Services

On Mar 18, 2013, Rafael Barbosa Barifouse - Redacao Epoca - Editora Globo asked (and I answered):

Q: Why is Samsung creating Tizen?

A: I believe they are collaborating on Tizen development because they want an alternative to Android and because Bada was not good enough to meet that goal. Tizen's roots include contributions from Intel, Nokia and several Japanese companies so it's not Samsung's OS per se. Historically it was the "open" alternative operating system for embedded and mobile systems. See https://github.com/kumadasu/tizen-history/blob/master/tizen-history.pdf for a historic perspective.

In some ways Tizen seems to be a blend of several pieces of code including proprietary Samsung user interfaces. Samsung is presumably interested in having a unique, differentiated experience. This is something every device maker seeks. Put another way, if they did not seek this then it's unlikely that they would be profitable which would also imply that they would not invest in marketing and development of products. As Samsung invests both in marketing and development it can be concluded that they seek to offer a unique value proposition and, in today's market, that means a unique experience.

Does it make sense to create a new mobile OS when it has had so much success with Android?

Samsung would argue that the success it's had is not due to Android but to its products. Arguably they are right because if Android were the valuable component in a phone then buyers would buy the absolute cheapest device that runs Android regardless of brand. That is not the case. People still seek out a particular brand of phone because of the promise it offers. Consumers have been buying more Galaxies than no-name Android phones.

Why is Samsung the most successful company between the Android devices makers?

In my opinion it's due to three reasons:

1. Distribution. Success in the phone business depends in having a relationship with a large number of operators. Samsung had these relationships prior to becoming a smartphone vendor [because it sold all other kinds of phones]. Few alternative Android vendors have the level of distribution Samsung has. For comparison Apple has less than half the distribution level of Samsung and most other vendors have less than Apple.
2. Marketing and promotion. Samsung Electronics spent nearly $12 billion in 2012 on marketing expenses of which $4 billion (est.) was on advertising. Few Android vendors (or any other company) has the resources to match this level of marketing. For comparison, Apple's 2012 advertising spending was one quarter of Samsung's.
3. Supply chain. Samsung can supply the market in large quantities. This is partly due to having their own semiconductor production facilities. Those facilities were in a large part built using Apple contract revenues over the years they supplied iPhone, iPad and iPod components. No Android competitors (except for LG perhaps) had either the capacity to produce components or the signal well in advance to enter the market in volume as Samsung did by being an iPhone supplier.

Tizen was being treated as an OS for low and mid level devices, but recently Samsung said that it will launch a high-end device with Tizen on Q3, an area where it's very successful with Android. What has changed? What does this announcement mean?

Planning for these product launches is done a few years prior to launch. I believe alternatives to the Android line (i.e. Galaxy) have been planned for a long time. Note that Samsung also has a line of Windows Phones and historically has supported Bada, Windows Mobile, Symbian, PalmOS and LiMo smartphone platforms. Samsung's involvement with Android is only about three years old, and arguably only enjoyed two years of prominent growth. That's less than one product launch cycle and far less than a platform or OS development cycle.

I believe the company has a long term perspective and that includes a time span beyond the likely lifetime of Android [Note that platforms do have finite lives]. Keep in mind that phones last less than two years. If users are not loyal to a platform then they will very quickly move on. The "stickyness" of a platform depends on media or software consumption by the user. That level of consumption is not particularly high for most Android users. The same phenomenon happened with Symbian and BlackBerry and Windows Mobile users. Hundreds of millions switched or will switch out of those platforms. This happens far less with iOS, Mac OS X and Windows because of the significant investments users make in the ecosystems above the OS.

Is Google dependent on Samsung's sucess with Android? Or Samsung is more dependent on Android since its the most popular mobile OS nowadays?

Google is not dependent on Samsung because it's not dependent on Android. Samsung is not dependent on Google because Samsung is not dependent on Android. Android is valuable in theory but in practice its value is hard to identify. Historically it was planned as a defense against the hegemony of Windows, BlackBerry and iOS. In that respect it has succeeded. But playing defense is not enough to win a game. For Google to truly succeed in mobile it needs to define a better business model.

So far its profitability from mobile is very weak and has not shown up in the bottom line. Furthermore, it's probable that Google has 'control' over only about 40% of Android devices in use. Control here means a guarantee that users will use those devices for the benefit of Google, and, more importantly, not for the benefit of its competitors.

You can also think of it this way: If they "divorced" there would be minimal to no impact to their fortunes in the foreseeable future. Buyers of Samsung phones will still buy Samsung phones because they will look and feel very similar and Google services will still be available through browsers or apps (e.g. Google maps on iOS). Conversely, users of Google services will continue to use them because they will be available on Samsung devices, no matter what OS is running. The services Google offers are independent of Android and are cross-platform. They will make sure they are available on all major platforms (as they were before and during Android). Google is far more loyal to Search and Maps and Gmail and YouTube than they are to Android.

Do you think Google is going to merge Android with Chrome OS?

Google's chairman said they would so I assume they will.

If so, how this could make an impact on Samsung?

It depends on how the new OS would enforce licensing terms. If the result would be a restriction on Samsung services like S Pen, AdHub, Samsung Wallet, SmartTV, ChatON etc. then Samsung might reject the OS and either fork Android or move to Tizen more broadly.

Apple's products are the envy of the world. They have been spectacularly successful and are widely imitated, if not copied. The expectation that precedes a new Apple product launch is only matched by the expectation of the replication of those products by competitors.

This cycle of product mimicry was succinctly summarized by Marc Andreessen regarding a rumored Apple TV product:

And once the television launches, everyone will scramble to copy it. "There's a pattern in our industry, Apple crystallizes the product, and the minute Apple crystallizes it, then everyone knows how to compete."

This idea that the basis of competition is set by Apple and then the race is on to climb the trajectory of improvement is so well understood that it's axiomatic: "It's just the way things are." Apple releases a product that defines a category or disrupts an industry and it becomes obvious what needs to be built.

But what I wonder is why there isn't a desire to copy Apple's product creation process. Why isn't the catalyst for a new category or disruption put forward by another company? More precisely, why isn't there another company which consistently re-defines categories and repeatedly, predictably even, re-defines how technology is used.

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

Note that I don't suggest that there isn't a capability to copy. It may or may not be possible, but capability comes after desire and without desire there can be no capability. What I'm suggesting is that there isn't a desire to "be like Apple". If there were a desire, we would be seeing a massive search and debate into what makes Apple successful. Management consultants would be pounding the pavement pitching the "Apple way". Wall Street would be sizing up companies to a standard of "Apple-ness" and rewarding those who conform and punishing those who don't.

None of this is happening. I can think of two reasons why:

1. Apple is not to be imitated because it's not worth copying. I.e. Apple is not a successful company.
2. Apple is successful but Apple cannot be copied because its success is a magical process involving sorcery.

There is a great deal of evidence for the first hypothesis. The idea of Apple being successful is not something reflected in its stock price. Being valued at a lower P/E ratio than its competitors, and indeed lower than the average company in the S&P 500, indicates that to whatever degree Apple was successful in the past, it's not seen by the vast majority of observers as successful in the future (no matter when you choose to make this observation).

Why should one bother copying Apple if it results in being punished with a low valuation? You work really hard at innovation and then that innovation becomes commoditized very quickly. Why should one bother?

And yet if we look outside the investor community, especially if we ask operational managers and entrepreneurs, there are some who would say that Apple is actually a success story. However, when asking innovation practitioners what makes Apple successful the answers regarding the causality of this success border on the mythical. Answers which reference "skills", "culture" and "teams" abound. The culmination of this hypothesis is the "chief-sorcerer" theory of success which places one magician in charge of casting all the right spells. These resource-defined explanations are unsatisfactory because they are vague. Without specificity they don't help us understand why they can't be copied.

But what about Apple's own opinion of what makes it tick?

Bill C. Shope: How do we think about Apple's culture of innovation today?

Timothy D. Cook: Innovation is deeply embedded in Apple's culture. The boldness, the ambition, the belief that there are no limits, the desire among our people to not just make good products [but to] make the very best products in the world. It's in the values. It's in the DNA of the company.

Now if you look at some essentials for innovation, there is no formula.
If there was a formula, there would be a lot of companies that have a lot of money that would gone out and bought their ability to innovate.

Some of the essentials for us are skills and leadership. Apple is in a very unique, and, in my view, unrivaled position because Apple has skills in software, in hardware, and in services.

[…] arguably, where you can innovate in hardware, [where] you can innovate in software, [where] you can innovate in services; the real magic happens at the intersection of these.

And you know, the iPad is very magical. And it's exactly because our company was doing all of those things. And so for many years this idea ... [which] some people call vertical integration, ... it was out of favor. People thought it was kind of crazy. And we never did.

And so through all of those years, we continued to build. And these skills, this isn't something you can just go write a check for. This is something that you work decades for. Building this experience. And so I think we bring that. I think we're unique in that. I think we're unrivaled in that. I think there are people trying desperately to catch up in that. And I think they're finding that it's not so easy to do.

Tim Cook refers to integration and a great team as unique Apple advantages (but also note the references to magic and belief.) It's a better explanation but it is still hard to understand why nobody copies this approach. Integration is something that can take a long time, but it is possible with a Herculean effort. A few companies are starting to make moves in that direction (e.g. Microsoft.) But efforts are half-hearted. There is no "move the Earth" panic to become an integrated company from Samsung, Google or Microsoft.

Maybe others haven't quite balanced both the cost and the benefit of being Apple. It's clearly still mysterious and unclear why one would want to do this. It's much easier to use what you already have and how you operate to copy what Apple produces rather than how they produce it.

My own suspicion is that Apple is more aware of what makes it special than they are letting on. In other words, I believe that Apple is self aware but being careful not to share what it knows. However, as Tim points out, it's not a formula. There is no silver bullet, no single trick.

It's complex, it's subtle, it defies explanation but it's not magic. It's a process that requires a degree of faith and fortitude. It's collecting but ignoring data and trusting judgement when data tells you to move in a different direction. It's a lot of willful rejection of conventional wisdom. It's asymmetric approaches to competition. It's art as much as science. And most of all, it's a lot of mind-numbing polishing while trusting that only by doing great work is survival even possible.

How much does it cost to have the world's best maps?

The answer may seem simple: $8.1 billion.

That was the cost to Nokia in cash for buying Navteq in October 2007. It would seem that buying that asset (or another one like it) is a cut-and-dried solution to anyone needing a mapping "solution". But it's not an answer that is either complete or explanatory of how mapping solutions are valued.

Navteq was not priced as a database for an app. It was a business which was expected to create licensing revenues and profits[1]. The actual price for this business net of cash was $7.7 billion but the following graph shows the net sales and operating profits since Nokia began reporting its performance:

The blue area represents the difference between sales and costs and hence the operating expenses--the payments needed to "keep the lights on".

These total expenses over the 4.25 year time frame totals €6.5 billion. The total operating losses equal €2.6 billion. Therefore, as far as Nokia's shareholders are concerned, they paid $11 billion for Nokia maps, to date.

What do they have to show for it?

Nothing. The entire company is now worth only about $15 billion. It's hard to imagine maps being worth 73% of Nokia. What Nokia hoped to get for the product was some value in its devices. As other issues intruded, that value has not been realized. Nor has any external licensing revenue been realized. Net external licensing revenues are actually decreasing.

The situation looks even even uglier when the maps asset can be seen as costing €1.5 billion every year. Why would anyone want to be in this business?

I bring this up because, apparently, everyone wants to be in this business.

Via Twitter I received a suggestion (rumor?) that Google spends about $1 billion every year for maintaining their maps. (Using a conversion from Euros to Dollars yields a Nokia maps burn rate of nearly $2 billion/yr.) Furthermore, there seems to be a burning desire for Apple to also burn this money.

If so, then Apple might have to start spending $1 to $2 billion/yr to merely maintain a data set. That would be a minimum of an additional 7% in operating expenses.

Why would they do that?

If Apple cannot buy or license quality data, there may be no choice. Maps have become a hygiene factor for a platform. Not having them makes a platform repulsive but having them offers no attraction.

Another way of looking at the maps asset is like a component in a phone. A vendor needs a certain class of processor, memory or screen or battery. Not having a minimum level of functionality makes the product uncompetitive but having it does not guarantee success.

What's worse, the market may have been cornered—there may be no suppliers. Unlike hardware components, the maps component is not a commodity with a market of suppliers. The work needed to maintain the maps is a commodity but the aggregation and consolidation of the data is valuable and those who have gained control over the data and they are not likely to license it to any competitors for strategic (i.e. political) reasons.

So we have a perverse situation of a very costly, unprofitable asset requiring duplication of maintenance effort by politically motivated actors imprisoned by their own strategic interests.

If so then it fits perfectly with the mobile telecom industry. Like mobile networks, maps are very expensive and worth very little.

---

Notes:

1. The revenues that Navteq was obtaining during the 2008/2009 time frame included that from customers such as Verizon, Garmin, Advertising, Traffic services, Microsoft Windows Live services. For the six months ended on December 31, 2008, Europe accounted for 44% of NAVTEQ’s net sales, North America 43%, Middle East & Africa 8 %, Asia-Pacific 2 %, Latin America 2% and Greater China 1%.

—

If you want to learn more about how to analyze technology industries and the evolution of value chains, consider participating in Asymconf.

In the post reviewing Samsung's Capital Structure I noted that its component divisions have historically taken 90% of capital investments and that the overall capital intensity for Samsung Electronics has increased in proportion to its component revenues.

In another post regarding the capital structures of other technology companies with different business models I noted that Apple has changed its capital structure to a significant degree over the previous three years.

In the following graph I combined these observations to show how capital expenditure patterns may be used to discern the underlying business model.

I would group "cloud" or "platform" based companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft as a cohort which, although spending significant amounts on capital equipment, do so mainly to support services. Their primary employment of capital is to sustain the infrastructure of data centers necessary to deliver the services underpinning their business models.

I would group Intel and Samsung as "component" based companies which use capital to build production capacity that delivers, hopefully, a control point in the value chains they participate in. Note that I am assuming that Samsung Electronics' CapEx primarily targets semiconductors and displays as it did during the 2006 and 2007 period when data was available.

Therefore, given the patterns over the last six years, it might be possible to classify a company's core business by just looking at its CapEx: The services group showing growth but relatively stable patterns and the components group showing more volatility, macroeconomic sensitivity and an overall higher level of spending, especially as a percent of sales.

The question that pops up then is in what category does Apple fall?

My observations for over a year have been that Apple is increasing its capital spending to such a degree that it is neither fish nor fowl. It operates data centers but presumably does not operate fabrication plants. And yet it spends more than Intel and Google combined.

Contrasting Apple and Samsung Electronics tells an even more interesting story. In the following graph I've added two additional items of information: First, although CapEx spending is recorded in the cash flow statement, Apple reported in its yearly (10K) report that it spent an additional $2 billion for equipment which did not pass through cash flow.

If we were to add $1 billion to each of the previous two quarters, the graph would look like this:

The second piece of information is that Apple projected its spending for the following fiscal year. I've added that spending in a pattern matching the last fiscal year.

Apple is still spending less than Samsung. In its fiscal year 2012 Apple spent about $10 billion while during the same time frame Samsung spent nearly $22 billion. However, Apple has begun to bump against Samsung's spending level on a quarterly basis.

I consider this extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary shift in strategy.

For a year we've been debating here to what degree Apple has a "capital intensive" business and what exactly could it be spending capital on. One early hypothesis has been that it's on data centers or on real estate for spaceship campuses. These can be easily dismissed on the knowledge that they can't cost that much (and that the spending happens gradually). Another hypothesis is that the tooling for milled aluminum cases and other mechanical components is expensive and Apple has to buy a lot of it. But, again, the level of expenditure is in the league of Intel and Samsung which make vast quantities of semiconductors in very expensive plants. It's hard to imagine milling machines being cost equivalent to chip foundries.

The comparison with Samsung, whose vast capital commitments are legendary and are its primary strategic asset puts Apple in a new light. Perhaps we can't yet call Apple a semiconductor company or even a fabricator but they are putting their "money where their mouth isn't". We can infer that it's not going where the company currently operates. The capital is being deployed almost silently and, though vast in scale, barely gets a mention from analysts. Not even a single question has been raised at any earnings call about this spending.

So what tale does this capital tell?

One interpretation is to apply the value chain disruption theory and ask whether Apple is acting to counter a potential disruption. In other words, that this is a specific threat response from an incumbent. There is some logic to this because  the antagonism between Samsung and Apple is so strong that it might justify a reaction of this kind.

However, I believe that there is a more measured process at work over a long period of time. The one distinguishing advantage and attribute that Apple has  is its preference for integration. This preference is not a secret and Tim Cook repeats it often. The integration is evident with their move into retail and component design, in other words in both directions along a value chain. So my hypothesis is that this is part and parcel of an ongoing re-alignment of their role in the value chain.

This second explanation suggests that Apple simply wants to control all the areas which affect the value they produce. First because they feel that there are areas that are not good enough and the product/experience cannot be good enough if its constituent parts are not good enough. Second because without control there are constraints to what it can do strategically.

Whatever the reason, I read the evidence of increasing commitment and engagement in parts of the value chain as part of a continuous evolution of Apple's role. Furthermore, it's something that should be seen as a signal of a new era in how technology companies operate. We see hints of "vertical integration" with Microsoft building hardware, and Google buying Motorola and Amazon selling devices. Apple did all these things and now it casts an eye over the next frontier: components.

---

If you want to learn more about the future of the technology industries and the evolution of value chains, consider participating in Asymconf.

Here is an exchange with Robert van Apeldoorn, Journalist with Trends Tendances Magazine in Belgium. (www.trends.be/fr). The exchange took place in early September via e-mail.

Robert: -Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is considered in Europe as a way to push growth, and is a target of national and EU policies (digital growth,etc), but the result seems to be a failure: the European computer industry (hardware) is almost dead (ICL, Siemens computers bought by Fujitsu, Olivetti almost out of computer business, Nixdorf dead) since the 90’, and the telco industry seems to be in crisis. All European companies are out of the handset business (big and fading exception is Nokia, but with  American software), and Alcatel is suffering with telco equipement manufacturing. It seems that at best, Europe can be a good niche player, with companies like ARM (chips). Technology seems to be reduced to localized services (computer services), some software businesses. What do you thing about that point of view? Is it correct or exaggerated ?
What will remain to the European companies ?

The main problem is perphaps the creation of European platform/ecosystems. Almost all are American today: Apple IOS-iTunes, Android, Amazon,…

Why Symbian didn’t succeed as a competitive platform ?

Is it possible to create European platforms? After all, IOS succeed after a short period of time.

What are the European tech companies that could play an important role in the near future ?

My answer: You are correct in this observation. Europe has failed to generate growth on the basis of ICT. The reasons are that the rate of change in ICT is rapid and getting more so. If European businesses require intervention, support or other forms of assistance in terms of policy, the time for that coordination to take effect is longer than the cycle time of disruption.

Almost all growth has come from companies that entered the space. Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook and even Microsoft came into positions of power from outside the industries they entered. Policy tends to offer means of sustaining incumbents or finding "logical" or defensible entrants. I should mention that the problem of industrial policy failing is not unique to Europe. Japan and to a lesser degree Korea are also facing crises of innovation due to policies designed to sustain rather than disrupt.

It's understandable given the need to justify spending other people's money. No policy maker wants to spend it recklessly. However, the process of unforeseen growth is, well, unforeseeable. It cannot be predicted and it's very likely to come from somewhere other than where you expect it.

This quickly becomes a lengthy discussion, but fundamentally the innovation process is chaotic. It's very similar to the process of artistic creation. The crisis in innovation comes from not having sufficient chaos. If Europe wants to preserve, sustain, nurture, and maintain it will do so at the expense of creative destruction. Nobody likes chaos but everybody wants innovation. Unfortunately they are concurrent things.

thank you very much for these interesting answer. Usually the answer is the lack of venture capital or the compartimented market.

So Nokia was an exception ?

If a lack of venture capital is the problem then what is the cause of a lack of venture capital? There is plenty of capital on the continent. Why should it not be allocated to ventures? Capital markets in Europe are quite free and liquid and capital will find the best opportunities. The problem is that there are few fundable opportunities.

I think Nokia was not an exception in the sense that it was not a "managed" success. The company (and Finland) emerged from a crisis in the early 90s. The crisis forced a re-evaluation of priorities and the success of Nokia could be attributed to a lack of emphasis in what was considered sustaining at the time (consumer electronics, TVs, natural resources, etc.) Entry into mobile phones was not what policy would have suggested was the biggest opportunity at the time. The market for mobile phones was projected to be insignificant in comparison to what was seen as success of the time (Sony, et. al.)

[Addendum: What are policy makers suggesting as the key investment themes? Which projects get funding today and which don't?]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the following:

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

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

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

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

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

The world has never seen such an opportunity.

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

---

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Notes:

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

 

Kenney Ho, a staff reporter from Korean newspaper The Chosunilbo (The Chosun Daily) sent me a set of delightful questions.

According to Kenney, The Chosunilbo "has a history of 90 years, has been the most dominant, and influential paper of all time in Korea. It is the No.1 newspaper company in Korea with more than 1.8 million circulation, firmly holding the largest market possession. The paper is recognized Asianwide, where there are many readers in Japan and China."

-You said "All mobile device vendors experiencing losses are not likely to really recover". Even though, it wouldn't mean that the employees, executives of Nokia has completely nothing in hands for recovery. If you are the CEO of Nokia right now, What are your steps to make Nokia recover its deficits?

My statement was based on the historic data which shows that 14 phone vendors have either exited the business or lost their independence during the last decade. No vendor that has reached a period of prolonged loss making has recovered. These are just observations and it's possible that Nokia may be the first to recover. However, going by the patterns of the past, it would be very unlikely. When I thought about the reasons why companies have not been able to recover I came to the second observation about the way phones are sold. Once a brand reaches a point where it's considered "risky" for distributors and operators to range they tend to defer purchases which leads to a spiral of continuing losses and more damage to the brand. The market amplifies "distress" and recovery becomes impossible.

If I were the CEO of Nokia I would set course for turning the company into a new business. I would approach the market asymmetrically and not try to compete directly with the other vendors. I would look toward services, platforms and software solutions and de-emphasize hardware.

-Many experts say that because Nokia dominated phone making industry in the 2000s, they maintained a corporate culture of complacency, which led them to decline. Do you agree with this? If you agree, Can you point out the examples of Nokia's complacency?

Complacency would mean that Nokia would not invest or try new things. This is not quite right. The company invested in software, services and platforms. It tried many new things and had a large R&D budget. It was the leader in mobile software for many years. There was, however, a culture of arrogance about their position. This meant that they did not think the basis of competition would change. They thought they were too big to fail. They did not challenge the core business model of hardware-first and try to find an internal disruptive business.

-Experts note that Nokia should have reacted directly to Apple's iPhone appearance at 2007. What should have Nokia have done at that time?

The iPhone showed that software and experiences matter more than operator relationships. Nokia did a lot of research on user experiences and software but when the decision came to implement the ideas, the constraints of hardware and logistics and operator preferences took precedence and the software was compromised. What Nokia needed to do is build product around software not software around the hardware and the market.

-Since Apple's iPhone appeared in 2007, Samsung took a Fast-follower tactics which made them successful, which Nokia could not. Do you think Fast-follower have advantage over first-mover?

I don't consider first-mover or fast-follower to be accurate descriptions of strategy. Success follows from innovation and only from innovation. There are various forms of innovation: there is new market creation, new business models, low cost or distribution innovation. Nokia tended to create low cost innovations which opened new, low-end markets. Apple created a new market for browser-based devices and for app-based experiences. These were enabled by an ecosystem that benefited from integration.

Samsung implemented a portfolio strategy with a large number of devices and price points which allowed them to find market niches that could be exploited. This was a distribution innovation. Each strategy has advantages and disadvantages and each strategy is usually linked to company core priorities and processes. There are times during a technology cycle when one strategy is better and another is worse. This is why companies find themselves successful and then fail. Their processes don't match the technology adoption cycle.

For example, in the PC market there is little potential for new experiences tied to an integrated device (except for tablets) and hence there is little growth opportunity for an Apple-like approach. The innovation that matters in the PC market is mostly cost reduction. Nokia was doing cost reduction at a time when voice products were commoditizing. Cost reduction does not work when the basis of competition is new experiences and new business models. As smartphone hardware commoditizes, it's unlikely that Samsung will have an advantage unless is goes to a low-cost approach and enters into direct competition with low-end devices.

-Can you predict the 'Big 5' in handset industry 10years from now? Many people think the list will include Apple, Samsung. Who else might be on the lists?

There is no guarantee that Apple or Samsung will be the top vendors 10 years from now. I expect Chinese brands to become dominant in market volumes. I expect online service companies like Amazon, Baidu, Facebook to create new platforms which and have their own devices, perhaps in large volumes. I expect new input methods (like voice) to create new opportunities and perhaps new platforms and ecosystems. I expect Google may make a lot of money. One thing is for sure, being a hardware-oriented company without software and services and platforms and ecosystems is a sure path to becoming disrupted.

-Nokia was the leading company in Finland. What are the reactions of Finland towards Nokia's downfall?

People tend to blame each other for failures and this is the main discussion topic in Finland: who's to blame. The failure of a company is rooted in complex decision processes which usually take years to run their course. It's quite futile to lay blame on persons, especially since the same persons were celebrated for their wisdom at another point of time. At the same time as Nokia is failing however, another Finnish startup is celebrated world-wide and about to go public: Rovio, the maker of Angry Birds. It will be bigger than Nokia. Finland should make sure there are more Rovios to come.

Apple's recent margins are nothing short of spectacular. It's hard to convey just how remarkable 47% gross margin and 39% operating margins are. For a company that sells hardware these are simply unheard-of numbers.

The best way I can illustrate this is by comparing Apple's operating margins with those of two other platform-based companies, Google and Microsoft.

Microsoft invented the software-as-a-business model and, as software is easily reproduced, their margins are phenomenal. The gross margins are typically in the 80% range for software. Overall, the company had higher R&D and SG&A expenses so their operating margins are a more modest 37% on average. However, Apple managed to exceed this value even though it has the disadvantage of actually having to build things made of atoms.

Google also has led a charmed life free of inventory and factories. Its operating margins have been however hurt by investments needed to sustain the infrastructure for indexing the internet. That means that their margins have hovered around 33%.

As the chart above shows, Apple has been creeping up on both these benchmark companies with exceptional operational leverage and, as of this last quarter, overtaken them.

The reason Apple is able to do this is that its iOS businesses are extremely profitable and, as those businesses grow in absolute terms and relative to its other businesses, the overall margins are reaching into the stratosphere.

The impact of iOS on Apple is shown in the right-most two charts below. The difference in growth relative to these other great companies makes Apple all the more impressive.

But the temptation is to compare the "core" business models and ask which is best: hardware, software or internet services. It would seem that hardware is winning, suddenly getting the best margin and best growth--a dramatic reversal with prior technology business dogma.

However, it would be a mis-reading of what allows Apple to succeed. Apple is the most valuable company in technology (and indeed in the world) because it integrates hardware, software and services. It's the first, and only, company to do all these three well in service of jobs that the vast majority of consumers want done.

Nokia currently estimates that Devices & Services net sales in the first quarter 2012 were EUR 4.2 billion, comprised of Mobile Phones net sales of EUR 2.3 billion (71 million units), Smart Devices net sales of EUR 1.7 billion (12 million units),

via Nokia lowers Devices & Services first quarter 2012 outlook and provides second quarter 2012 outlook » Nokia – Press.

We don't have the total number of Samsung shipments, however estimates exist. They range between 41 and 44 million smartphones and 44 and 47 million feature phones. The low end of that range would imply Samsung shipped 85 million phones.

Nokia's press release indicates that it shipped 83 million.

This would be the first quarter that Samsung beat Nokia in total phone shipments. It had already overtaken Nokia in sales volume and profitability last year but this is the most cited metric of market performance: being the biggest in volume. Here is the tale of the shipments:

How did this happen?

The answer should become visible when we look at at another set of data. If we split the smartphones from feature phones the charts look like this:

Looking at product mix, Samsung growth is shown to be almost entirely due to smartphones while Nokia's stagnant growth seems to be a failure to have any smartphone traction.

It's even more clear when showing the above mixes of devices as percents of total.

As a percent of total, Nokia has shrunk its smartphone business from a peak of 24% in Q3 2010 to 14% last quarter. In the same time frame Samsung's smartphone share of portfolio has exploded from 10% to nearly 50%.

Note that both companies have seen non-smart device volumes contracting. Samsung's level is approximately the same as it had in late 2007 and Nokia's is lower than at any point in the last six years (perhaps longer).

So the answer to the question of how Samsung beat Nokia is told in the following chart:

Samsung was able to convert its portfolio to smartphones while Nokia failed to do so. This is the sort of transition that can only come about from an explicit strategic intention on the part of management. Market demand can steer you in any number of directions, but a vision of a future should provide the compass for making the big bets.

The bet Nokia made many years ago was that there would be a continuing, substantial business in the "low end". And low end meant feature phones. This strategy was still in evidence last year under the moniker "the next billion" users. The decisions were not driven by whether the products would be hired for different jobs, but that they would hit different price points. In other words, segmentation of customers by their ability to pay for devices rather than categorization of the jobs they hired mobile devices to do.

Perhaps Samsung was no wiser, but they were more pragmatic. Being non-dogmatic meant being flexible. They ran with off-the-shelf technologies and managed a transition to smart devices faster than anyone expected. It may not be a perfect strategy but it beat a bad strategy.

Charles Arthur, writing for The Guardian, has noted that court filings seem to be revealing Google's Android revenues. If this is the case, we have a significant breakthrough in understanding the economics of Android and the overall mobile platform strategy of Google.

The new data is a reference to a settlement offer Google made to Oracle of $2.8 million and 0.515% of Android revenues on an ongoing basis. The key assumption to make this data useful is that the $2.8 million offer represents 0.515% of revenues to date.

In other words, that revenues from 2008 to end of 2011 multiplied by 0.00515 results in $2.8 million. That implies that revenues from 2008 to 2011 were $544 million.

I think that's a fair assumption. I don't see why Google would offer a higher or lower royalty rate for years 2008 through 2011 than for years after 2011. The offer would seem to be 0.0515% in the future as well as retroactively in the past.

If we work with this assumption then the next question is how to distribute this $544 million over the four years 2008 through 2011? The installed base of Android has grown exponentially and it would seem logical to assume that revenues have followed in a similar pattern. Here is a chart of installed base given activation data supplied by Google.

If we assume revenues were distributed the same way we would get something like this:

The sum of the bars in this chart equals $544 million and the ramp is approximately the same as the installed base. The relationship between the first graph and the second is a multiple equivalent to the revenue per device.

Therefore a second assumption is that revenue per device remained fairly constant. In this model the revenue comes out to be about $1.70 per device per year. It's possible that rev/dev/yr. is increasing as Google services are discovered by users. It's also possible that the rev/dev/yr. is decreasing as later adopters are less likely to engage as early users. I just don't know how to adjust this value so by leaving it at the average, I can avoid introducing more assumptions.

Now we can stop and look at this figure and do a test. Does $1.70 make sense as a device revenue for Android? Google had spoken about targeting $10/device/yr. but we have no indication that they are nearly at that level. If they did achieve that level, with an installed base of 300 million, Google could be collecting $3 billion a year in Android income. Are they getting it?

As of October, Google mentioned that it had a $2.5 billion "mobile run rate". But we know that this figure is not only from Android. Mobile includes all mobile devices and services including those running inside iOS, Symbian, BlackBerry, Windows Phone, etc.  They could be counting ads on all mobile browsers as well as ads running inside all apps on all platforms. Furthermore, Google also testified that iOS accounts for two thirds of their mobile search revenues[1].

Adding run rate to the Android revenue chart results in the following:

So the step is to take the "run rate" figure of $2.5 billion and assume, as Charles Arthur did, that iOS income is what is left after taking out the Android part[2]. I also noted that Google previously mentioned a run rate of $1 billion and I will assign that run rate to 2010 and $2.5b to all of 2011. Since we know the number of iOS devices in use for years 2010 and 2011 we can calculate Google's revenues per iOS device in use.

If we thus combine all the data we know (revenues derived from settlement offer, units in use, run rate and iOS installed base) we get the following revenue profile:

This shows a positive trend for Google: revenues per smartphone per year is increasing. However, the growth is coming from non-Android devices which means mostly iOS. Revenues per device for Android is probably declining.

The story for iOS revenues however is not all rosy for Google. Google has to pay for that revenue. The mechanism is a payment that Google makes to Apple for the prominent and default placement of Google search on Safari.

We don't know the terms of the arrangement but if we assume $2/device Google needs to shave $2 from the top of the chart above with that money going to Apple (attached as iPhone/iPad service revenues.)[3]

That still leaves a healthy $8.33 in 2011 as operating income from mobile with $1.70 or so coming from Android.

However, to make this operating income into bottom line profit, we have to extract the R&D and SG&A associated with mobile at Google. This would be, therefore, Andy Rubin's yearly budget.

Andy Rubin has stated in the past that Android is profitable. That is certainly believable. The budget would have to be about $400 million/year in 2011.

Charles Arthur concluded that Google obtains four times more revenue from iOS than from Android. My estimates indicate that in 2011 the revenue ratio was closer to 5 but if we subtract the cost of those sales in the form of payments to Apple then the ratio could well be four to one.

Many of these figures begin to "hang together" as we balance assumptions about costs, revenues and statements made in public. There is a consistency within a comfortable margin of error. If that is the case, then the economics of Android begins to take shape.

My take is that it's not a bad business. But it's also not a great one. As long as there is exponential growth in units, Android will improve its position inside Google relative to iOS. But from Google's perspective, iOS is today a bigger business. And iOS is not standing still. It's growing not only in terms of units but in revenue per unit.

Strategically, and historically Android was never one thing. P&L considerations were not the only (or even at all) factors in investment for Google. Having a hedge against hegemony of potential rivals, having a means to learn and develop new business and having a role in defining the post-PC computing paradigm are all probably bigger considerations than profitability.

So in terms of returns, Android is sustainable. However, in relative terms the value created leaves much to be desired. Whereas Android generates $1.70/device/year and thus an Android device with a two year life generates about $3.5 to Google over its life, Apple obtained $576.3 for each iOS device it sold in 2011[4]. The economics of Android are nothing like the economics of iOS.

---

Notes:

1. This figure is also not conclusive as search is not the only form of revenue on a mobile device but it does imply that Android is not the majority of Google's mobile revenues.
2. Clearly this is overstating iOS as the non-Android income is broken up between several platforms. We can only say that iOS is the vast majority of non-Android income.
3. Assuming a $2/device payment model means Google paid $312 million to Apple in 2011 and $171 million in 2010. This would go toward boosting Apple's revenue per iOS device. Naturally, if this distribution cost is higher or would be subject to re-negotiation then it could vary widely.
4. The iOS figure includes accessories and licensing of trademarks but excludes income from App Store, iTunes music, movies, TV shows, iBooks, greeting cards or textbooks.