Microsoft

Days after Nokia announced the end of life for the Symbian platform I wrote a post titled Who will buy the next 150 million Symbian smartphones? The reference was to claim by management that before there would be a complete transition to Windows Phone, 150 million legacy Symbian phones would be sold, keeping the company financially stable before the new ecosystem took root.

I reproduce the original forecast I made below with the addition of what actually happened.

[Note that the Actual stack area chart is independent of the forecast area chart as indicated by shading.]

My forecast in early 2011 was based on the 150 million Symbian phones being sold over a two year transition period. The implication with the forecast for Windows Phone was that this would still lead to a difficult contraction of volumes.

As it turns out, only 96 million Symbian devices have been sold in the 7 quarters since the platform was deprecated. It's unlikely that there will be ever by 150 million units sold as last quarter only 3.4 million shipped. In any case, management has already retracted that claim.

What about the Windows Phone forecast? It turns out that by this point in time (Q3 2012) I had expected Lumia shipments to total 9 million. Actual shipments reached about 9.5 million, so not bad. However, the market grew faster than I had expected and overall Nokia smartphone market share turned out to be slightly lower (6.3% in Q2 vs. 10% estimated.)

The just ended quarter shares are not yet available but it's quite possible that overall Nokia smartphones could be well below 5%, and may slip to 3% during the transition period.

My warning in February 2012 was that 150 million Symbian units would not ship since I expected there would be a stigma associated with the products among distributors, even if consumers were fine with them (which they weren't).

The public execution of Symbian (and any other alternative being developed inside Nokia) will probably be a classic case study in disruption management. To wit: even if a platform needs to be led out to pasture, there are ways of managing decline other than suicide. Nokia's failure is not so much having chosen the wrong alternative to Symbian, but having chosen exclusively.

However, there's a twist. The company did not accept exclusivity of one supplier without a concession: In exchange for exclusivity, Nokia negotiated $250 million every quarter in the form of "platform support payments" from Microsoft. Nokia has to date received over $1 billion in such payments. (For the last quarter that amounts to $86 for each Lumia phone shipped.)

The tragedy comes from this $1 billion/yr not being enough. The foregone revenues from Symbian (assuming they had been able to maintain the decline to the level of 150 million units that they had originally forecast) would be about $9 billion. This means that had Nokia not knifed Symbian and had sold the shortfall units at an average price of $200 they would have received an additional $9 billion in sales. Furthermore, assuming a margin of 33% for those units, Nokia received from Microsoft one third from of what she gave up for exclusivity.

In other words, the net cost of the Microsoft exclusive relationship is at least $2 billion in operating profit.

This turns out to be the difference between being profitable and being distressed.

We will never know if this scenario would have ever happened, but the forecast management made 21 months ago suggests that at least they thought this was what they were going to get out of the bargain.

This reminds me of another article posted around the same time.

Last July I asked the question "How many Lumia phones were shipped in the US?"

My answer was 630k through the first half of this year.

I revisit this question following Nokia's latest quarterly report.

As a quick review, Nokia reported the following performance for its mobile phones operations:

 

The most worrying thing of all however is that Nokia's smartphone performance has collapsed. With only 6.3 million units shipped, the company may be the worst performer among eight competitors I track. They were below RIM's shipment total.

The value of 6.3 represents only 7.6% of their overall phone shipments.

As the graph above shows, Nokia is going in the wrong direction with respect to moving to a smartphone portfolio.[1]

Of the total 6.3 million smartphones (aka smart devices, as per Nokia's reporting nomenclature) 2.9 million were Lumia Windows Phone units.

Using information about average selling prices and total volumes into North America, I was able to estimate that there were about 180,000 units sold into North America during the last quarter.

Since launch, my estimate is that Lumia has sold 810k units in the North American market.

This cannot be seen as a good performance. There are mitigating factors such as the lack of upgradeability to Windows Phone 8 which probably deflated demand[2]. However, it's a poignant observation that during the last quarter the US reached 50% smartphone penetration by users. As traction is still absent from both Nokia and Microsoft in the US market, we are back to the question of how to compete.

As the market in the US transitions from competition against non-consumption to competition among rival platforms, the Lumia brand is being forced into targeting smartphone "switchers" rather than smartphone "adopters". The switching option is expensive, requiring aggressive advertising (see Samsung Electronics' $11 billion ad budget).

There's only one source of cash for that sort of strategy.

---

Notes:

1. The caveat is that they market some of the Series 40 phones are "smartphones" on the basis of having "smartphone-equivalent" performance. However, smartphone equivalency is and has been purely subjective. On that basis there were many times in the last decade and a half that we could have counted Java-based or BREW-based or i-Mode-based phones "smartphone-like". Smartphone has been defined on the basis of running an operating system with native APIs for developers.
2. I imagine that the upgrade path could have been known to Nokia, AT&T and Microsoft nine months ago when the Lumia was unveiled for the US by the three CEOs and therefore expectations could have been modulated accordingly.

Marc Andreessen famously coined the phrase "software is eating the world." It's an apt observation. If you look back on the history of computing you're likely to measure computers sold or devices sold or users harvested or productivity gained. These things are measured because they can be measured. But the greatest cause of value created and captured has been the development of software. An ephemeral product whose value is often ignored in analytical discourse.

Software is not easily measured and it's not easily valued due to its intractable nature. Firstly, because businesses that make software tend to have weird cost structures--absurdly high fixed costs and operating margins: They operate without income for years and then suddenly are massively profitable with a minimal set of resources. They have a non-linear, "big bang" trajectory.

Secondly, software companies tend to capture revenues from something other than the direct sale of the good. Software is rarely sold. Services sometimes are sold on the basis of software but more likely audiences for services are sold to a set of bidders, or revenue is obtained in even more circuitous ways.

Thirdly, because there are curious multi-sided markets for software platforms. Charlie Kindel hints strongly at how difficult it is to understand the dynamics of software platforms. There is the prospect of lock-in of users and data. There are relationships to nurture with developers and there's the principle of an ecosystem that creates network effects. The virtuous/vicious cycles are non-linear and unpredictable even for the experts who have been at it for decades (e.g. Microsoft).

Given these difficulties, software is seldom seen as the core value proposition for a particular business. But make no mistake about it, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon are all software companies. They "monetize" or integrate software differently but software is causal to their profits. Their use of software has also made them all disruptive. Software enabled the disruption of consumer electronics, retail, computers, advertising and broadcast media.

But we have not seen anything yet. There is another class of software that is poised to lay waste to a new set of industries. The lowly app coupled with cloud-based services[1] is the termite that is set to eat the foundations of the largest of the industries still standing.

Consider the following:

• Games. A software industry in itself, the app versions are attracting non-consumers and eventually will get good enough to absorb all  usage and profits. Games merged with "entertainment" concepts will lead to new models of user recreation leading to new global brands that could challenge even Disney.
• TV. As apps come to the big screen TV will never be the same. Not only will show creators build directly for an audience but advertisers that currently sponsor shows will produce them instead and package the result as an app.
• Shopping/dining/entertainment/hospitality are changing with location services and with novel "bits to bricks" purchase options (e.g. PassBook). Increasingly services will exploit handheld devices to enable product discovery--the main job retailers are tasked with.
• Communications. The observation that "phone" is just an app and that messaging can be done in dozens of ways depending on message, relationship, context or even custom is possible because apps conform to the user's needs rather than the user conforming to the tools they get from the network service provider.

Although these are enormous opportunities in themselves, this is in addition to several industries that are already crumbling (photography, book publishing, to name two).

I don't need to rely on prose alone to make the point. A graph can also lend a hand.

Consider that Apple's App Store and Google Play together have had over 50 billion installs in less than four years and that the number of users of apps is at least 750 million. Furthermore, consider that apps have moved from a smartphone phenomenon to tablets and even PCs using OS X or Windows. Within one year these software capsules are going to be in use by one fourth of the global population.

Nothing has this kind of reach or engagement, not even browsers. What makes the app disruptive, even ahead of a browser-based service, is that it includes incentives for developers (or, more precisely, app producers) to get paid and to have a relationship with the buyer. These two value propositions, in isolation or in combination, are available to millions and consumable by billions. The most democratized market that can be imagined. An unbounded set of producers and an unbounded set of consumers and a persistent connection after the purchase with nothing in between them except a payment mechanism

The world has never seen such an opportunity.

The consequences are unforeseeable. Apps are a form of software that goes beyond its ancestral "application" as a product and as a business model. It's the software that will take in and assimilate everything in sight.

---

Notes:

1. I have a simple rule to distinguish between an app and a service. If you have to supply a username and password to an app, it's a service.

The US has reached 50% smartphone penetration.

comScore data shows July penetration at 48.8% and a monthly growth in penetration of nearly 2 percentage points. Given the rate of growth, it's nearly certain that we've crossed 50% in August.

The historic growth is shown below:

The platforms making up the smartphone market in the US have seen unequal shares of this new population of users. The following diagrams show how the install bases have changed in absolute and share terms.

 

To round out the analysis, here is the net user gains for the platforms showing the net addition or loss of users since early 2010.

What I look for in this data are signs of slowing adoption (so far there aren't many), subtle shifts in platform performance (as seen in RIM's move from consistent net gains to consistent net losses) and signs of churn or the transfer of users from one platform to another (rather than from non-consumers to consumers.)

The story in the latest data seems to be that Windows Phone has turned in a first significant gain in users (378k new users). Its share seems to have stabilized at around 4%. This is in contrast to BlackBerry whose hemorrhage continues (a net of 7 million users defected from the platform in the last 12 months.)

On this occasion of reaching what I've called the tipping point, it's worth reflecting on just how far we've come. In December 2009 the total number of smartphone users in the US was 39 million whereas now it's about 115 million. That's a total of 75 million new users in a bit more than two and a half years, quite a story there.

And yet, half of the phone users still remain to be converted. It's possible that the growth in adoption will remain steady but it's also possible that it might slow down and follow the "S-curve" adoption rate that new consumer products typically follow, perhaps reaching saturation at some point below 100%.

If growth slows immediately then there will be more churn between platforms. If rapid growth can be maintained then there will be more competition with non-consumption rather than between rivals for some time still.

The changing character of competition will need to be reflected in product strategies. Non-consumption is typically an easier competitor to beat with features. Switching users from a comparable product is harder and may require pricing pressure. To solve this in a time of transition, new products will have to split into a set offered to new users and another set offered to switch users.

You can see the pressure of this on the Windows Phone platform most of all. As a late comer, does the Lumia range from Nokia fit the bill as targeting non-consumers or switchers?

In other words, has the brand been positioned as a "better" smartphone or as a "good enough" smartphone? It matters because the "good enough" position has been held by Android overall while the "better" position has been held by iPhone. However, not exclusively. We've seen "better" positioning from Samsung's Galaxy S and Verizon's Droid brand and "good enough" positioning from the older variants of iPhones.

So it's quite difficult to see where Lumia fits in the US. There is no obvious opening. The next 75 million first time US smartphone users may be attractive to Microsoft and Nokia but it's not clear why, having waited so long, those buyers will be persuaded by the new brand. Perhaps subsidies will help. As indicated with the first US Lumia launch, the product was priced at a discount to the prevailing price point for a premium smartphone. Perhaps that's the "good enough at a good price" strategy.

If so, it has not been a home run. Perhaps there is still time for this strategy to play out in 2013 but what if Lumia is not actually being marketed this way?

At launch Nokia has tried to promote the brand as something "better". Better camera, better charging, better maps, better screen, etc. They have promoted on Twitter with the #switchtolumia hashtag. Microsoft has had the "Smoked by Windows Phone" campaign targeting specifically existing smartphones.

I don't want to suggest that one positioning is more appropriate or more likely to succeed than another. That's a tough call. Either could be the right choice. What I would suggest however is that there needs to be clarity of thought and communication on the matter.

Perhaps the launch of the new Lumias (920, 820) is part of a clear positioning toward the high end. But the absence of pricing and distribution and how the operators will be engaged leaves the question open. The strongest criticism of the effort so far is this lack of clarity about how the product is intended to be perceived by the buyer.

A lack of clarity in positioning is symptomatic of a lack of clarity, or maturity in strategy.

This interview was conducted with Bruno Ferrari Editor of Exame magazine in Brazil.

First, do you have forecasts for tablet market share including Microsoft for next years? (Apple, Android, Amazon etc)?

I have some guesses but I don't think it's something that is defensible. Too many things can change. Fundamentally I believe Microsoft sees the tablet as a PC and intends to migrate a substantial portion of would-be PC customers to tablet forms. If they are successful then they preserve the existing PC user base and allow it to grow a bit.

In contrast Apple sees the iPad as a new type of device that is used for things not directly related to PC style computing. In that sense the iPad competes with PC non-consumption. It means people may own both a PC and an iPad and some will own only an iPad. The iPad will expand the market while taking share from the PC. Windows tablets will try to hold the Windows share steady.

 How do you analyze Microsoft’s strategy with Microsoft Surface? Don’t you think they’re admitting themselves that Apple was right since the beginning?

We don't know the strategy yet. Without pricing and an idea of how the other OEMs will respond, I have more questions than answers. The fact that they are doing their own PC hardware does indicate that they see the industry architecture changing and that a large number of vendors offering hardware "choice" is not really the basis of competition in PCs. In other words, buyers are not willing to pay a premium for Windows because the hardware it's available on is offered in a wide range of options.

Do you think MS growth at tablet market will surpass the lost at PC (desktop and notebook) market in the next years?

This is a crucial question. It's possible that Windows 8 on tablets will create new markets, like the iPad has done and it could take the leading role in expanding computing in a post-PC era. However, to do this, Windows 8 and its successors need to be optimized to solve the new jobs people may have for mobile devices. They have to do this even though they need to sustain the old use cases and business models. To succeed Microsoft needs to "fork" the business model and create new ways of profiting from hardware and software. The rumors that Windows 8 RT devices will be sold at a loss is perhaps a hint that this is the plan.

Did you see the rumor of a 199 dollars Surface? If it’s true, do you think is a good strategy?

It all depends on what will be the alternate source of revenue. I assume there will be some sort of subscription service, taking a page from the telecom industry. Perhaps a mixture of Windows Live services (media, documents in the cloud and software updates). We have to see whether subscription computing makes sense for consumers.

How do you see the problem that MS is creating with its OEM by turning itself on a tablet maker?

There is a problem, of course. However here again the question is whether they are moving to an "ecosystem subscription" model and whether they want to offer revenue share to OEMs. If they offer something then Microsoft plays the role of the operator and device makers are paid some up-front subsidy in exchange for keeping their systems locked into the network.

 One more questions: did you already estimate the shipments of Samsung Galaxy Tab since its launch?

Sorry, I don't have the Galaxy Tab estimate. However, here is what I found:

A week after its release, Samsung announced that they had sold 600,000 units. On the 4 December, it was reported that the 1 million mark was reached, two months after launch. However, an executive at Lenovo claimed that Samsung had only sold 20,000 out of the 1 million Galaxy Tabs that were shipped. In January 2011 Samsung announced they had shipped 2 million units to stores. In August 2012, actual sales figures were released in the patent infringement court case against Apple showing that a total of 725,000 Galaxy Tabs were sold through Q2 of 2012.

Source: Wikipedia.

Note that the figure of 725k is US only.

Google, Microsoft and Apple all had reasonably good second quarters. Microsoft's revenues grew by 4%, Google's by about 22% and Apple by 23%. Apple's growth was disappointing but the other companies weren't. The revenues for the three companies are shown in the following charts:

 

I also showed the performance of each company's operating income in the bottom three charts.

Microsoft did declare a one-time write-off of $6.2 billion which it spent on aQuantive a few years ago. That was booked as contributing to a loss of $6.67 billion for its Online Services division. Without that one-time charge consolidate operating income would have grown at about 3.6%. Google's operating income grew at a rate of 11% and Apple grew (again, disappointingly) at 23.4%.

Apple's operating margin fell to 33.1% while Google's fell to 29.2%. Microsoft's margin evaporated due to the one-time charge. If we back that charge out, the margin would have slightly topped 35%.

Comparing the contribution (in operating income) for each division or product line (where possible) gives the following view:

I tried to remove some noise by isolating the iPhone and iPad and consolidating Microsoft overall and Google.

By also smoothing out seasonality with a four-period moving average we can observe the pattern of growth for the iPhone and iPad relative to the other companies' overall performance.

The crucial question remains if and when the iPad will be a bigger business than Google and/or Microsoft. The iPhone climbed over both some time ago.

The US is a crucial market for both Nokia and Microsoft's strategies. This importance was highlighted during the launch at CES in January when not one but three CEOs (Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, Nokia's  Stephen Elop, and AT&T's Ralph de la Vega) were on stage to launch the Lumia. Knowing how well this strategy is working would be very useful to understanding how this market behaves.

My first take on this was when I asked the question How many Lumia phones were sold in the US? The answer suggested through the combination of survey data from Nielsen and comScore[1] was 330,000. The figure is quite small compared to expectations. As it's so extraordinary, it should be supported by good evidence. Unfortunately the methodology used is weak. The figure itself is probably close to the margin of error of such sampling techniques. It would be nice to have another way to calculate this.

Today Nokia offered another set of data which might help determine how many Lumia phones were shipped in the US. (Note the shipped versus sold distinction. Companies report shipments while surveys nominally measure consumption or usage.)

Unfortunately, Nokia did not offer specific data on US shipments. What they did offer was:

• Global Lumia shipments were 4 million in the last quarter
• Global average selling price was €186 for a Lumia phone
• North American[2] phone shipments were 600k. This includes all phone types and all operating systems.
• North American sales were €128 million.

That's all we have. So how can this help with the question of US shipments?

As often happens, it helps to look at the data historically. The following charts show North American shipments and sales with the Lumia launch date highlighted.

While unit shipments were flat, revenues increased significantly. This suggests that we could plot the average selling price of phones in North America (NA) specifically. I did that in the following chart:

Here the effect of Lumia is clear. The average revenue per phone in the US (blue line) jumped dramatically after the launch. So much so that it actually overtook the average global ASP for Lumia.

What we need therefore is a way to estimate the "mix" or percent of smart and non-smart phones sold into North America and derive perhaps the US portion of that and then finally try to separate the Lumia from all the smart volumes.

To help, I plotted the historic ASP for Smart and non-Smart devices as provided by the company.

Using a simple formula[3] it's possible to derive the mix which is shown as Green and Blue lines in the following chart.

Getting estimates for smartphone shipments (blue line) is pretty close to Lumia shipments, but we still have to correct for US/Canada split (estimated at 90:10) and Symbian/WP split among smartphones (estimated 50:50 in Q1 and 20:80 in Q2).

The result is the red line showing US Lumia shipments. The sum of the two quarters then comes to 630k.

This is nearly twice the estimate from consumer survey data however I would not draw too many conclusions from this. Mainly because there are many assumptions place in both estimates, but also because there is the distinction between shipments and usage.

However, it might be safe to say that US install base is somewhere between 400k and 1 million users. Is this good or bad?

It's good because it's progress and there is some growth. It's bad because it's frightfully small relative to the competition. Nokia itself acknowledges the challenge and states that "We believe the Windows Phone 8 launch will be an important catalyst for Lumia."

It seems that what Nokia needs most today is time. That is a very expensive asset. Perhaps infinitely so.

---

Notes:

1. A practice neither company would condone, principally because they are competitors, but also because they use different sampling methods.
2. North America I take to mean US and Canada. Although geographically, Mexico is part of North America it's usually grouped as part of Latin America as a category. I'd like to get this confirmed.
3. There are a few implicit and explicit assumptions: (a) Global ASPs are roughly comparable with NA ASPs but (b) smartphone ASPs are higher in NA by about 30%

There is no shortage of information about what happens to companies in distress. The cause of distress varies widely and is often not well understood but the actions and symptoms of distress are very consistent. We can look at examples in each industry, even in each product category for a rich set of distressed company data.

For over a year I've been chronicling the decline of incumbents in the mobile phone industry. However, decline cannot continue indefinitely. At some point a company "exits" the industry. Either through a sale or divestiture or, rarely bankruptcy. The list of exits is already long. The length and the correlation between exit and the lack of recovery implies that Nokia will also exit.

But how, exactly?

Will Nokia be acquired? If so, then by whom? What other options exist? How can we analyze this?

The easiest way to guess is to look at what happened to other companies in similar circumstances. The clearest and easiest comparison to apply is Motorola. Motorola was at one time the largest phone vendor and it went through a violent decline. Like Nokia, it was diversified into networks and a few other businesses. Unlike Motorola it's not an American company. This matters because American companies are more comfortable targets for corporate raiders. The legal and boardroom mechanics are not "better" or "easier" in the US than in Europe but they are more familiar to those who might engage in it.

So one avenue that Motorola traveled on was the intervention of activist investors who forced management change, affected strategy and pushed some tactical initiatives. This external pressure was successful in the case of Motorola. The company was split up, it was re-purposed and re-focused and, with a bit of good luck, was acquired.

The process however still took two years. In that time the company languished but stayed alive. Its headcount was reduced by nearly two thirds. It was in a precarious situation throughout. Its story is not over but ownership did change hands and those who took a risk with it while in distress managed to get a reward.

This example (and Sony's acquisition of Sony Ericsson and HP's acquisition of Palm) cannot apply to Nokia.  An activist investor is unlikely and the company has not yet made itself attractive to a buyer. So what would Nokia need to do to  be acquired?

The first step toward an acquisition will be divestiture of its Nokia Siemens venture. The second will be a spinoff or sale of its non-smart phone division. The third might be the allocation of its IP across these separate entities or in a separate holding.

As the company is broken up, value can be released. Investors will be able to value it better and make appropriate assessments of risk. Only at this point would an acquirer perhaps buy the "rump" Nokia smartphones group.

However, even this scenario is not without huge risks. By the time the split is completed, the operating companies could have deteriorated to such a degree that they are no longer viable. Timing is critical.

So if the smartphone group is isolated and made available, who could buy it? Microsoft is always cited as the primary buyer. I've been skeptical of this as Microsoft has found it difficult to make hardware work. It acquired Danger leading to Kin which failed. It has struggled with Xbox for a decade and has yet to recover all its costs for the effort. It has failed embarassingly with Zune. It also has shown no particular success with its original Surface table computer.

But management has re-committed itself to a new hardware effort with the new Surface. This renewed potential opens up the possibility of entering into the integration of a phone again into their business, and Nokia would be remarkably well positioned to help.

At this time, the possibility still seems remote. The company has dismissed speculation of building phones again and again. Unlike PCs, the phone platform is not yet mature and volumes and distribution are very different.

However, there is one other option.

Microsoft has historically "rescued" technology companies in distress with cash infusions for minority equity stakes. It injected some cash into Apple, Barnes & Noble and even Facebook. It did so not because they wanted to own these companies but because they wanted them to survive or thrive. The move acts as a signal to the industry, partners and developers. So what I see more likely than an acquisition is Microsoft capitalizing a spun-off Nokia Smartphones company in exchange for a small equity stake.

The valuation of this stake will be huge as I expect billions of dollars for single digit share ownership. However, Microsoft would not be doing it to get a return from those shares. It would probably later sell them at a loss. But it would be buying a strategic option whose value may be far greater.

Horace and Dan look at Microsoft's Surface through disruption colored lenses. First, the ongoing evolution of the computing value chain and how it foretold us of Surface. Second, how the economics of Microsoft's businesses makes Surface compelling. We also begin a new segment tentatively called "Reader Questions". This time it's education: is it disruptable? If so how can we tell and where will it lead us?

via 5by5 | The Critical Path #43: We'll take it from here.

As previously noted, Apple has overtaken Microsoft (and Google) in operating margin percentage. This is an astonishing statistic as Apple is still largely perceived to be a "hardware company" while Microsoft is a "software company" and Google is a "services company."

To suggest that "hardware" could be more operationally profitable than either software or services is akin to heresy in technology analysis. This reversal is newsworthy indeed. However, even the most casual observer would note that Apple does not derive its market power from hardware alone. It is, in fact, an integrated hardware, software and services company (with a few more roles besides.)

So the emergent successful business architecture in this technologically transitional period is of integration and completeness of solutions.

This shift explains at least at a conceptual level Microsoft's tectonic Surface shift.

But what about another point of view? What does integration mean for Microsoft's income, cost and profit structure? Is integration self-disruptive to Microsoft?

Here's a reminder of Microsoft's revenues and operating income by division:

The challenge of devices for Microsoft is that the licensing of software for devices is very difficult to sell.

In 2011 Microsoft received about $18.7 billion in Windows revenues and $23 billion in Office revenues. The chart shows that this is a fairly steady growth business. According to Gartner, in 2011 there were about 336 million Windows PCs sold and that this too is a fairly stable and mature business.

If we simply divide revenues by PCs sold we get about $55 Windows revenues per PC and $68 of Office revenues per PC sold [1]. The total income for Microsoft per PC sold is therefore about $123. If we divide operating income by PCs as well we get $35 per Windows license and $43 per Office license. That's a total of $78 of operating profit per PC.

Now let's think about a post-PC future exemplified by the iPad. Apple sells the iPad with a nearly 33% margin but at a higher average price than Microsoft's software bundle. Apple gives away the software (and apps are very cheap) but it still gains $195 in operating profit per iPad sold.

Fine, you say, but Microsoft make up for it in volume. Well, that's a problem. The tablet volumes are expanding very quickly and are on track to overtake traditional PCs while traditional PCs are likely to be disrupted and decline.

So Microsoft faces a dilemma. Their business model of expensive software on cheap hardware is not sustainable. The future is nearly free software integrated into moderately priced hardware.

For Microsoft to maintain their profitability, they have to find a way of obtaining $80 of profit per device. Under the current structure, device makers will not pay $55 per Windows license per device and users will not spend $68 per Office bundle per tablet. Price competition with Android tablets which have no software licensing costs and with iPad which has very cheap software means that a $300 tablet with a $68 software bill will not be competitive or profitable.

However, if Microsoft can sell a $400 (on average) device bundled with its software, and is able to get 20% margins then Microsoft is back to its $80 profit per device sold. This, I believe, is a large part of the practical motivation behind the Surface product.

The challenge for Microsoft therefore becomes to build hundreds of millions of these devices. Every year. Sounds like they need a Tim Cook to run it.

---

Notes:

1. Microsoft accounts for revenues using deferrals due to Software Assurance pre-payment models for many corporate customers so this figure is not a precise value for each license sold.

 

The history of personal computing has come to be defined as the history of Microsoft. At least since 1981 Microsoft's operating systems have been the consistent market share leaders, and by a very large margin. That is about to change. This year Android will be on more devices sold than Windows. iOS is also set to also overtake Windows next year. The following chart illustrates the wave of mobile platforms that has emerged, and in spite of some notable failures, is overtaking traditional computing.

Of course we should remember that PC themselves overtook entrenched predecessors like minicomputers and mainframes which themselves overtook business computing systems based on adding machines, typewriters and slide rules. This is the cycle of disruption and there is nothing new about it.

However, it always seems to take people by surprise. This is because it happens in unforeseen ways and at unpredictable rates. And so it is that we are surprised by Microsoft's seeming abandonment of a business model that has sustained it for three decades.

Yesterday's reveal of Surface, Microsoft's first personal computer, was a watershed event in the evolution of value chains around computing. In a famous slide Clay Christensen illustrated (in 2004) the value chain evolution in computing from the 1960s to 2000.

As computing moved from the desktop to the pocket the industry re-integrated. First, Apple moved from Product Design into Sales & Distribution with its stores. Then it moved into service with Genius bar. Then it moved into component design with the A series chips and unique batteries. Then it moved into materials with exclusive licensing of LiquidMetal. It also began to own the equipment used in its manufacturing. This in addition owning the operating system.

Now we see Microsoft following in the same footsteps. First applications came early then stores, then service, and now product design. Google is also tracking closely behind as well with its acquisition of Motorola, the results of which have yet to be revealed.

And so we can see value chains evolving in real time before our very eyes. They have always evolved but in technology industries they evolve far more rapidly and will continue to accelerate.

Whether Microsoft or Google will be successful in their integration efforts remains to be seen. The challenges are immense as the value of the existing chains are enormous and the bonds that tie the company to them very strong. Breaking these ties will seem like value destruction and corporate antibodies will be set loose to kill the transitions. HP, RIM, Nokia and Dell are vivid examples of what happens when the response mechanisms have their way.