iTunes

As you know, as we crossed into 2001, the great crash occurred.

Ben Thompson • 25:05
Yep. And suddenly a job offer from a big phone company sounds pretty great.

Horace Dediu • 25:09
Yeah, but the crash occurred and it impacted my startup because I couldn't raise money anymore. And that's why I'm throwing in the towel. I'll take this idea to Nokia and build it inside of this company. So for the first year, I worked out of the U.S. and then they invited me to come to Finland. And I fell in love with it, not to mention finding someone to fall in love with. Yeah, I'm still here.

So we created an internal venture called media distribution. And it struggled for a couple of years. We partnered with a publishing company here in Finland that is the biggest newspaper and magazine company. And we worked with them. 9-11 happened. We worked with them throughout that period to test this idea of distributing content on phones. That's how I met my wife. She was working for the publishing firm. Remember when Apple News launched? I forget how many years ago it was already. It was five, six years ago. [My wife] texted me during the keynote. She goes, "you realize that's what we were working on together in 2001?"

It was called Project Melissa. Project Melissa was this idea of Apple News today. And that was [our project] 20 years earlier. That just goes to show you the story of my life. I was doing search 10 years before Google existed. I was doing e-books 10 years before Amazon launched the Kindle. I was doing smartphones and media distribution on smartphones 20 years before Apple showed how it's done.

So my problem has been that I see things happening or see where things are going, but way too early. And that's why one of the theses I have over time is the idea that the difference between a futurist and a billionaire is knowing when one thing happens. So it's not about knowing what's going to happen. A lot of people are very good at that.

Ben Thompson • 27:31
Including Nokia, to your point.

Horace Dediu • 27:33
Nokia, science fiction writers, Elon Musk, a lot of people predict this. But getting the timing right is where the money is made. And so that was one of those lessons I learned.

Ben Thompson • 27:45
Well, when you talk about the publishing and Nokia and the reading and all those sorts of things, what it makes me think of is when the iPhone comes along in 2007, And I'm very curious to get your perspective on what that was like inside Nokia when the iPhone launches.

Horace Dediu • 27:59
I'll tell you exactly.

Ben Thompson • 28:00
But before I get there, but to this publishing point specifically, the key bit was the Internet was permissionless in terms of producing content. Like, it's great that you met your wife, but the fact that you needed to be in a situation where you could meet your wife was actually the reason why it wasn't going to happen. Because if you have to make a deal to do everything, it's just never going to get there. Whereas if you can just surf the Internet, the real Internet, and no one needs to do anything to adapt to it, suddenly you get it all for free. And then you get the virtual cycle going where they're making stuff for you. And that was sort of the, that's the timing bit is like the, the external structure around what you're doing.

Horace Dediu • 28:41
Yeah, it's, it's, it's complex and it's multi-causal and you're right. It's multiple, the reasons why things happen the way they are. And it's just not foreseeable. The internet was, and by the way, the thing that really caused the project to fail and be abandoned--this media distribution side note-- it was the fixation on DRM.

DRM actually killed a lot of great businesses with content ideas back in the day, whether it was music or video or textual. It was people just obsessed about protecting it before they obsessed about distributing it and making it great. And this is why when iTunes came along, even though there were some circumstances there with being on a Mac and not on the PC, that the publishers finally said, why don't we go ahead with this?

So long story there. But as far as what Nokia was doing, after four years of doing this startup inside of Nokia that did not work out, I got into the job of strategy analysis and competitive analysis. So they asked me to do Microsoft.

Microsoft was the biggest worry for everyone because they had intentions of being in the phone business. They made no secret about it. They had prototypes. They were working with competitors to Nokia. [Intending to] give them the operating system so that [for instance] Samsung running Microsoft [Mobile]. That was the effort.

They were pushing on all fronts. Nokia was holding out and saying "we've got our own operating system" and so on. So they gave me this job because every other competitor was hardware. All the analysts were covering hardware. I was the only guy who was covering a software company.

And in doing that, I was also sort of nibbling at Apple a little bit because the iPod had come out. The iPod was doing amazing, but it wasn't a phone product. And I was kind of looking at it a little bit.

Now Christensen comes back in the picture, because his book had taken off. He had already written the second book, which is The Innovator Solution. And I was like, hang on a second, a lot of stuff that I read in the book, and I remember back from my days at school, applies to Apple here because they're doing a lot of interesting things with being disruptive as the case may be.

Nokia itself had been disruptive in its early years. But I'm focused on Microsoft. And my point was that we can fight this battle and win, but we got to be very careful. And there's a lot of twists and turns there, but I took it upon myself also to understand what's going to happen with this media product from Apple.

And then I began to write a few internal notes because nobody was covering Apple. This is interesting and important. Imagine you have a team of a dozen analysts, you could put them on multiple jobs, assign people to multiple problems. No one thought that Apple was a problem to be looked at, even part time. No, there was nothing interesting about it.

And part of that had to do with the fact that [Nokia perceived that Apple had been] one foot in the grave already in the 90s. And now they were this little toy media company. They didn't really have scale. Phones were on the orders of billions of users already. And this iPod was in the tens of millions, maybe a hundred million. So it was orders of magnitude. There was no real worry there.

But I was really annoyed at this thing. And I started building a model. I remember distinctly opening a spreadsheet, looking at research reports and thinking to myself, let's look at the history of the iPod, how it's growing. And I started to match that to the Razr, which was the most viral product at the time, the Motorola Razr.

Even Nokia was jealous about this thing. At that time, [Motorola] had cumulative sales of 50 million, which was considered way too scary. (And BlackBerry was another one, by the way.) So I'm doing this and I'm like, hang on a second, what if they do a phone and it's a combination of the Razr and the iPod, could that resonate? And I just put it out there. I said, it's possible. And there was a rumor of the iPhone coming out.

Ben Thompson • 33:31
So Apple did do a Motorola Razr with iTunes functionality. Did that actually end up, because that was a flop. And did that actually make people not as like more relaxed?

Horace Dediu • 33:46
Because we knew that it didn't run an operating system. It didn't have a developer API, there was nothing, no hooks in it. It was just an appliance. And as such, it was like a feature phone. And that was not interesting. We had been talking and pounding the table on smartphones already since 2001. Remember, when I joined, we had a communicator. We had Symbian, Series 60. We had the interfaces. We had all picture phones, music, etc.

Ben Thompson • 34:20
I was a user as well.

Horace Dediu • 34:22
And I had done the numbers, and by 2005, people were burned out on smartphones. Because the projection was like this, but it was more like this. It wasn't growing as much as you thought it would. And so a lot of people said, especially the top management was like, "you guys are very enthusiastic about the software stuff, but it's just not working out. We're going to double down on hardware."

So there was a lot of burnout. So, but I kept looking at the phone at Apple and I suggested, hey, what if this thing scaled anyway? Like I said "what if they could sell as many as 50 million?" That was my provocation. And people were like, dude... I was essentially taken aside and told, tone it down. First of all, you're not doing yourself any favors by being so provocative. You're just going to lose credibility. My boss, who's a great guy he just took me aside and said, just don't do that. You know, it's bad for you.

Ben Thompson • 35:22
And this is like 2005, 2006, around then?

Horace Dediu • 35:25
Well, already 2006, because the iPhone was rumored. It wasn't out, but it was like, if you're going to have iPod success and you're going to do this crap phone with Motorola, you're probably thinking, maybe they're going to do something interesting beyond that, because we knew they could, in theory, do something.

We didn't see the touch interface, but we saw maybe like a scroll wheel or something. You know, Tony Fadell was running the thing. So, bottom line is, when it finally came out, it was January 2007. It came out and was not for sale, but it was on stage. And I was so excited. And I said, this is unbelievable.

I remember running into the office the next day. Usually you socialize at lunch hour, sitting in the cafeteria, talking to your friends and asking them what do they think about this? And most people just said, oh, it doesn't look that interesting. aspects of it were copied. There were copies from here and there. There are other people that do touch. You know, a stylus has been around for a long time with BlackBerry also doing amazing things with keyboard and so on and so on.

So there was a lot of cynicism and sort of not really interesting. I said, man, it's running OS X, it was running a full operating system. And I said, this is going to get developers working on it. But again, the other thing, the other head fake from Apple was that Steve Jobs said they're not going to put any apps on this thing unless Apple write them. I was anticipating far more than even was being talked about. And for that reason, it was just super frustrating. Anyway, I left in 2009. But by then, Nokia were still not following Apple.

Ben Thompson • 37:13
How is that possible? Like even two years on, this device is out there.

Horace Dediu • 37:19
Because it still didn't have distribution. And this is the thing that consumed everyone following the iPhone in the beginning. It's like they had one launch partner. It was initially Cingular, became AT&T. Don't forget that the old AT&T had nothing to do with this AT&T. It was just a rebrand of Cingular, which was a crappy, small, not very small, it was maybe second tier [operator.]

Ben Thompson • 37:47
Verizon didn't want to do it. Apple did this again and again. Verizon was number one.

Horace Dediu • 37:50
Verizon was number one. Absolutely. But Verizon was in CDMA. But the thing is that it was a crappy network and they didn't have a lot of points to sale. They didn't have distribution. and everybody said this, you need 500 network operators to saturate the global market, right?

And how fast are you going to be able to obtain distribution was the question. And so they're so cantankerous. You know, Apple is known as being "my way or the highway."

Verizon said no for years. Nokia was like, this is not going to fly. These guys are, if anything, they're naive. Don't forget, by the way, there's a separate story on how BlackBerry dealt with the iPhone. There's a movie about it, by the way. Everybody should watch it. But basically, everyone had the similar responses: that this is not kosher.

This is not the way things are done in this business. It's all about relationships with operators. It's about getting shelf space. It's about getting salesmen in the store who are bribed effectively with a commission to tell you what to buy, effectively yank the phone out of your hands and give you another one. So this was a very dirty business at the street level.

Ben Thompson • 39:19
So do you know what was the first what was the first article of mine that I think you ever linked to? It was about precisely. No, no, you don't need to know. I know because it was very formative to me. That's what I'm going to tell you. It was basically about talking about this was how distribution worked.

And what Apple changed about the whole thing was that customers actually switched networks for the iPhone. And it was doing just sort of a traditional sort of business school analysis of and pointing out the power shifted to instead of distribution to the buyers. Basically, what I ended up writing about for 13 years now is demand mattering more than sort of the supply bit. But it was the exact same thing. That's why you linked to it. You are you are already on board with it.

Horace Dediu • 40:04
But it was also the thing that resonated for me personally. Not that I knew something about the phone. Mostly I knew how big it could get. I knew that there were billions of people, many more billions than used PCs, which was by far the most dominant influence in technology.

Most people oriented themselves, like even Gruber and others who were Mac first and then all these accessories. But I knew the phone would be a couple of zeros more. That was number one.

Number two, there was this problem of the incumbency, which were all the phone makers, who were so far from understanding what the software dynamics of platforms were. By the way, platform theory was developed by Microsoft. They pretty much invented the whole idea.

Ben Thompson of the Stratechery interviews Horace on the Stratechery Plus Podcast to discuss Horace's journey to become an influential tech analyst: early career in research, business school under Clayton Christensen, and his time at Nokia during the rise of the iPhone. 

The conversation further explores Disruption Theory in the context of both smartphones and AI, why Christensen misjudged Apple, and whether AI could challenge today’s tech giants. It also marks the launch of Dediu’s new paid service Asymco One and reflects his continued conviction in Apple Inc. at its 50-year milestone.

Make no small plans

50 already? It seems only a blink of an eye since I wrote Apple at 40. Let's try copy & paste.

In Apple’s first 40 50 years it shipped 1,591,092,250 5,126,211,000 computers[1].

This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 40 50 years. Actually there are no other PC makers that are 40 50 years old. One computer maker (IBM) is older but they only sold PCs for 24 years and what they still sell they don’t sell in high numbers.

That does not make Apple the top seller in a given year. Looking at only the Mac, Apple’s traditional form factor personal computer, Apple is fifth fourth in market share. If including the iPad, it was the top computer vendor in 2011 and, including the iPhone, it was first in 2009.

The following graph shows the top computer makers by units sold since 1975, a year before Apple was founded. (Click on the graph to see a higher resolution.)

Note that the graph is log scale and in multiples of 1000. Following the yellow Apple line we can see how it started with fewer than 1000 units shipped in its first year to today when it is shipping more than 1 million computers every day[2]. It's also quite remarkable to count how many other companies have come and gone in this top five list and imagine how many came and went in the "other" category.

Who remembers Atari, Commodore, Packard Bell, Compaq? Few said that they were doomed while they were in the running. Going back to Apple at 40,

After having a 40 50 year run and after selling more computers than all American and Japanese computer companies put together, how should we think about the next 40 50 years?

First, clearly Apple shifted from being a “computer company”. It has already changed its name to exclude the word “Computer.” That [came to mean that] it sells devices (which happen to also include computers.) We don't use computers to compute anyway. We use them to make decisions, keep track of things, speed things up and to communicate and to entertain.

After convincing the world that it's a not just a computer company, the next challenge has been to convince the world that it's also not just a product company. It did so by launching Services as a group (formerly known as iTunes Software and Services) and then separating the financial reporting so that Services can be measured with its own gross margin. Year after year management emphasized Services growth in its commentary. Services has grown into the second largest segment, 26% of total revenues ($112.8 billion out of 435.6 billion in calendar 2025.)

Services, if it stood alone, would be number 40 in the Fortune 500 list of largest companies by sales. It has been impossible to ignore it. Considering how much customers actually spend on Apps, Content and Services, the total is even bigger at $240 billion last year[3]. As a result, some, perhaps most, recognize Apple as a Products & Services company.

The App store alone attracts $169 billion in spending per year (2025) and that is now 5x what theatrical movie sales bring in world-wide.[4]

So if Apple is today at least a bundle of Products and Services then what will Apple be 50 years from now?

Again from Apple 40:

My simple proposal is to think of Apple as a customer creator. It creates and maintains customers. The more it creates, the more it prospers. The more customers it preserves the more it’s likely to persevere. This measure of performance for a company is not easy to obtain. It’s not a line item in any financial report.

The closest figure we have is that today Apple has one 2.5 billion active devices in use. It has around 1.1 billion users [5]. Using the devices as a proxy, we can say that this audience has more than doubled in the last decade.

So we know that at least Apple has created a large number of customers. Knowing total devices sold and number in use means that we can be sure that 63% of all the computers Apple sold are still in use. This means that most customers are recent customers. Are they going to come back?

If we then factor in the size and persistence of Apple’s audience (customer base) we might conclude that there are factors which will allow it to grow rather than shrink. My analysis based on public data shows that the customer base has been increasing steadily.

And here is a graph showing the size of device base and implications for subscriptions. services and comparisons with other consumer aggregators. Note the forward looking nature of a linear extrapolation of the historical data.

10 years ago, I continued:

Combining the history of customer creation and customer preservation with the value obtained from each customer implies that the next 40 years will be about creating another large tranche of customers whose willingness to spend on whatever Apple creates will be relatively unchanged.

We don’t know the limit. One billion was hard to imagine even one year ago. We might see two billion devices in short order. Perhaps not. Perhaps as we have a multitude of devices about us all day the number will become less meaningful. But if the number of middle class customers grows and as Apple keeps its products within their reach, there is no reason to think that there will be a reversal of the last 40 years in terms of customer acquisition.

This analysis contradicts the current perception of the company as reflected by its stock price. That price assumes the audience will wither ((With a P/E ratio of 11, without a change in revenue per user, the only justification would be the audience shrinking by more than 90% over the next 20 years.)) That is not insanity. It is what we could expect if Apple were unexceptional.

We did see 2 billion. We actually saw 2.5 billion. The assumption of a company in distress as reflected by the P/E ratio of 11 is gone. It's safe to say that Apple is exceptional.

But note that we are only 10 years into that 40 year forecast from a decade ago. Do we still feel confident that the company can last 30 more years given what we've seen so far? If one company could get through the next 30 I would say it is Apple. And if it is so then I think it will get through the next 50.

One more Thing

So, the plan is to make more of the same. It's more than enough.

1. Including Apple II, Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod touch; excluding Apple Vision Pro, Apple TV and other iPods. Includes Q1 shipments estimated
2. 2025 shipments were above 364.9 million excluding Apple Vision Pro, Apple TV, Apple Watch.
3. A Fortune 15 ranking. This would be the case if payments to developers were counted as sales but that is not the case for accounting reasons. As a result Services margins are an extraordinary 76%, on the order of a software only business like Microsoft Office.
4. As an aside, when I first started tracking this data it was early 2015. The App store had just overtaken US Box Office revenues and the outrage at my comparison and the skepticism that this sustainable was impressive. Much of the outrage was due to my choice of the headline "Bigger Than Hollywood". You can still read the 72 comments. App store billings are now nineteen times bigger than US Box office billings. I still stand by the idea that the App Store is Bigger than Hollywood. It is in fact bigger than many other forms of entertainment combined--more about this later
5. Stay tuned for a detailed exposition of this audience

The iPhone is the most successful product of all time.

Over 1.6 billion have been sold. Including the iOS products it spun off, the total is over 2.2 billion. Of those 2.2 billion sold, 1.5 billion are still in use.

There are about 1 billion iPhone users.

Economically speaking, iPhone sales have reached one trillion dollars. ((The milestone of $1 trillion iPhone revenues was reached in the fourth quarter 2018 during which time the stock price of Apple fell by 40%.))

Since the iPhone launched, Apple's sales have totaled $1.918 trillion. Of those trillions about one half a trillion was accumulated in the form of  income.

Of that half trillion in income, $360 billion was paid out to shareholders ((As a result, the number of outstanding shares has decreased by 29%)). and $131 billion was paid in taxes.

This sounds like a good business, but no business is good if it is static. What makes a business great is dynamism. The idea is to constantly maneuver for a new or enhanced way of doing business as technologies enable entrepreneurs to fundamentally change how value is captured or allocated.

The iPhone story isn't static, the "pivots" or change in direction are several:

• The App Store, a platform for collaborative innovation where millions of developers are offered the chance to improve the product.
• Accessories, a licensing model for third-party hardware that works with the iPhone
• Distribution through multiple channels
• Integration with other Apple Products
• The marketing of older products alongside new ones at reduced prices
• An expanded product portfolio with a broader range of prices
• Trade-in and financing options

Each of these initiatives contributed to the iPhone growth story but the biggest change in business model was the addition of services. Apple Services grew out of the iTunes business that pre-dates the iPhone and was established to provide content for the iPod.

In 2006, the year before the iPhone launched, Apple customers spent $3.3 billion on iTunes, Software and Services. By 2018 the spending rate was $80.5 billion/yr. It's very possible that this year's spending rate will reach $100 billion/yr. This new division is simply called Services today and consists mainly of third-party apps and third-party content sales as well as licensing.

Recently Apple launched a set of new services that it will offer itself. This includes television, films, financial services and news. Apple already has a music service of its own and file storage (iCloud) both of which are offered as subscriptions.

Apps are also allowed to offer paid subscriptions, and that total has reached 390 million, growing at 30 million a quarter with an expected total of 500 million by 2020. That amounts to one subscription for every other iPhone in use.

Some would argue that even with a $43 billion revenue rate, ($80 billion billing  rate) ((The difference is in the way Apple accounts for App Store revenues: declaring only the 30% portion of sales that it keeps as revenues, and not including the 70% that is paid out to developers. The "billing rate" is what consumers spend, the "revenue rate" is what Apple reports.)) Apple's business is still a hardware business and that comes with low margins, potential for disruption, non-recurring revenues and cyclicality.

This is not the case. Apples's business has high margins (64% gross margin for services, 34% for products), has been resilient over 12 years while attracting hundreds of imitators at lower price points, and has loyalty and satisfaction which results in more than 90% re-purchase rates. Cyclicality is driven by seasonality and product lifespans, not competition.

This common misconception of Apple is why it continues to be valued at a deep discount to not only peer companies who are services oriented (Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon) but also at a discount to the overall market (the S&P 500).

Apple, since its inception, has always been oriented around its customers, not its products. The questions asked by management are "what can the company do to deliver experiences and satisfaction" rather than "what products can the company build".

Every company is bound by its capabilities but the best companies re-shape these bounds because they are defined by priorities.

A priorities-driven company habitually re-designs its processes and its resources. A resources- or process-driven company re-designs its priorities as its capabilities change.

Moving as it does between computers, devices, software, services, retail, logistics and manufacturing means that it's not classifiable as an "x" company where "x" is an industry sector. Rather, the company should be classified by the set of problems it seeks to solve (e.g. communications, community, productivity, creativity, wellbeing).

This disconnect between what people think Apple sells and what Apple builds is as perplexing as the cognitive disconnect between what companies sell and what customers buy.

Companies sell objects or activities that they can make or engage in but customers buy solutions to problems. It's easy to be fooled that these are interchangeable. ((They are only correlated. Purchase decisions are not *caused* by a product's existence. The real cause is a combination of need and supply and time and circumstance of purchase.))

Conversely Apple offers solutions to problems that are viewed, classified, weighed and measured as objects or activities by external observers. Again, it's easy to be fooled that these are the same.

This analysis is, of course, applicable to any company. Here I'm using Apple as a lens. This is because it's just so much easier to tell this story with the narratives and anti-narratives that are so widely disseminated.

Microsoft has announced that by the end of the year the Groove music service will be phased out. Users are being offered the option to move their music libraries into Spotify.

This brings to an end a long story of Microsoft in the music distribution business. It started nearly 15 years ago with technologies in Windows that allowed for purchase and playback of various media formats. Microsoft sought to enable a large number of music retailers to market music through its formats and DRM and transaction clearing.

Services such as AOL MusicNow, Yahoo! Music Unlimited, Spiralfrog, MTV URGE, MSN Music, Musicmatch Jukebox, Wal-Mart Music Downloads, Ruckus, PassAlong, Rhapsody, iMesh and BearShare and dozens of hardware players licensed Windows formats. Almost all of these services have shut down and the devices disappeared.

The next stage was to offer an integrated experience through the Microsoft Zune player and Zune Marketplace music service. This too failed and was replaced by the Xbox Music brand in 2012. On July 6, 2015, Microsoft announced the re-branding of Xbox Music as Groove to tie in with the release of Windows 10.

There was a time when Microsoft was thought of as the certain winner in media distribution. Inserting media into the Windows hegemony was classic "control point" strategy: owning the access points was a sure way to collect a tax on what transacted through the network.

Instead we are facing a market where media is consumed through new access points: phones, tablets and TV boxes. Netflix, Spotify, Roku, Google, Amazon and Apple are all offering distribution and some are investing in original programming.

It's perhaps worthwhile to recall that Microsoft and Apple both started their media efforts around the same time. Apple's iTunes is 16 years old and the iTunes Music Store opened in 2003, almost 15 years ago. Today Apple is transitioning to streaming with 30 million subscribers. The graph below shows the history of subscription growth to Apple Music and Spotify.

Apple Music is a small part of Apple Services (part of the orange area below).

On a yearly basis Apple Services are this year crossing the $50 billion gross revenue run rate. This year Apple released a new Apple TV 4K and is releasing a new smart speaker called HomePod.

The contrast between Microsoft and Apple is most visibly between the Mac and PC. But the story of how media paralleled mobility and how Microsoft struggled with both is perhaps a cautionary tale.

Microsoft saw the limits of modularity when new product categories emerged and when new user behaviors were created. They attempted to pivot into being more integrated but those efforts also failed. The efforts continue today with Surface devices; looking forward they will continue with AR/VR and perhaps a pivot of Xbox..

But the long arc of history shows how hard it is to succeed in vertical integration after you build on horizontal foundations. Generations of managers graduated from the modular school of thought, specializing rather than generalizing. Now they are facing an integrated experiential world where progress depends on wrapping the mind around very broad systems problems.

Entire industries are facing this orthogonal pivot: media, computing and transportation come to mind. Huge blind spots exist as we see only what we've been trained to see.

Berkshire Hathaway, led by Warren Buffett, now owns about $1.4 billion of Apple. Occasionally we hear about various "celebrity investors" taking positions in the company or exiting those positions. The last one I remember was Carl Icahn. He seems to have exited Apple before Berkshire entered. There are some who will act because of these decisions. You should not be one of them.

Nor should the management of the firm act in response to investor decisions or concerns. Management is specifically distinct from ownership in the corporate construct precisely in order to bring professionalism to the role. The manager must set priorities as they see fit, irrespective of what the transient owner might prioritize. The separation of ownership and management is one of the greatest innovations in commerce.

There are many opinions on what priorities should be. Delivering a specific financial ratio, achieving a certain market position, changing the world for the better. These have all been cited as top priorities. I happen to believe that what matters most is the creation and preservation of customers. That is because I see customer creation as causal to the other desirable outcomes and it is therefore the more important priority.

And this is why, whenever possible, I try to deduce how well a company is performing on this metric. The greatest companies (by market capitalization) today are certainly examples of achievement in customer creation. Facebook, Microsoft and Google are members of the "billion user club" or companies that crossed a billion active users.

But do they really have a billion customers? Microsoft has over 1.2 billion users but many (most?) of those users are using computers that their employers provide on which Microsoft software was installed. They may not have made the choice to purchase the tools they are using. Microsoft certainly has millions of customers in the form of "accounts" purchasing its products and services, but It's not likely that there are a billion people who have directly chosen to buy a Microsoft product.

Facebook has over a billion daily users. Facebook users are certainly using the service of their own accord but they are not paying for the service. Quite the contrary, the actual customers of Facebook are companies buying an advertising service offered in the form of exposure to those billion users. The Facebook users are the product being sold, not the buyers. Thus Facebook's total number of paying customers is probably only in the tens or hundreds of thousands. ((Orr Sella @orrsella pointed out that Facebook has stated that they have 3 million businesses actively advertising on their networks.))

Same with Google. We don't know how many accounts Google send invoices to but the number is very likely not even in the 100 million range. Its billions of users are beneficiaries of services but they are not paying Google/Alphabet.

Amazon has many millions of customers, if not billions. Prime membership is above 50 million but not above 100 million. Amazon may some day have a billion customers but there are limits to how quickly that can happen. The growth potential is governed by logistics and that's as much an issue with atoms as it is with electrons.

Which brings us to Apple. Apple does not offer a figure on its specific user count, but we have some viable proxies:

• iCloud accounts reached 782 million in February 2016.
• iTunes accounts reached 885 million in September 2014
• Active devices reached one billion in January 2016. That number is likely above 1.1 billion now. (Includes all devices, hence Macs and Apple TVs).

These figures are also parts of patterns (shown below) which offer an indication of predictable growth.

In addition to the absolute figures and their growth there is also the question of loyalty (frequently cited by the company), switching from other platforms (also frequently cited) and revenues. The company publishes specific figures on service revenues for consumer attached devices showing a run rate of $41 billion/yr in services for their device base.

In combination, a picture emerges which shows that Apple has nearly a billion customers. I can't say how many with any precision but it's certainly above 500 million (on the basis of iCloud and iTunes accounts). It's below one billion because some users have more than one device.

Even though it has not happened yet, the trend is pretty clear. Apple will at some point in time have a billion paying customers.

What is more significant than the specific count is that these customers mostly chose to be customers individually. Some may have been given the products as gifts, but the vast majority bought the items for themselves. Apple benefitted from hundreds of million of individual purchase decisions.

Furthermore, having made the decision to purchase, chances are that they will do so again. Apple customers are a recurring revenue stream. In fact, it's fairly easy to calculate that being an Apple customer is equivalent to spending about $1/day on its products and services, indefinitely.

Apple is not there yet, but a billion dollars a day from a billion customers is not inconceivable. That would be quite an achievement.

When Spotify and Pandora were starting their streaming services many were quick to point out that Apple was about to be disrupted. The future, they said, was streaming because (young) people could not be bothered with ownership of music and the limitations of a personal collection. Who would want to pay for a few hundred songs when they could listen to millions for free?

This perception continued and became more vocal over the years. Seven years in fact. Spotify collected 20 million paying subscribers while Apple did nothing. Pandora grabbed 80 million active listeners and possibly 4 million paying subscribers while Apple did nothing. The boat had sailed and Apple was not only not on it but oblivious that there was a boat in the first place.

At first Apple launched a half-hearted streaming service and then a paid service finally showed up with Apple Music in mid 2015. Since then the company managed to add 15 million subscribers. A tiny number compared to the 900 million iTunes accounts it had reported a year earlier. Pathetic. The number of music subscriptions relative to iCloud accounts, iTunes accounts and active devices is shown the the graph below.

It may be paltry compared to the count of users Apple may have in total, but how does a 15 million user base in 1 year compare with the growth rate for the incumbents Spotify and Pandora?

The following graph shows the ramps for Spotify, Pandora and Apple Music since their moments of market entry. The accumulation of users by Apple looks to be the fastest yet.

This is, of course, due to a maturing use case. Apple did not have to educate people to the notion of music as a subscription. It could just announce it and users would discover it and just sign up, especially if they were already iCloud subscribers and had a credit card attached to their iTunes account.

But that's the whole point. Apple did not have to move first in music subscriptions. It did not even have to move second or third. When it did move it could just skim the market and add to its already healthy Services revenue (orange line in the first graph above.) Missing the boat in music in this case meant capturing all the value quickly and with minimal expense.

Fundamentally, Apple's entry into music subscriptions was a sustaining effort. Streaming sustained Apple rather than disrupting it. The difference may seem merely one of semantics, but it is also the difference between life and death for a challenger. Meaning matters.

This is a cautionary tale for those who would pronounce every new idea as "disruptive" to Apple or anyone else on the basis of novelty alone. The tests for disruptiveness are easy enough and it behooves the analyst to apply them before dropping the d-bomb.

Since writing Peak Cable six months ago, surveys, research and analysis have contributed to the themes of unbundling the TV package. The data under scrutiny is, as usual, the data that can be gathered. Unfortunately the data that can't be gathered is where the insight into what is happening may lie. For instance, what matters for an entertainer is not how much you're watched but how much you're loved. Measuring love is done poorly with data on payment for subscriptions.

A better proxy might be time. Liam Boluk makes the point in his post that "focusing on cord cutting or even cord shaving largely misses the point." Don't follow the dollars, he says, follow the time or engagement. "Relevance" is what matters.

His data shows how linear TV has fallen by roughly 30% among the young (12-34) in the last five years. The trouble for the TV bundle (and advertisers) is that this is the most culturally influential group. They are also the group which will grow into the highest income group over the next decade. And this group does not love TV.

We have to remember that it was the youth who drove early radio, TV and consumer electronics markets. Those young are now the old which still cling to the old media, served by companies that grew old with them. They are the "high-end" customers with which Nielsen itself has grown. They have the most money to spend and they are the targets for the ads ((no longer the Pepsi generation, they are the Depend and Viagra and pharmaceuticals generation))

Paying $150/month to watch incontinence and erectile dysfunction ads—at a time not of your choosing—is preposterous for the young. They may like the programs but not the way they are packaged, delivered or interrupted. They are not smarter than their parents. They, like their parents, took to new technology more quickly. What makes the technology new is also what lets its makers separate the content from its delivery. These new technologies allow "modularizing" or unbundling that which was was integrated/bundled and thus allow their developers to focus on the customer's real jobs-to-be-done.

Unsurprisingly, incumbents have responded by throttling access to original programming–an asset over which they still exert influence as distributors. Netflix and Amazon are taking the path of responding with their own blockbuster productions. Although Silicon Valley has more capital to deploy than Hollywood  this battle of attrition is by no means one that incumbents will win, and generally, it's not going to be pretty.

Tweaking the nose of the incumbent might not be the way to establish asymmetry. The better tactic may be to help the system survive but offer a "short-term alternative". This is how iTunes took on and won Music. When Napster and file sharing created a clear and present danger to the industry, Apple's approach of a controlled alternative allowed the industry to finally move to a digital download model.

An observer in 2004 would have said that Apple was bowing to the industry and providing it sustenance against "disruptive" free music. However, as behavior shifted to an overwhelming preference of iTunes downloads over physical media, the music labels found themselves in an untenable negotiating position. They had to concede on DRM, pricing and bundling itself. The music disruption occurred with a tacit acceptance and collaboration by the incumbents.

Is history repeating? Looking at the situation around TV today, the strategies of the challengers can be summarized in a similar way:

1. The content low-end: Now, YouTube, Twitch. Then, Napster, Gnutella
2. The distribution low-end: Now, Netflix, Amazon. Then, incumbent music download sites.
3. The nominally sustaining: Now Apple TV. Then, iTunes

Apple cannot play an "ignore me" strategy because as much as investors think the company is irrelevant, everything it does is closely watched by anybody who might be even remotely touched by it. Especially in entertainment.

In addition, due to brand considerations, the company cannot ship low-quality or no-quality product, including material that sits on its platform.

They have to do something different. Something more complicated and something that takes much longer.

What Apple best contributes asymmetrically is a new experience. The experience allows new behavior, new usage models and hence new loyalties to emerge. The loyalties create affinity which shifts the "love interest" for the user. The new Apple TV attempts to provide such a contribution. Not only in terms of the experience but also for becoming, finally, a platform for developers, who will try to make the product itself better in collaboration with Apple. Thus the "new experience" flips when bits which are streamed cohabit a device with bits which expect a consumer response.

This "appification" becomes an interesting experiment in behavior alteration. Will "couch time" change from pure passivity to partial interaction?

To the orthodox adherents to the religion of linearity of immersive programming this sounds impossible. But why else should a product deserve to exist? A great product is one which changes the user and for Apple TV to become great it needs to engage us to do something different than we do today. It needs to make us feel we are better for using it.

Is this new Apple TV up to it? We'll have to wait and see. But then again, if not this one, then another one will. TV will not remain unchanged forever.

Eddy Cue seems like a nice guy. I can't say that for sure as I've never met him, but he seems to be amiable enough. Maybe it's because he has a seat on Ferrari's board of directors. Maybe it's because he enjoys dancing.

Or maybe it's because he's in charge of the only real "division" at Apple. All the other senior managers have functional roles. Eddy has a bona-fide business unit called Services.

Services is Apple's division of many things. It has the iTunes stores (Music, Video, Apps and iBooks). It has Software with consumer bundles like iWork and iLife and Pro tools like Aperture, Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. It still has OS X as a product, though revenues are pretty low as updates are now free. It also includes Services with iCloud, Apple Music and Applecare.

These things are not iPhones or iPads but they are many and all together they form a modest little unit. I say modest because not much is said about it. When seen in contrast to the other Apple product lines, it's hard to be impressed. In the graph below it's the purple area.

Apple does not help much. Occasionally  Apple offers updates on iTunes/Services using various (rarely the same) metrics. For example, in early August, Eddy Cue offered an update during an interview with USA Today on Apple Music relating how many users there were one month after the service started (11 million).  It was worth a few headlines.

However he also noted in passing that the App store did $1.7 billion in transactions during July. If you convert that to a yearly run-rate it comes out to about $20 billion/yr. Digging through previous announcements, the equivalent figure for 2014 was about $13.7 billion. Nice growth.

But is $20 billion of "transactions" of any significance? It's not even a figure that Apple reports as revenue. For apps, Apple reports only the 30% fee as revenues so 70% of that transaction value passes through to developers and is therefore not part of its statement of accounts. ((From SEC filings: For third-party applications sold through the App Store and Mac App Store and certain digital content sold through the iTunes Store, the Company does not determine the selling price of the products and is not the primary obligor to the customer. Therefore, the Company accounts for such sales on a net basis by recognizing in net sales only the commission it retains from each sale. The portion of the gross amount billed to customers that is remitted by the Company to third-party app developers and certain digital content owners is not reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations.))

However perhaps we should consider the figure in some way. It represents transactions in an economic sense--the amount people spend on apps. It's therefore comparable with what people spend on other forms of entertainment. Movies for example.

The following graph shows the spending on apps within the iTunes App Store ((note that this does not include Google's Play Store whose transaction values are not public and is therefore not a gauge of all apps.)) as well as spending on other forms of iTunes stores as well as Services. It also shows how all the services compare with box office revenues from movies. Both the US and World-wide. And how these figures changed over the few years that the App Store has been in existence. The individual service line items are shown in the graph on the left and the stacked totals are on the right.

Note that already last year App Store Billings overtook US Box Office gross revenues and that Services a whole overtook Global Box Office gross revenues. It's not likely to happen this year but next year Apple's Apps will almost certainly overtake global Box Office in revenues.

This contrast with movies gives some perspective on the creation of a new market. Apps did not exist as a medium in 2007. But, together with Android apps, apps are likely to have already overtaken revenues from an industry that is a century old. And not just any industry. Hollywood represents more than an economic power, it has a cultural power affecting perceptions and political opinion. And although universally envied, it has not been successfully replicated.

So having created this market and becoming bigger than Hollywood, and grossing more than what 90 countries produce, Apple's Services not something that is interesting to many who think about technology or even to many who think about Apple.

Which is why I think Eddy's such a nice guy. No matter how little attention is paid to his economic empire, he always seems to be in a good mood. Maybe he knows something we don't.

Apple paid $10 billion to developers in calendar 2014. Additional statistics for the App store are:

• $500 million spent on iOS apps in first week of January 2015
• Billings for apps increased 50% in 2014
• Cumulative developer revenues were $25 billion (making 2014 revenues 40% of all app sales since store opened in 2008)
• 627,000 jobs created in the US
• 1.4 million iOS apps catalog is sold in 155 countries

Putting these data points together with others from previous releases results in a fairly clear picture of the iTunes/Software/Services ((soon to be renamed Services and encompass everything under the heading of iTunes software and services today including content, apps, licensing and other services and beginning Q4 2014 it will also include Apple Pay.))

The App ecosystem billings (what consumers actually pay) is shown in the red area above. 70% of those payments are transferred directly to developers and Apple reports the 30% remaining as part of its revenues. This view of the iTunes ecosystem shows the impact of Apps relative to the other media types. When we measure the payments to the content owners we can see that Apps also dominate: 

The red area above adds up to the approximately $25 billion total paid to developers. This view of the payments to ecosystem contributors shows how apps are now a bigger digital content business than music (( Music payments due to iTunes Radio streams are not shown as part of Music cost of sales. Streaming revenues are included in the services/licensing income and payments come out that cost structure.)) and TV programs and Movie rentals and purchases put together.

This is quite a story.

Put another way, in 2014 iOS app developers earned more than Hollywood did from box office in the US.

 

Although the totals for Domestic (US) Box Office are not the complete Hollywood revenues picture, Apple's App Store billings is not the complete App revenue picture either. The Apps economy includes Android and ads and service businesses and custom development.  Including all revenues, apps are still likely to be bigger than Hollywood.

But there's more to the story. It's also likely that the App industry is healthier. On an individual level, some App developers earn more than Hollywood stars ((so do YouTube stars, but that's another story.)) and I would guess that the median income of app developers is higher than the median income of actors. ((A large majority of actors earn less than $1,000 a year from acting jobs)) The app economy sustains more jobs (627,000 iOS jobs in the US vs. 374,000 in Hollywood) and is easier to enter and has wider reach. As the graph below shows It's also growing far more rapidly.

The curious thing is that even though the medium of apps is swamping other forms of entertainment in all measurable ways, comprehension of the phenomenon is lagging.

Information asymmetry is a wonderful thing.

When the Apple Watch will begin sales, there will have been dozens of "smart watches" released. At CES this week at least 56 "wearables" were on display. One could be forgiven for thinking that Apple's Watch will compete with at least that many alternatives. Those alternatives don't even include the entire existing mechanical and electronic watch market, which, surely, is also filled with competitors.

When analyzing competition, it's easy to get caught up in one-on-one competitive comparisons, each posited as a decisive life-or-death battle. Consider the list of competitors that Apple has been declared as being in a death-match with:

• Real Networks. Yes, there was a time when Apple's survival depended on success vs. alternative media encoding technologies.
• Adobe. Remember Flash? No Flash support meant that Apple's fledgling phone would fail.
• "The Music Industry". Unhappy partners could surely shut down the iTunes music store, and their insistence on DRM would surely cripple the experience.
• IBM. In nearly every aspect, their business/strategy/inclination and glimmer of intent was an existential threat the Apple.
• Microsoft. In nearly every aspect, their business/strategy/inclination and glimmer of intent was an existential threat the Apple.
• Google. In nearly every aspect, their business/strategy/inclination and glimmer of intent is an existential threat the Apple.
• Samsung. Obviously. But not just phones or tablets. They have control over key components that Apple used in many of its products, before the iPhone even.
• Palm/BlackBerry/Nokia/HTC/Huawei/Xiaomi et.al. Every phone maker (and every phone) was/is an existential threat to Apple.
• Dell/HP/Asus/Lenovo et. al. Every PC maker was a threat to Apple. Some of them made MP3 players. Some of them make tablets.
• Amazon. Obviously. Not only as an iTunes killer but as a device disruptor. They are working on drones, after all.
• Sony. Remember them? No longer a PC maker but they moved in many circles Apple moved in. While we're at it, add all the consumer electronics companies in Japan.
• Dropbox. "If Apple can't do iCloud right, they're doomed".

This is a very short list (feel free to suggest more) and it becomes clear that the total count of competitors that Apple has to counter "or else" seems to number in the thousands. Practically every hardware, software and service company is positioned as an "Apple Killer". in fact, the more interesting question might be which companies are not competing with Apple.

Another interesting question relates to why there is no transitive property of competition. I.e. if company A competes with Apple and Apple competes with company B then it does not follow that company A competes with company B.

To wit, whereas HTC competes with Apple and so does Dropbox, it does not follow that HTC competes with Dropbox. So it's entirely possible that it's axiomatic that

"Most companies compete with Apple but few of them compete with each other".

Recognizing a pattern, one could build a model of the technology world where Apple is the focus of all competitive efforts. But this starts to sound absurd.

Indeed, the flaw in the logic is that these competitive pairings are based on the overlap of features of products/services being offered. The features become the attributes of a product which supposedly defines their competitive power. But this is false for the same reason that the attributes of a buyer do not determine their buying behavior. Buyer attributes ((E.g. demographic, sociographic))  are easy to measure and they may correlate to purchasing behavior but they don't cause it.

Similarly, product or company attributes are easy to measure and they may correlate to competitive behavior but they don't cause the substitution of a purchase.

Therefore, appealing to Apple to change its strategy, operations or even its core beliefs in response to a competitor's behavior is deeply misguided. The cause of success and failure in the marketplace is based on being hired by the customer to get a job done. Once hired, the chances are that the trust is secured and the relationship continues even if alternatives are available. There is comfort in the knowledge of whom you're working with.

This aspect of trusted relationship between the buyer and the product and the interweaving of 'brand' (aka intentions) of the hired is the root of loyalty. Of course, loyalties can be betrayed and trust can be lost. But that implies that the primary responsibility of the manager is the creation and preservation of trust. When seen in this light, an alternative axiom becomes clear:

"Great companies don't have any competition."

Great companies are "monopolists of customer trust" and are unaffected by alternatives. They are positioned on and nailing the job their products and services are hired for. The alternatives must not only duplicate the exact job (which they almost never do), but they must also overcome the switching costs.

Remember this when analyzing the impact of yet another competitor and considering the "Apple must fix/do X or else" assertions.