revenue

The last time I took a snapshot of the iPad death watch it was March 9th, 2010. Almost a year ago. The now-classic quotes are reproduced here.  Last May I wrote:

Apple keeps a tight lid on new products so that competitors don’t get a head-start on copying, but in the case of the iPad, advance knowledge would not have had any impact. Competitors look at the iPad and see nothing.  They’ll only react once the market explodes and they start to feel belated pain.

I thought that would be that. As the success of the product would become self-evident, predictions of imminent demise would trail off. The pain of share loss would prompt a wave of challenger copycats. Imitation would be the the best form of flattery.

But no.

Critics were not silenced. One year, 15 million units, and $9.2 billion later I went back to the source of the quotes and found the following (published quotes dated after March 9th 2010). (Cited from aaplinvestors.net with some editing for brevity and relevance):

“Problematically, the Android competition is just as expensive as the iPad lineup, so Apple obviously feels free to continue gouging consumers on iPad pricing.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 3 March 2011

“Apple’s iPad 2 might be ‘magical’ but it still should’ve been better ... It needs more G’s. It’s still just a toy” Zach Epstein, Boy Genius 2 March 2011

“11 reasons NOT to buy an iPad 2 ... Reason 5: Competition David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 23 February 2011

“Given what I’ve seen of Honeycomb and Motorola’s excellent tablet, Cupertino will have some serious catching up to do with their iPad 2.” J.P. Mangalindan, Fortune, 4 February 2011

“We very carefully chose our tablet processor, the Nvidia Tegra 2, and to really compete it will take [Apple] some time. You know, [Nvidia] is well known for graphics.” Jonney Shih, Asustek Computer, 3 February 2011

“If you were to ask me in two years time, will Apple have less than 50 percent of the global tablet market, I think that’s a certainty. Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics, 31 January 2011

“We have an extreme focus on the innovation of LePad and LePhone because these products will dominate the future market. Though Apple is winning a significant share in the Chinese market, it has not gained a clearly leading position yet. Our advantage is we know this market better.” Liu Chuanzhi, Lenovo, 27 January 2011

“The iPad may still be the lone leader, but with 100+ competitors on the way, it won’t likely keep its majority market share unless the pending next generation iPad really addresses all the complaints about the current version, like a missing camera and a lack of a USB port, and the company has to add those features without a major price increase - a tall order, to be sure.” James Brumley, Investopedia, 13 January 2011

“Hands-on PlayBook demonstrations at CES showed its differentiation in multitasking and performance, which may be difficult for Apple/Android to rival.” Mike Abramsky, Royal Bank of Canada Analyst, 11 January 2011

“Apple Inc.’s popular iPad is getting its strongest competition thus far as consumer-electronics manufacturers unveil tablet computers with bigger screens, front-facing cameras for video chatting and more.” Rachel Metz, AP Technology Writer, 3 January 2011

Apple may be simply trying to get in ahead of Research in Motion’s aggressively priced PlayBook or combat the early success of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab.” Rick Aristotle Munarriz, The Street, 29 December 2010

4. Competitors are coming. Brett Arends, Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2010

Reason 6: WiFi is still unreliable David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 16 December 2010

“I can’t imagine anyone under the age of 30 wanting an iPad. A PS3, Wii, GameBoy, or even a useful laptop maybe, but an iPad? Furthermore, I do not recall ever seeing anyone under 30 actually using an iPad.” John C. Dvorak, PC Mag, 13 December 2010

“We hope our tablet PCs can reach a global market share of 10-20% initially, and become the market leader in two to three years.” Gianfranco Lanci, CEO and President, Acer, 26 November 2010

“It’s a nice-to-have product, for those of us who don’t have a budget, but is it a must-have product? I don’t think so.” Ashok Kumar, Analyst, Rodman & Renshaw LLC, 12 November 2010

“Steve Jobs never says anything without thinking through it carefully. But I think in this case he may be a little afraid of this category. And he’s finding whatever he can to attack because he sees [seven-inch tablets] as a challenge to the dominance of the iPad.” Adam Hanin, VP Marketing, Viewsonic, 1 November 2010

“There could literally be millions of first-generation iPads gathering dust in people’s home offices already. This product is the tech industry’s biggest MacGuffin yet.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 23 October 2010

“I cannot see a need for the thing.”John Dvorak, MarketWatch, 22 October 2010

”For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that 7″ tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.” Jim Balsillie, Research In Motion, 20 October 2010

“iPhone and iPad have been amazing products that have opened new markets. But I do not think they will own either market in a few years. Android will.” Fred Wilson, AVC.com, 18 October 2010

“The constant search for an ‘iPad killer’ and the sheer multitude of tablet computers launching in the next 18 months should make Apple aware that its competition is fierce and will only become tougher.” Barbara E. Hernandez, PCWorld, 5 October 2010

“HP’s New Tablet Could Be an iPad Spoiler HP’s decision to bundle a tablet computer with its new $399 printer could make trouble for competitors.” Cliff Edwards and Aaron Ricadela, Bloomberg Businessweek, 23 September 2010

“Our tablet will be better than the iPad.” Chang Ma, VP Marketing, LG, 20 August 2010

“Not only is Apple typically lost in the enterprise, but it focuses very little of its time there. And with a new, potentially more compelling tablet coming — the Cisco Cius — the iPad’s success in the corporate world could be short-lived. Here’s why:... 10 The power of Windows” Don Reisinger, Channel Insider, 5 August 2010

“I don’t think there is one size that fits all…I’ve been to too many meetings with journalists who spent the first 10 minutes of the meeting setting up iPad to look like a laptop.” Steve Ballmer, Microsoft, 29 July 2010

“ [...] It still isn’t the device that I’d take to a meeting because it has no input.” Bill Gates, Microsoft, 2 June 2010

“Which means I end up on the iPad — and tablets more generally — where I started. Tablets will not create a new category, but will supplant (or merge with) one or more of the current substitutes: smartphones or netbooks.Here I am less optimistic about the iPhone and webOS than I am about Android. ” Joel West, professor of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, College of Business at San José State University, 30 May 2010

“The iPad is useless. Beautiful, but useless. The iPad is too heavy. It’s awkward to hold and view in public. It’s fragile. It requires expensive accessories to protect it and extract more functionality. ”Josh Belzman, MSNBC.com, 20 May 2010

“Mum, the iPad is not ‘amazing.’ It’s just marketed very well, both by Apple and its culpable partners in mainstream media. ” Paul Thurrott (in response to comment by Mum), Paul Thurrott’s Super Site for Windows, 26 April 2010

“In short, I don’t get the ‘magical and revolutionary’ vibe that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs touted at the iPad’s January unveiling.” Rob Pegoraro, Washington Post, 9 April 2010

“The first troubling sign is the fact that you can still get an iPad today. They didn’t sell out. The pure slate form factor has failed all these years because, other than for vertical applications, people want and/or need a keyboard for regular use. The fact of the matter is that a touch screen or bluetooth keyboard just doesn’t compensate.” Jonathan Yarmis, Ovum, part of Datamonitor Group, 6 April 2010

“I don’t get it. It costs $500 for the basic model, when you could get a laptop with a lot more functionality for about the same price. The iPad hype machine has been in full effect this week, and I still think it’s just that—hype. ” Alex Cook, Frontier Outlook, 3 April 2010

“As far as what this means to Apple, one thing to keep in mind: Even if the iPad sells more than the iPhone did in its first year, it’s still only around 5% of the company’s revenue. So it’s a very small slice. From there, it probably doesn’t grow as large as the smartphone market. So, if you’re buying under rumors, keep perspective in mind. The iPad’s a great product, but it’s probably not a game-changer.” Eric Bleeker, Analyst, Fool.com, 31 March 2010

“The iPad will remain an expensive, niche device compared to all-purpose netbooks.I think that one of the iPad’s most important uses will be for reading ebooks and publications. Even so, though, when it comes to the marketplace, netbooks will sales still far outstrip those of the iPad.” Preston Gralla, PC World, 30 March 2010

“Don’t Believe the iPad Hype. Apple has sold out pre-orders of the forthcoming device, but it could all be a marketing tactic. By not manufacturing enough iPads for the initial launch date, is this a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot?” Mike Schuster, Minyanville.com, 29 March 2010

“‘iPad Killer’ May be Palm’s Last Hope”Tom Bradley, PC World, 20 March 2010

“Even if your company has relented and now supports the iPhone, as growing numbers of businesses do (70% of the Fortune 100 are at least testing it, says Apple) you’ll want to say “No” to the iPad and other tablets. Here’s why: 8. Speaking of money, there is no money in the company budget to pay for iPads. 9. Not supporting iPad will be the enterprise norm. Robert McGarvey, CIO Update, 16 March 2010

“This morning, the fool’s parade gets started. Apple is taking online “pre-orders” for its iPad tablet, which is supposed to begin shipping on April 3. Buying a new kind of product sight unseen is foolish. Especially given how mysterious Apple has been on what the iPad can do and what restrictions on capabilities and media access it will place on users and content providers.” Galen Gruman, InfoWorld, 12 March 2010

“The recent launch of Apple, the iPad tablet, has won the award for the second edition of Fiasco Awards delivered this Thursday in Barcelona. From the more than 7,000 people who voted via the website www.fiascoawards.com, 4,325 have considered it the fiasco of the year. Fiasco Awards, 2010, 11 March 2010

“I think I’ve mentioned this once or twice before, but it bears repeating until it sinks in: the Apple iPad is not unique, nor necessarily the best of breed in the media tablet sector it is spearheading. And it ain’t gonna help Apple shareholders any.’” Anders Bylund (TMF Zahrim), 11 March 2010

From this critical review, it looks like 2011 will indeed be the year of the iPad 2.

On the eve of iPad 2.0, it's time to think again about this curious new computer. My intuition tells me that this product category will behave very differently from the iPhone and will not be subject to the same sales ramp.

The iPad has been on the market for less than a year but it's still a puzzle for many. It's a product that's often seen as an iPhone product line extension. From a hardware point of view, it certainly seems to be. It has an almost identical internal architecture and uses almost the same software. An engineer would look at it and reasonably say it's the same thing.

However, from the way it's used and the way it's sold, it has very little in common with its smaller cousin. There are plenty of experts who can detail how the products are used differently, but I would highlight the portability of the iPhone makes it suitable for a completely different set of tasks than the less portable but more immersive iPad.

But what I want to dwell on here is how differently the products are sold.

I'll build the case from evidence that Apple provides. The most important observation is that the iPad is an unlocked product. Although you can hire an operator to provide you with data services for it, the product is designed not to rely on that. As a result the product is effectively "divorced" from the operator channel. This means it does not typically benefit (or suffer) from subsidy.

This may seem an interesting side-note to the iPad story, but I think this is a central pillar of the market strategy. The iPhone was designed around a high-ARPU data plan. I've even suggested that the iPhone is nothing more than a data plan wrapped in glass and polished metal. Because it was designed to enable migration of cellular voice users to data plans, it's priced to skim profits from the migration. At some future point in time when a skimming strategy is no longer optimal, the iPhone might be re-positioned for penetration, but that time is not now.

As part of a skimming strategy, the iPhone has a limited distribution channel. It's only sold through special agreement with selected operators. Again, timing is crucial. That channel is expanding, but for nearly four years the product has not been positioned for sale through any channel other than Apple retail and Operator retail.

On the other hand, the iPad is marketed for penetration. It had a low price and an unlimited distribution strategy. It could be sold through any consumer electronics product point of sale. And then some. It could conceivably be sold through as many if not more points of sale as the iPod (i.e. tens of thousands.)

It can be sold in any country, can be distributed through middlemen and can be priced arbitrarily [1]. It can be bought in bulk by companies or schools or hospitals. It can be re-sold in a secondary market. It is essentially a perfectly liquid commodity.

Now we can step back and ask why and what are the implications for competitors.

The reason the iPad was positioned asymmetrically to the iPhone is, I believe, because it could be. I believe that the iPhone is sold the way it is (through operators) because that's the only way it could be sold effectively. Cellular products have always come with lots of fine print, footnotes and asterisks rooted in the regulatory environment that underlies the industry.

The iPad is a product built and sold along the lines of the Mac and the iPod--unrestricted by orifices and aligned with the unregulated environment that computers have always enjoyed. Essentially, for the iPhone, Apple chose to go along with the telecom industry's rules but as soon as it had a product that did not need to comply to those rules, it ran back to its comfort zone: control.

If we take this to be the cause, the implications for competitors become clearer. Apple is more in its element selling the iPad than it is in selling the iPhone. Other tablet contenders however are in an opposite strategic stance. Almost all the credible tablet alternatives rely on the telecom channel for distribution. The rush to build iPad alternatives is as predictable as the derision that was poured on the product when it was launched.

But the alternative products are positioned in different ways. They are positioned as big phones.

Which brings me to my final point: selling big phones is hard.

These products are not compliant with what users expect from an operator: a service plan. As a result they are also not competitively priced with the iPad. Apple engineered a price for the iPad that makes comparisons extremely favorable. Buyers know the thing they are buying is not a phone so they look at the price carefully.

But the most crucial weakness of alternative vendors is the fact that operators don't know how to sell tablets. Tablets are small computers. They are bought in the same way that buyers buy laptops: in-store testing. Notice that except for the iPhone operators only provide phone mockups in their stores. This is because they want buyers to discuss their purchase with a sales rep. This is not the way laptop hunters shop. Another tell-tale sign of a disconnect between operators and tablets is that operator shops are physically tiny. PCs (and tablets) need large tables for users to look, touch, heft and fondle. Just on square feet alone, operators and tablets are not a good match.

If you need any more evidence, consider the plight of operator-subsidized netbooks.

 

---

Notes:

1. I realize that this is not currently true and the distribution is limited but that's only a matter of supply constraints. There is no theoretical positioning limitation.

 

In the quarterly smartphone summary published here, I noted the significant acceleration of Android sales at the expense of "other" and Windows Mobile/Phone. Some share was also lost to Symbian. This might be seen as justification for the "platform jump" that Nokia undertook.

In a second discussion, I published the history and life cycles of the smartphone platforms, identifying 10 platforms (out of 16) still in the market. This challenged the view that it was a two horse race today and that it will become no more than a three horse race in the future.

Questions came up about the "quality" of these platforms. Clearly some are barely viable while some are thriving. To explain the value of a platform, one metric we can use is the cumulative sales which allows us to derive the installed base.

The following charts do just that.

This first chart shows the cumulative total of units sold since Q2 2007. This is the sum of all smartphones sold in the last 3.5 years. There are some interesting patterns here, but right now we want to focus on the installed base.

3.5 years of cumulative sales is an upper bound on the installed base. We can get a better estimate the phones in use by subtracting from the base phones older than 2.5 years. This is shown in the second chart below:

As of the last quarter, Nokia's Symbian is likely to have 200 million in use. Apple may have about 85 million iPhones in use (this excludes iPod touch and iPads) and Android about 75 million. RIM is around 95 million and Windows Mobile less than 40 million.

What's interesting is that of these installed bases, the largest is the one that's just been abandoned, and the smallest was chosen as its replacement. Even that's not quite fair since Windows Mobile is not a valid replacement. It's Windows Phone that was chosen and that probably has an installed base of about 1 million [Unlike the measurement of units shipped, Microsoft reported two million licenses were sold to OEMs who had to build those into phones which would be shipped to carriers and distributors. One million may be a generous estimate.]

The bottom line is that there are about 5 Windows Phone users for every 1000 Symbian users. In other words, Nokia jumped from the "burning" 200 million user Symbian platform to the "ice cold" 1 million user Windows Phone platform.

The disposal of such a large installed base must count among the largest divestitures in technology history and, when coupled with the adoption of the least-tested alternative as a replacement, elevates platform risk-taking to a new level. It may seem bold, but there is a fine line between courage and recklessness.

I'll do my own "dive" into the possible justification for this in a future posting.

In the last quarter Nokia sold 28.3 million Symbian phones. The average selling price was €156 or approximately $210. That price was down 17% year-on-year.

According to the company,

The 17% year-on-year decline in our converged mobile devices ASPs was mainly driven by general price erosion and an increase in the proportion of lower-priced converged mobile devices sales.

ASP erosion has been a fact of life across all of Nokia's products for quite some time, checked only by the increasing mix of smartphones. However the smartphones it sells have been consistently positioned for lower price points. This is consistent with Nokia's long-term goal of serving "billions" of users.

The trouble with the new strategy is that the Windows Phone product lines currently in the market are not likely to be priced in the $200 range. The reason is that the minimum specifications for Windows Phone 7 are:

• Capacitive, 4-point multi-touch screen with WVGA (480x800) resolution
• 1 GHz ARM v7 "Cortex/Scorpion" or better processor
• DirectX9 rendering-capable GPU
• 256 MB of RAM with at least 8 GB of Flash memory
• Accelerometer with compass, ambient light sensor, proximity sensor and Assisted GPS
• 5-megapixel camera with an LED flash

These don't add up to a product that can be sold profitably at $200. The bill of materials is likely to be in that range (and one has to add $15 for Microsoft).

So there are two possible implications for Nokia's new smartphone strategy.

1. Windows Phone will be ported to lower spec/cost hardware to allow the traditional Nokian market growth model to continue and perhaps combat Android proliferation
2. Nokia's smartphone portfolio will consist of high-priced products, and exclude mid-to-low price products.

Option 1 is difficult to imagine. The user experience that Microsoft is putting forward as its differentiation depends on significant hardware which is unlikely to become very cheap very soon. It is an interesting exercise to think through however. What would we have to believe for this option to become real?

Option 2 is more likely as Nokia conforms to this a new definition of smartphone as "high-end" only. This seems to be the default option given what is visible to observers today.

If Option 2 is in fact the outcome of the new strategy, then it leaves Nokia very vulnerable to a low-end disruption (after it's succumbed to a new market disruption.) The $50 smartphone will be reality this year.

Option 2 also most certainly guarantees that Nokia's current market share of 30% in smartphones is likely to be lost and never regained.

Some might argue that's no great loss. After all, Apple does very well with low share and high prices. However, Nokia is almost religious about market share. The reason being that scale offers significant purchasing power and logistical leverage. It sustains a cost structure, distribution network and a business model that is central to the company's core competency. It's also presumably the reason Microsoft partnered with Nokia in the first place: volumes and wide distribution.

So we're back to the old question: how does the new deal lead to a thriving ecosystem? Does it depend on vendors other than Nokia? If so how does Nokia benefit from the sale of Samsung phones?

The juxtaposition of HP's strategy of increased independence and Nokia's new strategy of increased dependence can't be more striking.

HP is probably Microsoft's biggest customer. As the largest licensee of Windows it probably generated more revenue for Microsoft than any other company. The fact that HP invested in a new operating system for its mobile efforts shows a level of discomfort with the lack of strategic leverage.

Nokia, on the other hand, has been resolutely independent in its software strategy. For over a decade it held out against licensing any OS, especially one from Microsoft. The pantomime theatrics that took place over that decade will make a great case study some day.

But now we have a complete reversal of roles: The abandonment of platform independence by a mobile giant at precisely the same time as the acquisition of platform resolve by an IT giant.

It seems almost poetic. And that should be a clue. Whenever you see poetry, you need not look far for some truth.

These chess moves are taking place in the context of a greater game: the collision and disruption of IT and Telecom. It's not surprising that massive market forces are causing incumbents to react. HP, Microsoft and Nokia are in the throes of fundamental disruption. Even if these moves may not be all in the same direction, they each react in ways that make sense to them.

It's also very likely that all the moves are for naught. Incumbents rarely win with reactions. Let's not forget that the entrants came with different business models. Apple and Google are not making money in the ways of Nokia and HP (who are channel dependent) or Microsoft (who is license dependent). The reaction must itself be asymmetric. So far it's not clear where the asymmetry lies.

Read more:

HP/Palm’s Rubinstein believes in integration

WebOS: HP, and HP Only. QNX: RIM and RIM Only

HP’s PC group spends 0.7% of sales on R&D

The reason Robbie Bach was fired

In a recent post I pointed out that Apple's R&D was about 2.2% of sales in the last quarter. Bernstein took a look at the R&D for Nokia and presented a chart showing the difference between the mobile industry players in terms of total expenditure on R&D.

I took inspiration from that to plot the Devices R&D for both Nokia and Apple over the entire 2010 period. I also compared that with sales and computed the ratio between R&D and sales.

The result is shown in the chart on the left.

Bottom line: Nokia spent 10.2% of phone sales in 2010 on phone R&D while Apple spent 2.5%.

Bernstein goes on to argue that at least for Devices,

Nokia spent $3.9bn in R&D in 2010, almost 3x the average of its peers, 31% of the industry's R&D total spending, for an output that we can qualify as visibly disappointing.

To relate the $3.9 billion for Devices into head count, they estimate that Symbian projects employ 6,200 people; MeeGo and Qt 1,800; Services 1,800; and S40 1,800. Hardware headcount is assumed to be 4,700 and 900 more for fundamental research.

So Nokia's total software headcount adds up to 11,600 people. Nokia smartphone headcount adds up to about 8,000.

Applying a similar formula ($240k/employee[1]) to Apple's estimated iPhone R&D (from Bernstein's chart) yields a headcount of about 3,200 and a total Apple company R&D headcount of 8,200.

So Nokia employs about the same number of engineers[2] for its smartphone software platforms as Apple does for all its product lines[3].

In fact, Symbian alone may cost twice as much to develop than the iPhone (including the hardware).

---

Notes:

1. The cost per employee is obviously different between the companies as they operate in different countries. However there are enough sources of error in these estimates that they probably overwhelm the cost of living/tax differentials.
2. I know that engineers are not all that R&D headcount covers, but let's assume that the mix of overhead is similar for the two companies.
3. The total for Symbian + MeeGo is 8000 and the total for Apple overall is 8,200, however one can comfortably allocate 200 out of 900 researchers out of Nokia research to their mobile software effort.

When I started Asymco.com I did not have a plan. I did not have a policy or vision statement. I wrote what I found interesting. I knew nothing of blogging or of web publishing as a business. Over the following nine months I learned a few things. I also learned a bit about how web publishing (and publishing in general) works.

My observations were brought into clear focus by this brief overview of the core values of web publishing summed up by this leaked document form AOL: "The AOL Way".

AOL tells its editors to decide what topics to cover based on four considerations: traffic potential, revenue potential, edit quality and turn-around time.

AOL asks its editors to decide whether to produce content based on "the profitability consideration."

The documents reveal that AOL is, when the story calls for it, willing to boost traffic by 5 to 10% with search ads and other "paid media."

AOL site leaders are expected to have eight ideas for packages that could generate at least $1 million in revenue on hand at all times.

In-house AOL staffers are expected to write five to 10 stories per day.

AOL knows its sites are too dependent on traffic from AOL.com, and it wants its editors to fix the problem by posting more frequently, with more emphasis on getting pageviews.

This codification of values has inspired me to put in writing my own priorities for Asymco:

• Learn by writing. Teach by listening.
• Improve. Move the intellectual ball forward.
• Illuminate topics which are bereft of analysis.
• Be notable. "The proliferation consideration." How likely is the idea to being widely re-published?
• Review. Encourage participation by reading all comments and reply to as many as possible. Police comments with zero tolerance.
• Repair. Declare and correct errors.
• Select. Publish only when the contribution is unique. Avoid redundancy, clutter and noise. Don't waste reader time.

Many have asked: What about the business model? I'm afraid there isn't one. I'm still naive enough to think that if I build a great product then everything else will take care of itself.

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.

Since reporting on the 18th, I've mostly finished going over the the fourth quarter Apple data. Here is a quick summary of the articles that covered the financial and product performance:

Subject	Article
Cash	Having added $20 billion last year, Apple’s cash growth suggests total could top $100 billion next year
Growth	Apple’s Growth Scorecard: 63% average earnings growth over 16 quarters
iPhone pricing	The end of exclusivity doesn’t change the price operators pay for the iPhone
Sales by product	65% of Apple’s sales came from iOS powered devices
Next quarter’s estimates	Estimates for Apple’s second quarter earnings (ending March)
Share price/valuation	Is Apple a candidate for acquisition?
Margins and platform mix of profit	iOS enables 71% of Apple’s profits. Platform products power 93% of gross margin
Cannibalization	iPhone and iPad: Fine Young Cannibals?
Operational Expenses	$76 billion a year from a tableful of products

That leaves one more: Summary view of cash flows.

After introducing it last quarter, this is a chart that I'm trying to improve and use as a single snapshot of growth, product mix, profitability, cost structure and overall sales. The purist in me likes to see the chart clean but it can be a puzzle to some.  So for the sake of explanation, this time I've added some annotations to the year-ago quarter.

The left half shows flows in the same quarter a year ago and the right side shows the flows in the fourth quarter just ended December 2010. You can see where sales came from, how much of each product's sales went to suppliers and how much was available to pay employees (and who got what). You can also see how much was paid in taxes and what was retained.

Please click on the figure (requires no scrolling when viewed on screens wider than 1464 pixels).

[Update] Alternate view using "waterfall".

During the calendar year 2010 Apple spent nearly $2 billion in R&D. That is a significant increase from $714 million in 2006. However, as a percent of sales, R&D spending has decreased. Sales have grown more rapidly than resources hired to develop the products (or to sell them).

In Q4 2005 Operational Expenses (costs which are not tied directly to units of production--sometimes called fixed costs) were 14.2% of sales. In the last quarter of 2010, the ratio was 9.2%. Sales and administrative expenses (which include advertising, promotion and overhead) were 7.1% and R&D (which includes all engineering, testing) were 2.2%. As percent of sales both reached new lows.

The efficiency with which Apple creates sales is legendary. There can be many explanations for this but the most telling evidence of causality I can find is the small number of products in the portfolio. Tim Cook stated that given the sales value, there is more concentration of product at Apple than at any other company except perhaps an oil company. All the products Apple sells can fit on one average sized kitchen table and they generated $76 billion in sales last year.

How is this possible? First, a few words about the often misunderstood process of product development.

Most observers of technology are not aware of the pace of its development. It's natural to assume that most R&D costs are in the product creation, or early phases of development. Coming up with something new must be hard. But that's not actually true. Most R&D work is routine polishing of products and coordination late in the development cycle. "Productization" is far more resource intensive than "concepting".

It stands to reason that making go/no-go decisions early in the pipeline is a lot less expensive than making stop-ship decisions prior to launch.

I have no specific evidence that this is the case, but I guess Apple conceives of plenty of concepts, but chooses to move forward to develop and market very few. Most companies don't have the ability to decide early which products to launch and instead proceed with costly R&D and marketing in order to find out whether products will "work" in the marketplace. The proliferation of flawed products is a big cause of the inefficiency of product development.

But launching flawed products is also detrimental to brand value, something which rarely hits the books and is thus invisible to operational managers.

This uncanny ability to pick winners early in a long gestation period is my guess for why Apple is so efficient with OpEx. The question of how to develop this ability is left for another day.

As the highly profitable iPhone makes up an increasingly larger proportion of Apple's sales, the overall gross margin would be expected to grow.

Sure enough that's what's been happening.

The gross margin percent, which measures the direct or variable costs of production vs. price, shows a healthy rise in the last five years from slightly below 30% to around 40%. The Operating Margin, which also includes the overhead or fixed costs like R&D and SG&A, shows a similar rise, reaching about 30%.

Margin expansion while sales quadruple is a good indicator that a company is producing real value not just trading sales volume for profit.

Focusing attention on individual product lines, it's clear that the iPhone is the largest component of sales and of profits. We don't have specific product line-item gross margins from management, but we can estimate a figure for the iPhone by several means.

First, we can work out roughly what every other product line's margin is due to their longer histories. (Mac and iPod have reliable profitability estimates). What's left can be deduced to make up the iPhone's margin.

Alternatively, we can get estimates of the bill of materials and add in some of the other direct expenses like manufacturing, warranties, shipping and incidentals to get an estimate of the cost of production.

These methods allow me to guess at a margin for the iPhone of about 50% for the last quarter. Based on these inputs we can plot the gross margins for the entire company's product lines:

Overall, gross margins have reached over $10.3 billion in the quarter, increasing 543% from five years ago and 61% from a year ago.

That's great, but by knowing product line profitability we can get a better feel how the company changed strategically.

In the following chart I show the percent of gross profit captured by each product line.

What we can observe is that at the end of 2005, OS X based products made up nearly half the profits. The rest was mostly the iPod, which was not a software platform product.

A short five years later, OS X products which, although having grown in volume, made up only 22% of total margin. The rest was mostly iPhone but with significant contributions from iPad and iPod. What's most important to note is that the non-OS X profits are almost all powered by iOS.

iOS powers about 70% of Apple's current gross profits. Combined with OS X, 93% of profits are from platform products.

So again the question about Apple being a software, hardware or media company comes back. Perhaps, those categories are not relevant. Perhaps Apple is a platform company.