iPod

Tim Cook famously said:

We can put all of our products on the table you’re sitting at. Those products together sell $40 billion per year. No other company can make that claim except perhaps an oil company.

For those of you laughing, that was three years ago. The revenues quadrupled since to a total of $170 for the last four quarters. But the more interesting thought is that the table has not gotten bigger. When Tim spoke the iPad had just been announced but was not yet for sale. So we can't be sure if he thought it should be on the table or not, but it does not take up that much space.

It would be fun to actually lay out all the Apple products on a table to see how big it would be. The trouble is that there are many things Apple sells which take up no space at all. Things like iTunes content or services and AppleCare.

So rather than trying to imagine a table full of Apple products (some of which are non-phyisical) I thought a more fitting analogy would be to allocate the revenues from these products to a table and thinking about how much space relative to each other the products would take.

To make conversion easier, I picked a rather large table; 10 feet long, big enough to fit a small conference room. What would this table covered in product revenue look like?

My estimate is that it would look like this:

I color coded the product lines as shown in the legend: Greens for iPhone, Browns for iPad, Blues for Mac, Yellow for iPod, Red/Purples for iTunes and Grey for Accessories.

At this categorization the table would allocate the following space to each category:

• iPhone (Greens): 60 inches or about half the table.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Product
  Inches
  iPhone 4
  4.7
  iPhone 4S
  11.4
  iPhone 5
  44.5
• iPad (Browns): 21 inches
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  iPad 2
  1.4
  iPad 4
  9.6
  iPad mini
  10.3
• Macs (Blues): 5 inches
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Desktops
  2.7
  Portable
  13.6
• iPod (yellows): 2.5 inches
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  touch
  1.8
  iPod
  0.7
• iTunes (reds), software and services: 15.5 inches
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  music
  4.1
  video
  1.6
  Apps
  5.6
  Books
  0.8
  Pro SW
  1.4
  OS X
  0.5
  iWork
  0.5
  iOS Apps
  0.2
  Serv.
  0.9
• Accessories (Greys): 4 inches.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Apple TV
  0.3
  Acc
  3.6

If this colorful table were used to support the actual products, where each product would have to fit within its color band, then the truth of one saying would become apparent: good things come in small packages.

Tim Cook was asked the first question (on the iPhone portfolio). His answer is paraphrased here:

We haven't so far. That doesn't shut off the future. Why? It takes a lot of really hard work to do a phone right when you manage the hardware and software and services in it. We've chosen to put our energy on doing that right. We haven't been focused on working multiple lines.

Think about the evolution of the iPod over time. The shuffle didn't have the same functionality as other products. It was a really good product, but it played a different role — it was great for some customers it was strikingly different than other iPods. The mini played a different role than the classic did. If you remember when we brought out the mini people said we'd never sell any. It was too expensive and had too little storage. The mini proved that people want something lighter, thinner, smaller. My only point is that these products all served a different person, a different type, a different need. For the phone that is the question. Are we now at a point that we need to do that?

…

At a macro level, a large screen today comes with a lot of tradeoffs. When you look at the size, but they also look at things like do the photos show the proper color? The white balance, the reflectivity, battery life. The longevity of the display. There are a bunch of things that are very important. What our customers want is for us to weigh those and come out with a decision. At this point we think the Retina display is the best. In a hypothetical world where those tradeoffs didn't exist, you could see a bigger screen as a differentiator.

Full interview here, answer begins around minute 37.

Here is how I interpret the answer:

• The iPhone portfolio may still arrive. It hasn't so far because the cost/benefit is not there for Apple. On one hand it would take a great deal more sourcing effort and risk while dealing with constraints in production. On the other it would not not offer meaningful additions to the customer base. At least so far. The economics and the demand may change (or have changed) and the time will come for a broader portfolio.
• The comparison to iPod is not entirely appropriate because as a music player, the iPod had a relatively small set of jobs to do. It was hired for exercise, escapism, isolation, etc. It was not hired for apps and services which extend the medium itself. In other words it was not a computer. As a computer, the iPhone has a near infinite set of jobs to be done and it's the hundreds of thousands of apps which help it perform them. But as a result the iPhone needs to conform to the dynamics of ecosystems and that means consistency of APIs and user experience. It cannot vary in terms of input methods, or be below minimum requirements of screen size or memory and power.
• Because of the rapidly expanding job space, Apple believes the iPhone was not "good enough" for all these years. The improvements shipped for each generation were all "meaningful" in that they were valuable and absorbable. Users would use the new features (like better screens, cameras, battery, etc.) and they were willing to pay for them (as evidenced by the sustained high average price).
• On the question of what the extension might be, changing screen size is one dimension but it has to be balanced by performance gains that don't detract from other dimensions. Engineering is all about compromise and consumers pay Apple to make these compromises in an intelligent way. Apple does not come to an answer to the question of balance by launching many products and seeing what works. It cannot afford to dilute its brand with a long list of failures. Other brands may not be affected by trial-and-error approaches to the market but they are discounted by the customer accordingly.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Apple introduced a new set of revenue categories, the performance of its "minor" businesses has become clearer. The changes include re-statement of what used to be called "Software" revenues as part of iTunes. Apple Software includes sales of OS X, iWork and its pro tools. These products are now sold through the Mac App and since that is a part of iTunes its inclusion makes sense.

However, we have to understand that iTunes now is a blend of many business models. Some, like music, use a wholesale revenue recognition method and have very low to zero margins, others, like eBooks and Apps, are sold using an "agency" revenue model with potentially higher margins and some, like Software, are recognized at full value with very high margins.

When re-stated this way, iTunes becomes much more than a "break-even" business. My own estimate for its gross margin as currently reported is between 15% and 17% but it could be even higher. This allows the following picture to emerge:

These graphs show contributions to Revenue and Gross Margins of the various reported product categories. Note that restatements for Accessories and iTunes only extend back to Q4 2010 and the older "Software" is still shown for earlier periods.

Note also that Accessories are now including some of the revenue that used to be reported as part of iPad and iPhone revenues. This was discussed in more detail here.

There are several observations we can make:

1. iTunes now becomes a steadily and rapidly growing business. Growth over the previous two years averages well over 30% and is consistent across seasons.
2. The absolute revenue number is substantial: $13.5 billion for 2012 (up from $10.2 billion in 2011).
3. Assuming a gross margin of 15% to 17% yields contribution of $2 billion in margin in 2012 and $1.6 the year before.
4. iTunes is now Apple's fourth largest business, having overtaken the iPod in revenues two years ago
5. iTunes growth relative to the Mac means that it could become the third largest business during this year.

When seen this way, as a percent of total, iTunes begins to look increasingly as a viable "leg stool" upon which Apple rests. Note that in the following charts the percent of total for iTunes holds steady while Mac and iPod decline.

Adding the Accessories business (which includes Apple TV and is showing in Orange above) these "other" businesses are already bigger than the Mac. Of course, content, software, accessories and services depend on a healthy device business, but the size of these ancillaries are beginning to be substantial and Apple's ecosystem may begin to be valued more than just as an incentive to buy the devices.

Indeed, if seen in isolation, iTunes+Accessories combined is a bigger business in terms of revenues than any of the other phone vendors except Samsung:

 

In the latest quarterly report Apple changed how it reports product revenues. In previous quarters the iPhone and iPad were reported including accessory revenues while iPod accessories were reported under "Music" revenues.

"Under this new format revenue from iPhone, iPad, Mac and iPod sales is presented exclusive of related service and accessory revenue […] revenue from all Apple and third party accessory sales is presented as a single line item [Accessories.]"

Apple provided a document showing re-classified product summary data.  By measuring the difference between original revenue and re-stated revenue per product we can determine how much service and accessory revenue was being attached to each product.

I did this for two quarters as a sample:

 

The analysis shows that the iPhone has been receiving about $15 of accessory attached value and the iPad about $25. Interesting trivia, but how is this insightful?

Consider the impact on this analysis of revenues/unit shipped:

The iPhone obtained about $642 revenue/unit (shown above as the last datum in the green line). That compares slightly lower with last year's $659/unit. However, the latest quarter is on the new basis and the data in the chart above shows old basis.

Here is the data with re-stated iPad and iPhone ASP:

On a re-stated basis, without the extra revenue from accessories, the iPhone "ASP" (Average Selling Price) from a year ago becomes $646 (which, again, is not what is reflected in the graph). This is almost exactly the same as the current quarter. The iPhone "ASP erosion" therefore goes from 2.6% to only 0.7%.

Similarly, the iPad shown at $467 in the latest quarter does not drop from $593 last year but from $568. Its ASP erosion becomes 18% rather than 21%.

Interesting resilience with the iPhone and slightly better support for the iPad price. What does it mean?

Pricing power is the most important indicator of differentiation and it implies an ability to create value in excess of cost. Not only that but it also indicates whether a product is being "commoditized" by over-serving the market and being substituted by lower priced alternatives.

In the case of the iPhone the tenacious retention of its ASP indicates that the point of over-service has not been reached. Buyers are not yet switching in significant numbers to the older, cheaper variants available from Apple. If they were we would see evidence in the price first due to the change in mix.

Contrast that with the iPad where there is a far more marked erosion. That's due to the introduction of the mini which is good enough to substitute for the larger version for many of the jobs it's hired to do. We can safely argue that the iPad is good enough in smaller form factors and addressing larger markets.

But why isn't this happening to the iPhone? Why isn't the iPhone n-1 "good enough"? Surely consumers can do almost the same tasks with an iPhone 4S as they can with the 5. Why are they still buying the new phone?

The clue comes from the fact that the consumer is not the only buyer. It's  operators who buy and re-price the product. They are hiring the product to sell broadband and the newest variant is still the best hire to do that job. This observation is crucial to understanding the growth dynamics of the iPhone and consequently, of Apple itself.

I repeat what I've mentioned before: The iPhone is primarily hired as a premium network service salesman. It receives a "commission" for selling a premium service in the form of a premium price. Because it's so good at it, the premium is quite high. Also because it's so good, it gets bought in large batches which allow Apple to schedule production efficiently.

This understanding gives us a solid basis from which to evaluate its growth potential.

John Sculley:

"I think they're going through a very significant change now in terms of product cycles," Sculley explains. "Traditionally Apple introduces products once a year; now it's really introducing products twice a year. The complexity of that from a supply chain is immense, and Apple seems to be doing it well. So, I think that people are underestimating just how well Apple is run, and just how successful the company can be when it gets to that twice-a-year product introduction cycle."

Former Apple CEO John Sculley: Apple is well-run | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog

Suggesting that Apple is moving to a semi-annual cycle is a very provocative thing to say, but it's something I've also speculated is happening during a Critical Path podcast.  Sculley's comments prompted me to weigh the possible evidence that this is happening:

1. All of the major products which Apple sells have been updated in the Fall. This is unprecedented. Not only were product launches scheduled in the spring, historically they had been spread throughout the year. The odds that they happen to coincide by accident are nil. Not only that but the move of iPad and iPhone and iPod and MacBook and iMac to launch all within Fall (once a year) seems risky because it leaves a vast gap for competitors to fill six months hence. Indeed, given the iPhone's launch predictability, many (most?) competing products already target launching in the Spring.
2. Launch ramp for iPhone steeper than ever. The number of countries and operators launching the product in the launch quarter is nearly the entire distribution list. This is also the first time this has happened. Not only does it imply a very steep ramp, it indicates no channel fill will be happening past Q1. There will not be incremental sales to unserved customers as the fiscal year wears on. 
3. Consumer anticipation. This year saw two quarters where sales were soft due to "product transitions" as awareness among the mass market of new product rumors caused growth to dry up. Too many potential buyers are now conditioned to wait for fall to buy iPhones thus sapping demand for half the year. Apple ends up with an inability to meet demand for half the year and a sales lull for the other half. Clearly this is suboptimal.
4. Hon Hai production has shifted to locations closer to the sources of labor. This may not seem to be relevant but we have to appreciate that Apple makes up nearly half of Hon Hai's sales volume and hence labor demands. Until this shift, Hon Hai's production has depended on migrant labor which is difficult to manage. Moving production so that the labor is local means a steadier workforce with better economies from learning curves. However it also requires a more stable order book. Production for Apple has tended to be "bursty" with breakneck round-the-clock crush followed by periods of idle time and re-tooling. This is not only inefficient but it also creates strain and stress and lowers morale.
5. Capital Expenditures de-coupled from volumes. This is a weak signal at this time and needs confirmation, but capital expenditures seem to be outpacing production. The recent bursts in CapEx may be transient or may have to do with tooling-up Samsung's replacements but it may also imply a move to a more rapid product cycle. A transition to a new operating model would require significant over-spending in advance of the shift.
6. Rumors of 5S products in pre-production. This is the least valuable piece of evidence but it might indicate that the "S" variant is targeting spring launch. I should point out that the "facelift" model change is common practice at many phone companies. At Nokia the convention was to launch an "i" variant to a model before a bigger update. Even at Apple, the iPod was going through a re-fresh during February with a "Valentine's Day" variant being released. Then there's the case of the white iPhone 4 which seemed to take forever to launch but finally did so into an April time frame. Finally we just saw the iPad retina product go through a six month cycle.

Admittedly, these are circumstantial pieces of evidence but they do corroborate Sculley's claim of a six month product cycle.  Put another way, if Apple is not switching to a six month cycle then there seems to be a lot of stress for no benefit.

I would also add that this change in cycle time is an enormous undertaking. Since Apple is an integrated company, not only production but marketing, design, hardware and software engineering must be re-configured. To put it in perspective, when Ford changed its operating mode from producing one model to a flexible mass production method pioneered by General Motors, the company had to shut down for production for six months.

The operational aspects are daunting and would affect almost all employees in the company. Therefore if it is happening it's also possible that there is some knowledge of this change dissipating outside the company, perhaps explaining Sculley's confidence in the claim.

--

Looking for more information on the renaissance of production and its the effect on the technology industries? Then come to Asymconf and take part in the debate.

The iPhone is a severely constrained product. We're used to thinking that it's production constrained—and it is, but it's also distribution constrained. It has a business model that is almost completely dependent on operator subsidy. Few end users pay the $650 average price that Apple obtains and that price point has held for a remarkably long time. This price point is largely invisible to the user.

In this regard it's very different from all the other products Apple sells. Historically, the company has preferred having its customers to also be its users and maintained a direct relationship with them, strengthening that relationship through its own retail channel for the last decade. Pricing is used by Apple as a signal to clearly illustrate value to the user and pricing is part of the communication about the product that Apple makes very explicit. This has been true for the iPod and Mac and is still true of the iPad. But this is not so for the iPhone. The entire marketing strategy for the iPhone (and hence the entire product concept itself) is "off message".

Why is this?

Before we get into causes, let's try to measure the distribution channel for the iPhone. Apple occasionally reports the total number of carriers it has relationships with. The last update was in the summer when Peter Oppenheimer, Apple CFO discussed the quarter ending June:

We added several small regional carriers during the quarter and now have iPhone distribution through over 250 carriers in over 100 countries.…

We added China Telecom as the second [Chinese] carrier in March…

We also don’t expect to add any significant new country or carrier additions in the September quarter…

In addition, Apple publishes the list of operators it sells through on its web site. The last time I counted I got 227 listed operators.

If we contrast this with the total number of global operators (excluding MVNOs) there might be a way to measure distribution penetration. I compiled a list of all such operators based on information available in Wikipedia. You can browse the list here (Google Docs [1]).

This global list includes 802 operators. The list is not current, being mostly based on 2009 data but it's pretty close. I've read that a more recent (non-public) estimate is 816.

By this measure we can say that Apple has distribution through about 30% of the total operators. Consider also that RIM reports that it sells BlackBerry through 565 wireless carriers in over 175 countries. By this metric alone BlackBerry has twice the addressable market of the iPhone.

But we can do better than counting operators. We should account for the fact that some operators have more subscribers than others.

Using the same database, I measured the subscriber count of iPhone distributing carriers vs. overall subscriber count. The ratio was about 50%.

iPhone "addresses" about 2.8 billion connections whereas there are about 5.7 billion available connections. Note that this is not users but subscriptions—essentially SIM cards.

The ratios vary by region:

• Middle-east/Africa has 29%
• Asia/Pacific is at 39%
• Europe 73%
• The Americas 83%

 

We can take it a step further and identify which countries hold the highest opportunity for iPhone distribution. The top 5 are:

1. India: 658 million
2. China: 622 million
3. Pakistan: 116 million
4. Russia: 102 million
5. Nigeria: 89 million

But the opportunity is not only in emerging markets. Japan is a 69 million subs opportunity and even the US has 80 million subs without direct (i.e. subsidized) access to the iPhone.

So we can now return to the question of why the iPhone is sold the way it is.

First I should point out that the addressable market of Samsung or Android in general is larger than that of the iPhone. Samsung has relationships with far more operators, at least on the scale of RIM or Nokia, perhaps even more. It might be safe to assume that Android is completely unconstrained in distribution and therefore its addressable market is the entire subscriber space (meaning that Android has twice the addressable market of the iPhone.) For Apple to compete on the basis of volume or market share it would make sense to broaden this network. So what's holding it back?

I think the answer is the other constraint mentioned: production. The company is still iterating the product on a yearly basis and needs to ramp production to reach all its carrier partners in a timely fashion. The carriers use the iPhone as differentiation and a way to uplift their core business. Therefore they want the latest version as quickly as possible. To satisfy this, Apple needs to manufacture the latest variant very quickly. But that's not easy. Peak production is one thing but getting there quickly is another. This is the problem which Apple's vast capital expenditures is trying to solve.

So far the production capacity has been increasing at nearly 100% per annum. This is an astonishing achievement but it's still not enough. The product is supply constrained during much of the launch quarter. Therefore, to summarize, the entire business model for the iPhone revolves around this question:

Can enough units be shipped in a sufficiently short time frame to allow a limited (but large) subset of operators to create competitive advantage which sustains a generous up-front subsidy.

At this time the answer seems to be that the model can work for about 30% of operators serving 50% of subscribers. The crucial question for the business is how much higher can these numbers get?

Note that this is not a debate about market share or consumer preference but about delivering a particular value proposition to network operators, (which sustains a premium price point.) The iPhone is built around this business model and to alter it would alter the very essence of what the product is. The addressable market is one piece of the product but it interconnects with the price, margin, design, production and breadth of offering. You cannot change one without changing the others. It's a product whose distribution model is part and parcel of its design.

I believe that the particular way this product translates into a business is very rigid, which is why it has not changed much during the life of the product. This is in contrast to Apple's other products which exhibit more market flexibility. Inter-dependency is not a new concept for Apple products (e.g. iPod/iTunes, Mac/MacOS) but the iPhone shows a level of inter-dependency with distribution and production the likes of which has never been seen.

This topic will be further discussed at Asymconf in January as the fourth quarter data will then be available and there will be an opportunity to debate it live with an august audience.

---

Notes:

1. The database is neither current nor complete. If you would like to help maintain the data based on local (public) information, please get in touch and I can grant access to edit it.

Apple's renaissance began with the iPod. This was not evident right away however. The product was unveiled on October 23, 2001 at a time when Apple's share price had just fallen 70% from year-earlier levels. It was perhaps a good point from which one could expect a recovery to begin.

It was not to be. One year after the iPod's launch the stock price had fallen another 20%. Indeed during 2001 the company was in the throes of a "bear market" in its shares. If we measure a time of persistent share price reduction as a bear market, then the one in 2001 was significant. For 154 days, between April 27 and September 28, 2001 the shares fell 38%. This represents the first bar in the following graph showing all the Apple bear markets since then.

I also illustrated these bear markets in terms of their duration and the average %drop/day.

Chronicling these periods:

• From May 24th 2002 and September 27th, 2002 the stock fell 41%.
• 2003 was less harsh but on the second anniversary of the iPod, for two months between October 17th 2003 and December 19, 2003 the stock fell another 17%.
• By 2004 the iPod looked like a hit. The stock rose consistently during the year. Then, in early in 2005, from February 25th to May 13, the stock fell 20%.
• In early 2006, January 20th to March 10th, the stock dropped 26%. The iPod was reaching incredible levels of popularity and the Mac was looking to be returning to prominence with the switch to Intel.
• 2007 was the year the iPhone launched. Right after the launch for two weeks between August 3rd and August 17th, the stock fell 15%. That's the equivalent of 1% per day for two weeks.
• As the iPhone was shown to be a hit (and before the credit crunch), for four weeks during January 2008 the stock fell 37%. Again, equivalent to 1% a day for 35 days.
• Then after the iPhone 3G was launched and growth reached triple digits, Apple's shares fell for 50 days. From August 22 to October 10th they fell a total of 45%. Again, the equivalent rate was 1% every day for a month and a half.
• In 2009 the stock recovered steadily but in 2010, again around iPhone launch season the stock fell 12% over a two month period.
• Then in 2011 October, 9% was wiped out.
• Then for two weeks in April 2012 10% disappeared.
• Which brings us to September 21 to November 9th, 2012. This latest "bear market" has run up a loss of 21.7%, running for 49 days.

Sounds dramatic. The even more dramatic twist is that in this same time frame the share price increased by 576 points or the equivalent of 6,294%. Nevertheless, there were 13 episodes when the shares dropped violently and sometimes persistently for long periods.

Why does this happen?

It's important to recall that at no point during Apple's ascent was there "consensus"  that Apple was being successful and certainly not sustainably so. Analysts gave it at best a growth prospect of 20%, and the risks were always obvious and prominent.  The company was always on the edge and everybody from the layperson to the experts could see that everything was wrong with Apple. Apple went from being irrelevant to being too big without passing through being boring.

So there is a simple explanation for occasional panic: Apple is not predictable.

But it also seems too consistent. Is the pattern of share price collapse actually rooted in some fundamentals, transient or otherwise? There is a clear failure in understanding the long term but were these downdrafts justified as the market "foresaw" or "discounted" the near future? Were these more than just crises of confidence? Was there wisdom in the drops because they were followed by earnings drops or slowing growth? In other words, if there was smoke, was there fire? Was the market being efficient?

No.

The graph below shows the share price change in the more recent episodes above and the earnings growth during the current and following quarters.

At least since the iPhone launched, every dramatic drop in share price was followed by a surge in earnings growth. One could even say the worse the bear, the better the growth.

Sounds completely counter-intuitive, but there is some perverse logic in this as well. The market reflects crises (as well as over-abundance) of confidence. Unforeseen growth is what creates wealth and the crisis in confidence is a reflection of the improbability of continuing out-performance. When Apple's performance is foreseeable the stock moves slowly upward. When its performance is unforeseeable the stock moves dramatically downward.

A pithy way of putting it is: No news is good news. Good news is bad news.

When a product is understood the stock is mildly desirable. When a new product appears the future is hazy and the stock is undesirable. But that haziness hides potential but up and down. New products is what innovators produce. Bizarre new products is what disruptors produce.

In other words, the paradoxical observation in the chart above of "the more drama in the market, the more success in the marketplace" makes sense when inverted.

For disruptive companies, it should be "the more success in the marketplace, the more drama in the market."

In that sense the current downdraft may be quite auspicious.
---
Notes:

1. Another set of similar observations were made by Eric Jackson in early October in Forbes.

In the parlance of developers Apple keeps "throwing exceptions." This quarter the iPad surprised with a significant decline in sales growth. I placed a table showing the sales growth for this quarter as well as the previous 22 quarters at the bottom of this post.

Here is a quick review of each line:

1. The iPhone returned to a more customary growth rate (which I rate as Very Good--above 50%). The quarter was bound to be quirky due to it being both a transition quarter and a launch quarter. The launch of the iPhone 5 came quite late but not too late to make a contribution. It was also widely rumored and anticipated so there was slowing of the previous generation product. I expect growth to accelerate further in the last quarter of the year.
2. The Mac turned in a commendable 6% revenue growth (1% unit growth) on the back of the new 15" Retina screen MacBook. The average sales price increased sequentially and the mix of portables to desktops reached a new high of above 80%. More about the Mac will be written in a future post.
3. The iPod continued its decline. The 26% sales decline was in-line with other non-launch quarters. The company tipped its hand and let us know that iPod touch now makes up 60% of iPod volumes. At 3.2 million iPod touch units, it's a significant iOS contributor but still a declining number.
4. The iPad was painfully underperforming. With only 9% revenue growth, it was a complete reversal of the torrid growth of the last two years. Management blamed both anticipation of a new product and a reduction of inventory ahead of refresh of the larger screen retina. The only silver lining was that the average price decline was moderate (down about $3/unit). Overall, I'm very disappointed with the pause in the product but the new mini could change the character of the product dramatically in a way similar to how the iPod mini turbo-charged the iPod line.
5. iTunes had a very good quarter. It's the perennial growth engine with the most consistent performance throughout the time period shown. It was the second fastest growing line item firmly in the "High" growth bracket.
6. Peripherals, including Apple TV had a moderate quarter. Management revealed that about 5 million Apple TV units shipped in the fiscal year. That adds up to a half-billion dollar revenue business. Peripherals had $2.8 billion over the same time frame so Apple TV was about 18% on a yearly basis. This does not include content revenues.
7. Software had a modest growth of 22% but has come to be the high end of the range. Since changing the way it prices OS X updates, the era of Apple software windfalls is over. Still, at nearly $1 billion per quarter it's nice pocket change, especially as it's nearly all margin.
8. The overall top line (net sales) was a bit improved sequentially (+4 points of percent) but still in the "transition quarter" range of moderate growth. The company may be shifting its launch cycles and as a result we're seeing a break in pattern. As pricing for iPhone and iPad did not change very much the slowing of top line growth is entirely due to a unit shipment reduction. Again, the primary cause is transitions in multiple lines simultaneously.
9. The bottom line (earnings) followed the same pattern as top line (slight sequential increase in growth). There was a slight attenuation of margins (gross margins are down to 40%).

Overall, the quarter was not up to the recent level of performance for Apple. Growth was overall "moderate".

Having reached 100 million iPads shipped in 2.5 years the natural question is how long will it take for the next 100 million iPads?

The ramp of cumulative units shipped is shown below.

 

I also added the equivalent ramp for the iPhone. [The last data point for the iPad is based on an estimate of 16.5 million units in Q3 which may need revision depending on company reporting.]

The next 100 million will depend to a large degree on the success of the new iPad mini. To make an estimate we have to realize that there are several aspects of the tablet market which differ from the phone market and that therefore the predictive power for previous data is weak.

First, the channels are different. Tablets are sold as media consumption or "computing" products. They are not sold as communication devices. Therefore operators have few incentives to promote and subsidize them. They do participate in the distribution but not with the same level of commitment. That means less "push" and opportunity for discovery. Apple has an advantage in this case with their stores and brand value. The lack of operator engagement and lack of points of sale might be one reason why Android tablets have not ramped as quickly.

Second, for some competitors, the tablet itself is a loss leader and acts more as a terminal into an ecosystem rather than a product in itself. In cases where tablets are given away it's possible that consumers might own one for each platform or ecosystem. This is similar to the game console model where the cost of the console is not a barrier to many avid gamers. This means that penetration of tablets can reach above 100% of users in some markets. Although network connections (i.e. SIM cards) can and do reach well above 100%, the number of phones in use by one person simultaneously is bounded.

Third, the lifetime of the product is as yet undetermined. Phones tend to last 2 years. This is due to evolving standards as well as high wear and tear and breakage or losses. Tablets are not as "mobile" and are less likely to be used and the basic functionality does not evolve as rapidly. It's possible that replacement rates for tablets will follow more that of notebook computers than phones. Perhaps between 2 and 4 years. I suspect most iPads purchased are still in use today, including the first version. There will be some obsolescence from system upgrades, but the older systems will keep going.

Some of these aspects of the product could lead to slower growth and some to faster growth. That and the fact that it's a completely new category with business and consumer and educational and vertical applications makes it a difficult product to forecast.

Having said that, the product is extremely resonant with buyers. The growth to 100 million is testament to that. The liquidity of the product, with no carrier locking and no pricing illusions means that it reaches all parts of the world quickly. So there is no obvious upper bound on the size of population who might buy it. The new price points and form factor may lead to a wave of new adoption, similar to the impact the iPod mini had on the iPod line.

There are still many factors that can slow growth, especially production capacity, but I believe that the iPad could growth between 50% and 80% which would mean 100 million more iPads could be sold by the end of 2013.

It looks like the next iPhone will be called the iPhone 5. What's in a name? As it turns out, quite a lot.

Every hardware product that Apple has released has had a brand and a sub-brand. Macs for example use the Mac brand and a sub-brand as follows:

• iMac
• Mac Pro
• Mac mini
• MacBook

Thus each sub-brand imparts certain meaning to the buyer. i, Pro, mini, book are all evocative. MacBook even has its own sub-brands:

• MacBook Pro
• MacBook Air

These Mac sub-sub-brands of Pro and Air are specifically designed to also distinguish and convey meaning.

iPods as well use the iPod brand followed by a sub-brand.

• iPod Classic
• iPod touch
• iPod mini
• iPod shuffle
• iPod nano

Note how the mini  sub-brand was retired from the iPod line to be used exclusively in the Mac product line. That may not be specifically necessary or desirable but it is an interesting coincidence. (The Pro sub-brand is shared between different Mac lines)

However, when we look at the iPhone and the iPad, the nomenclature has been distinctly different. Both products have been using generational naming conventions. This implies no sub-branding as the iPhone and iPad are the only identifiers of brand and hence the only meaning being imparted to the buyer. You either get an iPhone or and old iPhone.

That changed with the iPad however. The third generation iPad became just iPad. This was deliberate (why would they want to confuse buyers?) I think there is some logic to this.

Note the parallel to the convention of the original iPod. When the iPod launched it was just the iPod. Subsequent versions were identified by a generation, but not a specific sub-brand. After the third generation iPod (still called iPod), the mini version was launched, creating the sub-brand convention that remains in use to this day. The iPod therefore was born generational but switched to sub-branding in adolescence.

The possibility exists, therefore, that there will be a sub-brand for the iPad. Perhaps "mini" is being reserved for a new iPad, to distinguish it from the regular iPad (no sub-brand) that is likely to remain in production. The logic is to make room for sub-brands when the core brand begins to cover a wider array of form factors, themselves proxies for separate use cases or jobs to be done.

So what about the iPhone?

The iPhone has remained, stubbornly, after five years, stuck with a generational naming convention vis-à-vis the sub-brand convention used in every other mature product line from Apple. (Note that software from Apple adheres strictly to a generational naming convention because there is no "room" for a sub-brand under a software brand. There can be no "iWork Pro" or "Final Cut EZ". [Update: there once was Final Cut Express])

Prior to today I entertained the possibility that the new iPhone will follow the iPad in dropping generational naming in favor of sub-branding thus implying that the brand would develop into a portfolio of sub-brands (like the iPad seems about to.)

Alas, that possibility now seems moot. The launch announcement seems to clearly point to "5" being the name of the new iPhone. The brand remains iPhone and there will be no sub-branding.

This can only mean that Apple intends to preserve a single product strategy for the brand. There will be no "special" iPhone for different (e.g. low-end) markets. There will be no different form factor to accommodate different use cases. There will be no new jobs to be done for the iPhone.

What a bummer.

However, there may be something more curious happening. Note all the service brands being launched on the iOS platform. There's Siri, (as yet unnamed) Maps, GameCenter and PassBook. These are not Apps. These are services designed to be unique to iOS, perhaps even unique to the iPhone. The difference with the iPhone brand may not be that it spans a multitude of sub-brands in hardware but that it covers a multitude of new service brands. As brands imply meaning, the iPhone brand may imply that it's a platform in and of itself.

Now that's an interesting development.