The latest data from Google shows that the Android activation rate is increasing at a relatively steady rate (i.e. acceleration is constant). The data provided so far is in the blue circles below. The green line is the interpolation and extrapolation of that data.
As the graph is projected forward we get an activation rate of one million per day by mid August of this year. If it continues then we could see 1.5 million per day by end of 2013.
The corresponding number of cumulative activations is shown on the following log chart (with blue circles showing the actual data and the green estimates.)
The forecast is therefore that Android activations will cross one billion by November 2013.
The following chart compares the growth ramps of the various mobile operating systems indexed from the same starting points (measured in quarters after launch).
If Android does keep accelerating at the same rate then it will reach a billion users in five years. Of course, this total will not be a unified ecosystem in that many versions of Android will be co-existing. There will also be additional variants of Android which will not include Google services (these are not included in the totals above) which will compete to some degree with this platform.
However, it's still an amazing story. The crucial question is whether the billion Android phones will have an effect on the opportunity for new entrants like Windows Phone and future BlackBerry variants as well as Bada and other Linux-based platforms.
The answer is that there will be well over 6 billion mobile "connections" by the end of 2013. ITU reports that "By the end of 2010, there will be an estimated 5.3 billion mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide, including 940 million subscriptions to 3G services." It follows then that if this forecast is correct then by the end of 2013, Android will have about 17% penetration of the connections market.
This 55 is something no one would have guessed. Including us. To put it in context, it took us 22 years to sell 55 million Macs. It took us about 5 years to sell 22 million iPods, and it took us about 3 years to sell that many iPhones. And so, this thing is, as you said, it's on a trajectory that's off the charts.
That gave me an idea. Here is a plot of each major computing product Apple sold throughout its history shown as a cumulative total since product launch.
The iOS platform as a whole reached 316 million cumulative units at the end of last year. The iOS platform overtook the OS X platform in under four years and more iOS devices were sold in 2011 (156 million) than all the Macs ever sold (122 million).
Yesterday's post described the history of personal computing platforms over the past 37 years. It showed a distinct shifting of "eras" between traditional personal computing and the emergent mobile computing represented by device-based platforms.
Underlying these lives (and deaths) of platforms were the growth (and decline) of fortunes of companies and people. I hoped that by observing these patterns insight could be gained into the conditions for success or failure.
The following graph shows the companies which were predominant (in the top five ranking by shipments[1]) during each year of the industry's history and the volumes they were able to obtain during that period. I also added Nokia and RIM as examples of the challengers coming from mobile devices.
It's a difficult graph to interpret. The pattern I observed was that most companies were not able to sustain presence in the top five ranking for long. Indeed, regardless of having one's own platform or being a licensee, companies seemed to fade reliably. Some were acquired, some sold their operations but there is a distinct impermanence to their prosperity.
To sharpen this perspective of longevity I indexed each company to the point when they entered the "prosperity zone" and measured their staying power within it. The following graph shows these indexed lives.
Apart from Apple, IBM remained in the business the longest (24 years). Compaq was second with 20 years before being bought by HP. HP and Dell are still operating after 15 years, having tied Atari and Commodore. After these ancients, the upstarts Nokia and RIM are struggling to remain relevant after 10 to 12 years.
Then there are the transients like Packard-Bell/NEC, Toshiba, Radio Shack and Fujitsu which lasted less than 10 years. The newest PC companies are all from China or Taiwan: Acer, Asus and Lenovo. Their longevity cannot be called yet though Acer seems to be in decline. Lenovo, which took over IBM's brands continues to grow. However, as yesterday's post showed, without diversification into devices, pure PC makers are likely to fade.
But besides this interesting history lesson, there is a deeper, unsettling observation. The scale of these periods of prosperity is far shorter than the average person's career. Indeed, the entire time span of the study is 35 years, about the time an average person will be employed. All the companies failed to maintain prosperity over this time frame.
These are a small sample, flawed by showing only hardware units, but I consider it a proxy for the overall technology market. Software-only or services companies have had no better records.
The implications for company managers and workers is profound. Chances are that the business you work for will not prosper for more than a decade and will reward you for an even shorter period. Similarly, as witnessed by the P/E ratios, investors have given up on this industry as one with any quality of earnings.
There is no "rule" that this has to be so. The high mortality rate and short longevity of technology companies is a consequence of a failure to manage innovation and disruption. Apple may be an exception--one I think worth studying. Though not always prosperous, it has managed to survive, being the only company from the early era of personal computing to still be operating in the industry. Indeed, it's now the most prosperous. Maybe it's a fluke, but I rather think it's due to an ability to re-define itself as the market shifts. Its essential quality being an ability to disrupt itself.
And if we think about it this way, ultimately, longevity is more important than prosperity. Without patience there is nothing but chance determining prosperity. The fate of more than company finances rests in the balance.
Notes:
Apple did not maintain a position in the top 5 throughout this period but is shown as a benchmark as it remained in the same business throughout this period.
Thanks to Jeremy Reimer I was able to create the following view into the history of computer platforms.
I added data from the smartphone industry, Apple and updated the PC industry figures with those from Gartner. Note the log scale.
The same information is available as an animation in the following video (Music by Nora Tagle):
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h-C6u4yLj4
This data combines several "categories" of products and is not complete in that not all mobile phone platforms are represented. However, the zooming out offers several possible observations into the state of the "personal computing" world as of today.
We cannot consider the iPad as a "niche". The absolute volume of units sold after less than two years is enough to place it within an order of magnitude of all PCs sold. We can also observe that it has a higher trajectory than the iPhone which became a disruptive force in itself. Compare these challengers to NeXT in 1991.
The "entrants" into personal computing, the iPad, iPhone and Android, have a combined volume that is higher than the PCs sold in the same period (358 million estimated iOS+Android vs. 336 million PCs excluding Macs in 2011.) The growth rate and the scale itself combine to make the entrants impossible to ignore.
There is a distinct grouping of platform options into three phases or eras. The first lasting from 1975 to 1991 was an era of rapid growth but also of multiple standards and experiments. It was typical of an industry in emergence. The personalization of computing brought about a new set of entrants. The second phase lasted between 1991 and 2007 and was characterized by a near monopoly of Microsoft, but, crucially one alternative platform did survive. The third phase can be seen as starting five years ago with the emergence of the iPhone and its derivatives. It has similarities to the first phase.
We can also look at the data through a slightly different view: market share. Share is a bit more subjective because we need to combine products in ways that are considered comparable (or competing).
First, this is a "traditionalist" view of the PC market as defined by Gartner and IDC, and excluding tablets and smartphones.
This view would imply that the PC market is not changing in any substantial way. Although the Mac platform is gaining share, there is no significant erosion in the power of the incumbent.
Second, is a view where the iPad is added to the traditionalist view.
This view is more alarming. Given the first chart, in order for the iPad to be significant, it would need to be "visible" for a market that already ships over 350 million units. And there it is. If counted, the iPad begins to show the first disruption in the status quo since 1991.
The third view is with the addition of iPhone and Android.
This last view corresponds to the data in the first graph (line chart). If iOS and Android are added as potential substitutions for personal computing, the share of PCs suddenly collapses to less than 50%. It also suggests much more collapse to come.
I will concede that this last view is extremist. It does not reflect a competition that exists in real life. However, I put this data together to show a historic pattern. Sometimes extremism is a better point of view than conservatism. Ignoring this view is very harmful as these not-good-enough computers will surely get better. A competitor that has no strategy to deal with this shift is likely to suffer the fate of those companies in the left side of the chart. Treating the first share chart as reality is surely much more dangerous than contemplating the third.
I've used anecdotes in the past to tell the story of the disruptive shift in the fortunes of computing incumbents and entrants. I've also shown how the entry of smart devices has disrupted the telecom world and caused a transfer of wealth away from the old guard.
The data shown here frames these anecdotes. The data is not the whole story but it solidifies what should be an intuition.
The latest data from comScore MobiLens is showing an uncharacteristic slowing in smartphone growth. In the survey period ending November, the number of smartphone users in the US was 91.4 million. This is equivalent to 39.1% penetration, an increase of 0.6% (i.e. up from 38.5% in the last period.)
The growth is equivalent to 1.4 million new smartphone users (i.e. users who switched from a non-smart device for the first time.) The problem is that this is half the growth of the previous period. The following chart shows the growth as the weekly add rate.
As you can see, the growth has fallen to a level not seen since 2010. The cause may be seasonal as last November was also a slow month. I added a three month moving average which shows that although there seems to be seasonality, the last period did not show the peak of previous periods.
To better understand what happened, I looked at the performance by platform. The following chart shows the net user gains by platform.
What appears immediately is that Android growth was the primary cause of a change in the pattern. The iPhone grew slightly more slowly sequentially but the difference between November and previous periods is not great (941k adds vs. an average of 904k over the previous 12 months.) BlackBerry moderated its losses and Windows is quite a small influence on the market.
Android gain was 1.2 million vs a trailing twelve months' average of 2.24 million. Android's slowing in the US is significant.
We also have access to additional data from Google themselves. We had an update that showed that by late November there were 200 million Android devices activated. We also had an update from mid October of 190 million activations. That makes the increase in activations of at least 10 million during the same period that comScore was measuring the US.
comScore's increase in Android users of 1.2 million then becomes even more interesting. It implies that the US consumers were responsible for no more than 12% of Android activations in the November time frame.
Furthermore we can derive from comScore's data the total devices in use in the US by platform: the figure for Android is 42.9 million (46.9% of 91.4 million smartphones in use). By the end of November, the total activations from Android adds up to about 204 million. Excluding some devices which may be out of use, we can estimate that about 20% of all active Android phones are in use in the US. Conversely 80% of Android devices are in use outside the US.
This means that the US share of Android activations is decreasing. From a cumulative average of 20% to a recent 12%.
So the mystery of what caused the slowing in Android (and hence in all smartphones) in the US remains. Seasonal effects would affect all platforms equally and that is not the case. I'm not comfortable ascribing a cause until we hear more evidence and the pattern is more established. But something does seem to be happening.
[Update: The source data is available here. Note: multiple tabs.]
Here are the highlights from RIM's latest quarter:
14.1 million BlackBerry smartphones shipped, 13 million sold through
150k PlayBook shipped with sell-through slightly higher. 800k PlayBooks shipped so far.
BlackBerry subscriber base up to 75 million
High growth cited for U.K., France, South Africa, Mexico and Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. RIM is the #1 smartphone vendor in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Sales outside the US, UK and Canada were 61% of revenues. US is now 20% of sales, UK 11%.
Hardware growth outside the US was 56%
There are 630 carriers
50k apps in App World with 5 million downloads per day
Forecasting 11 to 12 million smartphones next quarter
Given the channel fill with a new product, the device business was marginal at best. The company obtained -1% growth y/y in units but 31% sequential growth from a transitional quarter. The average selling price (inclusive of service revenues) is $354 and about $280 excluding service revenues. I estimate that operating margins have dropped to about 11%. Not a good story, but one we have been warned to expect.
But a crucial new twist to the story is that RIM announced that they don't expect new BlackBerry 10 devices until late next year. That came as a surprise and the stock sold off significantly, valuing the company at well below book value.
Stepping back, the biggest surprise is that the company seems to have had no plan for sustaining itself.
Let me explain.
If you go back to 2005 or so the world of smartphones was a mix of modular OSs and integrated platforms, much as it is today. Not unlike Android today, Windows Mobile was successful in licensing to dozens of vendors who in turn released hundreds of products. Symbian also was licensed but most volumes came from Nokia and they held the lion's share. Then there was the BlackBerry integrated solution which worked smoothly and had devoted fans who upgraded every chance they had and operators who were joyous at the new ARPU. There was also PalmOS as offered by PalmSource trying to be a "third horse" and unseat stodgy old Microsoft.
It was into that fray that both Apple and Google jumped. Google acquired Android in 2005 and Apple was busy polishing a version of OS X that would became iOS. In three and two years respectively these platforms would be in the market.
Regardless of the actions of rivals, all competitors must have faced the same questions in 2005: As technology was changing rapidly and as they all had access to component roadmaps, what is the best technology approach to this market? Should they embrace certain innovations to sustain their business trajectory? RIM had a tightly integrated software, hardware and service offering. What could make it better? Nokia was also basing its products on a more loosely integrated offering (nominally it was modular, but only just). It saw the writing on the wall and began developing a Linux variant (Maemo) as a potential candidate to replace Symbian. Microsoft was basing its solution of a modular approach. Windows CE was ok as a kernel but they had layers on top which were optimized around stylus-based user experiences (analogous to mouse actions). Could it take on a rich computing experience?
There were many experience candidates. Stylus, keypad, keyboard all had adherents. There was a lot of hesitation. After the iPhone launched with capacitive (finger) touch, resetting user expectations, it still took a year for many of the vendors to re-consider their technology plans. The weakest changed first.
Microsoft felt the pain quickest. They also had the least to lose since revenues from Windows Mobile were paltry. By 2008 internally they turned 90 degrees. They embarked on re-building their user experience and orphaning the Windows Mobile ecosystem and many of the vendor relationships they had built. Palm dropped PalmOS and built WebOS internally quite quickly. They licensed Windows Mobile as a stop-gap. Around the same time Nokia doubled down on Maemo and joined with Intel to form MeeGo. They did not orphan Symbian though and kept trying to adapt it to the new experiences and input methods.
But RIM did nothing. Almost nothing. They were the healthiest competitor. They felt no pain from iPhone's entry. The platform they had built was still growing and they were tweaking it constantly. There were always improvements to point to but fundamentally the code was limited. It was very difficult to adapt it to touch input and the first attempts at a touch UI were embarrassing. But there were no signs of a new platform that reflected the Unix-like competition.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Unix-like operating systems were having their revenge. To a computer scientist the future of mobile computing would mirror that of personal computing in terms of architecture. The foundations of the early smartphones were built on constraints that were disappearing while being unable to accommodate new input methods. In other words, the early efforts were optimized around those constraints and sub-optimal for rich user experiences. They had to be. There were limited processors, memories and screens and battery life.
It turned out that all the early mobile operating systems were unsuitable for the advances in technology that came after 2007. Companies which were able to adapt or embrace Unix-like operating systems in a mobile context gained the ability to grow with the new input methods. The sooner they "pulled the trigger" on the shift, the better off they were. This is in fact what enabled entrants to gain footholds. Entrants entered with Unix-like OSs straight away while incumbents had to justify changing and the more successful they were the harder it was to justify changing.
RIM had trouble justifying this change. It waited until 2010 to finally acquire the QNX asset that would offer them a stronger software foundation. It still had to adapt this acquisition and it looks like it won't be done until at least 2012, seven years after they should have started. And this should be seen as a sustaining technological change. A new OS is not a disruptive technology to what is already a mobile computer.
However, delays like these can be fatal. We see the impact on Microsoft who was earliest to push the reset button in 2008. It still took two years to rebuild Windows Mobile into Windows Phone and is now still struggling to regain lost share (less than 2% today). We see the impact on Nokia which was unable to affect a transition to MeeGo due to a litany of issues and had to throw in the towel on self-determination. We see the impact on Palm which lost its independence as WebOS was a bit too little too late.
These companies had the right technical strategies but suffered from execution and business architecture issues. RIM is years late in embracing what appears to be a sustaining improvement.
But whenever you see what appears to be a coordinated effort by companies to fail simultaneously you have to ask if the change they struggle with is really sustaining or disruptive. The pattern makes me suspicious that what RIM, Microsoft, Palm and Nokia faced was more than a failure to embrace a sustaining improvement. I suspect that the failure is evidence of tectonic shifting of business models.
Guessing the next Apple product has become the parlor game of choice for a whole generation of technology journalists and analysts. The premise of the game is that given a track record of breakthrough products, there is always another one just around the corner. Being the one to predict this next breakthrough product creates credibility and demonstrates the domain knowledge of the predictor. If the prediction fails to materialize there is consolation in dismissing the actual announced product as disappointing, unsophisticated or, worst of all, uninteresting.
Most often, these guesses are as much a reflection of the analyst as they are an analysis of the company. Too many predictions are designed to impress or demonstrate the imagination or knowledge of the predictor. They typically anticipate a giant leap of functionality, power or market re-structuring. They envision revolution not evolution; a cutting of the Gordian knot not a polishing of ugly rocks.
Yet nearly all of Apple's launches have been sustaining improvements in existing products, technologies or platforms. To name just a few:
The iPad is an evolution of the iPod touch
The iPod touch is an evolution of the iPhone
The iPhone uses OS X and Objective C from the Mac
OS X came from NeXT
The app store market model came out of the iTunes store
The iTunes store came from iTunes which came first to the Mac as a media sync tool for the iPod
etc.
John Gruber explained the process last spring as it relates to many of Apple's launches. Although the iPhone did introduce a new user input method and experience that takes consumption in a new direction, its building blocks were there for all to see for many years. The iPhone is a natural evolution of the computer with a handy little "Phone" app.
Likewise, the iPod came seemingly out of nowhere but by watching the original launch you see it as part of a "media hub" strategy that envisions the Mac as a personal server. The very products which ended up disrupting the Mac/PC began as extensions of their victims.
You can trace the DNA of almost all of Apple's products to previous products. If Apple did not have these foundations, the slow-motion revolutions would not have happened. Rather than a deliberate big bang, Apple's disruptions are the result of a discovery process. A test, iterate and improve loop. This is why they seem obvious after the launch but also why they seem to be such an anti-climax.
Therefore, the challenge of predicting Apple's next product should be tackled not only through an act of imagination but by carefully projecting the current products and understanding where they can evolve.
So it is that I approach the question of Apple's TV disruption. My working assumption about the next Apple TV is that it already exists. It's none other than the existing Apple TV, improved.
Here are the clues or hints I noted:
It uses iOS and the hardware from the devices that run it. It originally ran a PC architecture and shared a kernel with Macs.
It has been integrated with iTunes media stores (with the notable exception of the iTunes app store)
It has begun to introduce channels other than downloads (ESPN, Wall Street Journal) thus establishing its own distribution for traditional content
It is a global product, depending only on the Internet protocols and independent of the balkanized cable standards
Through AirPlay it is integrated with Macs and Apple devices.
Through display mirroring, iOS devices can use the TV as an external monitor and can even change their own behavior when doing so
This last point is intriguing. I have not seen discussion of this feature, but if using an iPad 2 or iPhone 4S with iOS 5 and an Apple TV with the latest software updates it's possible to have an iOS device become a controller for TV-based game experiences. Developers are already using the API. When using a pinball game with screen mirroring, the device becomes a controller while the action takes place on the big screen. Switching display mirroring off bring the action and control back onto the small screen. There are still problems with lag and the processors are over-taxed on high frame rates, but the APIs are already there for developers. (I could also mention the potential of new a Bluetooth standard for better wireless response).
What these signals point to is Apple defining the TV as an iOS portfolio product. This means integration with iTunes, including an app store. This, in turn, means unleashing developer/creative talent through new monetization opportunities. This means new user experiences in discovery. This means FaceTime-like communication through the TV. This means many other things but mostly it means that the TV will be a platform product.
The only challenge is a (currently lacking) smooth interface. Perhaps that's where voice comes into the picture. But whether that is built-in at the next rev of the product or not is not the story. The story is going to be the sustaining improvement in the original Apple TV. A wonderfully asymmetric product begging to be ignored. A product that because of its apparent lack of success, effectively hides all its secrets in plain sight.
Before diving into the answer to the question in the title, there is some new data to digest.
The latest from comScore shows consistency with the previous months of smartphone growth in the US.
The growth rate was 607k/wk new-to-smartphone users. This is slightly down from 654k/wk for the previous month but up significantly from 450k/wk the year before.
The penetration of smartphones reached 38.5% (non-smartphones are at 62%)
The penetration should reach 50% before September 2012 with about 1.2% being converted every month.
The following chart shows the weekly add rate with a three-period moving average:
This chart is important in that it should first show signs of inflection in growth. That does not seem to be happening yet.
The installed base by platforms is shown below:
Android is estimated to have grown to 41.7 million users in the US, adding 2.5 million users in the last month. Android is adding half of Microsoft's entire US mobile base every month.
RIM BlackBerry lost one million users in October. RIM's slide has accelerated again with over 3.7 million leaving the platform in the last six month. With 15.5 million subscribers, RIM has fewer users in the US today than it did in late 2009.
iPhone gained 1.34 million. Installed share increased slightly to 28% from 27.4% the previous month. There are now over 25 million iPhone users (above age 13) in the US.
Windows Mobile/Phone had no perceptible change (-34k) indicating perhaps that the losses in Windows Mobile are being erased by gains in Windows Phone. Microsoft's platform stopped losing significant users six months ago. Whereas the bleeding has been stopped, overall number of users remains at a rather poor 5 million or 5.4% share.
"Other" which includes Symbian and WebOS lost another 184k users to reach only 2.7 million users.
There are still 144 million smartphone non-consumers.
Android and iPhone now make up nearly three quarters of all smartphone ownership in the US. That's a total of 67 million users. With no sign of slowing, the chances are that there are at least 100 million users still remaining to convert. Sounds like an attractive target. But that target is shrinking fast. The rates of adoption signal saturation of most likely buyers will happen toward the end of next year.
At least 25 million new Android users will be gained and at least 10 million new iPhone users will be created in the next 12 months. That's 35% of remaining non-consumption. Assuming some acceleration, it's not hard to see 50% being claimed by the two entrenched incumbents.
This leads to an interesting positioning question. Is Windows Phone destined to compete with consumption or non-consumption? If traction is not forthcoming in the next 12 months, that leaves a very difficult last 50 million available as non-consumers. They are more difficult as they will be late adopters and perhaps more price sensitive and less motivated by features.
Windows Phone still has quite a bit of opportunity outside the US, but in the US (and in Europe which is not much different) the competition will increasingly be with rival incumbencies not with non-consumption. As the custodians of the Windows franchise, Microsoft should be well aware of the inherent difficulties with competing with installed platforms.
The idea is that rather than just telling stories and interpreting the world from my point of view, I should also ask others to teach from their experience.
In this case I discuss the disruptive potential of cloud computing with Randy Bias. Randy is the CTO of Cloudscaling, a designer of infrastructure cloud systems and a vast knowledge of the challenges and value of what we now call cloud systems. I've consulted for Randy in the past and I thought he could add a lot to the understanding of super-platforms. Super-platforms, you may recall, is a term I used to describe the coupling of Web Services and Devices in a mutually inter-dependent business model. I introduced the concept as a way to think about Siri and iCloud and potentially the Kindle and Amazon in general.
In this show I ask Randy to comment on the thesis that devices and cloud systems as a coupled system are a potential disruption to both the device-only model of computing and the cloud-only model of services. In other words, is the new ecosystem the coupling of devices with backend cloud APIs? We also touch on the scope of Apple's data centers and the way we can calibrate the investment.
I think this is a ripe area of research and thinking about the future of computing. It will require learning a new way of measuring "performance" of solutions and the businesses built around it. It will take a multi-disciplinary approach to ferret out the key value propositions.
There is finally enough information to try to give an estimate of the smartphone market as a subset of the overall phone market.
The chart to the left shows the overall picture.
To sum up: The smartphone market has now reached over 30% of shipments. Non-smart devices are at 69% of total. The individual phone platform shares are as follows:
Android (and Android-like): 17.6%
iOS (iPhone only) 4.4%
Nokia Symbian: 4.3%
BlackBerry: 2.76%
Bada: 1%
Windows Phone 0.5%
The past quarter was the first where there is evidence of significant non-seasonal decline in incumbent platforms. Both RIM and Symbian saw two sequential drops in volume. The iPhone had a seasonal (or, more accurately, transitional) decline. Windows Phone had a very modest increase in share from 1.3% to 1.7% share though this is well below a margin of error in the estimate.
Android (and Android-like) shipments ballooned to nearly 70 million but sell-through could be about 10 million less. Nearly one in five phones sold is now powered by an Android variant. A remarkable story since the share was zero less than three years ago
Of the vendors involved, here is the division of share:
Samsung achieved 26% share, nearly swapping share with Nokia over a single year. Nokia reached below 14% while Apple maintained above 14% but down from 19% the quarter prior. HTC overtook RIM with 11% vs. 9%. Sony Ericsson is around 6% and Motorola probably slipped below LG with 4% vs perhaps 5% respectively.
The absolute performance of shipments by vendor and platform follows:
I maintained the historic distinction between integrated (green) and modular (brown) OS strategies to show how the value chain evolved. As Nokia swaps its share to a licensed Windows Phone the share held by integrated vendors is likely to shrink even further.
Does this mean it's the end of integration? Or even more importantly, as I have previously suggested the link, is this the end of innovation in the mobile phone market?
It would appear that with 30% smartphone share, the vast majority of phone vendors are ready to abandon any ambition to obtaining extraordinary profits from mobile devices.[1] Apart from Apple, there seems to be complete capitulation to being manipulated by platform orchestrators with unpredictable or opaque intentions.
The thesis of perpetual innovation rules this out. While new input methods offer a clue that visual interaction and the platforms that depend on it are not permanent, the fact remains that cloud computing and the coupling of additional intelligence that comes with it will enable new points of integration and the positioning of these points on new jobs to be done.
Stay tuned as we discuss the future of mobile computing. The best is yet to come.
Notes:
By extraordinary I mean margins above what a component assembler and distributor would be able to obtain--see the PC industry.
On October 27th, Nintendo published half year results for the fiscal year ending in March 2012. Management stated that the company lost over $900 million with a negative outlook. Nintendo cited weaker than expected sales of Nintendo DS hardware and 3DS software and Yen appreciation as the main reasons for the miss. Is this the end of Nintendo?
Before we look more closely, here is a quick summary: The company is exclusively involved in selling game hardware and software. Their console platform is the Nintendo Wii, which will be followed by the Wii U late in 2012. The Nintendo DS and Nintendo 3DS are the company’s portable game consoles. The Wii and the DS are nearing the end of their product cycles. On the software side, the company is known for gaming titles such as Super Mario and Zelda. Nintendo also pioneered the licensing model to allow third-party developers to produce games for its hardware products.
A closer look
The good news for analysts is that Nintendo publishes their estimates for hardware and software unit sales. This allows us to measure management predictive accuracy. The red line (management forecast) should be as close as possible to the dark green pillars (realized unit sales in the fiscal year).
Until CQ1 2009 devices sales grew in excess of forecasts. A similar pattern can be found for consoles and game titles. After Q1 2009 forecasts have been always higher than results, and more worryingly, the deviation between forecast and sales is widening. Management missed and lowered forecasts for two consecutive years. Management's hope for an increase on the back of initial 3DS sales in the launch quarter (CQ1 2011) did not come to pass and they subsequently lowered forecasts again in the following two quarters.
Looking at all categories, management lowered forecasts almost continuously. The deviation remains the largest in the portable hardware business segment indicating that management was largely surprised about the development.
What caused this reversal of fortune?
Two years earlier the iPhone had launched and by CQ1 2009 iOS reached an installed base of about 38 million, half the number of Nintendo portables in the same period. Furthermore, in CQ1 2009 Android phones came to the market. Smartphones (light blue area of the chart below) sold before (and after) the debut of iOS, but the iPhone redefined the category and an avalanche of smarter phones running iOS and Android followed (blue and orange area). Portable gaming devices from Nintendo and Sony declined ever since: 17% in 2009, 31% in 2010 and already 16% in the last twelve months.
How do the game players stack up?
We already looked at the installed base in the chart above. iOS and Android have outsold Nintendo portable units by a factor of 2.1x and 1.6x. Furthermore, we can see (in the charts below) that the two main mobile platforms have 14 to 26 times more game (and entertainment) titles available. Nintendo and Sony also publish unit sales of directly sold software titles. For Android and iOS we know the cumulative app download statistics. By taking the share of Septembers’ paid and free app downloads as a proxy, we can conclude that also by this measure Android and iOS dwarf Nintendo and Sony [1]. The reach of iOS and Android is further underlined by the more than 500 million downloads of Angry Bird game titles - first released only two years ago - for any platform having sold more than twice the amount of Sony’s cumulative portable game titles and almost as many as Nintendo’s cumulative games titles since Q2/2007.
Who else has skin in the game?
Besides Nintendo, Sony, Apple and Google, who else is making a push into mobile gaming? Before investigating, let’s first have a closer look at Sony. Sony, just like Nintendo, is also active in stationary gaming segment with the PlayStation franchise. The Sony group also has access to entertainment most notable through Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony Music Entertainment. Furthermore, Sony recently decided to buy Ericsson’s stake in the mobile phone joint-venture Sony Ericsson and is making a push with Android to bring its gaming titles as a differentiator for its own products to the platform. And the other major suspects? Microsoft, also active in the stationary gaming segment with its Xbox franchise, is pushing to bring the Xbox experience to mobile phones with Windows Phone. Amazon has retailed software and games for years and has started to distribute software and games via direct download on its own Kindle devices but also for the Mac. On the Kindle, Amazon is relying on a forked Android version on which it leverages its eBook and other entertainment assets. And then there is Facebook, a social network that wants to be on any platform or device. Out of 800 million users, 350 million access Facebook via a mobile device. Around 50% of Facebook members play games on the desktop. With Project Spartan, Facebook is aiming to bring the desktop experience to the mobile device including a stronger focus on gaming and video.
The competition between Apple and Google is already asymmetrical. Including the other contestants in the competitive landscape reveals Nintendo’s key weaknesses in the portable gaming market: attraction as a platform for developers in terms of ease and reach, pricing of hardware competing with operator-subsidized mobile phones and the jobs-to-be-done or value preposition. The new generation of mobile devices is standing against Nintendo’s dedicated approach. Although slowly adding features such as a browser and “app store” to its portables, Nintendo devices fall short in the variety of jobs-to-be-done compared to smartphones, let alone making a call.
Average selling prices and financial impact
With this market pressure one would imagine that average selling prices decreased for Nintendo portables. But for the last three fiscal years average selling prices for portables have increased, all things equal, mainly due to new product launches. Game title’s average selling prices have remained relatively flat. Note that these are wholesales prices for hardware and a mix of retail and wholesale prices for games. In 2011, for which we do not have data yet, the price of the newest portable, Nintendo 3DS, was lowered from its U.S. debut of 320 250$ in February to 170$ in July which will have a negative impact on ASP going forward.
The effects of Nintendo’s rigid strategy and the fast changing competitive landscape are manifested in the devastating financial performance over the recent quarters with LTM sales, gross margins and EBIT margins declining starting from CQ4 2008 and even accelerating to decline after CQ3 2010.
Furthermore, even though the company has recognized its own difficulties, Nintendo has no intention of adjusting its strategy:
CEO Iwata on the question of whether Nintendo plans to bring its game library to other platforms:
This is absolutely not under consideration. If we did this, Nintendo would cease to be Nintendo. Having a hardware development team in-house is a major strength. It’s the duty of management to make use of those strengths. It’s probably the correct decision in the sense that the moment we started to release games on smartphones we’d make profits. However, I believe my responsibility is not to short term profits, but to Nintendo’s mid and long term competitive strength.
Although realized and obvious, the disruption’s invisibility is often manifested in the paralysis of the incumbent.
Conclusion
According to Isaacson, Steve Jobs apparently always worried who could eat Apple's lunch. The lunch of the iPod, he concluded, was ripe for mobile phones. Subsequently, Apple entered the mobile phone space. Google followed. Since then more powerful mobile phones have eaten the lunch of the dedicated gaming device. The jobs-to-be-done and their priorities in people’s life have not changed, but the tools people use to get them done have. Permanently.
---
Notes:
Estimated by multiplying total cumulative app downloads with September’s share of game downloads: For iOS ranging from 72-80% based on Top 150 free and paid app downloads, for Android ranging from 38-47% respectively. This is a very crude estimation, but the gist of it is that 4% for iOS and 11% for Android game downloads as percentage of cumulative app downloads would outsell Nintendo.
