Before diving into the answer to the question in the title, there is some new data to digest.
The latest from comScore shows consistency with the previous months of smartphone growth in the US.
The growth rate was 607k/wk new-to-smartphone users. This is slightly down from 654k/wk for the previous month but up significantly from 450k/wk the year before.
The penetration of smartphones reached 38.5% (non-smartphones are at 62%)
The penetration should reach 50% before September 2012 with about 1.2% being converted every month.
The following chart shows the weekly add rate with a three-period moving average:
This chart is important in that it should first show signs of inflection in growth. That does not seem to be happening yet.
The installed base by platforms is shown below:
Android is estimated to have grown to 41.7 million users in the US, adding 2.5 million users in the last month. Android is adding half of Microsoft's entire US mobile base every month.
RIM BlackBerry lost one million users in October. RIM's slide has accelerated again with over 3.7 million leaving the platform in the last six month. With 15.5 million subscribers, RIM has fewer users in the US today than it did in late 2009.
iPhone gained 1.34 million. Installed share increased slightly to 28% from 27.4% the previous month. There are now over 25 million iPhone users (above age 13) in the US.
Windows Mobile/Phone had no perceptible change (-34k) indicating perhaps that the losses in Windows Mobile are being erased by gains in Windows Phone. Microsoft's platform stopped losing significant users six months ago. Whereas the bleeding has been stopped, overall number of users remains at a rather poor 5 million or 5.4% share.
"Other" which includes Symbian and WebOS lost another 184k users to reach only 2.7 million users.
There are still 144 million smartphone non-consumers.
Android and iPhone now make up nearly three quarters of all smartphone ownership in the US. That's a total of 67 million users. With no sign of slowing, the chances are that there are at least 100 million users still remaining to convert. Sounds like an attractive target. But that target is shrinking fast. The rates of adoption signal saturation of most likely buyers will happen toward the end of next year.
At least 25 million new Android users will be gained and at least 10 million new iPhone users will be created in the next 12 months. That's 35% of remaining non-consumption. Assuming some acceleration, it's not hard to see 50% being claimed by the two entrenched incumbents.
This leads to an interesting positioning question. Is Windows Phone destined to compete with consumption or non-consumption? If traction is not forthcoming in the next 12 months, that leaves a very difficult last 50 million available as non-consumers. They are more difficult as they will be late adopters and perhaps more price sensitive and less motivated by features.
Windows Phone still has quite a bit of opportunity outside the US, but in the US (and in Europe which is not much different) the competition will increasingly be with rival incumbencies not with non-consumption. As the custodians of the Windows franchise, Microsoft should be well aware of the inherent difficulties with competing with installed platforms.
It has no price and hence there are no ways markets can signal demand or value creation. Furthermore, Android is not being offered to users like the iPhone. Android's "customers" are phone vendors who package the software with additional value-added hardware and sell the combination to operators or distributors who then package it further with services and offer the total to end users.
So obviously, comparisons between Android and iPhone center on instances of Android used in real products and the "market performance" of Android therefore relies on these proxies for Android — the aggregate sum of products that have some form of Android in use.
I wrote this in response to a very short brief: "We're looking for an editorial piece that comes down on either side of the debate of iPhone vs. Android". The challenge I saw was on the approach to the question of "iPhone vs. Android". I chose to measure value creation by the means available to shareholders.
I began thinking carefully about Apple in 2005 when the stock was priced at around $55/share. I remember that the events which made me consider Apple in a different light were the launch of the iPod shuffle and the launch of the Mac mini. Both moves signaled to me that the company was serious about competing with non-consumption. At that point I thought that the company was a potential opportunity as an investment.
But I also remember that many people at the time thought that the stock price was too expensive. At $50, the company was much more expensive than the year before. The stock started 2004 at about $11/share. The reason it had climbed so much was that the iPod began to be a real world-wide growth phenomenon. Buying Apple was buying into the iPod and many said the price was unsustainable given such a strong dependency on fickle consumer tastes. It was a much riskier proposition than that of competitors like Dell and HP which made product for reliable buyers like enterprises.
Indeed, by 2006, the shine was off. In the first half of 2006 the stock collapsed from $85 a share to $50, a fall of 40%. It was becoming clear that with mobile phones taking on more music playing features, the iPod was not going to be a big story for long. What's more, Apple had just announced that they were switching to Intel for the Mac product line. Investors saw just how vulnerable the company still was and considered that the Mac brand was in jeopardy as it transitioned to becoming a Windows-friendly machine.
However, in 2007 the company's value recovered with the introduction of the iPhone. Suddenly there was a new product to drive sales. Nobody knew by how much or how but there was a sense that the iPhone was enough to keep Apple from oblivion.
Yet, again, in early 2008 the company lost 40% of its valuation. In a rather inexplicable period following the launch of the MacBook Air, the company's shares went into free fall. Inexplicable because the company continued to deliver solid growth with 2008 calendar quarters showing between 32% and 155% EPS growth.
Then the recession came. It caused another 40% share price collapse. Growth slowed to a range of 11% to 61% during 2009. As the marco "headwinds" blew over, by the end of 2009, with the help of a lukewarm response to the iPad, the company's value recovered to its 2007 level. In the mean-time its earnings more than doubled.
It may not appear to be the case, but throughout this volatile period, the investment thesis remained fairly constant: Apple is a rather small collection of product bets. Owning Apple meant riding the iPod or the iPhone or the iPad as waves of growth. As soon as one growth wave was seen to start to fade, investors would say the same thing: Apple is done.
The chart below shows just what that looks like in terms of product contribution to gross margin.
The investment thesis is the same today. I've had dozens of conversations with fund managers and if anything, it's even more about betting on products. The iPhone and the iPad make up such a large part of profits that the company seems to be nothing but those two things. So if there is any hint that those products might slow down, the stock is sold off.
What intrigues me about this investment thesis is not whether the signals of growth are interpreted correctly or not, but rather that an investor in Apple in 2006 was considered perfectly rational valuing Apple as an iPod company as much as an investor today is perfectly rational valuing Apple as an iPhone company. Why would anyone buy Apple for any other reason? There is no evidence that Apple can be anything more. Any fund manager positing a different point of view would surely be limiting her credibility.
The consensus is that the value of future, unknown products is zero. Not only that but the probability that there will be any products at all is equally zero. Not only that but whatever Apple does to create new products is not perceptibly valuable. The company is simply the sum-of-the-product-parts and nothing more. Cash flows from current products can easily be shown to be more than the current valuation so even these products are deeply discounted. If and when a new product shows up, it will be considered and maybe if it shows promise, the stock will reflect that, briefly.
A corollary to this investment thesis therefore is that the process of product development at Apple is worth nothing. It does not matter if the company has shown an ability to disrupt and to create new categories. The past is not a predictor. The value of the company is a discounted cash flow of current products--discounted for the odds of commoditization, which are seen to be quite high. A new hit product is a windfall, a winning lottery ticket. Something that you cannot count on.
Think about that in a different context. That's like valuing Pixar on the box office revenues of its current movie. If Cars 2 is not beating records, Pixar is suddenly nearly worthless. The fact that Pixar repeatably creates blockbusters would be seen as meaningless. The way they built a reliable pipeline with predictable cost structures for movie-making is not interesting.
However, the fact is that Pixar did not get acquired on the basis of the last hit it made. It was acquired for its system of production. This can be confirmed not only by the price paid but by the fact that the organization was not folded into the Disney machine. It stands alone and is given autonomy. So at least in the movie making industry, predictability is seen as valuable.
So why is Apple not valued as a process company?
I think the answer lies in the lack of understanding or belief in a theory that predictable success in product development is possible. Until and unless an explanation is available that persuades a majority that Apple is as much a hit factory as Pixar then Apple without the products will intrinsically be valued at zero.
The premise of the stock market today is therefore that being innovative in technology is meaningless. Innovations are valuable but there is no such thing as an innovation process. If there was such a thing then we could measure it and put a number of its value. Until then innovation is nothing more than a spin of the roulette wheel.
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:
Android (and Android-like): 17.6%
iOS (iPhone only) 4.4%
Nokia Symbian: 4.3%
BlackBerry: 2.76%
Bada: 1%
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:
By extraordinary I mean margins above what a component assembler and distributor would be able to obtain--see the PC industry.
On October 27th, Nintendo published half year results for the fiscal year ending in March 2012. Management stated that the company lost over $900 million with a negative outlook. Nintendo cited weaker than expected sales of Nintendo DS hardware and 3DS software and Yen appreciation as the main reasons for the miss. Is this the end of Nintendo?
Before we look more closely, here is a quick summary: The company is exclusively involved in selling game hardware and software. Their console platform is the Nintendo Wii, which will be followed by the Wii U late in 2012. The Nintendo DS and Nintendo 3DS are the company’s portable game consoles. The Wii and the DS are nearing the end of their product cycles. On the software side, the company is known for gaming titles such as Super Mario and Zelda. Nintendo also pioneered the licensing model to allow third-party developers to produce games for its hardware products.
A closer look
The good news for analysts is that Nintendo publishes their estimates for hardware and software unit sales. This allows us to measure management predictive accuracy. The red line (management forecast) should be as close as possible to the dark green pillars (realized unit sales in the fiscal year).
Until CQ1 2009 devices sales grew in excess of forecasts. A similar pattern can be found for consoles and game titles. After Q1 2009 forecasts have been always higher than results, and more worryingly, the deviation between forecast and sales is widening. Management missed and lowered forecasts for two consecutive years. Management's hope for an increase on the back of initial 3DS sales in the launch quarter (CQ1 2011) did not come to pass and they subsequently lowered forecasts again in the following two quarters.
Looking at all categories, management lowered forecasts almost continuously. The deviation remains the largest in the portable hardware business segment indicating that management was largely surprised about the development.
What caused this reversal of fortune?
Two years earlier the iPhone had launched and by CQ1 2009 iOS reached an installed base of about 38 million, half the number of Nintendo portables in the same period. Furthermore, in CQ1 2009 Android phones came to the market. Smartphones (light blue area of the chart below) sold before (and after) the debut of iOS, but the iPhone redefined the category and an avalanche of smarter phones running iOS and Android followed (blue and orange area). Portable gaming devices from Nintendo and Sony declined ever since: 17% in 2009, 31% in 2010 and already 16% in the last twelve months.
How do the game players stack up?
We already looked at the installed base in the chart above. iOS and Android have outsold Nintendo portable units by a factor of 2.1x and 1.6x. Furthermore, we can see (in the charts below) that the two main mobile platforms have 14 to 26 times more game (and entertainment) titles available. Nintendo and Sony also publish unit sales of directly sold software titles. For Android and iOS we know the cumulative app download statistics. By taking the share of Septembers’ paid and free app downloads as a proxy, we can conclude that also by this measure Android and iOS dwarf Nintendo and Sony [1]. The reach of iOS and Android is further underlined by the more than 500 million downloads of Angry Bird game titles - first released only two years ago - for any platform having sold more than twice the amount of Sony’s cumulative portable game titles and almost as many as Nintendo’s cumulative games titles since Q2/2007.
Who else has skin in the game?
Besides Nintendo, Sony, Apple and Google, who else is making a push into mobile gaming? Before investigating, let’s first have a closer look at Sony. Sony, just like Nintendo, is also active in stationary gaming segment with the PlayStation franchise. The Sony group also has access to entertainment most notable through Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony Music Entertainment. Furthermore, Sony recently decided to buy Ericsson’s stake in the mobile phone joint-venture Sony Ericsson and is making a push with Android to bring its gaming titles as a differentiator for its own products to the platform. And the other major suspects? Microsoft, also active in the stationary gaming segment with its Xbox franchise, is pushing to bring the Xbox experience to mobile phones with Windows Phone. Amazon has retailed software and games for years and has started to distribute software and games via direct download on its own Kindle devices but also for the Mac. On the Kindle, Amazon is relying on a forked Android version on which it leverages its eBook and other entertainment assets. And then there is Facebook, a social network that wants to be on any platform or device. Out of 800 million users, 350 million access Facebook via a mobile device. Around 50% of Facebook members play games on the desktop. With Project Spartan, Facebook is aiming to bring the desktop experience to the mobile device including a stronger focus on gaming and video.
The competition between Apple and Google is already asymmetrical. Including the other contestants in the competitive landscape reveals Nintendo’s key weaknesses in the portable gaming market: attraction as a platform for developers in terms of ease and reach, pricing of hardware competing with operator-subsidized mobile phones and the jobs-to-be-done or value preposition. The new generation of mobile devices is standing against Nintendo’s dedicated approach. Although slowly adding features such as a browser and “app store” to its portables, Nintendo devices fall short in the variety of jobs-to-be-done compared to smartphones, let alone making a call.
Average selling prices and financial impact
With this market pressure one would imagine that average selling prices decreased for Nintendo portables. But for the last three fiscal years average selling prices for portables have increased, all things equal, mainly due to new product launches. Game title’s average selling prices have remained relatively flat. Note that these are wholesales prices for hardware and a mix of retail and wholesale prices for games. In 2011, for which we do not have data yet, the price of the newest portable, Nintendo 3DS, was lowered from its U.S. debut of 320 250$ in February to 170$ in July which will have a negative impact on ASP going forward.
The effects of Nintendo’s rigid strategy and the fast changing competitive landscape are manifested in the devastating financial performance over the recent quarters with LTM sales, gross margins and EBIT margins declining starting from CQ4 2008 and even accelerating to decline after CQ3 2010.
Furthermore, even though the company has recognized its own difficulties, Nintendo has no intention of adjusting its strategy:
CEO Iwata on the question of whether Nintendo plans to bring its game library to other platforms:
This is absolutely not under consideration. If we did this, Nintendo would cease to be Nintendo. Having a hardware development team in-house is a major strength. It’s the duty of management to make use of those strengths. It’s probably the correct decision in the sense that the moment we started to release games on smartphones we’d make profits. However, I believe my responsibility is not to short term profits, but to Nintendo’s mid and long term competitive strength.
Although realized and obvious, the disruption’s invisibility is often manifested in the paralysis of the incumbent.
Conclusion
According to Isaacson, Steve Jobs apparently always worried who could eat Apple's lunch. The lunch of the iPod, he concluded, was ripe for mobile phones. Subsequently, Apple entered the mobile phone space. Google followed. Since then more powerful mobile phones have eaten the lunch of the dedicated gaming device. The jobs-to-be-done and their priorities in people’s life have not changed, but the tools people use to get them done have. Permanently.
---
Notes:
Estimated by multiplying total cumulative app downloads with September’s share of game downloads: For iOS ranging from 72-80% based on Top 150 free and paid app downloads, for Android ranging from 38-47% respectively. This is a very crude estimation, but the gist of it is that 4% for iOS and 11% for Android game downloads as percentage of cumulative app downloads would outsell Nintendo.
In the recently posted US Smartphone Landscape I used comScore's data to paint a picture of the growth of smartphones in general and the shape of the mobile platforms in the US. The source was survey data measuring the installed base. If we compare the installed base sequentially, we can get the increase (or decrease) of a particular platform. Comscore reports monthly but we can also summarize the data at a quarter-by-quarter basis.
There is another source however for the US market, at least for the iPhone: operator activations. They report iPhone activations, shown below.
Can we use activations together with installed base data to learn something about the market? Yes, with some caveats.
First, it should be noted that install base should account for all sorts of devices. They could be new, old or hand-me-downs or purchased used. Changes in install base would come from addition of new devices but also from devices being discarded and users leaving the platform. Activations on the other hand include units new units but also those which have been re-activated after initial sale because they were either sold or given to other users. As far as I know operators do not report "net" activations so lost users are not included.
When the formulas are combined[1], what we get is the change in installed base is equal to Activations minus "discarded" iPhone, where "discarded" are both iPhones put aside in favor of a new iPhone or put aside in favor of another phone.
Since we have installed base change data and we have activation data we should be thus able to derive the number of iPhones being "discarded" or put out of use every quarter as the difference between activations and change in installed base.
That allows the following chart to be built:
The green, dark blue and orange areas are given inputs and the light blue area representing discarded phones is derived.
This is an interesting (new) piece of information. What it suggests is that at least in the US the discard rate, i.e. number of phones being discarded over number of new phones is about 50% (56% on average over seven quarters.)
It's a rate I find surprising because I expected more of the phones to be re-used. But more surprising is that it leads to some surprising and possibly implausible behavior at AT&T.
If you look at the last three quarters, you can see that Verizon activations are very nearly equal to the increase in install base. As all Verizon users are new, they are certainly not replacing iPhones, so the green bars next to the yellow bars imply that all those new users are Verizon users. But that means that all the activations through AT&T were to replace existing phones and that AT&T only added a bit more than one million iPhone users in nine months.
In quarters prior to Verizon's launch, the AT&T discard rate was a modest 60% on average and after Verizon launch it went to 81%.
What does it mean?
---
Note:
The following diagram shows the derivation of "discarded" units.
In Apple: For What It’s Worth Jeff Matthews asks a question "about the most disturbing pattern coming out of Apple’s earning release: the measly 1% year/year revenue increase at Apple’s retail stores".
He notes that prior to the drop, Apple stores were growing at 36%. Such a huge drop quarter on quarter seems suspicious and he thinks something is happening.
Something is happening.
To find out what, let's start with the revenue from Retail that Apple reports[1]
The concern is with that low growth between calendar Q3 last year and this year. That is being contrasted with the growth in the previous quarter (Q2) of 36%.
When seen as a chart, the explanation for a big change in growth is perhaps easier. The third quarter of last year was a boom for retail and the quarters that followed were more-or-less similar in sales level.
With this perspective, it's clear that there was a surge in sales during the last year which did not repeat this year.
But what's the cause for this pattern? If we know the cause can we predict if retail sales growth will increase or decrease?
Consider the following compound chart:
The chart shows three different quantities.
The original retail sales values in "hollow" bars
The growth in those values year-on-year (in a line chart)
A "proxy" candidate for retail growth explanation: the sum of US phone activations and in-store CPU units sold as a stacked bar chart.
The choice of proxy includes the blue bars which Apple reports as in-store "CPU units" and the US phone activations[2] coming from AT&T and Verizon[3].
We can see now that there is a strong relationship between iPhone sales growth and store sales growth. The Mac business is growing but not in the bursty way that iPhones are growing. The growth of US iPhones matches the growth in (US mostly) Apple retail. This should not be a surprise.
The bursty nature of iPhone means that store growth varies just as dramatically. I highlighted that during the period of Q4 2008 to Q1 2010, Apple store revenue grew at an average of 7.3% but following the "big bang" of the iPhone 4 launch they grew at 79% over the subsequent five quarters (because the comps were easy).
In the latest quarter the growth dropped as there was no launch of a new iPhone to top the big bang of a year earlier. Even so, store revenues actually increased by a slight amount.
Knowing that the comp with the year before was so tough the surprise isn't that the growth slowed, it's that there was any growth at all.
If iPhone as a cause for growth in retail is to be believed, then how hard can it be to forecast retail growth in the future?
---
Notes:
Apple does not submit this information to the SEC but reports it (exclusively I believe) during the earnings conference call. Transcripts are available on seekingalpha.com but fortunately they are recorded as well by Gary Allen at ifoapplestore.com.
I used US data for the iPhone as most of Apple stores are in the US. The global pattern is similar.
I had to estimate Verizon units used during the last quarter as they have not been reported yet. I used a similar ratio between AT&T and Verizon as for the last quarter.
Last quarter I was wrong because I thought Apple would throttle production of the iPhone 4 in the fourth quarter post-launch. "The reason growth would moderate was that Apple slowed production of the old model in order to switch out to the new model--we saw the same thing happen with the slowdown in iPad 1 and transition to iPad 2."
As a result I seriously under-estimated iPhone volumes in the second quarter (FQ3). That failure led me to question whether the theory I was using in forecasting was still valid. When it came time for a new estimate I hesitated.
I had to choose whether to apply the old seasonality theory or to assume that the game had changed and that the product would now grow organically.
The first assumption would put the iPhone growth at 100%+ while the second would place it in the 60% to 80% range. I decided to dial in a figure somewhere in between at 90% but I’m not very confident in this
The result was an over-estimation by almost the same error as that of the previous quarter. Most of the other product lines were accurately predicted, but again, as a always, the whole forecast rides on the iPhone.
So where does that leave the theory?
I now believe that the iPhone behaves far more consistent with the original theory. Namely that...
Overall production capacity is increasing at approximately 100%/yr.
There is significant seasonality due to production ramps as the product is updated on a yearly cycle. These cycles are tuned to reach maximum throughput during the US holiday period. I discussed this theory here.
Demand is practically unlimited and is throttled by both production schedule and distribution agreements
The first point is not controversial. The iPhone continues to grow at triple digits rates. The second quarter's 142% growth and the first quarter's 113% growth more than makes up for the 21% of the third. Fourth quarter promises to be exceptionally strong with management clearly guiding for a blockbuster.
The point of contention was number 2. If we look at the following chart, we can observe that it still holds:
Each new iPhone launch was preceded by a quarter where units went down sequentially. The same has happened with the iPad for the one tradition we've had so far.
Regarding the third point, Balance sheet analysis shows that investment in manufacturing process equipment installation slowed in the March quarter. That was not matched by a decline in the June quarter sell-out however it does correspond with a slowing in the September quarter. Using the PP&E line is something I'm still exploring but it does seem that there is support for the theory.
Mea Culpa
I made an error in abandoning my theory. I thought I had discovered an anomaly that made it invalid. I was wrong. I read too much into the late in cycle boom. I bought into the notion that the product was in a new pattern of behavior--due to expanded channel or broader portfolio. This was a mistake.
Footnote
There was one other bit of data that was offered to us which we ignored. At the 4S launch Tim Cook gave us a warning. He announced that 250 million iOS units had "just been shipped". After the announcement it turns out that the total was around 254 million. This came up in comments on this blog. I noted that if the number is correct I should shave 13 million off my iPhone number. I even went into my model and adjusted it to see the effect. I did not "correct" my estimate as I felt that this new data could be disguised and not meant to signal to us. This was another error.
In the last two posts (How much does an Apple store cost?, The down payment on iCloud) I discussed two line items in the PP&E asset class on Apple's Balance Sheet. In isolation, the data is interesting as it gives us an idea of the cost structure of stores and facilities being developed to sustain its current business model. In aggregate, it provides insight into Apple's strategic intent.
To complete the picture, I will look at the third asset: "Machinery, equipment and internal use software." It's the yellow line in the chart below:
It's plain to see at first glance that it's the most significant asset. What does it represent and what conclusions can we draw about Apple's strategy?
Before I begin, I should make clear what this asset represents and what it does not represent. These expenditures cover equipment used in production. They do not include components used in the production nor loans to suppliers for purchasing equipment. These are fixed assets that can be depreciated on a schedule and have specific tax treatment as a result. These are, in plain language, instruments used for producing things to be sold. They are things Apple owns.[1]
Using the same method as in the other asset analyses I took a measure of the sequential change in that asset over the time period and tried to see if there is a correlation between that spending and some other measure of output from the company.
Here is the sequential change chart since the end of 2005:
I noted that the pattern seems to relate closely with the increase in shipments of iPhones. More specifically, iOS devices. To test this I overlaid the overall volumes (with estimates of product types) of iOS shipments. This is a modified version of the chart published here.
There is a broad similarity. But again, as in the other analyses, the spending on assets typically predates the "output" from that asset. As we saw in land and buildings, the operational start of a facility may happen many quarters after the purchase is made. Similarly, stores open some time after the spending on fitting them out.
So it is with Machinery and Equipment. If we time-shift the output one quarter to account for spending before production we have a better fit (note the change in the title with "Q-1" indicating that the dates for the iOS shipments are offset by 1 quarter to the left).
We can even take the analysis further by breaking the spending and output into Phases corresponding to specific product cycles and introductions.
Phase 1: The original iPhone
Spending on M&E prior to the iPhone launch began two quarters in advance of sales. The following chart reflects this delay. Note that the M&E payments are marked with quarters ending six months earlier than the shipment schedule. Note also the scale (red denoting the M&E spending and black the units shipped). I also separated the two product types (iPod touch are my estimates, iPhone numbers are published by Apple).
This Phase corresponds to the first "bump" in the expenditure chart but offers more detail. There is an evident relationship between the "input" expense and the "output" of units shipped.
The cost of Phase I was $408 million.
Phase II: The iPhone 3G series
Phase II covers spending from the quarter ending March '08 to December '09 and production from September '08 to March '10.
For this Phase the time shift is only one quarter but there is a quarter's worth of spending that is initiated prior to any shipments. I chose to demarcate this Phase to cover production for both the 3G and 3GS as they probably shared a lot of common equipment. Some spending on new production lines however still had to happen as volumes increased during 3GS production.
Note the scale change from the first Phase. Whereas the maximum in Phase I spending was around $150 million per quarter, the peak is nearly twice as much in the second Phase. The peak output is 5x higher.
The cost of Phase II was $1 billion.
[I had to guess whether the Sep 09 and Dec 09 M&E spending was for 3GS or whether it was to prepare for the ramps in the new products about to be launched in the third Phase.]
Phase III: The iPhone 4 and the iPad
Phase III begins with spending prior to the launch of the iPad 1 (March '10) to the last quarter (ending June 2011). Coupled to this is production starting in quarter ending June '10 and ending in the last quarter.
Note that due to the time offsetting on production, the output from the spending on the quarter just ended will not be known until Apple publishes their shipments for the June quarter (scheduled for October 18th).
The relationship between pre-dated spending and production one quarter later holds quite well. There is a "surplus" of spending in December 2010 but that could be seen as the ramp being prepared for the second iPad.
Phase III cost is $3.7 billion so far.
Note again the change in scale from the previous two Phases. Peak M&E expenditures are around $900 million per quarter while production peaks at around 35 million units. This is a tripling of spending coupled to about a doubling of output.
Observations
The data suggests spending on equipment is correlated with the volume of production of its iOS devices. However, Apple is understood to be a company that outsources its production and does not "own" its own factories. Claiming that it keeps equipment used in the production of iOS devices on its books is an extraordinary claim.
I make a further claim that the scope of spending itself is extraordinary.
The following chart shows the three asset classes discussed in the three latest posts relative to each other (quarterly change in asset value).
In How much does an Apple store cost? I noted that the spending on leasehold improvements of $2 billion over a few years is significant and sustaining and largely asymmetric to competitors. You can see that spending in the grey bars above.
In The down payment on iCloud I noted that spending on Land and Buildings is significant and sustaining to iOS but not on a scale many can match. Those costs are shown in the blue bars above.
If, as I claim here, the yellow bars show the spending on Machinery and Equipment used in the production of iOS devices, then the commitment Apple has made to controlling production is even higher. In December 2010, M&E expenses were 50% higher than the spending on the data center and the new Cupertino campus put together.
The M&E assets have cost a total of $6 billion. The Apple stores have cost $2.3 billion and land and buildings $2 billion. In other words, Apple's machinery and equipment is worth much more than all its buildings and stores put together.
Compared with what Apple spends on other fixed assets, M&E is spectacularly significant.
In the twelve months ended June, Apple will have spent $2.9 billion in M&E to manufacture 118 million iOS devices. To put that in perspective, Nokia, which manufacturers a large (if not majority) of the 340 million phones it sells, expects full year 2011 capital expenditures of $1.1 billion.
Correcting for amortization and depreciation and deducting some spending on Mac M&E, it's very likely that Apple spent twice as much as Nokia on the instruments of production for one third the number of devices.
Conclusions
It may be too early to draw conclusions from this analysis. The claims should be debated and the claims should be tested, but I can suggest some tentative strategic implications.
Last December I wrote that I thought Apple should use its capital to own the means of production for iOS. I reasoned that device supply was its biggest deficiency and that perhaps ownership would allow them to become better at it.
Indeed, Apple has used capital to ensure it has better control over the supply of components and to also perhaps ensure capacity of production of those components.
But this analysis shows that Apple has gone much further toward integrating its value chain. It suggests that a large part of the tooling in its supply chain is owned by Apple. It suggests that those tools are put out of reach of its competitors.
The implications could be profound but given the length of this post, I'll leave that discussion for another day.
---
Notes:
Some of the capital expenditures were also allocated to servers or "information systems hardware, software and enhancements." From the Annual Report 2010: Capital Assets. The Company anticipates utilizing approximately $4.0 billion for capital expenditures during 2011, including approximately $600 million for retail store facilities and approximately $3.4 billion for product tooling and manufacturing process equipment, and corporate facilities and infrastructure, including information systems hardware, software and enhancements.
Balance Sheets are not typical targets of focus in software or services or "high tech" companies. Except for Cash, there are usually not much in terms of assets for analysts to contemplate. With outsourced manufacturing, even hardware companies don't maintain depreciable assets on their books.
Apple, as usual, is different. It turns out there is a lot there and there's a lot to learn from what's there. I've looked at the Cash and Long Term Securities in the past but in the next few posts I'll dive into fixed (non-current) assets. Specifically Apple's Property, Plant and Equipment.
Apple Inc. has selected North Carolina as the location for a new data center and will invest more than $1 billion in the project over nine years, Gov. Bev Perdue announced
When Apple committed to the North Carolina data center in mid-2009 the iPhone was two years old. Only 26 million iPhones had been sold to date (about as many as Apple now sells every quarter.) Clearly if the commitment was on such a scale there must have been a plan. A big plan.
We don't know for sure if NC was used last week or whether it was handling only part of the load, but let's assume it was. What I want to think about is how much iCloud would thus cost and hence what would be the cost for alternative providers of such a service. That analysis might let us determine if "cloud" forms a substantial barrier to entry for competitors.
Beside the public statement above (which may have been designed for political benefit) can we find any evidence of what Apple spent on data centers? That's where the PP&E line comes in.
The following chart shows the Property, Plant and Equipment asset in Apple's Balance Sheet.
Each line represents a particular type of asset and its value at a particular point in time. I will now pay attention to the blue line, Land and Buildings. I'll look at the other lines separately.
Note that each line represent current value so it does not say directly what was happening in the quarter. However, if we look at the change q/q for a particular line we get how much new spending occurred in the quarter for that particular asset.
This change in Land and Building asset value is shown in the following chart:
Going back to 2005, there were minimal changes. Perhaps there is some significance in the $250 million spend in early 2006 or the nearly $78 million spent in Q4 2008, but there is a definite significance to the massive spending that occurred right after the NC commitment was made.[1] Some of that payment also included the old HP campus in Cupertino. "Local real estate experts said HP’s asking price may have been $300 million or more, but they also said the final amount may have been less."
There is also a clear cut-off on that spending at the end of 2010.
The total spending during this time adds up to nearly exactly $1 billion. If we subtract $250 million for the Cupertino expansion we still have $750 million that must have gone into NC.
Note that the original statement quoted above was $1 billion over nine years. We can see that Apple spent $0.75 billion in one year. On the building alone. This is why I consider this a down payment. It does not include any of the equipment in the plant. It does not include the cost of operation (incl. labor) or any development costs (R&D). In fact, it does not include any of the funds that would be part of the nine year commitment.
What this level of spending implies is that iCloud (and Siri and iTunes) are expensive. They may seem ephemeral and even trivial as services, but they require a staggering commitment few can make. Apple made that commitment and they made it early on, before the first quarter billion users were even on the horizon.
If platforms are moving from local to distributed and if value moves from selling things to "getting to know you" and if that knowledge requires infrastructure control then the number of companies that can participate in the market shrinks dramatically. Not only in terms of who has the capabilities, but who could even afford to acquire them.
The invoices Apple pays are shown above.
----
Notes:
Apple's retail stores are not included in these figures as Apple leases them. The cost of the stores will be discussed in a separate post.
Last week I proposed that there were two significant markets for the new iPhone: 1) the existing iPhone user base 2) smartphone "non-consumers". Today I want to dig a bit deeper into the first market to get an idea of what it amounts to.
The following chart shows the total iPhone shipments over time with an estimate for the mix of models during the last two years.
The way I calibrated the mix is by taking into account the statement that Tim Cook made that half of all iPhones shipped were iPhone 4. I first estimated that this past quarter (ending September) included about 22.3 million units. That makes the total iPhones to end of Sept 151.3 million. Half would be about 75 million. Therefore the red area needs to add up to that total. The remainder must therefore be the yellow, 3GS volume.
This mix implies that the following shipments by variant (through end of Sept 2011):
iPhone 1: 6.1 million
iPhone 3G: 24.4 million
iPhone 3GS: 45.4 million
iPhone 4: 75.4 million
I also highlighted in grey the most likely target market for upgrades during the next 12 months. What I'm assuming is that recent buyers will not be likely to upgrade but those having purchased an iPhone two years hence will probably be looking to replace it. The naive approach is to assume all the iPhones beyond a certain age will be automatically upgraded. That would give almost 70 million units. However, not all those phones are in use and many of those phones may have already been upgraded to iPhone 4s. 70 million is a theoretical maximum. We have to be more specific.
In order to get a better figure for this I created a probability distribution (PD) which suggests the likelihood that the phones purchased in that quarter get upgraded in the next 12 months. I created two such PDs illustrated in the inset chart below:
PD 1 is the simplest. It assumes that 90% of two year old iPhones will always be upgraded. PD 2 is a bit more nuanced where it assumes that there is a range of probabilities over a wider period, but with a peak in the 2 year old zone. These PDs are guesses but consider them starting points for debate.
By multiplying the probability in the line chart (PD1) with the area below it (the units it covers) we get get the shaded area indicating which phones (and variant) will be upgraded next year.
The areas not shaded are either left un-upgraded or represent phones which were already upgraded to iPhone 4's last year. The PD1 assumption yields 36 million units.
Doing the same with PD2 yields a different upgrade set shown below:
This assumption leads to about 36.2 million units upgraded in the next 12 months. Very similar to PD1 but approached from a different angle. Are these figures credible? I don't know. The real PD may be quite different but I think these are pretty conservative figures. They are about half of the theoretical maximum.
Why is this Interesting?
This is interesting because of two reasons.
Firstly, it lets us calibrate our forecast for iPhone sales next few quarters. My own estimate stood at 140 million prior to this analysis. Is it reasonable? Remember that the target market includes non-consumption or non-iPhone, non-Smartphone users. Given the "guaranteed" market above at least 36 million, it makes the non-consumption target about 104 million. Does it sound reasonable?[1]
Yes. Primarily because most iPhones sold during the last 12 months were sold to non-consumers. And there were 76 million of them. Apple's distribution has increased since and will continue to increase[2]. That means that Apple does not need to stretch much more than it already has to get the additional growth from un-penetrated markets. We know that this market is still measured in the billions of users. The demand is there.
Secondly, this is interesting from a competitive point of view. When competitors like Microsoft claim that Apple left open an opportunity by not launching a new iPhone "5" they are not looking at the world through the lenses shown above. From their point of view each new phone sold must come from their installed base or non-consumption.
But they don't have any installed bases over 2 years old looking to upgrade. There are few Galaxy users who are yearning to upgrade since they just bought their first units. There are no Windows Phone users (and no Windows Mobile users) who are ready to upgrade to Mango. Since they don't don't see the world through upgrade "lenses" they see their marginal buyer as somebody who might have bought an iPhone 5 because it was the latest and the greatest in terms of specs or novelty.
However they cannot be hopeful that any existing iPhone buyer will switch because they know the satisfaction scores are above 90%. They also know the legendary Apple brand loyalty that keeps Mac and iPad and iPod users glued to their devices. They are also aware of the moats of iTunes, iCloud, hundreds of installed Apps and iMessage all designed to preserve Apple's customer base.
Competitors have none of these things. They don't have upgraders, or switchers to target. They can only target non-consumers. There their odds are better but Apple's are at least as good.
---
Notes:
The 140 million target for next 12 months is probably well above consensus. It assumes a growth rate of 84%. I've seen a few estimates where the growth is forecast at less than 30%. If we are to believe the analysis above, the consensus begins to appear catastrophic.
Apple's distribution measured as number of carriers and countries covered is still about half that of RIM and about a third that of Nokia or Samsung.
