profit

The smartphone market continues to grow. 2013 saw total shipment of around one billion units (up from 683 million in 2012). In contrast, non-smartphone shipments continue to decline, with shipments around 800 million (down from 987 million in 2012).

This pattern is shown below:

Note that prior to 2012 the non-smart market seemed to be holding steady in spite of the growth in smartphones. The notion that smartphones would become universal was widely dismissed. I certainly heard many objections to my 2010 hypothesis that not only would smartphones become ubiquitous but that it would become increasingly difficult to find anything else to buy. (This in spite of the clearly evident demand for "low-end" non-smart devices.) ((The analogy I used was that of the black-and-white TV market as color TV became increasingly popular. There probably was a market for monochrome screens for a long time after they were discontinued but that is beside the point: the old technology becomes increasingly scarce because of economies of scale))

I also suggested that the notion of distinguishing phones with the"smart" tag would become irrelevant and that we would just call these devices "phones". That is coming to pass, at least among the conversations I'm privy to.

So if the conversation is about "phones" and the expectation that all phones will be smart, what can we observe about the market? The following graphs provide the picture of shipments, revenues and operating margin in absolute and relative measure for the most significant brands.

This arrangement shows the disruptive effect of adding "smart" to phones. In only a few short years ((Six shown but the effect was pronounced already in four)) profits have dramatically shifted in the industry.

Indeed, since the launch of the iPhone ((Which I consider to be the start of the current epoch of the industry)) the net profits earned by the collection of protagonists shown was $215 billion (($234 billion of positive operating earnings, offset by $19 billion of operating losses)).  60% has been earned by Apple, a newcomer to the market. That figure is also consistent on an ongoing basis, having reached 60% as early as 2011 and remained in a band around that figure since.

The fact that this happened without corresponding dominance in units shipped shows evidence of something startling: Consistent value creation.

To earn profit is hard, to do so in an outsized way is very hard and to do so with consistency shows a defensibility of market access that is rarest of all. The only cases where this typical is in a monopoly or protected market situation (aka cronyism.) Apple's lack of market monopoly coupled with a (near-) monopoly in profits can only be explained by disproportionate value creation.

The mystery then is how is it possible to build a monopoly in value creation.

Prior to Apple's earnings report I read at least one article suggesting that the most important indicator to watch was Apple's margin. I suppose this was due to a recent decline in margins from a peak gross margin of 47.4% in Q1 2012 to 36.7%.

As the graph below shows, margins began to recover by Q3 2013 and are nearly on par with year-ago levels.

The guidance for the present quarter is a gross margin between 37% and 38%. This would imply a flat q/q GM line (blue line above.)

This is not quite catastrophic.

To better understand margins, it helps to compare them with other companies. When Apple reached that peak of near 50% gross margin I noted that such a level was higher than Microsoft's and Google's. The irony being that Apple was nominally an (implied) low-margin hardware company while Microsoft was an (implied) high-margin software company and Google was an (implied) high-margin internet services company.

Here is the picture with the last two years added:

In the last two years Apple's margins have declined but so have Google's. And although Microsoft's fell, they fell less than Apple's and thus overtook it to remain slightly more profitable (32.5% vs. 30.3%) into Q4.

I also added Samsung Electronics' operating margin. ((As a large conglomerate, Samsung will have a lower blended average. Separating the Telecom group's operating profit shows a 16.14% divisional operating margin.))

So although Apple stabilized, it did so at an extraordinarily high level, well out of band for a hardware company. Thus the question remains: Are Apple's margins a fluke? Is the recent rise of margins to levels far above those of a comparable hardware company and into the realm of software and services sustainable?

The simple answer is to assume that the iPhone and iPad, which make the bulk of revenues and which explain much of the rise, enjoyed a temporary buzz which allowed them to be priced at a premium but as that buzz wore off, the pricing and margins would decline. This is common with fads and fashions.

But the situation is far more nuanced. If the margins were due to mere novelty, the effect should not have persisted over so many years. Pricing data shows that the iPhone remains exceptionally valuable and that the iPad, excluding line extensions, has also held the line on pricing.

The missing piece in the puzzle is that the iPhone and iPad and iPod touch and Apple TV are pieces of an inter-dependent network of assets. The iTunes stores, Apple's services and Apple Retail are easily ignored because they are not "profit centers" but I believe they are a key component to the sustainment of these margins.

In other words, the iPhone and iPad enjoy margins not just because they are new and well designed. But also because they form part of a ecosystem. The key word is 'system'. The user buys into a system not just what the device embodies.

This is why I've always said that the iOS product businesses should be thought of as "hardware as a service". The inspiration comes from the notion of "software as a service" which posits the idea that software purchases should be thought of as services and thus recurring revenues.

iOS devices are part of a service matrix: the user experience in the stores, the after-sales support (including the easily ignored Applecare), the broadband supplied through operator service (which is part of a trillion dollars of value), the apps and content that can be purchased (which add up to a mountain of money), the network effects of iMessage and iCloud and now iRadio and Match and Siri.

These services attachments are well understood as great business models and underpin some of the most celebrated businesses to emerge in the last decade including Google, Amazon, Facebook, Box, Dropbox, Windows Live, etc.

It's curious therefore that whereas these other businesses are highly valued as services, in the case when the service is a component within a larger system, the value is missed. In an integrated context the connection between services and high margins is not understood. The reason may be the absence of robust systems analysis and a preference for the facile explanation.

In my essay on Google's absence of profit (or income or business) motives questions were raised on the stated absence of hunger for profits from Apple and what difference there might be from Google's philosophy.

Indeed, Jony Ive stated:

"Our goal isn't to make money. Our goal absolutely at Apple is not to make money. It may sound a little flippant, but it's the truth." ((at the British Embassy's Creative Summing in July 2012)).

He was probably repeating what Jobs had previously stated:

"I remember very clearly Steve announcing that our goal is not just to make money but to make great products" ((Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs))

However, note that both quotes are qualified. In the case of Jobs, he said "not just to make money". Jobs clearly stated that great products lead to money. That great products are causal to money and therefore that if you make great products you make money. One leads to the other.

Ive also continued in this reasoning:

"Our goal, and what gets us excited, is to try to make great products. We trust that if we are successful people will like them. And if we are operationally competent we will make revenue. But we are very clear about our goal."

I would paraphrase the Apple logic as "Great products are the means by which we sustain our business. By focusing on the product, the customer is satisfied and through that satisfaction we create the free cash flows which can be used to fund more products."

There is a difference between Apple's "indifference to money" and the "indifference to business models" that Google exhibits.

Google steps even further away from cash flows. Its goals are to build great things guided by their vision and patterns in the data they collect. The value is in the data itself rather than in any transaction.

As long as the source of money is unfettered, its provenance is uninteresting. A business model is a profit algorithm. It could be linked to the data but it need not be. Markets are messy and imperfect. Data provides much clearer views into value. You could conclude that value itself cannot be trusted to the judgement of the public. Value is to be determined through the recognition of patterns on data privately collected.

So when I say that Google has disdain for market mechanisms I mean that they believe they can do better. Apple still values the user as the ultimate adjudicator of its actions. Google looks past the user and interprets their intentions.

Google sees markets as ultimately obsolete.

A company is nothing more (and nothing less) than three things: people, processes and purposes. In the language of the software engineer these would be inputs, algorithms and specifications. In the language of classical business analysis they are assets (or resources), organization structures and business models. In military theory, these are logistics, tactics and strategy.

This is the trinity which allows for an understanding of a complex system: the physical, the operational and the guiding principle. The what, the how and the why.

When approaching any analysis problem, these questions form the foundation of causal inference. What is it, how does it work and why does it exist?

When analyzing nature the sciences often help with the what and the how but rarely address the why. ((Religion attempts to answer the whys which science leaves as unanswerable.)) In contrast, man-made systems (e.g. systems of law, religion and commerce) require an answer to the why as there is a presumption of a will in their creation and preservation. The why allows ultimate judgement on the merit of an enterprise. The why may escape us but it's assumed to always be there. For instance, in criminal law the motive is often a crucial piece of evidence but it's not always found. In business, the motive for action or for organization is a crucial piece of the puzzle which often explains the what, who and how, but here the ultimate why is usually profit. This the characteristic of a for-profit business, the purpose is explicit.

Some companies try to define their purposes beyond profit but they are often too vague or merely speak of values represent a quality not causality.

This is the case with Google. The problem isn't only that "don't be evil" isn't a priority or a purpose, but also that its resources are not applied to cohesive goals. In fact, there seems to be no interest in pursuing a direction aligned with generating income.

This is not in itself a bad thing. The notion of operating as a learning (vs. a deliberate) organization, informed but not driven by a goal, is the best approach when seeking new markets or discovering new needs and new business models. The difference with Google is that there seems to be no expectation of business model discovery. In other words, that the learning is not for any purpose other than learning itself.

This might be noble but learning for its own sake has not been attempted by public, for-profit organizations ((The Bell Labs story in an interesting possible exception but on deeper inspection it was the by-product of a  government sanctioned monopoly and hence a ward of the state)) since there is an implicit fiduciary responsibility to generate profit and unrestricted experimentation, unguided by profit, is unlikely to ever learn the needs of markets.

 

The evidence I note supporting this is in the persona the company maintains, both internally and externally. There is no representation of themselves as a "business seeking profit" or even as a commercial entity. It's not simply because their business model is embarrassing. It's because all business models are embarrassing.

The representation is one of a research laboratory succeeding against difficult problems. Very similar to a successful academic or industrial laboratory sustained by grants from a benevolent (but messy) organization. Google becomes the embodiment of "big science" and "the world's laboratory" unfettered by politics and unsoiled by commercial interests.

There is a business in Google but it's a very obscure topic. The "business side" of the organization is only mentioned briefly in analyst conference calls and the conversation is not conducted with the same team that faces the public. Even then, analysts who should investigate the link between the business and its persona seem swept away by utopian dreams and look where the company suggests they should be looking (mainly the future.)

There are almost no discussions of cost structures (e.g. cost of sales, cost of distribution, operations and research), operating models (divisional, functional or otherwise) or of business models. In fact, the company operates only one business model which was an acquisition, reluctantly adopted.

It's as if the management is not only uninterested in its own profit model but deeply scornful of it. For all the technology innovations the company can claim, it has not had one internally sourced business model innovation.

But is this wrong? Again, we need to ask if Google breaks with convention then maybe convention needs to be broken. This is the radical bet underlying the Google thesis: are business models necessary? This is in fact a bet many VCs are implicitly placing within the current start-up culture. The notion of making a profit or even having an interest in doing so seems passé. This notion is directly traceable to the Google ethos as it acts as the source of acquisition funding and is driving the agenda of VCs and entrepreneurs. This is leadership by example and the example is one of blissful ignorance of market constraints.

But we have to go back to the profit model, even if analysts, observers and the company itself sweep it under a rug. The reason is that this laboratory runs only as long as the grant money keeps coming. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. So far the money rains down from heaven, but that rain is not infinite nor permanent. The answer seems to be diversification, even the creation of a conglomerate. In other words, the answer seems to be that if enough great technology is developed or acquired, then a business model will appear (think about it as a probability problem) and the vulnerability of revenue sources is managed. Clever? Convenient? We'll see.

But that's not the only problem. The deeper problem is in us knowing their intentions. The absence of a purpose rooted in profit makes Google resistant to analysis. There might be a purpose, known only to the founders ((or not known at all)), but it's one that is potentially naive, amoral or too abstract to be useful. Shareholders are aware of this and have agreed to entrust control to only three individuals. The purpose of the organization is in their hands alone and reflects their priorities. Bearing in mind that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, they must be brave indeed.

This would not be too troubling if the effect would be restricted to the company stakeholders. The trouble lies in that organization also having de-facto control over the online (and hence increasingly offline) lives of more than one billion people. Users, but not customers, of a company whose purpose is undefined. The absence of oversight is one thing, the absence of an understanding of the will of the leadership is quite another. The company becomes an object of faith alone.  Do we believe?

When describing the process of disruptive innovation, Clay Christensen set about to also describe the process by which a technology is developed by visionaries in a commercially unsuccessful way. He called it cramming.

Cramming is a process of trying to make a not-yet-good-enough technology great without allowing it to be bad. In other words, it's taking an ambitious goal and aiming at it with vast resources of time and money without allowing the mundane trial and error experimentation in business models.

To illustrate cramming I borrowed his story of how the transistor was embraced by incumbents in the US vs. entrants in Japan and how that led to the downfall of the US consumer electronics industry.

Small upstarts were able to take the invention, wrap a new business model around it that motivated the current players to ignore or flee their entry. They thus successfully displaced the entrenched incumbents even though the incumbents were investing heavily in the technology and the entrants weren’t.

In the image below, the blue "path taken by established vacuum tube manufacturers" is the cramming approach vs. the green entry by outsiders who worked on minor new products which could make use of the rough state of transistors at their early stages of development.

The history of investment in transistor-based electronics shows how following the money (i.e. R&D) did not lead to value creation, quite the opposite. There are many such examples: The billions spent on R&D by Microsoft did not help them build a mobile future and the billions spent on R&D by Nokia did not help them build a computing future.

There are other white elephant stories such as IBM's investment in speech recognition to replace word processing, the Japanese government spending on "Fifth Generation Computing" and almost all research into machine translation and learning from the 1960s to the present.

But today we hear about initiatives such as package delivery drones and driverless cars and robots and Hyperloops and are hopeful. Perhaps under the guiding vision of the wisest, most benevolent business wizards, breakthrough technologies and new infrastructures can finally be realized and we can gain the growth and wealth that we deserve but are so sorely lacking.

But the failure of crammed technologies isn't rooted in a lack of wisdom. It was the wisest of minds which foresaw machine learning, advanced computing, mobility and convergence coming decades before they came. It was their wisdom which convinced others that resources should be spent on these initiatives. And it was the concentrated mind power of thousands of scientists which spent hundreds of billions in academic and government research.

What failed wasn't the vision but the timing and the absence of a refinement process. Technologies which succeed commercially are not "moonshots." ((It could be said that the space and nuclear weapons programs during the Cold War were the original "moonshots" and they succeeded. But although successful in their goals, those goals were not commercial value creation and we are left with little to show for it. See also Concorde.)) They come from a grinding, laborious process of iteration and discovery long after the technology is invented.

The technology is one part of the problem to be solved, the other is how to get people to use it. And that problem is rooted in understanding the jobs people have to get done and how the technology can be used defensibly. That's where the rub is. An unused technology is a tragic failure. Not just because it has no value but because the resources (those beautiful minds) used in making it could have been applied elsewhere.

Building usage means imparting and retrieving learning through a conversation with the customer. That conversation is best spoken with a vocabulary of sales and profits. Without profits the value is unclear. Nothing is proven. Without economic performance data, the decision of resource allocation becomes a battle of egos. ((This is how most research is allocated today.)) The decision may be right but going by past history the odds are low.

Incidentally, timing is the other element that is key to success. It might seem that timing really is a matter of luck. But timing can be informed by the same conversation with the customer. As you observe adoption you can also measure how long it take for a technology to be adopted. You can do A/B tests and see what is faster.

The most reliable method of breakthrough creation is not the moonshot but a learning process that involves steady iteration. Small but profitable wins.  A driver-less car might be achieved but first a driver-assisting car might teach the right lessons. An electric car might be achieved but first a hybrid car might teach the lessons needed. A delivery drone might be achieved but first a programmable UPS truck might be a better way to learn.

And finally, Android (née Linux) in 2005 might have been foreseen as the future of mobile operating systems but it took the learning from iOS to shape it into a consumer-friendly product. Even when you see a moonshot work, you realize that a lot of learning had to have taken place. It's like the story of an overnight success that took a lifetime of perseverance.

In February I asked Why doesn't anybody copy Apple?

Put another way: Why is it that everyone wants to copy Apple’s products but nobody wants to copy being Apple?

Being Apple means, at least:

• Insourcing all aspects of operations which affect the customer experience. Increasingly that has meant insourcing everything, a toxic idea to every MBA-trained professional since forever.
• Organizing functionally and having no product level P/L responsibility. That also means removing almost all incentives for employees to climb ladders and thus prove their worth.
• Developing products using integrated "heroic" efforts which shun  every best (or even adequate) process for product development.

I asked somewhat rhetorically because it's an open question. Apple's operating model and devotion to integration have been asymmetric to technology dogma for decades. To the casual (read: naïve) observer, pursuing the Apple way seemed also to be tied to one individual. You could not "be Apple" unless you were also Steve Jobs and there was only one of him.

But it seems I did not give enough credit to other observers.

According to Microsoft, they began negotiating the buying of Nokia assets in earnest (coincidentally) in February. It has, also since February, been planning a massive re-organization along functional lines. Thus, by owning significant hardware operations and organizing functionally, Microsoft might go about two thirds toward "being Apple-like". The development process is the final hurdle and it may be a bridge too far, but my thesis that nobody wants to copy Apple is now in tatters.

And it gets worse. We can see a similar, though far weaker, example in Google's approach to integration. Their purchase of Motorola did not result in an integrated business, with Motorola being kept at arm's length and allowed to wither on the vine. Crucially, while Google bought Motorola's IP, Microsoft only licensed Nokia's. Microsoft clearly valued Nokia for something different than  what Google valued Motorola for.

Nevertheless there is a semblance of similarity. We can generalize enough and say that Apple (iOS), Google (Android/Chrome) and Microsoft (Windows (Phone)) are all becoming near facsimiles of each other. They are all producers of Software, Services and Hardware. Each came from a different basis but expanded into areas which were missing.

• Google started with a service, expanded into systems software and bought into hardware.
• Apple started with hardware running its own software, expanded into application software and is developing services.
• Microsoft started with software, expanded organically into services and bought into hardware.

All three major platform companies are now racing to offer that which completes them as an integrated producer and eliminates the dependencies on others as a modular producer.

This is re-integration of the computing industry--a reversal of the dis-integration brought about by the personal computer. Mobility, it turns out, was as important to the evolution of the computing value chain as microprocessors were to the previous era. It just had the opposite effect.

I should point out that Apple was more lucky than enlightened through this sea change. Having always been integrated, Apple was out of favor during one period of the computing epoch, but, simply by surviving, its model came back into favor in the next. I don't think anybody there foresaw just how dramatic the shift would be and how important their structure was to being successful.

But there is one company which seems left out of this discussion. Samsung is absorbing a large part of the available profits in computing today and it's not an integrated hardware/software/services player. Does this mean that there is room to be a module in an interdependent world?

I argue that no, there isn't. Samsung must either stretch into becoming one of the ecosystem contenders or be relegated to a commodity hardware company--a path clearly visible when looking at Chinese entrants. Samsung itself benefited from disrupting from below and should be aware of the threat it faces as it races up-market. More importantly though there is the ability of creating new markets altogether. This new market creation and rapid iteration due to integration is what the Google/Microsoft/Apple trio are seeking.

Without the components of software (ecosystems included[1]) and services, Samsung will depend on the good graces of suppliers. They may not be as keen to share when profits accrue to the whole rather than the part.

 

---

Note:

[1] e.g. BlackBerry

In the Innovator's Curse I reflected on the fact that a serial innovator cannot be efficiently financed or even rewarded for having figured out how to repeatably create. If anything, a serial innovator has to suffer a discount to peers who do not habitually (or ever) innovate. The innovation process is the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs but is destined to perish due to the lack of faith in its existence.

So how can I back this up?

To start, this is partially evidenced in this graph of Apple's price to earnings ratio since 2006 vs. the S&P 500's. The S&P reflects the 500 largest companies in the US and is thus a proxy for the "average" company.

[I added Apple's P/E excluding cash for additional perspective.]

The graph shows that during the period of time when iPhone and iPad changed computing and telecommunications, Apple was mostly held in contempt: the profits it was generating were not considered of "sufficient quality" relative to an average company. Since markets look forward, not backward (one assumes), the vote cast is decidedly that success cannot be repeated. Put another way: you can trust that a soft drink maker like Coca Cola (P/E of 19) or a utility like ConEd (P/E of 18) will continue in the manner we've seen them perform in the last year more than Apple (P/E of 12) will.

I can offer yet another way to consider this curse. Apple's iOS business is designed to capture profits through the sale of hardware. That hardware is manufactured through a process where, while not being the manufacturer, Apple purchases tooling in a capital-intesive strategy to control the means of production.  I've discussed this at length before.

But Apple's business is more complex than just enabling manufacturing. Tooling allows for production and production allows for supply but supply is nothing without demand. And demand of the product is driven by investments in software and services and design and marketing and countless details.

In other words, for Apple's modus operandi, if anything should correlate with value it's opex, not capex. It's the investment in the people Apple employs not in the tools it buys.

And yet consider this graph:

It shows how the market (though its pricing of Apple shares) values the company overlaid with a Apple's spending on capital equipment (PP&E capex).

The relationship is uncanny. I'm not suggesting causality—that capex (which is publicly pre-announced) determines the share price level—but I am suggesting that there is a valuing of Apple as a producer of goods (for which tooling is a handy proxy). There is no sophistication to this formula. The more iPhones are built, the more the company is valued. Obvious.[1]

But it's not obvious that prior to the iPhone there was iPod, which was a different business (and prior to it was the Mac, ditto.) The stock did not reflect the transitions nor does it assume that anything else will follow. It is, in other words, looking backward, not forward.

--

Notes:

1. One could suggest looking at CapEx months in advance and predict the stock price, but who would believe such an absurd idea?

Building a successful business is hard. Many try, few succeed and those that do tend not to thrive for long. So success in business it should be respected. Especially in highly competitive industries like technology. The fragility of success however should also give one pause to think about how delicate a business model is.

The presumption that companies can shift business models at will is usually false. Businesses are balanced on a knife's edge of dependency on multiple variables. Almost all resources are expended on preserving this balance.

This being my observation, I take issue with assumptions that large companies can "pivot" on a dime or that they can change their business models "when conditions are right". Consider Microsoft's dilemma. They have all the resources in the world and yet they could not pivot to take advantage of a change so mundane as a low power microprocessor (which enabled a mobile computer and hence a new ecosystem and profit model for software.)

Or consider the dilemma of Apple which after building a successful computer business which included system software, could not pivot to license that system software so others could build computers with it.

Or consider the dilemma of Nokia which had an early and large leadership in smartphones including having its own OS and platform and large volumes and users bases. It could not pivot to allow into an ecosystem and had all its advantages disappear.

Each company thought they could manage change but none of them actually did.

It's with this thinking about inertial navigation that came to consider the idea that Amazon has a flexible business model which, though unprofitable today, will be profitable some day.

The premise that Amazon can, on a whim, change its business model from selling other people's products at a razor thin margin while investing in capital-intensive distribution to selling other people's products at a large margin while not investing in capital-intesive distribution is not credible.

I would argue that Amazon's existing business model is a direct consequence of the market it's in: that it could not be anything else given the circumstances it finds itself in. Enlightenment may be an illusion.[*]

That's not to say that there is no wisdom in the management of Amazon. Quite the contrary; recall the respect that's called for in creating a great business. Managing the business to this point was a work of decades of vision and creativity.

What I take issue with is the premise that Amazon is the "anti-Apple" in its hunger for growth and patience for profits. Apple has its own "Amazon-like-business": iTunes has been growing at a steady 25% or more and it also has its ancillary zero-profit hardware analogue to the Kindle called Apple TV.  iTunes is a great business in the Amazon vein, harvesting hundreds of millions of users (and their credit cards.) Presumably iTunes could also some day "flip the switch" and become profitable, but something magical needs to happen. Something like becoming a payments processor or retailer of other things. Analyst beware however. There might be conditions that make such switch flipping extremely difficult.

At an even deeper level, Apple and Amazon are much more alike than they are different. They are both hired for similar jobs (convenience, ease of use and a controlled, predictable environment for average users interacting with technology). They both focus on delighting customers and controlling all the variables which come into contact with that delight. They both have long-term views and are driven by vision rather than competition.

Where they differ is in others' perception of sustainability. Whereas Apple is perpetually given an expected lifespan of less than a decade, Amazon is expected to have an indefinite lifespan. This is because Amazon is seen as having no competition and Apple is seen as having infinite competition. In other words, Amazon is perceived as a monopoly and Apple is perceived as the  innovator that is in a permanent state of being disrupted by the low end.

I disagree with both assumptions. I've always thought Apple fragile but dedicated to moving into new markets as older markets are disrupted. It's a tough strategy and one which (literally) nobody believes possible. But I've also thought Amazon's monopoly status fragile. This too is not a popular idea but the company depends on many variables.

Retail is hard and it is being disrupted by technology wielded well by Amazon. But it's also subject to further disruption. Amazon's job to be done can be done by alternatives. Buyers are typically hiring Amazon for convenience, not just price and ease of use is where the value is. But again, new information technology which makes shopping, discovery and delivery of products directly from the vendor, bypassing the aggregator (i.e. retailer) could shift value along the value chain yet again.

By the time Amazon reaches some point of monopoly in distribution it could be too late to make the switch to profit generation.

I don't want to suggest that failure is inevitable, but I want to point out that success is not certain by any means. Disruption happens.

--

* It's possible that Enlightenment is also an illusion at Apple. Even if they once had it, there are forces which act on companies that make them lose their wisdom.

Bill, I think the smartphone market has always been competitive. [Only] the names have been changed.

Tim Cook responding to Bill Shope's question on the competitive landscape, April, 2013.

Indeed, over the years, the companies considered Apple's primary competitor have been many.

In years gone by in the phone market there were RIM and Nokia and Palm and HTC. In the iPod era there was Creative and Sony and innumerable others long forgotten (not to mention the tyranny of DRM).

Even today we struggle to decide whether Apple competes with Google first or Samsung. Or perhaps with the iPad it's with Amazon or  Microsoft. Or maybe iTunes is threatened by Netflix or Spotify. The Mac surely competes with HP and Dell and Toshiba. What about iCloud? Clearly it's Dropbox or Google Drive. iWork? Both Office and Google Docs.

Doing a competitive analysis for Apple is then mostly a struggle of whom to compare it to. So forgive me that I only track the few challengers shown below.

Note also that these companies all may compete with Apple to some degree but they may not compete with each other. Competition, it seems, is not transitive.

There isn't much that I can observe in the data that hasn't already been observed. Google shows steady but not spectacular growth in revenues with decreasing margins. Microsoft shows even more modest growth in revenues with flat earnings. Apple growth is moderating from near vertical while earnings pause. Samsung has great growth but there is a similar set of doubts about its sustainability and finally, Amazon continues to grow the top line by 20% and  has nothing to show for it.

Operating margins have mostly fallen with the exception of Samsung whose increasing reliance on smartphones has led to a modest increase, though not nearly to the level of the others. (Amazon, lacking in profits, cannot be compared.)

 

In summary there is little change to report.

Except that it's been reported that in the last quarter Samsung managed to "dethrone" Apple from the phone operating profit crown. This is a matter of estimates and for that we need to understand clearly the assumptions.

I estimate that this is not the case. That indeed Apple remains most profitable phone maker by a wide margin.

To estimate operating margins you need to estimate gross margin and the allocation of operating expenses (SG&A and R&D) to a particular "division" or product line. The problem is that Apple does not operate as a divisional organization so its marketing and R&D budgets (i.e. people) are not assigned permanently. You have to move them around based on whatever is being worked on at any given time.

What's more, we need to account for the huge SG&A costs associated with iTunes and Retail. They both consume vast resources which cannot be allocated directly to any product. There are 41,000 people working in retail.  Also, some of the expenses for iTunes are overhead and cannot be considered cost of sales. That's also SG&A. Then there's corp research and design (Mansfield and Ive), which are not allocated to any particular product. When you slice out these costs, there is very little to apply to iPhone, etc.

So if (and it's a big, sanctimonious if) you want to cast iPhone out as a separate business unit, it would be wildly profitable. There is a huge gross margin of 46% (this assumes a cost per unit of $316) and only another 5% of sales spent on engineering and marketing leaves a 41% operating margin or $7.4 billion. (Why only 5%? Because there's only 10.8% to allocate and after taking out iTunes, Retail you're really only left with 4.49% for SG&A and 3.3% for R&D or 7.79% so 5% is about two thirds of the operating budget).

If you take all of Samsung's IM division which is PCs, Tablets and phones their operating profit was only $5.6 billion.

You can see the difference in the grey areas of operating profit in the first graph above.

Bear in mind that this is still an artificial comparison. The split of profit between product groups is not only an estimate by the analyst, it would be an estimate for Apple itself since it has only one P/L.

The Windows PC market is contracting. The market data has been showing unit shipment declining for some time with the latest quarter having perhaps the steepest decline for two decades.

What remains undocumented however is how the market looks when considering economic value. A more complete picture would be to show revenues, average selling price (or revenue/unit), operating margins/unit and percent of profit capture.

The data is not beyond reach however. It involves combining the shipment estimates from e.g. Gartner with financial reports from the companies themselves. Some analysis is required to estimate margins but they are also not hard to obtain (e.g. from third parties.)

So here is a view of the market for the fourth quarter 2012:

The only inference I made was with respect to Apple's margins for the Mac. These are based on deriving a gross margin of 26% and adding an estimate of the SG&A and R&D "overhead" of 7.1% of sales, a figure which applies to the entire company. This yield an operating margin of 18.9%.

If this estimate is considered then the operating profits from PC operations imply that Apple generates more profit than all the top 5 PC vendors combined.

Assuming further that "other" vendors have the same profitability ratio as the top 5 combined yields a figure of 45% "profit capture of PC market" for Apple. This is not as good as its performance in the phone market, where Apple has about 72%, but it's not bad.

The real problem for the PC vendors is not that they have such low margins–they've had low margins for decades. It's that the volumes which "made up for" low margins are disappearing. Apple is not immune to a gradual erosion of Mac volumes, but they have positioned themselves for growth with devices and content commerce and services. They have essentially "escaped" PCs and indeed caused the need to escape in the first place.

The problem is what could the others do? It seems all they can do is depend on Microsoft getting their strategy right.

Sounds risky.

Google announced its first computing product: the Pixel. It's not the first Chromebook but it is the first device which is uniquely branded as a Google product (Motorola notwithstanding.)

It's a curious choice given that companies which have "crossed-over" from being service or software oriented to hardware have started with more "mobile" devices. Amazon launched the Kindle as a low-end product and gradually moved it up-market. Microsoft launched with the Surface tablet and then followed with the Pro version as a hybrid laptop/tablet.

It's also curious since Google has spent years contributing to the development of mobile phones and tablets under the Nexus sub-brand. This was an approach consistent with earlier Chromebooks as well.

But the Pixel is a high-end product. It's priced at the top of the range of what a laptop computer might cost (given the dimensions).  Perhaps it's part of a pattern where Google will hone its hardware skills toward releasing a phone or tablet it can call its own. Starting with a more traditional computer is "easier" than trying to deliver on the more demanding smaller form factors.

And yet, the more obvious question is why would Google want to be in the hardware business? Isn't being a web-focused company implicitly suggesting that hardware is a commodity to be farmed off to perpetually impoverished and violently abused OEMs?

The truth is quite different from this. Samsung currently makes far more operating profit from Android phones than Google does from all its operations. 

When looking at the patterns of sales and profit capture for hardware vendors since 2007 the contrast is stark:

Apple and Samsung tower over the fortunes for software only Microsoft or service-oriented Google and Amazon. Although all companies are growing, the value, as defined by the buyer, resides in the whole product. Putting aside all the theory, the numbers are staggering. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are skimming profits but they are not particularly efficient at profit generation vis-a-vis the integrated Apple (and increasingly integrated Samsung.)

The question is which of the companies illustrated above will prosper from the value chain evolution under way?