profit

Last fall I introduced the "vector space" model of visualizing vendor performance. It shows performance along two dimensions: market share growth vs. profit share growth for a set of competitors.

When introduced, I chose a long time frame (15 quarters) to see the long-term pattern. This quarter I add two more time frames: year-on-year and sequential. This allows a view of how market change is itself changing. The three diagrams are shown below (note difference in scales)

One way to interpret this is movement toward the upper right is positive while movement down or to the left is negative. A deeper meaning can be obtained from noting that the vector sum or "net" of vertical and horizontal data points should be zero (i.e. the gains in share should be at the expense of losses in share). In terms of phone market share the "net" is not zero as "others" are excluded, but the difference is visually not perceivable.

Since we're dealing with share, one way to interpret the data is that "improvement" in one's position is offset by the "decline" in another's. We cannot ascribe the benefit of a vendor directly to the loss of another but overall net gainers are offset by net losers.

By tracking this position change over time we can see if there is a set of consistent winners and a set of consistent losers. The pattern does show that:

• Smartphone vendors grow consistently
• Apple in particular has consistent growth with profit growth faster than share growth
• Nokia in particular has consistent decline with profit decline faster than share decline
• RIM shows profitability concern in the near term. In particular vs. HTC
• Samsung shows some near term share loss, probably due to unbranded vendors
• It's very rare to have a company lose market share while gaining profit share or to gain market share and lose profit share. This implies that in this market one does not trade off volume for profit.

The correlation between profit and volume growth is very telling. As is the consistent clustering of winners and losers. This analysis demonstrates the shift in the industry is not a short term phenomenon but a disruptive changing of the guard. If history is any guide, this change is not going to be undone.

 

The challenge with any performance metrics is that there is no single measure of business performance which is conclusive. The last few posts have covered mobile phone vendor performance measured by various methods. Growth (sequential, yearly and compounded multi-year),  margins, shares (units, profit and sales), rankings and time series. I've distinguished between smartphone pure plays and the diversified. Each is trying to shed light on what is a multi-dimensional puzzle.

I've used various charting tools and visualizations and they each render some clues, but the following chart is one of my favorites. It shows the way operating profit was distributed among the top vendors.

The areas each represent the profit from mobile phone sales in Q1. The horizontal axis shows the volume of units and the vertical the profit per unit. It thus shows how "efficiently" profits were captured a unit basis. It also shows at a glance the different strategies employed and how they reflect performance. It shows who made money and who didn't. It shows the magnitude of differences.

The shape of this chart has not changed in the last few quarters but it prompts speculation on how it might change in the following few years.

I struggled to find a catchy name for this type of chart but @JustinD put it well here. Rawr indeed.

I produced two alternate views of the primary mobile phone brands in terms of volumes sold and operating profit in Q1.

These views[1] allow a comparison by categorized competitors. I grouped dedicated smartphone vendors (SMART) vs. diversified and used color coding for profitability (blue colors indicate loss-making vendors).

The same view is drawn for profitability. Loss-making competitors are excluded.

This view shows how 16% of the volumes for the smartphone vendors generated 75% of total profits. As smartphone penetration grows, those vendors who maintain a diversified portfolio will continue to see their average price and profitability slide.

I've suggested before that I don't see non-smart devices being interesting to vendors in the near term. Each additional dumb phone added to a portfolio will decrease a company's operating margin. The market dynamics are such that I think non-smart phones will disappear entirely from branded portfolios in 3 to 5 years.

---

Notes:

1. These are called "tree views". I used Many Eyes experiment from IBM Research to create these charts.

Operating profits for the eight vendors I track increased at a compounded 25% over three years. As with revenues, the growth is concentrated. The following chart shows operating profit growth across three time frames: three year compounded, year/year and sequential. Loss-making vendors are excluded from this chart.

Looking at individual performance, the following chart shows how each vendor performed over time:

The mobile industry has historically been unforgiving. Companies that fall into unprofitability tend to stay there or exit/merge. This has claimed many: Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel, BenQ, Palm, Sony, Toshiba, Handspring, NEC, Hitachi, Casio.

LG, MMI and Sony Ericsson are all in the same precarious situation. We'll have to watch carefully whether a recovery is possible for any of them and whether Nokia will reach the same rocky position.

Looking at operating profit shares, the picture is plain to see. While RIM, Samsung and HTC have maintained profit share, between 2007 and now, profit share has mostly shifted from Nokia to Apple.

But this does not tell the whole story. Here are the absolute amounts of operating profit from mobile phones. Exactly three years ago Nokia was earning 47% profit share or $2.35 billion. This past quarter Apple's 57% was equivalent to $5.23 billion, more than twice as much.

Finally, the league table shows how Nokia has now dropped from second to fourth in the last quarter. Not only Samsung, but RIM has overtaken Nokia as well.

It's become routine to see Apple at the top of the list of profit earners from mobile phones.

While a lot of the credit for Apple's success is rightfully assigned to the iOS franchises, the OS X business has more than quadrupled in five years. This has happened without drastic price fluctuations. Neither holds for the overall PC industry which has seen both volume and sales decline while prices have eroded along with profitability. On top of that, growth has nearly evaporated.

Even with this success, as a percent of total value created, the Mac accounts for a mere 13% of Apple's profit. Including software as part of the OS X franchise implies that OS X is enabling about 20% of Apple's profits.

iOS, on the other hand, is accounting for more than 75%. These two platforms combined amount to 96% of Apple's profits (up from 50% four years ago).

That's $9.8 billion from integrated platform-based devices. One can be very confident that this profit would be negligible without the software differentiation only Apple can offer.

So $10 billion is a lot of profit to obtain from a business enabled by operating system platform software. How can we get a handle on this size? How big is this? We could compare this with another operating system business: Microsoft Windows.

Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live Division obtained sales of $4.445 billion in the last quarter with an operating income of $2.764 billion.

So although Windows earned about twice what the Mac earned[1], iOS and OS X together enable 3.5 times the profits of Windows.

The end of an era is the end of growth in one dominant business model. The PC era was epitomized by the concentration of profits in a dominant operating system vendor. That growth has slowed if not ended. The post-PC era is being kicked off by a new business model where profits are being concentrated in a hardware+software+service integrator.

--

1. Or you could read this as: The Mac generates half the profits of Windows while iOS devices generate 2.3x Windows profits.

At last night's closing price Apple was trading at a P/E of 16.3. Excluding cash that ratio was at 13. On a conservative forward basis (my estimates) the stock is priced at less than 10 times next twelve months' earnings.

These figures show a remarkable pessimism that has persisted around Apple for years. It was slightly, but not much, worse during the great recession. It persisted whether the company was growing at 30% of, as now, 95%.

There are many hypotheses about why Apple's earnings and growth are considered worthless. They come and go with the whims of the age: recession, elitist, luxury branding, health issues, macro "headwinds", earthquakes, phantom competition.

Lately it's become fashionable to blame Android. That's a curious thing to me, because Android has been discussed at length here and it has been shown to be, for the time being, benign. Apple has not "lost sales" to Android as it has been selling all it can produce. In some ways it's been a boon as a co-belligerent against non-consumption.

The argument that the discount is in effect because of the future of Android has one first strike against it: the fact that the market does not often discount the distant future. Capital markets are notoriously incompetent in spotting disruptions and often reward those who are failing right up until the bitter end.

But let's take the "Android hypothesis" (i.e. that Android is causal to Apple's share price) seriously and analyze it. How could the impact be measured?

Since Apple is trading at a fraction of (a) historic multiple (b) multiple based on growth (c) comparable companies' multiples then we can assume that a "normal" valuation would be twice the current (i.e. a multiple of about 32). That would still be a discount to growth and history but it would begin to match some of the comparables. A doubling of the P/E would be a good start.

But a multiple of 32 would imply a doubling of market cap, which means that the Android hypothesis is causing the evaporation of about $300 billion in future profits. So it stands to reason that it's responsible for a $300 billion destruction of Apple shareholder value.

That's an interesting number since Google itself is only worth about $169 billion.

The measurement then presents a remedy: If Apple bought Google (it already has a third of its value in cash) and it shut down Android, it could create $300 billion in value. If could even throw away all of Google and still walk out with a profit.

Seems like a great bargain.

AT&T's intent to acquire T-Mobile USA is subject to regulatory approval. Will regulators look at the deal through the lenses of sustaining the traditional industry's profit allocation or through the lenses of device-led disruption?

In theory, regulators are to make a determination on whether the deal will reduce customer choice. But the question is really choice of what? The focus is presumably on the choice of service plans. That's understandable, however coupled to that choice is the choice of devices and even more importantly, the choice of platforms.

The trouble is that US consumers have never had much choice and the US wireless marketplace has been a minefield of incompatibilities and obstacles to market forces.

To begin with, US carriers maintain multiple incompatible network standards. Phones which work on one network do not work on any other. A Sprint phone won't work on AT&T or on Verizon. In fact, some Sprint phones won't work on all of Sprint's network as it still uses the iDen standard legacy from the Nextel acquisition. Even the iPhone which is designed for the AT&T network does not handle T-Mobile's version of 3G. So a consumer cannot make a decision on devices independent of a decision on carrier. This is a phenomenon unique to the US[1].

Secondly, in the US carriers charge for incoming minutes and have shunned pre-paid customers. There was a time when SMS messages were not compatible between networks, which led to the emergence of RIM as the only wireless messaging solution available, though initially not to the average teenager.

Thirdly, because of the multiple incompatible standards, network coverage in the US is still abysmal. Each carrier has had to build out parallel (incompatible) networks at great expense using non-standard equipment over a vast landmass. The result is not only a very expensive network whose capex demands high service fees, but a very poor quality network which is always both spotty and capacity constrained. Operators are therefore keen to lock customers in to post-paid plans to ensure cash flows that drive capital allocations. This is essentially an upmarket flight which does not encourage low end innovation.

These idiosyncrasies are rooted in historical regulatory rulings that led operators to create a uniquely American wireless market. The key regulation was that the US shall have no single wireless standard. In the spirit of laissez-faire this may make sense. But the result has been failure of the common good. This is sharply contrasted with other developed countries which (with notable exceptions) deliver superior service with high efficiency.

The US is so unique that it developed its own "Galapagos syndrome". Few global brands can be bothered to invest in it. Vodafone tried to play in the US with Verizon, but its minority position offered no leverage because Verizon spent the better part of a decade avoiding global networking standards. Now T-Mobile is desperate for an exit after trying to leverage the foothold it paid dearly for and failing to offer devices that capture users' imaginations (because they were railroaded into another incompatibility with 3G). Conversely, no US brands have been able to expand internationally. US operators are non-entities abroad, even in what would be natural expansion territories like Latin America or the Caribbean.  Those markets belong to European investors today.

Given this background, it's very likely that regulators will look at the deal in terms of balancing what is essentially a deeply flawed, cobbled together industry.  Companies can argue that they are rationalizing through consolidation but regulators can argue that "choice" is decreasing. These arguments are mostly moot. The problem is that the US wireless market is balkanized and byzantine.

It's therefore perhaps stunning that the platforms that are currently winning in mobile computing are American: iOS and Android[2]. Note further that none of these winners came from the world of wireless or telecom. These new points of profit condensation in the industry entered from a different industry: computing. But are they now pursuing telecom-compliant strategies? Arguably no. I choose to call them mobile computing and not phone platforms specifically because they will tolerate the cellular regimes as long as they need to, and no longer. Once they will reach the perch of power, the industry will conform to them, not vice versa.

---

Notes:

1. Japan has a similar problem but less pronounced.
2. Microsoft is still in the running as is Palm, both American.

The relationship between Google and Apple is an interesting one. It's enticing to declare them "at war" with one another, but that type of relationship does not account for the collaboration and partnerships they enjoy. To wit:

• Google pays Apple for default Search placement on Safari. This means that Google treats Apple as a distributor.
• We can presume that there is a deal between the two over Gmail and Maps on the iPhone as well.
• AdMob is available on iOS without hindrance.

The business relationships between the two companies are self-evident. However, I would suggest that there are more important strategic reasons why Google and Apple are in fact implicitly collaborating against a common goal.

The concept of "co-belligerence" may describe the relationship: The state of fighting against a common adversary without a formal alliance and without a guarantee of non-agression against each other.

The common adversary is the telecom industry. It's an industry being undermined by the technological change of mobile computing and its profits are up for grabs. Apple and Google have different approaches in implementing this change but in the end they dismantle and absorb profits from the same target.

They are also benefiting each other. Apple benefits Google by creating user experience innovations which Google can rapidly copy. Google benefits Apple by increasing smartphone consumption--educating markets to the value of mobile computing and crippling the profitability (and thus the ability to innovate) of Apple's direct competitors.

If I may belabor the point, it's like the concept of fast food. One company invents the fast food franchise process, another popularizes it and creates demand. Finally, the innovator comes in with a premium brand to split the market.

Apple innovates in product innovation with Google as a fast follower. Google then innovates on distribution and penetration enabling Apple to follow with a skimming strategy.

The end result is a more rapid and thorough profit evaporation from incumbents with corresponding condensation around the entrants.

To visualize it further, consider what the market would look like if one or the other of the co-belligerents was not participating. Could Google have developed their software without the iPhone as a reference design? At the same time, as Android eliminates the opportunity for alternative software investments by competitors[1] could Apple have remained the only integrated vendor with a uniquely high profit margin?

Of course, this is not a guarantee of success. New platforms may still take root and integration by HP may actually pan out. But the point I'm trying to make is that, for the time being, Google and Apple are not so much adversaries as comfortably busy winning against a rather weak common target.

---

Notes:

1. Consider how hard it is for OEMs to justify investing in their own OS post-Android. Consider the desperate status of Nokia who abandoned a broad ecosystem and the paucity of alternatives.

Microsoft's new "strategic partnership" with Nokia is not its first. For a decade the software company has courted and consummated relationships with a variety of companies in mobile and telecom. Here are the ones I can remember:

• LG. In February 2009 Microsoft Corp. signed a multiyear agreement for Windows Mobile to be included on devices from LG Electronics Inc. LG would use Windows Mobile as its "primary platform" for smartphones and produce about 50 models running the software.

What happened? LG made a few Windows Mobile devices but with WinMo uncompetitive, they abandoned the platform and moved to Android losing years of market presence and all their profits.

• Motorola. In September 2003, Motorola  and Microsoft announced an alliance. "Starting with the introduction of the new Motorola MPx200 mobile phone with Microsoft Windows Mobile software, the companies will collaborate on a series of Smartphone and Pocket PC wireless devices designed to create a virtual "remote control" for the Web-centric, work-centric, always-on-the-go mobile professional." In addition, the alliance includes cooperation on joint marketing and wireless developer programs.

What happened? Motorola launched a series of Windows Mobile phones culminating in the Motorola Q "Blackberry killer". As Motorola hit the rocks in profitability new management reached for the Android liferaft. The company now relies exclusively on the Droid franchise.

• Palm. In September 2005 Palm and Microsoft announced a strategic alliance to "accelerate the Smartphone market segment with a new device for mobile professionals and businesses. Palm has licensed the Microsoft Windows Mobile operating system for an expanded line of Treo Smartphones, the first of which will be available on Verizon Wireless’ national wireless broadband network."

What happened? Palm shipped a few Windows Mobile, famously dismissing Apple's potential entry as something "PC guys" could never achieve. A new CEO, a private placement and an acquisition later the company is a division of HP making its own operating system.

• Nortel. When Steve Ballmer was famously laughing at the iPhone and saying that he likes the Windows Mobile strategy "a lot" he was sitting next to the then-CEO of Nortel (Mike Zafirovski formerly of Motorola) with whom the company had just closed a strategic deal.  "an alliance between Microsoft and Nortel announced in July 2006 ...  includes three new joint solutions to dramatically improve business communications by breaking down the barriers between voice, e-mail, instant messaging, multimedia conferencing and other forms of communication".

What happened? Nortel declared bankruptcy two years later.

• Verizon. In January 2009 "Verizon Wireless has selected Microsoft Corp. to provide portal, local and Internet search as well as mobile advertising services to customers on its devices. The five-year agreement will go into effect in the first half of 2009 when Microsoft Live Search is targeted to be available on new Verizon Wireless feature phones and smartphones." The deal would ensure Bing distribution to all of Verizon's smartphone customers.

What happened? Bing did ship on some devices but in October 2009 Droid came to Verizon.

• Ericsson. In September 2000, "Ericsson and Microsoft Corp. today launched Ericsson Microsoft Mobile Venture AB. This previously announced joint company will drive the mobile Internet by developing and marketing mobile e-mail solutions for operators. The first solutions are expected to be on the market by the end of the year. The company is part of a broader strategic alliance between Ericsson and Microsoft"

What happened? Ericsson divested itself of the mobile division forming a joint venture which would go on and make more strategic alliances with Microsoft over Windows Mobile culminating in a loss of profits and eventual flight to Android.

• Sendo. In February 2001, Microsoft announced a partnership, in which Microsoft bought $12m of Sendo shares and a seat on the board. Sendo was to be Microsoft's "go to market partner" for the Stinger smartphone platform that would become Smartphone 2002.

What happened? Sendo after litigating IP issues with Microsoft went bankrupt in 2005.

And finally,

• Nokia. No, not this OS deal, but in August 2009 "The worldwide leader in software and the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer have entered into an alliance that is set to deliver a groundbreaking, enterprise-grade solution for mobile productivity. Today, Microsoft Business Division President Stephen Elop and Nokia’s Executive Vice President for Devices Kai Öistämö announced the agreement, outlining a shared vision for the future of mobile productivity. This is the first time that either company has embarked on an alliance of this scope and nature."

The plan was to bring "Microsoft Office Mobile and Microsoft business communications, collaboration and device management software to Nokia’s Symbian devices."

What happened? One and a half years later the same Stephen Elop announced that Symbian will be deprecated.

Today's charts show the amount of profit captured by the top eight public mobile phone companies in two different ways.

The first, as a bar chart:

The second shows the way they captured it by taking into consideration the number of devices sold.

Please click on the image for a full size view (1024 pixels wide).

Generally speaking, vendors which are focused on smartphones have higher pricing and higher profitability (pricing discussion will follow at a later time). However, some, like Motorola and Sony Ericsson are still trying to recover from the collapse of their non-smartphone business and have higher prices but not very high margins overall. LG does not seem far behind.

Samsung and Nokia profit per device is quite small but they "make it up in volume".

The areas above represent operating profits and are comparable. One wonders how the ratios between horizontal and vertical dimensions for these boxes will change over time.

Since the overall market will expand, the sum of all horizontal dimensions will increase. As the first chart shows, there is no law for the conservation of profits in the industry, so it's possible that the sum of all these areas will increase, but it's still hard to imagine it increasing by an order of magnitude.

Will the industry remain clustered into a tall-and-narrow group and a short-but-wide group? That's a question with many strategic implications..

The following chart shows the units, sales and profit shares for the top eight phone vendors.

The fourth quarter did not see change in the ranking of the top eight vendors except for Sony Ericsson dropping in sales rank (to eighth). Samsung beat RIM to third spot in profit ranking, a position it held for most of 2009.