software

Apple's latest product launch (new OSX, iPads, Macs and iWork/iLife) came with a change in pricing for software. OS X and iWork and iLife and updates are now made available free on new Macs and, in the case of the suites, on iOS devices as well.

Recall also that iOS updates are now free as well and that OS X had been reduced in price from about $129 to $29 with Snow Leopard in August 2009 and to $19 with Mountain Lion in July 2012. The iSuites have also dropped in price over time so the pattern of evaporating software prices is long-running.

But how fast and what is the impact? The historic performance Apple's Software business is not easily determined since it was always blended with additional businesses. Until September of last year, Software was reported as part of "Software and Services" and since then as part of "iTunes, Software and Services." Some assumptions allow the following picture to be drawn:

One additional wrinkle to the Apple software story is that OS X and iWork/iLife are not all the software titles available. Apple's software includes Pro apps as well as the non-free OS X server. The non-free software US prices are:

• Aperture: $79.99
• Final Cut Pro: $299.99
• Motion: $49.99
• Compressor: $49.99
• Logic Pro X: $199.99
• MainStage 3: $29.99
• OS X Server: $19.99
• Apple Remote Desktop: $79.99

Given that and additional assumptions can lead to the following picture of the components of Apple's Software sales (in $ million/quarter).

Given this picture of the software business and the change in pricing, here is my forecast for the third and fourth quarters (in $ million/quarter):

The foregone revenues could be as much as $450 million from what would have been received with existing pricing model.

So the question that naturally arises is whether this is "worth it". Whether by offering free software hardware or service revenues rise.

Perhaps. Certainly service revenue in the form of iCloud might rise with more usage of iWork and iLife. But I don't think that this is the calculus underlying the decision. Remember that Apple does not have a Profit/Loss accountability. It's not necessary (and perhaps not even preferred) that a division balances costs and revenues. ((The graphs in this post (and the preceding 1900 on this blog) were created using Numbers.))

Fundamentally Apple remains a systems company where software is a key element in its definition of value. That is not changing. What is changing instead is the bundling of application software with the systems software and the system itself. The presence of iWork and hassle-free updating of that suite (and the same for the OS) means that utilization rates will increase.

I believe the logic for Apple is that usage of the products determines their value and therefore placing powerful software in the hands of more users means they will value the entire system more. This leads to the notion of greater "stickiness" or "lock-in" but also to higher satisfaction and loyalty, rate of upgrades and even more third party purchases and yet more usage.

This is the virtuous cycle platform custodians seek to engender. This is what Apple is trying to build and the transition of apps into the system bundle is part of this re-enforcement.

One wonders how long before Apple's approach becomes the norm for other platforms.

My thanks to Kirk Burgess for providing this transcript:

Horace Dediu interview on CNBC Asia Cash Flow show - 10th September 2013

Chloe Cho (CNBC): Take us through what Apple is exactly trying to do?

Horace Dediu: Well, this is the first time in the six years of this competition in the smartphone market that Apple has broadened its portfolio. We have seen only a single product launch every year--this is very unorthodox in the industry. Normally each competitor [ranges] dozens of devices. Apple's entry has been asymmetric from the start, and now in its sixth year we are expecting to see, finally, a broadening perhaps into two separate products. The question will be whether [there will be] a significantly lower price point for the so-called 5C and whether that will change the average selling price overall for the portfolio. The average selling price has been remarkably steady, and remarkably high, typically around $600 for the duration of this products life. Something, again, unprecedented. My expectation is the new price point will be quite a bit lower than $600, starting with about $450, it might drop a bit further, [which] would cause the overall price range to come down as we have seen with the iPad; [where we] also had a price erosion happen as the smaller version came out.

Q: Horace, do you think they have got the timing right? Should they have done this a little bit earlier when the market wasn't so saturated and filled with cutthroat competition?

A: Indeed, I think. As I said, as a product with six years in the market it's a bit late; I expected this to happen last year. I think a lot of the momentum that has been lost in the past year in terms of sales growth has been because of the lack of low end. To note also will be whether they indeed expand their carrier footprint. We are expecting something new in Japan and possibly China Mobile. There is a second announcement happening with a few hours delay in China. This is again the first time that has ever happened.

Q: Horace, do you think they didn’t move down the value chain fast enough largely because they didn’t have a deal with China Mobile?

A: Well that's always a good question whether they are driven more by carrier channels or are they driven more by consumer market expectations. I think it's a bit of both. We do have this hybrid approach where they continue selling this older product for one or two years after the new product is launched--so the 4 and 4S are still available while the 5 is being ranged. This strategy is hybrid I say because this isn't truly a low end product, it is a stale product that is being put out there. This [strategy] may be driven more by consumer demand, not so much what operators are asking for. With the 5C we might be looking at a solution for operators in particular.

Q: Horace, how much do some these incumbents like Apple and Samsung need to be worried about Microsoft approaching their space?

A: I believe Microsoft will not be competitive in the near term. I don't think [during] the next year we are going to see a very impactful entry from Microsoft. What Microsoft is likely do is lower prices significantly on Nokia's portfolio and their pipeline as it is. That might cause more pressure on the pricing, but the problem has been that consumers have not really been taking up the Windows Phone platform very aggressively. It has been somewhat successful in Europe but not taking off elsewhere. I think Microsoft will be in an integration mode with the Nokia assets into 2014, but I would expect in a year from now we might see some new entry product that would be exciting. I think 2-3 years down the road we might see something from Microsoft that would excite consumers as well.

Q: There has been a lot of focus on which companies have a more integrated house, Apple or Samsung. In light of the fact that they are having to move into lower price points, in your view which is doing the better Job, Apple or Samsung?

A: Well Samsung is a great industrial enterprise and they are doing very well by broadening as much as possible their portfolio, even before the smartphone race started for them, which was in 2010, they were known for being one of the most prolific product creators out there. They actually had over 100 different mobile phones, not smartphones, just regular mobile phones that they would range, and Nokia were extremely concerned by this pressure they were getting from Samsung.

What they have seen since 2010 is the same thing, except with smartphones, and so they’ve been really prolific and covering the spectrum of price and screen and every other possible variant that could be made. I think however that Samsung hasn’t got a software platform under its belt. They could become a software player by taking over some of the control of Android as we have seen Amazon do, and thus really establish themselves as a platform player. They are doing so to some degree with the "Gear" product, and they might be doing something like this by launching their development conference this year.

But they aren't yet a platform player whereas Apple is, but then again we just don’t know what the politics of Android are with respect to forking it by an OEM as large as Samsung.

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

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

Being Apple means, at least:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

Note:

[1] e.g. BlackBerry

When a prosperous company buys a struggling company you have to wonder what they're really buying.

Here's how to think about it. A company is defined as the sum of three values: resources, processes and priorities (RPP). Everything of value can be classified into these three categories.

When one company buys another it's the equivalent of one set of RPPs trying to engulf or swallow another set of RPPs. The simplest (naïve) interpretation is that an acquisition is the purchase of Resources in terms of customers, sales, profits, etc. It might be of assets like employees, intellectual properties, brand etc. I say this is naïve because Resources are the easiest to value because they can be measured and valuing only what can be measured while ignoring what can't be measured is deeply mis-pricing.

So most people look for the "R" value or the value of Resources in an acquisition. It's may be naïve but it is what markets typically value because it's what they can price. But what happens when the "R" is flimsy or fleeting?

The answer has to be that it's  the processes or even priorities which are valued by the acquirer.

These are difficult to value which, as I've argued in The Innovator's Curse, is why they are not reflected in a share's price. When there is a price paid for these fuzzy assets, they are often interpreted as a "premium" to the market price. But that may not be the way a buyer sees it.

When buying a set of Processes, a buyer may see a bargain because their costs for building a similar process could be enormous, even infinite. In the case of Nokia, the process of building hardware may be infinitely valuable to Microsoft as they have had dreadful luck doing it themselves. But they're seen as value free to the market because it seems that there are many others who are building hardware.

The trickiest thing to perceive though is the value of a set of Priorities. Priorities are the answers to the "Why" question as much as Resources are the answers to the "What" and processes are to the "How." If you were to think in terms of software engineering Priorities are the "Specifications" where the Resources are the data and Processes are the algorithms. They determine the direction and reasoning of why a company even exists. If you have bad specs, it never matters whether the algorithm is efficient and you have all the data: you are building the wrong thing.

Acquiring Priorities is also fundamental in that they are usually exclusive. A company typically only has room for one set. If there are conflicting priorities, they need to be sorted out else the company can end up in a state of internal conflict and dysfunction. So if you're acquiring a set of Priorities, it's likely that you'll have to discard your own. It makes most sense when a company which might otherwise be prosperous needs to change direction.

So, in a way, an acquisition of Priorities is almost a reverse acquisition. The acquired is actually "buying" the acquirer. The acquired company's Priorities (and hence Processes and Resources) become the guiding principles in the acquirer. It's what happened when Apple bought NeXT and may have happened when Disney bought Pixar.

Some companies are "Resource-heavy", some are "Process-heavy" and some are "Priority-heavy". Great companies tend to have great sense of priority. They may also have greatness in the other asset classes but it's rare to find a great company without a great sense of purpose.

So the question for the Microsoft Nokia deal is what is Microsoft buying?

Resources? Sure, there is IP and a team. But the chances are that not all the team members will be kept on. See what happened to Motorola after it was acquired by Google.

Processes? Absolutely. Microsoft needs device development processes desperately.  They may seem a commodity but it turns out that running great hardware businesses is hard, very hard.

Priorities? Here we have to pause. To acquire Nokia's priorities means acquiring its business model; its belief system. Perhaps they will be discarded and they're not valued. Perhaps, as is often the case, the acquirer becomes allergic to the new priorities.

But Microsoft has made it clear that they are now a "Devices and Services" company. As much as Apple changed its name to exclude "Computer," Microsoft is almost changing its name to exclude "software". It will still make software, to be sure, but for it to get paid it needs to integrate that software into hardware and services.

My first thought on this is that Nokia's priorities are not sufficient for the company that Microsoft wants and needs to become, but there are some priorities which are necessary and which it values.

It may be too much to say that with respect to Priorities, Nokia acquired Microsoft, but insofar as Microsoft is having to transform its business model, what Nokia devices brings is an integral component of the new.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

It's been five years since we had an update on TV show downloads and six years since we've had an update on movie downloads from Apple. In Q3 2008 Apple announced 200 million TV show downloads and in Q2 2007 2 million movies. That's a long period with no information making a tough extrapolation to the present.

Nevertheless, I tried. My estimates for these two quantities were 963 million TV Shows and 108.2 million movies to date.

So I was quite surprised to see that figures for both TV show downloads and Movie downloads were published today. The figures were 1 billion and 380 million respectively.

My TV show forecast has proven to be very accurate but I severely underestimated movie download rates. Apple states that the movie download rate is 350k/day. My estimate  was only about 126k/day.

After adjusting for the new data, the picture of downloads that emerges looks like this:

The overall iTunes gross revenues by sub-component becomes:

As a result, my new estimate for the rate of spending on iTunes video is about $1.75 billion/yr. This is much more substantial than prior estimates mainly because movies are much more valuable. A tripling of the download rate shows up as a significant rise in the profile of video vis-à-vis the other media types.

Apps and software are firmly defined and music was somewhat clear. The upward adjustment in Video means that I have to reduce either Music or services. I presently am reducing service revenues but might adjust music as well.

The overall picture of iTunes is becoming clearer every day. We have more information about number of users (575 million), what they spend on media and software and services ($20 billion/yr.) and, increasingly what they spend on each media type (about $9/yr on Software, $2/yr on books, $16/yr on apps $12/yr on music and $4/yr on video.)

My estimate of last quarter's iTunes gross revenues suggested a spending rate of $40 per iTunes account. It would make sense to consider how that figure changed over time. The following graph shows the pattern:

You can read each bar in the graph as the total "ARPU" or average revenue per iTunes user[1].

I overlaid a graph showing the total number of accounts as reported by Apple to the (retroactively) estimated revenue structure. Account totals are measured with the right axis and ARPU with the left.  Note that I also broke down each component of iTunes as currently defined (Music, Video, Apps, Books, Software and Services.)[2]

The time frame covered is from Q2 2007, or the quarter prior to the iPhone launch. A few patterns emerge:

• When there were no iOS devices (and hence no iOS apps) the revenues of iTunes consisted mostly of music sales. Those revenues were, on a per account basis, roughly comparable with Apple's Software revenues.
• As iOS devices proliferated, the number of accounts (and users) grew. They doubled in the first two years (2007 to 2009) and doubled again in the following year (2010) and doubled again the following year (2011) and doubled again in the following 18 months. This rate of growth was accompanied by a reduction in the iTunes ARPU of about 50% (from $99 to about $45).
• The reduction in ARPU has moderated in the last few quarters. ARPU fell 10% from $50 to $45 during the last doubling of accounts (from 225 million iTunes accounts to  500 million accounts.) In contrast ARPU fell 20% from $74 to $58 during the penultimate doubling (from 100 million to 200 million)
• However, growth in accounts is broadly inversely proportional to growth in ARPU. In other words, the faster the growth in users the faster the decline in ARPU. The recent moderation in ARPU erosion is also coupled to a moderation in user growth (most recent doubling took 18 months vs. 12 months for previous doubling.) This is as would be expected as a broader, later user base tends to consume less than a narrow, early base. This can be seen in the following scatter plot:

• When seen as a percent of mix, Apps have grown to be the largest component of iTunes spending. Apps have 35% "share of wallet" while music has dropped steadily from 40% to 27% (or $39 to $12/yr.) This is shown in the following graph.

As apps have grown to consume more and more of users' time it stands to reason that they should consume more and more of users' wallets.

And as accounts reach one billion, we can begin to think about the disruptive impact on other media types. Whereas video, books and music are targeted to smaller user bases, apps are broadly consumed. Developers like Rovio or Supercell can offer their products to billions while TV producers can only hope for millions. Apps are becoming the universal medium for entertainment and iTunes the universal distributor.

Talent is catching on to this faster than those who manage and distribute their work. The inevitable result will be a mass migration of talent away from the established content industries. Old media won't fade due to a loss of users. It will fade due to a loss of talent.

--

Notes:

1. An account is not necessarily a user so perhaps more appropriately the acronym should be ARPA (average revenue per account). Unfortunately that acronym is taken.
2. The complete model is available for purchase through Asymco Store.

iTunes (including software and services) revenues in Q1 topped $4 billion and were 30% higher than (re-stated) 2012 Q1 revenues. Accompanying this revenue figure were additional data points from the company:

• Cumulative app downloads have surpassed 45 billion
• Payments to developers reached a cumulative total of $9 billion
• Payments to developers were $4.5 billion in most recent four quarters
• Now paying $1 billion to developers every quarter
• 800 apps are downloaded every second
• iOS app revenues doubled since year-ago quarter
• App Store accounted for 74% of all app sales in the quarter (citing Canalys)
• App stores reach customers in 155 countries (850k Apps, 350k iPad apps)
• iTunes music downloads are available in 119 countries (35 million songs)
• Movies are sold in 109 countries (60k titles)
• iBookstore is available in 155 countries (1.75 million titles)

This data allows for a few inferences:

• Nearly 70 million apps are downloaded every day
• The average revenue per game is about 23 cents
• Gross app revenues are about $16 million per day (of which 11 million is paid to developers.)
• Gross iTunes revenues were $5.4 billion last quarter of which I estimate:
•  …App revenues were $1.6 billion
•  …Music revenues were $2.2 billion
•  …Video revenues were $287 million
•  …Book revenues were $312 million
•  …Apple's software generated $1 billion
• In addition, I estimate that Services generated $100 million

Note that there is a difference between the amounts transacted through the store and what the company reports. The difference is shown in the following graph

To mark it's 10th year, I wrote a segment for Billboard Magazine describing what iTunes has become. I suppose it's easy to become numb to these numbers, but there is perhaps one way to look at iTunes that is still compelling:

Selling $20 billion a year would put iTunes in the top 20 US retailers and top 50 Global retailers.

Not bad for a 10 year old.

In the last few posts I estimated the iTunes economy in some detail. In absolute figures, the revenues and cost structures of iTunes are substantial:

• 6.3 billion transactions in the last quarter
• $4.6 billion consolidated revenues (including software & services)
• $3.3 billion in content payments
• $650 million in operating income

However, as a part of the entire Apple revenue model, iTunes appears to be a small contributor. The following diagrams shows where revenues came from and where they were spent during the last quarter

A few notes:

1. Click on image to enlarge. The graph was produced using an iPad and it is rendered at iPad retina resolution.
2. The data covers only the Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2012.
3. For scale reference, "Dev Payments" equals $1 billion (as marked.)
4. When zoomed in, each pixel represents about $50 million (vertical dimension).
5. Revenues shown are "gross" and therefore greater than reported. See post on iTunes Revenue Recognition. �The same reason affects the total Cost of Sales (COS).
6. Sources of revenue are ranked according to size. Note that Music is higher than iPod or Peripherals and Apps are higher than Software.
7. Different Cost of Sales components are also ranked by value.
8. iTunes which is the sum of Music, App, Software, Video and books makes up about 7% of overall revenues but 10% of costs of sales and hence contribute about 4% (est.) of total operating margin.

A three year view of the same data is shown below:

The following is another excerpt from a report titled "iTunes Business Review" which will soon be available for purchase through the Asymco Store. If you are interested in the product please get in touch.

---

iTunes store will be 10 years old next month. From its inception Apple has stated that it aims to run the store "at break-even".  The business has grown so rapidly however that its profit-free nature has come under severe pressure.

The reasoning goes that as more media types have been added costs have increased but revenues have increased even faster. Consider the estimated gross revenue base as shown below:

What is known as iTunes today has quintupled in seven years. Although cost of content sales are likely to have been preserved as a ratio (about 30%) the vastness of transaction volume (estimated at 23 billion item transactions in 2012 alone) implies that there are some significant economies of scale.

This implies that the operating costs are spread more evenly and that therefore the possibility exists for some operating margin.

Put another way, at break-even the cost of operating iTunes stores would be about $3.75 billion. It's hard to imagine this level of operational expense for digital content.

For this reason, management has begun since 2010 to suggest that at least the App Store is run "a little over break-even". How little is a good question. A one percent operating margin (from gross revenues) would imply as much as $45 million margin. I estimate 2% is possible on Apps and 1% on Music.

That's $150 million in margin content. Heady stuff.

However, since folding its Software group into iTunes (the blue area in the graph above) the margin picture changes dramatically.

The Software group is one of the forgotten heroes of Apple.

Apple’s software division “Apple Software” is responsible for the following products:

• iWork which includes Pages, Numbers and Keynote. These are available through the Mac App store at about $20 per product and the iOS App Store for $10.
• iLife which includes iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, GarageBand. The OS X versions are available free with new computers but they are also available as paid downloads for OS X through the Mac App Store at $15 each and for iOS devices through the App store at $4.99 per app.
• OS products including downloads of iOS and OS X. These are mostly free but some OS X updates are not free (typically $19.99 for new version including the server version of OS X.)
• Professional tools which include the following products: Final Cut Pro (Video editor $299.99), Logic Pro (Music editor $199.99), Aperture (Professional Photo workflow $79.99), Compressor (additional features for Final Cut Pro $49.99), Motion (video transition editing for Final Cut Pro $49.99)
• Administration and development tools which include:  Xcode integrated development environment which is free Apple Remote Desktop which is priced at $79.99.

All these products are now sold through either iTunes App Store or Mac App Store. They used to be sold as traditional boxed software for many years but Apple has transitioned them all to be download-only and folded them into the catalog of third party apps while lowering prices.

My estimate is that Apple’s own software generated $3.6 billion in Revenues in 2012. As you can imagine, this is a high margin business  which grows at nearly 20%/yr. Although I estimate that the software business has been overtaken by the Apps and Music businesses in gross revenues, it keeps an operating margin similar to that of Microsoft or about 50%.

This means that iTunes inclusive of Apple's own Software generates as much as 15% operating margin on gross revenues. That's over $2 billion a year.

So much for breaking even.

LG Electronics has acquired HP's WebOS for an undisclosed amount. When last it changed hands WebOS was part of Palm which was purchased for $1.2 billion in 2010.

Palm has thus been effectively divided into several smaller pieces distributed as follows:

HP will own:

• Support of existing Palm users
• Palm back-end assets including source code, infrastructure and talent
• webOS patents

LG will own:

• Stewardship of the Open WebOS and Enyo open-source projects where the source code resides
• Associated talent
• WebOS websites
• License for IP related to webOS

LG announced that it plans to offer an "intuitive user experience an Internet services across a range of consumer electronics devices." In an interview, the CTO of LG said that given the current situation with Android, LG does not plan on making smartphones running webOS but will use it in televisions and other devices such as cars, signage and appliances where there are no embedded OS's. "We'd like to secure a software platform across all devices."

Most commentary regarding the deal focused on the use of the platform for TVs but management seems to consider all devices, perhaps even phones, at some future date, to be webOS targets.

The TV however seems to be low hanging fruit today. The TV as an app platform will be the new ecosystem war and no platform today has a lock on the developers or users. The way this rivalry will shape up will not mirror other device classes for the same reason that current device classes are platform silos.

PCs, music players, tablets and phones all have different super-majority platform leaders. The association of a platform with a device class depends first on the distribution model, which favors a specific business model which favors a specific vendor which favors a specific platform. As each device is distributed differently, a different platform takes precedence.

Consider that the PC has historically been purchased by IT departments which led to a monoculture of Windows which led to a persistent leadership for Microsoft.

The music player created dominance around iTunes mostly because the distribution model for music labels was baked-in. With network effects, the iPod quickly gained and perpetually retained market share leadership.

The smartphone business initially favored Symbian and BlackBerry because they had the market access through operators. After the touch UI became dominant (and incumbents failed to respond in a timely manner), Apple and Google took leadership as soon as they accepted the operator distribution model. Android in particular is especially resonant with operators and has been developed with their requirements in mind.

The tablet business is more like the PC business but without enterprise requirements or patterns of purchase. This has meant that app/content ecosystems and retail distribution were the key gating factors. The story is still unfolding but so far Microsoft has not found a foothold while iOS and Android and Amazon have.

That leads to the question of how will smart TVs be sold and which business model (or go-to-market strategy) will succeed. Steve Jobs pointed out the difficulty in trying to deliver innovation into a value chain dominated by cable companies which can effectively block it. A TV which is an application execution device rather than a content terminal will require a re-definition of the category. That will require a re-positioining of this product. Few companies are able to do that. [See also my post Tele Vision from mid-2011].

Which brings us back to the question of webOS. As long as LG sells TVs as content terminals they might not obtain much value from webOS. If, on the other hand, LG were to use webOS to re-define their televisions to be something else entirely, namely software execution devices, sold differently and hired to do a different job than a TV, then webOS becomes not only necessary but potentially a source of great prosperity.