. Yes, but more than that. Much more. They are buying safety, comfort, convenience, simplicity, productivity. They are buying modules to combine with other modules that help to do something. Something better. They are buying hope, satisfaction, escape or vanity. In other words they don't know what they want but know when they have it. They trust products unseen which have a reputation of delivering that which they think they might like, without knowing what that is. By employing the product, and a whole lot more—effort, time, mental energy and repetitive actions—they learn to exploit a product to achieve satisfaction.
Products are enablers, as are experiences and software and ecosystems and services. They are modules used in a melee of activity to make the user feel they are making progress. And if that module is better than no module then it will command a price and if it's better than another module or modules then it will command a premium. And if most people agree then it will be popular with many. And only if all these are true will it create a big number on a report.
And so we must search for other names to call a company that delivers an enabler that may lead to progress. Crude categorization like the reporting of finances leads to self-deception and a loss of opportunity to understand. Firms are often victims of this self-deception because they start believing that customers buy the things they sell. They start to believe that what is on their financial reports is a reflection of the value they create. It's a simple mistake to make, but a mistake which leads to catastrophe. If its data is mis-categorized, by chasing numbers the company runs away from opportunity, leaving it to competitors otherwise unencumbered with knowledge of numbers.
Assuming Apple avoids mis-categorizing what it does, will it be a "solutions" or "services" or "brand" company? Is it, as I used to say, a "blockbuster manufacturing line"?
Yes, and still that's not all it could be. Nor is it enough to understand what will come.
My simple proposal is to think of Apple (and actually any company) as a customer creator. It creates and maintains customers. The more it creates, the more it prospers. The more customers it preserves the more it's likely to persevere. This measure of performance for a company is not easy to obtain. It's not a line item in any financial report.
The closest figure we have is that today Apple has one billion active devices in use. We're not told of the total users or total customers because Apple cannot count people or wallets as accurately as it can count active devices. But as imperfect as it is, this number gives us a way to get close to counting customers.
So we know that at least Apple has created a large number of customers. Knowing total devices sold and number in use means that we can be sure that 63% of all the computers Apple sold are still in use. This means that most customers are recent customers. That is not necessarily good news. New customers are not well understood. We don't know how these new customers might behave in the future.
Will they come back for more of whatever Apple makes? If we look at the history of competitors or technology products in general, chances are they won't. The industries Apple has been a part of are filled with one hit wonders. Companies which had parabolic trajectories and built no loyalties. Statistically speaking, success in Apple's markets is always followed by failure.
But what if we did not seek correlation but looked for causation? What if we ignore statistics about companies other than Apple and focus on statistics about Apple's actual customers? Rather than assume all companies are the same, what if we assume that some can be exceptional? What if we we look for the anomalies, not the clusters?
We might want to ask about the causes of success or failure for a single company. We might want to sample its specific customers. We might want to observe how Apple's own customers behaved in the past. We might want to use theories of brand value or theories of network effects or theories of software ecosystems.
These measures, rather than those of "comparable companies" might lead to different conclusions: That customers are loyal, that they will value the brand and that they are invested in a network. In other words, that they will buy from Apple again.
If we then factor in the size and persistence of Apple's audience (customer base) we might conclude that there are factors which will allow it to grow rather than shrink. My analysis based on public data shows that the customer base has been increasing steadily.
Considering this audience and the revenues generated, we can categorize the revenue by active device as follows.
Each bar represents that product's revenue per day in a given quarter (from Q4 2012 to Q4 2015). Each year is therefore represented by a different color. Dark green for 2012, light green for 2013, burgundy red for 2014 and dark red for 2015. For example, each iPhone in use was generating exactly $1/day in revenues (including services and accessories) during the first quarter 2013.
This allocates all of Apple's revenues to these products and by proxy to customers.
In summary, the "average revenue per Apple device per day" is currently $0.68. If we assume one unique user per device then Apple collects 68 cents from each customer each day. ((In reality the figure may be closer to $1, as there are likely to be more 1.2 to 1.5 devices per person.))
Combining the history of customer creation and customer preservation with the value obtained from each customer implies that the next 40 years will be about creating another large tranche of customers whose willingness to spend on whatever Apple creates will be relatively unchanged.
We don't know the limit. One billion was hard to imagine even one year ago. We might see two billion devices in short order. Perhaps not. Perhaps as we have a multitude of devices about us all day the number will become less meaningful. But if the number of middle class customers grows and as Apple keeps its products within their reach, there is no reason to think that there will be a reversal of the last 40 years in terms of customer acquisition.
This analysis contradicts the current perception of the company as reflected by its stock price. That price assumes the audience will wither ((With a P/E ratio of 11, without a change in revenue per user, the only justification would be the audience shrinking by more than 90% over the next 20 years.)) That is not insanity. It is what we could expect if Apple were unexceptional.
We could surrender to correlation and ignore causation but statistics show that such an approach rarely works.
-------
Incidentally, this and a lot more will be discussed at the next Subscribe conference.
Apple is categorized as a vendor of consumer electronics. More specifically, a member of the "Electronic Equipment" industry in the "Consumer Goods" sector. If indeed this is what it's thought to be selling, there is a problem because it isn't what its customers are buying.
Apple's customers buy a mix of hardware, software and services under a brand that assures a certain quality of experience. This bundling and integration of otherwise disparate things is why the brand is such a success.
This anomaly between what Apple is thought to sell and what buyers actually buy can leave the casual observer confused. As a result the company's categorization as vendor of hardware deeply discounts its shares. It is, in other words a less valuable business. This is because a seller of consumer electronics does not benefit from "system valuation" since there is minimal loyalty to the product after the sale.
The consumer electronics vendor has no network to leverage, no ecosystem adding value after the sale, no platform and works through multiple levels of distribution to reach the customer. In contrast, a system vendor can expect benefits from network effects, ecosystems, and a coveted relationship with the end user.
The result is that the valuation of a consumer electronics vendor is based on the momentum of individual products. Apple has always been valued this way. Each hit product is considered to be a stroke of luck/genius and the chances of recurring are discounted to about zero. Regardless of the fact that it has a track record of "home runs", Apple's hit rate is not considered sustainable. ((The P/E ratio is the primary indicator in this analysis)). Certainly Apple is not valued as being able to generate reliably recurring revenues.
But what if we were to value Apple on the basis of what people are buying rather than what it's thought to be selling?
The model is simple enough: determine the number of users, estimate the lifespan of the products, and figure out the services attached to the products; then, given the price, obtain a price per product per day. You then can get a recurring revenue figure.
I did just that and the results are in the following table:
The first column is the product, the second is the Average Selling Price (ASP), the third is the expected lifespan of the product, and the fourth column is a calculation of the end user’s “spending per year” on the product.
The fifth column is an estimate of the revenues from Apple's Services and "Other" groups from post-sale revenues attached to the product. This Services revenue includes AppleCare, iCloud, Music, App Store, other stores, Beats, accessories, iAd, and Made for i (MFI) licensing. It also includes Google traffic acquisition revenues and other licensing.
The sixth column is an estimate of the consumer "spend per day" on Apple's product lines taking into consideration Services.
The seventh column is an estimate of the number of active devices in the hands of users. Note that these are expected to change over time.
The eighth column is a calculation of Services/Other income on a per-product allocation. This is a test of the Services+Other estimate and is meant to sum to nearly what Apple currently reports as Services+Other revenues.
The ninth column is a test of overall revenues on a per-product allocation. This should add up to total revenues (estimated for next year.) ((Naturally, the active devices estimate is the most sensitive but it should be tweaked to create a reasonable forecast for next year.))
The bottom line is the following graph which shows the revenue per device per day inclusive of Services and Other income (The sixth column).
This is, in my opinion, a reasonable way to approach valuation of Apple as a business. It's also a way to inspect its strategy.
As a valuation we can easily obtain the net present value. The model gives us sales and by estimating a net margin (which is remarkably steady around 22%) we can get the free cash flow.Iterate into perpetuity with a discount rate, and you can get the net present value of the company. With a modest growth rate leading to a billion active devices in use and a normalized revenue per device of $0.92 you can easily see cash flows equivalent to $1 trillion in present value.
But much more interesting than this value is the notion that Apple is in business to deliver a product/service mix to loyal customers and to preserve their loyalty through constant improvement and innovation. You can see strategic intent in increasing the attach rate of services per device. You can see a strategic intent in building loyalty and the right customer base which is likely to be loyal. You can see strategic intent in the iteration of the product in a way that extends loyalty and expands the solid base but also increases the $/day rate. This analysis correctly informs almost all decisions the company makes.
What we just saw in the launch of a new Apple TV and a new iPad is consistent with this strategy. Apple TV will have a higher service attach rate with apps while keeping pricing well below consoles thus expanding the user base. The iPad is increasing in price and getting more accessories. The developers are encouraged to build richer and more valuable apps that are uniquely enabled by the new device.
The fact that Apple has just launched a subscription service for the iPhone makes what was clearly their strategy all along plain to see however it has been a strategy in effect for decades.
It isn't a difficult idea to embrace. It always surprises me that it's not more commonly held. The reason may be that Apple is mis-categorized.
Or perhaps the entire categorization of industries and sectors is obsolete in what is a new post-industrial age. Some have figured this out already. Others will take longer.
The fact that the iPhone is contributing over 90% of the operating profits in mobile phone sales has penetrated even as far as the Wall Street Journal. However, it's not yet commonly known that the Mac captures a majority of personal computer operating profits, at least when considering the sale of hardware.
My calculations suggest at least 60% of operating margin in personal computing hardware is captured by Apple. This is mainly due to the fact that the average Mac sells for more than $1200 while the average PC sells for less than $450.That is equivalent to $1.5 billion per quarter for Apple vs. $930 million for all the other PC makers combined.
If we are to consider the iPad as a "PC equivalent" computer ((for a substantial minority of tasks)) then another $billion/quarter is contributed to the profit pool. It increases Apple's share of profits to 73%. As a result, Apple absolutely dominates computing profits.
But, as we know, computing, even on handheld devices, is enabled by a multitude of business models. Selling hardware is one thing, but Microsoft showed that one could sweep up profits in the industry by selling enabling software. It's much harder to assign a share of profits if we try to consider all the business models associated with computing and all the form factors that computing has taken shape in.
The problem can be acutely observed with the iPad alone. It's sold with a decent margin ((my estimate is a gross margin of around 27%)), though not one which approaches that of the iPhone ((my estimate of the iPhone gross margin is near to 48%)). It also enables an ecosystem with thousands of collaborating firms and users.
Consider the uses of the iPad in education. 15 million iPads were sold to educational institutions. An unknown number of millions have been hired for education uses by end-users or teachers. The result is over 100,000 education apps are available in the App Store.
The education sector's "jobs-to-be-done" has led to the product being associated with entire new processes for education. Education is not a product but a process and therefore any technologies must be hired as part of the process. In the App Store you can see the “Apps in the Classroom” guides along with impressively powerful apps being used in education. These are educator-created guides designed for other educators.
There is no way to measure the "profit" in this endeavor.
Nor is there a way to capture the "profit" in people engaging in exercise because they wear an Apple Watch.
Nor is there a way to track the operating profit of HealthKit which has enabled 1000 apps to help people manage their health.
These education and health efforts are not designed to be profitable. And yet Apple is very profitable. That is because creating valuable things generally leads to value being accrued by their creator. How that happens is not very important. Indeed, focusing of the how is actually often self-defeating. What matters is the why and the what is done.
Understanding this leads us to understand the foundation of any great organization, not just Apple.
Katy Huberty (Analyst - Morgan Stanley): You've said in the past that the watch may take longer to ramp given the new category and new interface to customers. Is that, in fact, playing out? Is the watch ramping slower than past product categories?
Tim Cook (CEO): Katy, when you use the word ramp, do you mean from a -- I assume you're talking about supply?
Katy Huberty (Analyst - Morgan Stanley): Yes. Pre-orders and first week in sales and any other data points that you track in terms of interest versus, say, when the iPad launched in 2010?
Tim Cook (CEO): Let me talk about supply and demand and sort of separate those two. Right now demand is greater than supply. And so we are working hard to remedy that. ((This is still true today, three months later))
We've made progress over the last week or so and we're able to deliver more customers an Apple Watch over the weekend than we had initially anticipated. We're going to keep doing that. […] So I'm generally happy that the -- that we're moving on with the ramp.
It is a new product for us, and with any kind of new product, you wind up taking some time to fully ramp.
Having said that, I think we're in a good position. And by some time in late June, we currently anticipate being in a position that we could begin to sell the Apple Watch in additional countries. And so that's our current plan. ((This has been achieved according to plan.))
From a demand point of view, it's hard to gauge when you don't have product in stores and so forth. And so we're filling orders completely online at the moment.
The customer response from people that have gotten theirs over the weekend have been overwhelmingly positive. And we're far ahead of where we expected to be from an application point of view.
To give you a comparison, when we launched the iPhone we had about 500 apps that were ready. When we launched iPad, we had about 1,000. And so our internal goal was to be able to beat the 1,000 level and we felt -- we thought it would be great if we were able to do that by a little bit.
And as I've mentioned before, we now have over 3,500 apps in the App Store for the Watch. And so we couldn't be happier about how things are going from that point of view.
We are learning quickly about customer preferences between the different configurations. There's a much larger breadth of possibilities here for customers than in our other products. And in some cases, we called that well and some cases we're making adjustments to get in line with demand.
But I'm really confident that this is something we really understand how to do and will do. And so I'm really happy where we are currently and happy enough that we're looking forward to expanding into more countries in late June.
[…]
Gene Munster (Analyst - Piper Jaffray and Co.): …question for Luca, in terms of any thoughts on what the margin impact from the Watch as that ramps over the next couple of years?
Luca Maestri (CFO): Apple Watch is, not only a new product, but it's a brand new category with a lot of new features, a lot of new innovative technologies. And Apple Watch margins will be lower than the Company average.
[…]
Toni Sacconaghi (Analyst - Bernstein): I just wanted to revisit the watch.
Tim, I think you said when you were talking about your new products, you said we're, quote, very happy with the reception. And in response to a previous answer you said, relative to demand, it's hard to gauge with no product in the stores.
I would say relative to other product launches where your commentary around demand was characterized by superlative after superlative, that assessment feels very modest. And part of the reason that I ask is, A, are we reading you right in terms of that? But if we look at consensus, consensus is expecting that Apple will ship more watches in its first two quarters than it did iPads, despite, as you said, very limited distribution in terms of only selling through your stores.
So I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about putting those demand comments in context, given that they do seem different from how you've characterized product demand for other products. And how, if at all, we should think about the modeling demand in the context perhaps of the iPad, which was your most recent significant new category? And then I have a follow-up, please.
Tim Cook (CEO): I'm thrilled with it, Toni. So I don't want you to read anything I'm saying any way other than that. So I'm not sure how to say that any clearer than that.
And in any situation, whether it's the watch or in the past on iPad or on iPhone, when demand is much greater than supply, it's difficult to gauge exactly what it is. And so, as you know, we don't make long term forecasts on here. We maybe forecasts for the current quarter. And so I don't want to make any comment about the consensus numbers.
Honestly, I haven't even studied those. We've got enough to think about here.
I feel really great about it. The customer response, literally from what I've seen, is close to 100% positive. And so it's hard to imagine it being better.
-------
Excerpts from Apple Earnings Report: Q2 2015 Conference Call Transcript, April 27, 2015.
ComScore suggests that there are 100 million tablet owners in the US. On a per capita basis that implies penetration of about 30%. As a percent of mobile phone subscribers (above age of 13) that implies 40%. As a percent of smartphone users that implies 43%. As a percent of iPhone users that represents 47%. As a percent of households assuming one device per household that implies 85% penetration. By another measure (Pew) household penetration is around 50%.
Regardless of the difficulty in defining what is the correct "addressable market", the more important question is whether tablets will be an ubiquitous object. Perhaps what we are seeing in the US is something similar to the MP3 player market or video game console markets where penetration saturated at around 50%. Perhaps tablets will reach PC levels which are closer to 80% of population or perhaps they will reach phone levels which are above 90%. The reason we can't answer the question of ubiquity easily is because competing solutions can carve the usage out of a category "disrupting" it with alternatives.
The idea that jobs are the segments into which products fit and not demographics or product attributes is key to understanding this migration. The reason phones have subsumed more jobs onto themselves is because they have a rapid rate of evolution and because they have larger scale of economy and because they are conformable to our life spaces. As phones get better they take on more jobs and some of those jobs are those of tablets. The MP3 did not become ubiquitous because the phone took its job. Same for the video game and same perhaps for the PC and tablet.
But tablets are also getting better. At WWDC we saw how the iPad got a lot better for in terms of multi-tasking, data entry and edits. With the addition of more screen space it will get better still. The improvements will mean that it will possibly be hired for jobs that PCs are still uniquely good at.
If so then the tablets can continue disrupting PCs from below. As the graph below shows, iPads have captured a great deal of the growth of the overall "computing" market as defined by the PC.
However even that growth has stalled. The combined PC+Mac+iPad market is declining suggesting that "computing" is inexorably being absorbed by the mobile phone.
Apple management remains bullish on the future of the iPad as a PC disruption. That is certainly possible to continue, especially as PC usage in enterprises needs to migrate in order to take advantage of mobile productivity. But before we see progress we need to see the iPad get better in meaningful ways.
The dimension of input and interaction seems to be about to get an upgrade. This is just what the product needs.
1. Cyanogen. This company should develop a credible path for AOSP (non-Google Android) especially in India. I expect a lot of traction as OEMs who embrace Android reject Google.
2. iPad. Not as a consumer product but for the Enterprise. The iPad grows up into a solid product for business while being replaced by phones in consumer “jobs to be done”.
Based on the analysis of Capital Expenditures (as forecast by Apple in their annual 10K report) I concluded "iOS unit shipments should be between 250 million and 285 million."
The answer turned out to be 247 million. ((Including an iPod touch estimate of 9.5 million)) Including Apple TV the total would probably be around 251 million.
Since last year, I adjusted my model by observing corresponding iOS unit shipments for the calendar year corresponding to each fiscal year. Since the calendar year is offset by one quarter (FQ1 = CQ4) looking at calendar year means looking forward one quarter post-spending. I believe this is more accurate as spending generally happens in advance of production.
The resulting pattern is shown below:
The company is currently anticipating spending $12.4 billion on non-retail CapEx. The spending for last fiscal year was almost exactly what was anticipated in the previous 10K. If we calibrate production (with a 3 month shift) to the 2014 benchmark, then 2015 calendar year would see about 310 million iOS units.
The big question is whether this will include Apple Watches. To answer this we have to make many guesses:
Does the company have a deliberate production plan for Apple Watches? What is the lead time? How quickly can production be ramped given channel and demand?
Do Apple Watches require significant capital expenditures? Do Apple Watches require capital intensity similar to iPhones and iPads? How unique are the watch cases, straps and computing cores? What are the demands of the digital crown, the sapphire crystal, the display?
The capital budget of $10.5 billion in F2014 had to cover the ramping of the iPhone 6/6Plus as well as some of the new Macs, iPads and the Arizona sapphire plant ((Note that some of that would have been in 2013 and at about $0.5 billion, the plant was about 5% of CapEx)). It also had to cover some of the new campus ((The construction cost of $1billion/yr would amount to about 8% of the capital spending (non-retail) )). In previous years the capital budget also covered data center construction ((Including vast renewable energy infrastructure)) which may not be present in the future budget.
The non-retail capital budget is anticipated to increase by 18%. There are more moving pieces next year than usual, but directionally at least, CapEx remains a strong indicator of future iOS growth. Especially as it's given to us a full year in advance.
