More on the Mac, Judging Mac Sales, Assessing Mac Success
Hello everyone. It feels good to be back in the swing of things.
As it turned out, the OpenAI saga reached something of a temporary lull right before Thanksgiving last week. Sam Altman was reinstated as CEO but with a new board not of his preference (Adam D'Angelo, Larry Summers, Bret Taylor). In going back over last Monday’s update, there isn’t much that needs to be changed or updated. Some of the latest reporting, which appears to be accurate, had Altman recently trying (unsuccessfully) to make inroads in gaining board control. Such action would likely have played a role in the subsequent boardroom drama. As we discussed, the “we are moving to Microsoft” development was then a negotiation tactic on Altman’s part. If there are any new twists and turns that jump out at me, we will revisit the subject.
Two quick notes:
Last week, a new Above Avalon Report, "The State of the Mac," was published. As a reminder, an audio version of the report was also recorded and released to members with the podcast add-on attached to their membership. To get the add-on, fill out this form.
Above Avalon Gifts will go live on Monday, December 4th. More information will be available at that time.
Today’s update will cover some of the member feedback and questions that came in about the report.
More on the Mac
For the past 18 to 24 months, Mac and iPad results have led to some head-scratching.
Revenue growth rates for both product categories have been all over the place. On a quarter-to-quarter basis, it may be difficult to make sense of it all. Supply interruptions, combined with channel inventory shifts and different product launch timing have added noise to the mix. However, looking at unit sales on an annual basis, things become clearer to see. iPad unit sales were down 7% in 2023 (my estimate) while Mac unit sales were down an adjusted 10% or so (my estimate). Actual Mac unit sales were down closer to 25% due to one-time issues at the end of FY2022 / start of FY2023.
In what will likely catch many people off guard, Mac unit sales in 2023 were at the same level as they were in the mid-2010s, years before the Apple Silicon transition. Even after we adjust sales to reflect one-time factors, we are looking at a sales run rate that is just 10% higher than 2014 to 2017 sales. This leads to an obvious question: Why hasn’t Apple Silicon led to stronger Mac sales?
An Above Avalon membership is required to continue reading this update. Members can read the full update here. An audio version of this update is available to members who have the podcast add-on attached to their membership. More information about the podcast add-on is found here.
(Members: Daily Updates are accessible by logging into Slack. If you haven’t logged into Slack before, fill out this form to receive an invite.)
Above Avalon Membership
Payment is hosted by MoonClerk and secured by Stripe. Apple Pay and other mobile payment options are accepted. After signup, use this link to update your payment information and membership status at any time.
Special Inside Orchard bundle pricing is available for Above Avalon members. Additional membership customization is available via the Podcast and Financial Models add-ons.
Thoughts on Apple Product Pricing, My iPhone and Apple Watch Sales Mix Estimates, U.S. Carriers Improve iPhone Promotions
In today’s update, we go over a few topics related to the new Apple Watches and iPhones. The discussion begins with Neil’s thoughts on new Apple Watch and iPhone pricing. We then turn to Neil’s estimates for unit sales mix by Apple Watch and iPhone model. The update concludes with U.S. carriers improving their iPhone promotions.
Hello everyone. Welcome to a new week. Let’s jump right in.
Thoughts on Apple Product Pricing
At last week's product event, no major changes to Apple’s product pricing strategy were announced. There were more than a few rumors suggesting iPhone Pro pricing was going up against the board. That did not occur. Generally, Apple pricing rumors should be discounted as Apple is able to keep pricing information under wraps.
Here is entry-level pricing for each Apple Watch collection:
Apple Watch Series SE: $249 (GPS) – did not receive any updates last week
Apple Watch Series 9: $399 (GPS)
Apple Watch Ultra 2: $799 (GPS + Cellular)
We will talk more about my sales mix expectations by Apple Watch model shortly. For now, it is important to point out how Apple is sticking with
An Above Avalon membership is required to continue reading this update. Members can read the full update here. An audio version of this update is available to members who have the podcast add-on attached to their membership. More information about the podcast add-on is found here.
(Members: Daily Updates are always accessible by logging into Slack. If you haven’t logged into Slack before, fill out this form to receive an invite.)
Above Avalon Membership
Payment is processed and secured by Stripe. Apple Pay and other mobile payment options are accepted. Special Inside Orchard bundle pricing is available for Above Avalon members.
More information about Above Avalon membership, including the full list of benefits and privileges, is available here.
Apple’s Reality (Headset) Plans (Above Avalon Report)
An examination of Apple’s upcoming entry into AR/VR headsets.
Written by Neil Cybart – April 12th, 2023
In the coming months, Apple is expected to unveil its next wearables chapter with an AR/VR headset. Having already launched wearable devices designed for the wrist (Apple Watch) and ears (AirPods), Apple will soon expand its focus to the eyes (Apple Reality). This report serves as a primer for Apple’s play for the “eyes” - a headset delivering AR/VR experiences.
Note: This report references terms including AR, VR, MR, eye wearables, and Apple Reality. Here is a short explanation of the key differences:
AR (augmented reality): Overlays digital objects/context on top of one’s visual and auditory surroundings.
VR (virtual reality): Offers a digital alternative to one’s visual and auditory surroundings.
MR (mixed reality): A combination of AR/VR, and the goal is to enhance the wearer’s presence.
Face / eye wearables: Devices that include headsets/visors/goggles/glasses.
Apple Reality: The name Apple may give to its MR headset.
Background
The discussion surrounding AR and VR has been noisy and unnecessarily complicated because four devices have been talked about in the press seemingly interchangeably:
Smart Glasses. Lightweight and thin glasses that display small snippets of text, information, and symbols in the wearer’s peripheral vision. This device is, in theory, closest in utilization to that of Apple Watch.
AR Glasses. Lightweight and thin glasses that enhance one's surroundings by adding a contextual layer on top of reality. This device is a more enhanced and capable version of smart glasses.
VR Headsets. A historically bulky contraption worn on the face that removes the wearer from their surroundings. Meta Quest is an example of a VR headset.
MR (AR/VR) Headsets. A historically bulky contraption worn on the face combining VR and AR. Microsoft HoloLens is an example of a mixed reality headset, but some will say the device is closer to a bulky AR headset.
Apple is believed to be working on two distinct products:
MR headset “Apple Reality” (to be unveiled soon).
Pair of AR glasses (to be unveiled in a few years when the technology is ready).
As a sign of how ambitious Apple’s goals are in the AR/VR space, the company
An Above Avalon membership is required to continue reading this report. Members can read the full report here. An audio version of this report is available to members who have the podcast add-on attached to their membership. More information about the podcast add-on is found here.
(Members: Reports are always accessible by logging into Slack. If you haven’t logged into Slack before, fill out this form to receive an invite.)
Above Avalon Membership
Payment is processed and secured by Stripe. Apple Pay and other mobile payment options are accepted. Special Inside Orchard bundle pricing is available for Above Avalon members.
Member Privileges and Benefits
Receive Exclusive Daily Updates. The cornerstone of Above Avalon membership is access to Neil’s exclusive daily updates about Apple. Updates are sent via email and go over current news and developments impacting Apple, its competitors, and the industries Apple plays in (or will play in). Approximately 200 daily updates are published throughout the year. Sample daily updates can be viewed here, here, and here.
Receive Exclusive Reports. Members have access to Neil’s reports, which are in-depth examinations of Apple's business, product, and financial strategy.
Access Private Podcasts. Members have the option of attaching a podcast add-on to their membership in order to receive the daily updates and reports in audio form.
Access Neil’s Earnings Model. Members have access to Neil’s working Apple earnings model (an Excel file that also works in Numbers). The model is fully functional and adjustable and provides the ability to alter earnings drivers.
Email Priority. Receive priority when it comes to having email questions and inquiries answered. Neil personally answers all inquiries, including customer service matters related to your membership.
Archive Access. Read 1,400+ daily updates and reports that have been previously sent to members. The Above Avalon member archive is unmatched in the marketplace in terms of the sheer amount of Apple analysis found in one location. The daily updates archive can be viewed here while the reports archive is available here.
Member Forum Access. Join other Above Avalon members in an active forum containing in-depth discussion and debate. Neil moderates and participates in the forum. The forum is run through Slack and can be accessed here.
Virtual Meet-ups. Talk with Neil about Apple and other related items in virtual meet-ups held via Slack throughout the year.
Above Avalon Support. Play an active role in supporting Above Avalon as an independent source of Apple analysis. Above Avalon is fully sustained by its members.
Apple’s Opportunities in 2023, Apple’s Challenges in 2023 (Daily Update)
Hello everyone. One group of questions that came in from members over holiday break had to do with Apple in 2023.
Instead of going over my predictions for the year, recapping where things stand in terms of opportunities and challenges makes more sense.
Let’s jump right in.
Apple’s Opportunities in 2023
Looking at 2023, Apple has several opportunities to pursue when it comes to the supply chain, mixed reality, and ecosystem growth. We will go over each opportunity in greater detail.
Add Optionality to Supply Chain and Manufacturing Apparatus. Calls for Apple to announce a sudden supply chain or manufacturing shift out of China are misplaced. Even though Apple executives may not possess a changed mindset when it comes to China’s ability to handle Apple’s business
An Above Avalon membership is required to continue reading this update. Members can read the full update here. An audio version of this update is available to members who have the podcast add-on attached to their membership. More information about the podcast add-on is found here.
(Members: Daily Updates are always accessible by logging into Slack. If you haven’t logged into Slack before, fill out this form to receive an invite.)
Above Avalon Membership
Payment is processed and secured by Stripe. Apple Pay and other mobile payment options are accepted. Special Inside Orchard bundle pricing is available for Above Avalon members.
More information about Above Avalon membership, including the full list of benefits and privileges, is available here.
Apple Is in a League of Its Own
During Apple’s “Peek Performance” event held last month, the company announced not only a brand new Mac category with the Mac Studio, but also iPhone SE and iPad Air updates that will be well-received in the marketplace. Management fit so much into its 57-minute event, Apple’s entry into live sports was given just 65 seconds.
The primary takeaway from Apple’s event wasn’t found with any particular product. Instead, it was the sheer breadth of product unveilings that caught my attention. Over the past 18 months, Apple has held seven jam-packed product unveilings that have included a collection of new hardware, software, and services. Apple’s peers would be thrilled to hold just one of these presentations every year or two. There is no other company in the same league as Apple when it comes to maintaining and updating such a wide and comprehensive ecosystem of devices and services. The pace of Apple’s new product unveilings has played a role in the company pulling away from the competition.
Ecosystem Strength
It's easy to look at Apple’s quarterly earnings and reach conclusions about the company’s ecosystem strength. Apple’s financials, although strong, don’t tell the full story. With nearly 80% of Apple’s revenue attributable to hardware, the company’s financials remain heavily influenced by upgrading trends. Revenue, operating income, and cash flow metrics undersell how Apple is performing in the marketplace from a new user perspective.
The following new user estimates are obtained by combining Apple management commentary with my own product unit sales assumptions:
To get to the heart of what Apple is doing and how the company is executing so well, we have to go back to 2017 and 2018. Apple began to follow a new strategy that amounted to pushing all of its product category forward at the same time. Previously, Apple had been following a product strategy that can be thought of as a pull system. The company was most aggressive with the products capable of making technology more relevant and personal.
One way of conceptualizing this strategy is to think of Apple product categories being attached to a rope in order of which makes technology more personal via new workflows and processes for getting work done. As Apple management pulled on the rope, the Apple Watch and iPhone received much of the attention while the Mac increasingly resembled dead weight. Similarly, the iPad had hit a rough patch.
Apple is now utilizing a push system in which every major product category is being pushed forward simultaneously. As a result, the iPad, and in particular the Mac, has received more priority. We have also since seen Apple become more aggressive with expanding the number of SKUs available and giving consumers more price and feature options.
At the core of Apple’s product strategy shift was a doubling down on autonomy within its product development process. The Apple machine is operating at such speed and scale, it’s not realistic to think one person can control or run the machine. Apple wouldn’t be able to push its entire product line forward simultaneously if every decision had to go through one gatekeeper. Instead, the Apple machine was designed to take on a certain level of autonomy in order to instill Apple’s values in all employees. Designers of various disciplines have been given greater say over the user experience.
Floundering Competition
As product strategy changes were underway within Apple, the competition began to flounder. A growing number of bad product bets were placed, peaking with the ultimate misdirection in tech of the past decade: voice computing and the stationary smart speaker mirage. The subsequent embrace of stationary screens positioned on kitchen countertops has seen limited adoption. Foldable smartphone sales have not been impressive. Apple competitors are now struggling to capture consumers’ attention and money with routine annual smartphone updates.
We are at the point when tough questions have to be asked about Apple’s competition, or lack thereof. What company can realistically give Apple a run for its money? The number of paid subscriptions across Apple’s platform is increasing by 170 million per year. Google wants to compete in some hardware verticals that Apple plays in, but it’s fair to question Google management’s commitment. At times, their heart just doesn’t seem in it. Amazon and Microsoft have stronger motivations to do well in hardware, but their lack of design thinking is hard to miss. Meta would win the award for strongest public commitment to hardware, but the company’s culture and heritage don’t seem to mesh well with what it takes to do well in hardware. Snap, Spotify, Sonos, and the long list of smaller companies dabbling in hardware all lack the ecosystems to truly go up against Apple toe to toe.
When thinking of competition outside the U.S., a growing number of consumers are looking for entry points into comprehensive (and premium) ecosystems. Apple is selling both the all-around best smartphone in the market and tools and services designed to live both below and above the smartphone. Android switching rates are increasing while Apple entices hundreds of millions of iPhone-only users to move deeper into the ecosystem.
A risk that any company in Apple’s position will face is complacency. With most of its product categories, Apple’s largest competitor ends up being itself. The fact that Apple’s ecosystem updates are accelerating rather than declining as the competition breaks apart is a potential sign of Apple decoupling itself from the “competition drives us” mantra that is found in Silicon Valley. There is a deeper drive within Apple – a feeling that if Apple doesn’t create it, no one else will - that is driving teams forward.
Check out the daily update from April 5th for additional discussion on this topic.
Receive Neil’s analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates. The updates, which have become widely read and influential in the world of Apple, provide timely analysis of news impacting Apple and its competitors. Neil also publishes exclusive reports on Apple business, product, and financial strategy. The daily updates and reports are available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
The Above Avalon 2Q21 Recap
In addition to publishing periodic essays and podcast episodes, which are accessible to everyone, I publish exclusive daily updates all about Apple. These emails contain my perspective and analysis on Apple business, product, and financial strategy, in addition to industry developments. The updates have become widely read and influential in the world of Apple.
During the second quarter of 2021 (April to June), 47 Above Avalon daily updates were published, chronicling the major industry and Apple-specific news stories. Major themes included Apple hosting a virtual WWDC, major developments in the paid video streaming space, bluetooth trackers being put front and center as Apple unveiled AirTags at a spring product event, and tech antitrust legislation / regulation developments.
The Above Avalon 2Q21 Recap begins by going over these major themes and the corresponding daily updates that went over the themes. The focus then shifts to the Above Avalon daily update of the quarter - a daily update that stood out for its Apple analysis.
Major Themes
WWDC 2021
Last month, Apple held its largest event of the year - WWDC. Similar to last year, WWDC 2021 was an impressive one. When considering the breadth of new features announced, no company is in a position to match Apple. By leveraging its ecosystem of products and services to sell premium experiences to a billion people, Apple continues to pull away from the competition.
Video Streaming Industry News
Last year was a big year for paid video streaming as Netflix began to face genuine competition with other paid video bundles. Based on the busy news flow so far in 2021, there continues to be much interest and intrigue found with paid video streaming. The two big industry events that occurred in 2Q21 were AT&T announcing its intention to spin off WarnerMedia with Discovery and Amazon offering $8.5B for MGM. The former is all about AT&T trying to get back to the basics while the latter is about Amazon reducing churn and keeping Prime users as video viewers.
Netflix Earnings, Netflix Is in Denial About Competition, Netflix Announces Share Buyback (May 5)
AT&T to Spin Off WarnerMedia, HBO Max’s Future, Apple Implications (May 17)
Comcast’s Video Streaming Strategy, Ad-Based Streaming Momentum, Revisiting M&A in Video Land (Jun 30)
AirTag / Find My Network / Location Layers
After more than a year of rumor head fakes, Apple finally unveiled its answer for bluetooth trackers at a virtual product event in April. AirTag and the broader idea of finding / locating devices in the physical world is a precursor to Apple building location layers, which will be crucial for the company’s move into AR.
Apple Expands Find My Network, Apple Is Building Location Layers for AR, What About AirTags? (Apr 8)
The Story Behind Apple and VanMoof, Find My Network vs. Tag My Network, Thursday Q&A (Apr 15)
Apple’s Impressive Event (Apr 21)
Amazon Partners With Tile, The Tile Dilemma, Apple Hires New PR Chief (May 10)
Antitrust Legislation / Regulation
Last month, focus was placed on Washington as six anti-tech bills moved from the antitrust subcommittee to the broader judiciary committee. Apple not only held behind closed door discussions with some lawmakers, but also unveiled its public response to the bills by publishing a white paper on iOS side loading and funding more analysis into the App Store ecosystem. As the bills progressed, it became easier to see where opposition to the bills will materialize.
Previewing Apple’s WWDC 2021, A $650B App Store Ecosystem, The App Store Breeds IPOs and M&A (Jun 3)
There were 30 additional updates which covered various Apple topics, tech industry developments, and ideas that were of interest to me. The following updates in particular stood out:
An Above Avalon membership is required to read the preceding updates. To become a member, sign up in seconds using one of the following signup forms:
After becoming a member, you will receive instructions on accessing the daily updates archive. Once you are set up, click on any of the updates above to be bought directly to that update.
More information on membership is available here. This includes customization options such as receiving the updates in podcast form and bundling an Inside Orchard subscription (my new site with tech-related analysis) at a special discounted rate.
Daily Update of the Quarter
In June, Apple unveiled Beats Studio Buds for $150. The move led me to investigate Apple’s broader headphones strategy. For non-members, the following update provides a great feel for the length, detail, and analysis that is found in every daily update.
The following was sent out to members on June 17th.
Hello everyone. Given how Beats Studio Buds continue to be on my mind, today’s update is going to be a bit different as we take a deeper dive into Apple’s headphones strategy. We will examine Apple's headphones line, discuss the strategy found with both AirPods and Beats headphones, and conclude with a look at Apple headphones financials.
Dissecting Apple’s Headphones Line
Apple sells three AirPods-branded products:
AirPods (includes H1 chip) for $159. Notes: The model with wireless charging case is $199.
AirPods Pro (H1 chip) for $249. Notes: Has a shorter stem than AirPods and includes active noise cancellation, transparency mode, spatial audio (with head tracking), and multiple size tips.
AirPods Max (includes two H1 chips) for $549. Notes: Comes in five colors and includes active noise cancellation, transparency mode, and spatial audio (with head tracking)
Looking at just those three headphones, AirPods Pro is likely the most popular and best-selling. Apple is now able to use AirPods Max as a price anchor, which makes the $249 for AirPods Pro look even more reasonable than before. The jump from AirPods to AirPods Pro is substantial not only because there is a visible difference between the two, which should not be underestimated as driving purchasing behavior, but also due to a notable expansion in features.
In addition to AirPods, Apple sells a number of Beats-branded headphones (all of which are available in multiple colors).
Beats Flex (includes W1 chip) for $50
Beats EP for $130. Notes: A wired pair of headphones.
Beats Studio Buds for $150. Notes: Truly wireless headphones that include active noise cancellation, transparency mode, spatial audio.
Powerbeats (H1 chip) for $150
Powerbeats Pro (H1 chip) for $170 promotional rate / $250 regular . Notes: Truly wireless headphones.
Beats Solo3 Wireless (W1 chip) for $200
Solo Pro (H1 chip)for $300. Notes: Includes active noise cancellation, transparency mode.
Beats Studio3 Wireless (W1 chip) for $350. Notes: Includes active noise cancellation.
Apple’s H1 chip is the successor to the W1 chip offering better power management, more talk time, faster connection times when switching between Apple devices, and Hey Siri integration.
The first thing that jumps out to me when comparing AirPods to Beats is how much broader the Beats portfolio is compared to the AirPods line (eight Beats models versus just three AirPods models). The other item that is noteworthy is the degree to which Beats headphones include either a W1 or H1 chip. After years of updates, just two Beats headphones, one of which was just announced, lack Apple silicon. This explains why pretty much all of Apple’s Beats revenue has been included within my “Apple wearables” unit sales and revenue estimates.
The fact that pretty much every Beats headphones model contains Apple silicon also shows why Beats Studio Buds present a challenge for me in terms of whether or not to change my “must include Apple silicon” requirement for a product to be included next to AirPods and Apple Watch as an Apple wearable.
One thing that is worth clarifying from yesterday’s update: Despite not including the H1 chip, Beats Studio Buds include Hey Siri integration. This is one of the main reasons for referring to Beats Studio Buds, along with every W1/H1 pair of Beats headphones, as an Apple wearable.
Apple’s Headphones Strategy
Controlling sound is one way of delivering impactful and memorable user experiences. This is a strategy that Apple has been developing for decades .The iPod changed the way we consumed music on the go, offering a much better experience than existing mobile listening options at the time. Then, the iPhone redefined what it meant to bring sound on the go to the mass market. Now, AirPods have been born out of the belief that there isn't a place for wires in a wearables world.
With each product category, the guiding principles are to deliver superior experiences. Along those lines, consider the following features that Apple has rolled out for AirPods over the past four years since launch:
Active noise cancellation
Transparency mode
Spatial audio (with head tracking)
Conversation boost (announced at WWDC 2021)
These features, some may also call them technologies, end up being experiences for sound on the go. This is a key reason why all Apple headphones with either a W1 or H1chip can be thought of as a platform. We are seeing Apple continue to announce new features for its audio platform.
Going forward, health tracking and monitoring capabilities are certainly worth investigating with wireless headphones in mind. In addition, third-party developer support for AirPods seems inevitable as we move into the AR and mixed reality era.
Beats headphones are also part of Apple’s sound-on-the-go strategy. However, Beats serves a different target market than AirPods, which ends up positioning Beats as a compliment to AirPods.
While there is likely some overlap between Beats and AirPods addressable markets, Apple is using the Beats brand to tap into markets that may want a bit more customization than what is found with AirPods. Even if Beats eats into AirPods sales, Apple is not going to be worried or upset as they would much rather be the one eating into AirPods sales than having competitors grab traction.
Turning to Apple’s headphones pricing strategy, if we take the granular information about Apple’s different headphone models from above and look at the line just in terms of prices, we arrive at the following:
$50
$150
$150
$159
$170
$200
$249
$300
$350
$549
The following graph makes it easier to analyze Apple’s headphone pricing spectrum:
Note: The $159 AirPods is included under $150 while the $170 Powerbeats Pro is marked under $175.
Two big observations from the preceding exhibit:
The sweet spot for Apple wireless headphones is in the $150 to $200 range. If you are competing against Apple (AirPods or Beats), it will be tough to price your product above this range. As for AirPods and Beats forming some kind of price umbrella for competitors to undercut Apple, AirPods are routinely available for less than $150 at third-party retailers. Best Buy currently has AirPods at $130 and AirPods Pro for $200. Weaker headphone brands have offerings in the $25 to $50 range but these products are not serious contenders to AirPods. One reason many people buy AirPods is to be seen wearing AirPods. It’s also not easy for companies selling $25 to $50 pairs of wireless headphones to make much money while also trying to match the overall user experience found with $130 to $160 AirPods.
The $549 AirPods Max sure do seem like an outlier going by price. Much of that dynamic likely reflects Apple running with unit sales assumptions for the number of people interested in over-ear headphones and pricing AirPods Max accordingly with the goal of maximizing overall gross margin dollars.
Sizing Up Apple’s Headphones Business
Here are my estimates for Apple headphones revenue (includes both AirPods and Beats headphones)
2017: $2.1B
2018: $3.8B
2019: $7.3B
2020: $12.0B
2021E: $14.5B
Note: The FY2021 total does not include Beats Studio Buds.
On a year-over-year basis, Apple headphones revenue is growing by 15% to 20%. This growth rate is lower than the ~30% seen last year. AirPods sales have slowed a bit due to a combination of factors including the pandemic impacting commuting and replacement sales, lack of updates, and a slowdown in upgrading.
In order to put the $14.5B of revenue in context, the total represents just 4% of Apple’s overall revenue in FY2021E. Compared to iPad or Mac, Apple headphones revenue is trending at about 40% of the revenue seen with those product categories. As for the Apple Watch versus AirPods revenue race, it looks like Apple Watch revenue still exceeds headphones revenue by about $1B per year.
Of the $14.5B headphones revenue total for FY2021E, $2.4B or 16% is from Beats headphones with a W1 or H1 chip. That may come as a surprise to some people who haven’t paid much attention to Beats. However, the Beats brand has been strong for many years, especially in certain verticals like sports. Customer awareness of the brand is up there, which is one reason why Beats headphones include the Beats logo. Since Apple has an even stronger brand relative to Beats, Apple device industrial design is increasingly becoming a type of logo (24-inch iMac, iPhone notch, Apple Watch, AirPods).
One quick note regarding how my Apple headphones revenue estimates are derived. For the past few quarters, Apple has compared the size of its wearables business to that of Fortune 500 firms. In the past, Apple even provided some clues regarding the year-over-year change in wearables revenue. These clues are very helpful in estimating Apple Watch revenue and unit sales and then backing into estimates for both AirPods and Beats. This is one reason why estimating Apple wearables financials is like putting together a giant puzzle.
Turning to unit sales, here are my estimates for the number of headphones Apple sold:
2017: 12M
2018: 24M
2019: 42M
2020: 60M
2021E: 70M
Note: The FY2021 total does not include Beats Studio Buds.
My ASP (average selling price) assumptions for AirPods has increased from about $150 out of the gate to more than $200 today. My Beats ASP assumption is a little over $200.
Seventy million headphones sold per year represents about 15% of the devices that Apple ships annually.
My estimate is that Apple headphones sales to new users is less than the ~75% seen with Apple Watch. This reflects a decent amount of AirPods owners either upgrading to AirPods Pro or simply getting a second (or third) pair. The heavier reliance on sales to upgraders exposes AirPods to more revenue and unit sales volatility than is seen with Apple Watch.
Above Avalon Podcast Episode 184: Let's Talk WWDC 2021
In episode 184, Neil discusses the big themes found with this year’s WWDC. The episode then takes a deep dive into watchOS direction and what Neil sees as missed opportunities for unleashing more of Apple Watch’s potential.
To listen to episode 184, go here.
The complete Above Avalon podcast episode archive is available here.
Subscribe to receive future Above Avalon podcast episodes:
RSS Feed (for your favorite podcast player)
The Rise of Smaller Displays
Apple is a design company selling tools capable of improving people’s lives. Approximately 80% of those tools include a display. Apple is shipping about 300 million displays per year, from iPhones and iPads to Macs and Apple Watches. With Apple running as fast it can towards AR glasses, the number of displays that the company ships will only increase over the next five to ten years. While the pandemic is pushing people to embrace larger displays like iPads and Macs, the momentum found with smaller displays is still flying under the radar.
Display Spectrum
Back in 2017, I published the following chart that tracks Apple device unit sales by display size. The exercise involved breaking out iPhone, iPad, and Mac unit sales by model - something that Apple has never done itself but which the company provided enough clues for me to do on my own and have confidence in the estimates.
Exhibit 1: Apple Device Sales Mix by Display Size (2016 data)
Since Apple offers a finite number of display choices, Exhibit 2 turns the sales data from Exhibit 1 into a broader statement about preferred display size.
Exhibit 2: Apple Device Sales Mix by Display Size (2016 data - Smoothed Line)
The motivation in pursuing such an exercise was to place context around the number of large displays Apple was selling in the form of MacBooks and iMacs. Fast forward three years, and it’s time to revisit the topic. With the significant amount of change occurring in Apple’s product line since 2016, there is value in going through a similar exercise regarding display size preference with 2020 unit sales in mind. While Apple’s financial disclosures haven’t gotten better over the past four years - if anything, the disclosures have gotten worse - I am still confident in my ability to derive unit sales estimates for all of Apple’s products.
Exhibit 3: Apple Device Sales Mix by Display Size (2020 data)
Exhibit 4: Apple Device Sales Mix by Display Size (2016 data - Smoothed Line)
(All of my granular estimates and modeling that went into Exhibits 3 and 4 is available to Above Avalon members in the daily update published on December 7th found here.)
As seen in Exhibits 3 and 4, there is bifurcation in Apple display size popularity. The most in-demand displays fall into two (broad) categories:
Displays large enough for consuming lots of video and other forms of content that can still be comfortably held in a hand or stored in a pocket.
Displays small enough to be worn on the body (Apple Watch) and products lacking a display altogether (AirPods).
It hasn’t been difficult to miss Apple’s gradual move to larger iPhone displays over the years. The 6.7-inch iPhone 12 Pro Max is getting close to the maximum size for an iPhone display, at least when thinking about the current form factor. Such a reality has undoubtedly played a role in some smartphone manufacturers betting heavily on foldable displays for smartphones. Such a bet boils down to believing consumers will want larger smartphone screens to the point of being OK with tradeoffs in terms of device thickness and weight. Move beyond the iPhone and display popularity plummets as the iPad and Mac sell at a fraction of the pace. There are small sales peaks found at 10.2 inches, the size of the lowest-cost iPad, and 13.3 inches, the size of the MacBook Air and entry-level MacBook Pro.
With hundreds of millions of people embracing 4.7-inch to 6.7-inch displays via iPhone, the claim that consumers are embracing larger screens over time contains some validity. Many are now wondering if similar moves to larger displays will take over the iPad and Mac lines. However, focusing too much on large displays will make it easy to miss what is happening at the other end of the spectrum. The rise of wearables has given an incredible amount of momentum to small displays and devices lacking a display altogether.
Implications
There are four key implications arising from this display bifurcation observation.
Apple’s ecosystem naturally supports the idea of multi-device ownership.
As devices are given more roles and workflows to handle, there is a natural tendency for screen sizes to increase without changing the overall form factor much.
Power and value are flowing to smaller displays that are capable of making technology more personal.
Devices relying on voice as an input make more sense when paired seamlessly with devices with displays.
It is worth going over each in greater detail.
1) Apple’s ecosystem is characterized by hundreds of millions of iPhone-only users buying additional Apple products and services. This is a result of industry-leading customer satisfaction rates and subsequently very strong brand loyalty. However, there are more fundamental themes underpinning this trend. By controlling hardware, software, and services, Apple is able to sell a range of products that seamlessly work together. These tools don’t serve as replacements for one another but rather as alternatives. This leads to consumers being able to use multiple Apple devices aimed at handling different workflows in their unique way. Such a dynamic supports the idea of multi-device ownership over time with those additional Apple devices likely containing smaller displays or no displays at all.
2) Apple has given the iPad, iPhone, and Apple Watch larger displays over time. For the iPad, the 12.9-inch / 11-inch iPad Pro and 10.9-inch iPad Air are larger than the initial 9.7-inch iPad and subsequent 7.9-inch iPad mini. The 3.5-inch display found with the first few iPhone models looks downright tiny next to iPhone 12 flagships. Even the Apple Watch was given a larger display after being sold for three years. These moves may seem to be unnoteworthy reactionary outcomes to competitors and market forces. However, the move to larger displays over time ends up being connected to the product category handling more workflows over time. iPhones have become “TVs” for hundreds of millions of people. Today’s iPad Pro flagships are geared toward content creation. Apple Watch faces are being given more complications in order to provide additional new-age app interactions to wearers.
3) The two product categories seeing the strongest unit sales momentum have either the smallest displays Apple has shipped (Apple Watch) or no displays at all (AirPods). As wearables usher in a paradigm shift in computing by altering the way we use technology, new form factors designed to be worn on or in the body for extended periods of time are playing a role in helping to make technology more personal. This leads to an observation that may not be so obvious: Smaller displays require new user inputs and interfaces that force new ways of handling existing workflows while supporting entirely new workflows. Said another way, smaller displays end up playing a vital role in lowering the barriers between technology and humans.
4) The reason stationary smart speakers were one of the biggest tech head fakes of the 2010s is that consensus incorrectly assumed the future was voice and just voice. The idea of voice as a user input being enhanced by the presence of a display was skipped over. Jump ahead a few years and the HomePod is arguably made better by having nearby displays either simply around us (iPhones) or on us (Apple Watch). Some of the magic found with AirPods involves the seamless integration with various displays, especially the Apple Watch display. Voice just isn’t an efficient medium for transferring a lot of data and context. Relying on displays for such context makes it possible for devices without displays to shine by being allowed to do what they do best - either provide superior sound (HomePod) or convenient sound (AirPods).
Bet on Smaller Displays
One takeaway from the pandemic has been that social distancing in the form of distance learning and working from home has fueled momentum for some of the largest displays in Apple’s product line. The iPad is setting multi-year highs for unit sales and revenue. The Mac registered an all-time revenue record last quarter. There are a few reasons behind this momentum that include families needing newer (and faster) machines and employers funding work-from-home upgrades.
Instead of looking at this development as the start of a new era for large displays, the momentum found with larger displays shifts focus away from the actual revolution taking place with smaller displays.
Apple is on track to sell approximately 150M devices in FY2021 that either lack a display or contain a display that is less than two inches (5 cm). We are still in the early innings of this revolution. Looking ahead at AR glasses, Apple will eventually sell devices containing two small displays for the first time. Relying on conservative adoption estimates, Apple will sell hundreds of millions of devices per year that contain either small displays or no displays at all. We are seeing the rise of smaller displays, and the secret to witnessing it is knowing where to look.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
Apple Watch Momentum Is Building
In a few months, the number of people wearing an Apple Watch will surpass 100 million. While the tech press spent years infatuated with stationary smart speakers and the idea of voice-only interfaces, it was the Apple Watch and utility on the wrist that ushered in a new paradigm shift in computing. We are now seeing Apple leverage the growing number of Apple Watch wearers to build a formidable health platform. The Apple Watch is a runaway train with no company in a position to slow it down.
Mirages and Head Fakes
We are coming off of a weird stretch for the tech industry. As smartphone sales growth slowed in the mid-2010s, companies, analysts, and pundits began to search for the next big thing. The search landed on stationary smart speakers and voice interfaces.
Companies who weren’t able to leverage the smartphone revolution with their own hardware placed massive bets on digital voice assistants that would supposedly usher in the end of the smartphone era. These digital voice assistants would be delivered to consumers via cheap stationary speakers placed in the home. Massive PR campaigns were launched that attempted to convince people about this post-smartphone future. Unfortunately for these companies, glowing press coverage cannot hide a product category’s fundamental design shortcomings.
At nearly every turn, Apple was said to be missing the voice train because of a dependency on iPhone revenue. Management was said to suffer from tunnel vision while the company’s approach to privacy was positioned as a long-term headwind that would lead to inferior results in AI relative to the competition. Simply put, Apple was viewed as losing control of where technology was headed following the mobile revolution.
There were glaring signs that narratives surrounding smart speakers and Apple lacking a coherent strategy for the future were off the mark. In November 2017, I wrote the following in an article titled, “A Stationary Smart Speaker Mirage”:
“On the surface, Amazon Echo sales point to a burgeoning product category. A 15M+ annual sales pace for a product category that is only three years old is quite the accomplishment. This has led to prognostications of stationary smart speakers representing a new paradigm in technology. However, relying too much on Echo sales will lead to incomplete or faulty conclusions. The image portrayed by Echo sales isn't what it seems. In fact, it is only a matter of time before it becomes clear the stationary home speaker is shaping up to be one of the largest head fakes in tech. We are already starting to see early signs of disappointment begin to appear…
I don’t think stationary smart speakers represent the future of computing. Instead, companies are using smart speakers to take advantage of an awkward phase of technology in which there doesn’t seem to be any clear direction as to where things are headed. Consumers are buying cheap smart speakers powered by digital voice assistants without having any strong convictions regarding how such voice assistants should or can be used. The major takeaway from customer surveys regarding smart speaker usage is that there isn’t any clear trend. If anything, smart speakers are being used for rudimentary tasks that can just as easily be done with digital voice assistants found on smartwatches or smartphones. This environment paints a very different picture of the current health of the smart speaker market. The narrative in the press is simply too rosy and optimistic.
Ultimately, smart speakers end up competing with a seemingly unlikely product category: wearables.”
Three years later, I wouldn’t change one thing found in the preceding three paragraphs. The smart speaker bubble popped less than 12 months after publishing that article. The product category no longer has a buzz factor, and despite the hopes of Amazon and Google, people are not using stationary speakers for much else besides listening to music and rudimentary tasks like setting kitchen timers.
The primary problem found with voice is that it’s not a great medium for transferring a lot of data, information, and context. As a result, companies like Amazon have needed to dial back their grandiose vision for voice-first and voice-only paradigms. Last week’s Amazon hardware event highlighted a growing bet on screens – a complete reversal from the second half of the 2010s.
Betting on the Wrist
As companies who missed the smartphone boat were placing bets on stationary speakers, Apple was placing a dramatically different bet on a small device with a screen. This device wouldn’t be stationary but instead push the definition of mobile by being worn on the wrist.
Jony Ive, who is credited with leading Apple’s push into wrist wearables, referred to the wrist as “the obvious and right place” for a different kind of computer.
When Apple unveiled the Apple Watch in 2014, wearable computing on the wrist was more of a promise than anything else. Apple created an entirely new industry – something that isn’t found much in the traditional Apple playbook.
After years of deep skepticism and cynicism, consensus reaction towards Apple Watch has changed and is now positive. Much of this is due to the fact that it’s impossible to miss Apple Watches appearing on wrists around the world. According to my estimates, approximately 35% of iPhone users in the U.S. now wear an Apple Watch. This is a shockingly high percentage for a five-year-old product category, and it says a lot about how Apple’s intuition about the wrist was right.
Apple Watch Installed Base
The number of people wearing an Apple Watch continues to steadily increase. According to my estimate, there were 81 million people wearing an Apple Watch as of the end of June. According to Apple, 75% of Apple Watch sales are going to first-time customers. This means that 23 million people will have bought their first Apple Watch in 2020. To put that number in context, there are about 25 million people wearing a Fitbit. The Apple Watch installed base is increasing by the size of Fitbit’s overall installed base every 12 months. Exhibit 1 highlights the change in the Apple Watch installed base over the years.
Exhibit 1: Apple Watch Installed Base (number of people wearing an Apple Watch)
(The calculations and methodology used to reach my Apple Watch installed base estimates is available here for Above Avalon members.)
Deriving Power
From where is Apple Watch deriving its momentum? The answer is found in The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products.
One of the core tenets of my theory is that an Apple product category's design is tied to the role it is meant to play relative to other Apple products. The Apple Watch is designed to handle a growing number of tasks once given to the iPhone. Meanwhile, the iPhone is designed to handle a growing number of tasks given to the iPad. One can continue this exercise to cover all of Apple's major product categories.
Apple Watch is not an iPhone replacement because there are things done on an iPhone that can't be done on an Apple Watch. This ends up being a feature, not a bug. The Apple Watch’s design then allows the product to handle entirely new tasks that can’t be handled on an iPhone. This latter attribute goes a long way in explaining how Apple Watch has helped usher in a new paradigm shift in computing. Apple Watch wearers are able to interact with technology differently.
(More on The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products is found in the Above Avalon Report, “Product Vision: How Apple Thinks About the World,” available here for Above Avalon members.)
A Health Platform
In January 2019, Tim Cook surprised many by saying Apple will be remembered more for its contributions to health than for any other reason. Here’s Cook:
“I believe, if you zoom out into the future, and you look back, and you ask the question, ‘What was Apple’s greatest contribution to mankind?’ it will be about health.”
Many assumed that Cook’s comment hinted at Apple unveiling a portfolio of medical-grade devices that would go through the FDA approval process. Such thinking was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s ambition and approach to product development.
Apple’s health strategy is based on leveraging hardware, software, and services to rethink the way we approach health. This means Apple wasn’t going to just launch a depository for our health data – something that is needed but which ultimately falls short of being truly revolutionary. In addition, Apple wasn’t going to just offer health and fitness services that amount to counting steps or keeping track of miles run.
By the time Cook gave his bullish comment about health, Apple had already placed its big bet on health four years earlier by unveiling the Apple Watch. In what ended up being one of Apple’s best decisions, the company avoided going the route of medical-grade devices requiring government agency approval to reach consumers. Instead, Apple framed its health platform as a new-age computer that ultimately is an iPhone alternative.
Health monitoring is one of the key new tasks that the Apple Watch, not iPhone, handles. To be more precise, Apple Watch is handling the following four health-related items:
Proactive monitoring (i.e. heart rate and blood oxygen)
Well-being assistance (i.e. sleep monitoring including the runup to sleep)
Fitness and activity tracking (i.e. Activity and Workout apps)
Fitness and health activity (i.e. Apple Fitness+)
With Apple Fitness+, Apple didn’t just release a virtual fitness class service. Instead, Apple Fitness+ is an Apple Watch service. In some ways, Apple Fitness+ reminds me of Apple TV+. A future in which Fitness+ workouts are available on third-party gym equipment displays including on treadmills and stationary bikes is not a stretch. In addition, classes from other companies such as Nike could further elevate Apple Fitness+.
Competition
If the Apple Watch is a runaway train, there is no obvious candidate in a position to stop or even slow the train. While other companies are slowly waking up and seeing the momentum found with Apple Watch, there is still much indifference, mystery, and misunderstanding as to why people are buying wearables. Too many companies still think of wearables as glorified smartphone accessories. Such thinking makes it impossible for competitors to see how Apple Watch is ushering in a paradigm shift in computing by making technology more personal in a way that other devices have failed to accomplish or replicate.
One of the main takeaways from Apple’s product event earlier this month is how Apple is its own toughest competitor. The Apple Watch’s most legitimate competition is found with older Apple Watches and non-consumption (i.e. empty wrists). While this introduces its own set of risks and challenges, there is still no genuine Apple Watch competition from other companies after six years. This is an indication of the power found in controlling your own hardware, software, and services in order to get more out of technology without having technology take over people’s lives.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members in both written and audio forms. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
For additional discussion on this topic, check out the Above Avalon daily update from October 1st.
Apple's Ecosystem Growth Is Accelerating
The two most recent Above Avalon articles took a look at how and why Apple’s ecosystem is giving the company a major advantage against the competition.
With Apple reporting 3Q20 earnings two weeks ago, there is value in quantifying how much Apple’s ecosystem is growing. The data should startle the competition. Apple is seeing a clear acceleration in its ecosystem growth as hundreds of millions of iPhone-only users move deeper into the Apple fold by subscribing to various services and buying additional products.
Measuring Ecosystem Growth
There are a number of ways one can attempt to track or measure Apple’s ecosystem growth.
Number of devices per user
Number of paid subscriptions per user
In covering Apple’s business from a financial perspective, my modeling work includes keeping up-to-date estimates for most of the preceding data points. However, there is one metric missing from the list that may come as a surprise: overall revenue. Considering Apple provides this data point every three months, such an exclusion may seem peculiar. Wouldn’t Apple revenue shed light on how the Apple ecosystem is performing?
Relying on overall revenue for analyzing Apple’s ecosystem growth will lead to faulty conclusions. In Exhibit 1, Apple’s revenue is graphed on a trailing twelve months (TTM) basis. This is done to smooth out the seasonality found in Apple’s business (i.e. sales are concentrated around the holidays). The takeaway from the exhibit is that higher revenue demonstrates Apple’s ecosystem continues to grow although the rate of growth has slowed dramatically.
There is one problem with such a takeaway: It’s wrong.
Exhibit 1: Apple Revenue (TTM)
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
Overall revenue trends are masking what is actually occurring with Apple’s ecosystem. In FY2019, the iPhone was responsible for 55% of Apple’s overall revenue. On its own, that’s not an issue for Apple. The iPhone is part of Apple’s ecosystem after all. However, Apple has become increasingly dependent on existing users upgrading their devices to generate iPhone revenue. This has resulted in Apple’s overall revenue being heavily influenced by iPhone upgrading trends.
During periods of robust iPhone upgrading, Apple’s overall revenue shows stronger growth. When iPhone upgrading slows, overall revenue growth also slows to the point that Apple’s ecosystem may appear to be plateauing or even contracting (as seen in Exhibit 1). This was a major issue at the end of 2018 and early 2019 as slowing iPhone upgrades led many to conclude that Apple was in big trouble in China and other geographies.
Since iPhone upgrading trends have little to no direct impact on Apple ecosystem viability or strength, a better approach to get insights on Apple’s ecosystem growth is to divide Apple’s revenue into two categories:
iPhone
non-iPhone (Services, Mac, iPad, Wearables, Home, and Accessories)
As seen in Exhibit 2, breaking Apple’s overall revenue into iPhone and non-iPhone revenue leads to a completely different view of Apple’s growth trajectory. Non-iPhone revenue (the red line) continues to demonstrate very strong momentum while iPhone revenue (the blue line) is trending at the same level that it was in 2015.
Exhibit 2: Revenue (iPhone vs. Non-iPhone) - TTM
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
A different way of looking at this data is to consider revenue growth rates. Using the revenue figures from Exhibit 2, we are able to create Exhibit 3, which displays year-over-year change in revenue for both iPhone and non-iPhone.
Non-iPhone revenue growth (the red line) has outpaced iPhone revenue growth (the blue line) for the past seven quarters. The higher growth rates for iPhone revenue in 2018 were due to higher iPhone ASPs caused by Apple unveiling the iPhone X. Excluding those quarters, non-iPhone revenue growth has been trending stronger than iPhone growth since 2016. This is a sign that Apple’s underlying ecosystem strength has been gaining momentum for years - it’s just been masked by people holding on to their iPhones for longer before upgrading.
Exhibit 3: Revenue Growth YOY (iPhone vs. Non-iPhone) - TTM
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
What is driving the non-iPhone revenue strength shown in Exhibits 2 and 3? The answer is found in the strong iPhone revenue trends from a few years ago. Years of strong new user growth driven by the iPhone is now contributing to hundreds of millions of iPhone-only users moving deeper into the Apple ecosystem. This trend began in earnest around the beginning of 2017.
The Services Myth
Some may look at the preceding exhibits and say that the data is still incomplete. Apple Services include a number of recurring revenue streams such as iCloud, Apple Music, and various paid subscriptions. Given the recurring nature of something like paid iCloud storage, it ends up being easier for Apple to report year-over-year Services growth. Apple’s Services business accounts for 40% of non-iPhone revenue. There is a different dynamic found with hardware revenue. Since hardware isn’t a recurring revenue stream, year-over-year growth ends up being that much harder to achieve as Apple is in effect needing to replace every dollar of revenue with new sales.
(One can argue something like the iPhone Upgrade Program is a recurring revenue stream for hardware. However, that ends up being a stretch. The Upgrade Program is a loan with a built-in upgrade optionality after the 12th payment. That is very different than something like an iCloud or Apple Music subscription.)
To address this issue, non-iPhone revenue can be broken out into Services and Products (excluding iPhone). In what will come as a shock to many people, Exhibits 4 and 5 show how Products revenue excluding iPhone (i.e. iPad, Mac, Wearables, Home, and Accessories) is now growing at nearly the same pace as Services. This represents a major narrative violation as consensus spent years positioning Services as Apple’s growth engine.
Exhibit 4: Revenue (Apple Services vs. Apple Products Excluding iPhone) - TTM
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
Exhibit 5: Revenue Growth YOY (Apple Services vs. Apple Products Excluding iPhone) - TTM
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
Based on Apple management commentary, we know that upgrading is not impacting the iPad, Mac, and wearables as much as the iPhone. Approximately half of people buying iPads and Macs are new to the product categories. For Apple Watch, the percentage is more than 75%. The new user percentage for iPhone sales is a fraction of those percentages. This tells us that iPad, Mac, and wearables sales are a very good indicator of Apple ecosystem strength.
Tying It All Together
One way of thinking about the Apple ecosystem is to view it as a pie. There are two ways for Apple to expand the pie: Bring in more customers and have existing customers spend more on services and products in the ecosystem (higher ARPU).
New users entering the ecosystem - The iPhone SE should not be underestimated as a successful tool for bringing Android users into the Apple fold.
Existing users moving deeper into the ecosystem - iPhone users are buying iPads, Macs, and wearables as well as subscribing to various Apple services.
Apple currently finds itself in an ecosystem expansion phase. Hundreds of millions of people with only one Apple device - an iPhone - are embarking on a search for more Apple experiences. We see this with non-iPhone revenue growing by 14% in 3Q20 on a TTM basis, which is higher than growth rates seen in the mid-2010s, as seen in Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 6: Apple Non-iPhone Revenue Growth Projection
Click / tap exhibit to enlarge.
Looking ahead, my estimates have non-iPhone revenue accelerating from 14% growth to 20% growth in the coming quarters. iPad, Mac, and wearables are a major source of that growth acceleration. Considering how Apple is working off of a much larger revenue base, for revenue growth percentages to actually increase this far along in the process is intriguing. The takeaway is that Apple’s ecosystem is gaining momentum at a pace that should frighten the competition.
Hundreds of millions of people will be buying their first Apple wearable device in the coming years. Given the inherent nature of wearable devices - new form factors designed to make technology more personal - it is very likely that one Apple wearable purchase will eventually lead to additional Apple wearable purchases. Apple can then leverage high-margin Services to run with more aggressive pricing on wearables (and other Apple devices) which only ends up boosting demand.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members in both written and audio forms. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
For additional discussion on this topic, check out the Above Avalon daily update from August 13th.
The Secret to Apple's Ecosystem
Apple’s ecosystem remains misunderstood. While consensus has come around to accepting the sheer size of Apple’s ecosystem (a billion users and nearly 1.6 billion devices), there is still much unknown as to what makes the ecosystem tick. From what does Apple’s ecosystem derive its power? Why do loyalty and satisfaction rates increase as customers move deeper into the ecosystem? Apple’s ecosystem ends up being about more than just a collection of devices or services. Apple has been quietly building something much larger, and it’s still flying under the radar.
Products
No company is able to match Apple in offering a cohesive and strategically forward-looking product line. Computers small and light enough to be worn on the body are sold next to computers so large that built-in handles are required. More impressively, all of these products are designed to work seamlessly together.
The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products outlines how each of Apple’s major product categories is designed to help make technology more personal - to reduce the barriers that exist between technology and the user.
Products are designed to handle tasks once handled by more powerful siblings. New form factors are then able to handle new tasks in unique and different ways. It is the pursuit of making technology more personal that ends up being responsible for devices like Apple Watch and AirPods. The same dynamic is also paving the way for Apple to eventually sell wearables for the face in the form of smart glasses. (More on The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products is found in the Above Avalon Report, “Product Vision: How Apple Thinks About the World,” available here for Above Avalon members.)
With 1.6 billion devices in use, it may be natural to conclude that devices are the source of Apple’s ecosystem power. This has led some to position the iPhone as the sun in Apple’s ecosystem with other products being the planets revolving around the sun. However, this is a misread of the role Apple devices are actually playing in the ecosystem. Just because the iPhone is used by more people than any other Apple device, it is incorrect to assume that will always be the case, or more importantly, that other devices are in some way inferior to the iPhone when it comes to handling workflows. There is something much larger at play here than just a billion users enjoying Apple hardware.
Services
With a $55 billion revenue annual run rate and 518 million paid subscriptions across its platforms, there is no longer a debate as to Apple’s ability to succeed with services. However, there is still a lack of consensus as to what role services play in Apple’s ecosystem. Decisions like bringing Apple Music to third-party speakers and the Apple TV app to third-party TV sets have confused many with some going so far as to conclude that Apple’s future is one of a services company.
In such a world, Apple devices lose much of their value to cheap third-party hardware. This school of thought is responsible for claims that Apple gave up selling accessories like the Apple TV box and HomePod because customers can access Apple content distribution services on cheaper non-Apple hardware. It’s difficult to think of a bigger misread of how Apple thinks and operates as a company than to claim that Apple’s future is one of a services company.
There are now others who look at Apple’s financial success with services as a negative - a sign of Apple milking existing users of as much profit as possible. This school of thought positions paid services as a long-term liability to the Apple ecosystem.
A Toolmaker
While consensus credits products (hardware) as the source of Apple’s ecosystem power, services are increasingly viewed as a hidden risk factor that can crack holes in the ecosystem. Neither are true. Nearly a billion people are not using iPhones simply because they enjoy the hardware. Vice-versa, having 518 million paid subscriptions is not a sign of Apple users needing to pay some kind of tax or bounty to remain in Apple’s ecosystem.
From where then does Apple’s ecosystem derive its power? What makes a customer want to move deeper into the Apple ecosystem?
To answer these questions, we need to step back from any one product or service and instead look at Apple as a company. It is still common for people to call Apple by whatever is its best-selling or most popular product at any one time. This also applies to whatever product is responsible for revenue growth. As a result, we hear all too often phrases like Apple is an iPhone company, a services company, or even a wearables company. The problem is that Apple shouldn’t be defined by any one product, but rather the process that led to Apple having an ecosystem of products and services.
Apple is a design company selling tools that can improve people’s lives. These aren’t just any tools either. Instead, Apple is very selective in selling tools that are able to foster experiences that people are willing to pay for - something that has become increasingly rare in the consumer tech space. By having a design-led culture, Apple is able to put the user experience front-and-center during product development.
This experiences mandate ends up being responsible for Apple’s high loyalty and satisfaction rates. The 975 million people with an iPhone aren’t likely to remain iPhone users because of stellar hardware or compelling software powering that hardware. Instead, loyalty is driven by the experiences associated with using an iPhone.
An Experiences Ecosystem
The secret to Apple’s ecosystem is that instead of selling products or services, Apple ends up selling experiences made possible by controlling hardware, software, and services.
Instead of thinking of Apple’s ecosystem in terms of the number of people or devices, a different approach is to consider the number of experiences Apple is offering. This is where Apple’s true ambitions become visible. By using an iPhone, a customer doesn’t just receive one experience per day. Instead, nearly everything that is consumed on the device has the potential of leading to a good (or bad) experience. This is why Apple’s control of hardware, software, and services plays such a crucial role. Apple’s ecosystem likely consists of tens, if not hundreds of billions, of experiences in a single day.
Having an ecosystem of experiences ultimately represents the biggest challenge to Apple competitors. Coming up with an iPhone alternative isn’t good enough for enticing users to jump from the Apple ship. Instead, competitors need to come up with even better experiences than those found in the Apple ecosystem. As a user moves deeper into the Apple ecosystem - in pursuit of additional premium experiences - competitors need to figure out a way of recreating that growing list of experiences. Can it even be done? When looking at the wearables industry, the answer as of today is “no.”
Non-Apple Hardware
One of the most intriguing aspects of Apple’s ecosystem is how nearly half of Apple users still only use just one Apple device: an iPhone. The idea that every Apple user owns a multitude of Apple devices and services is wrong. The implication is that Apple’s billion users own (and use) quite a bit of non-Apple hardware. Today, non-Apple hardware used by iPhone owners include TV sets, cheap stationary speakers, and CarPlay-equipped automobiles.
Since Apple’s product strategy and organizational structure rewards saying “no” more than “yes,” there will likely always be opportunities for other companies selling hardware to participate in the Apple ecosystem. This ends up being a Trojan Horse for Apple.
Instead of needing to have a new customer jump with both feet into the Apple ecosystem from Day 1, something that isn’t likely especially as the next marginal customer will be coming from the middle tier of the market, Apple merely needs this customer to buy or use one Apple tool.
Management is confident that one tool will eventually turn into two tools and then three since humans gravitate toward premium experiences. As one’s Apple tool collection grows, the number of experiences made possible by those tools increases. This has the impact of increasing customer satisfaction and loyalty. And the flywheel continues to turn. In order to get this flywheel moving in the first place, Apple must build bridges allowing new customers to move deeper into the ecosystem. Decisions like making Apple Music available on non-Apple hardware and bringing the Apple TV app to Samsung TVs are examples of such bridges.
Evolution
When thinking about how Apple’s ecosystem will evolve, the focus shouldn’t be on which new devices or services Apple can come up with, but rather on how Apple can offer new experiences to its customers. The blueprint for creating such experiences is already known: leveraging control over hardware, software, and services.
Technology’s battle lines are currently being redrawn with the goal being to capture the most valuable real estate in our lives: our health, homes, and transportation. Bets on software that completely reimagines the way we approach these verticals will likely prove to be good bets. Timing remains the big unknown.
This raises a question: How will Apple approach new verticals and industries? Would Apple attempt to recreate entirely new device lineups for each industry? Will The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products be torn apart?
Instead of selling a $80,000 electric car or moving head-first into selling a range of first-party smart home hardware, Apple’s current ecosystem provides clues as to how the company can approach these new industries.
The point of Apple entering transportation wouldn’t be to sell cars, mopeds, or bicycles. Instead, it would be to sell experiences that Apple customers can consume on the road.
The point of Apple moving deeper into smart homes wouldn’t be to sell a plethora of small home gadgets and trinkets, some of which may require an electrician to install. Instead, it would be to sell experiences that Apple customers can consume in the home.
Apple developing an autonomous car remains difficult for many to wrap their minds around. The idea of Apple one day getting into housing is still considered a fantasy by most. However, such ideas make a lot of sense when thinking about how we consume experiences during the day.
An autonomous car is nothing more than a room on wheels. A house is a series of rooms connected to each other. With each, Apple would be looking to create environments that can support new experiences.
This brings us back to Apple’s current suite of products and services. It is incorrect to assume that Apple entering new industries would result in the company throwing its current products out the window. Instead, those tools stand to play major roles in delivering experiences in new industries.
Apple’s interest with Project Titan isn’t to beat or copy Tesla, but rather to figure out a way to have personal gadgets provide compelling experiences on the road. Such experiences could include Apple Glasses being used to find the right autonomous Apple Car to enter while Apple Watches can be used as identification for entry. Once inside the vehicle, the digital assistant found on the wrist or in front of our eyes could then be used to convert the car’s hardware to suit our needs. A similar dynamic would be found with smart homes - relying on personal gadgets, especially wearables, to come up with premium experiences in the home. We are seeing the early stages of this with products like HomePod and the way the device can be seamlessly used with Apple Watch.
The idea that Apple would enter the transportation and housing industries simply to come up with more areas for its users to engage with wearables may seem preposterous today. However, the idea that a single company would be able to deliver hundreds of billions of experiences per day by selling tools consisting of hardware, software, and services was similarly once a fantasy.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members in both written and audio forms. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
For additional discussion on this topic, check out the Above Avalon daily update from July 23rd.
Apple Is Pulling Away From the Competition
For the second year in a row, Apple held a developers conference that should frighten its competitors. Relying on a nearly maniacal obsession with the user experience, Apple is removing oxygen from every market that it plays in. At the same time, the tech landscape is riddled with increasingly bad bets, indifference, and a lack of vision. Apple is pulling away from the competition to a degree that we haven’t ever seen before. Given how we are just now entering the wearables era, implications of this shift will be measured in the coming decades, not years.
WWDC 2020
It speaks volumes that Apple held its strongest WWDC in years during the middle of a pandemic while two of its largest competitors, Google and Facebook, decided to skip their annual developers conferences. Just a few years ago, fortunes were reversed. Apple was coming under fire for WWDCs that appeared to be more reactionary to Google, Facebook, and Samsung. Apple was also struggling to contain growing unrest among its pro users who were tempted by Microsoft Surface hardware.
What changed?
The last two WWDCs stood out for two reasons:
A revised Apple product strategy. A few years ago, Apple was most aggressive with products capable of making technology more relevant and personal (iPhone and Apple Watch). As shown in Exhibit 1, in the pull strategy, the Apple Watch and iPhone were Apple’s clear priorities while the iPad, Mac portables, and Mac desktops ended up facing a battle for management attention as if they were located at the end of the rope that was Apple management was pulling.
Apple changed from a “pull” strategy in which some products like the iPad and Mac seemed to be having a hard time keeping up to a push strategy characterized by every major product category moving forward simultaneously. This shift appears to have been born in 2017, which would explain why we are still seeing the initial fruit of the effort. The iPad and Mac product categories have benefited the most from this revised “push” product strategy with more frequent and noteworthy updates.
Exhibit 1: Apple’s Changing Product Strategy
Apple has doubled down on its unique interpretation of innovation. During his opening remarks at the iPhone and Apple Watch event last September, Tim Cook said that Apple sells tools containing "[i]nnovations that enrich people's lives to help them learn, create, work, play, share, and stay healthy." Instead of defining innovation as either being first or doing something different, Apple looks at innovation as something that improves customers’ lives. A major consequence of this has been software and hardware releases that have prioritized feature quality over quantity. This year’s WWDC came in a full 20% shorter than previous keynotes. While having a digital format helped cut down on the timing due to quicker transitions, no clapping etc., there were also fewer new features announced. However, the features that were announced contained more significance when it comes to pushing the user experience forward.
A Stronger Apple
Unfortunately for Apple competitors, the combination of a revised product strategy and unique definition of innovation didn’t just make for strong WWDC keynotes. Consumers are noticing and wanting what Apple is selling. Consider the following trends:
Apple hasn’t just held its own in the smartphone space but rather is continuing to take share from Android. Of all the smartphone manufacturers, Apple saw the largest sales share increase in the smartphone industry last quarter, and that was during a pandemic.
Apple is adding approximately 20 million new iPad users per year despite the iPad being 10 years old and already having an installed base exceeding 300 million users.
Apple’s oldest major product category, the Mac, is adding 10 million new users per year.
Apple Watch and AirPods are quickly approaching 100 million user bases each.
Apple users are paying for 518 million subscriptions across Apple’s platforms, which is up 126 million in just a year.
All of the preceding items amount to an Apple ecosystem gaining momentum. A different way of highlighting Apple’s growing ecosystem over the past 10 years is to look at the number of people using at least one Apple device. As shown in Exhibit 2, Apple’s installed base recently surpassed a billion users.
Exhibit 2: Apple Installed Base (Number of Users)
While new user growth rates have slowed, Apple is still bringing tens of millions of users into the fold. Due to Apple’s views regarding innovation and its focus on the user experience, once someone enters the Apple ecosystem, odds are good that customer will remain in the ecosystem.
This is why one subtheme from last week’s WWDC keynote flew under the radar. (My complete WWDC 2020 review is available here for Above Avalon members.) It’s not just about Apple pushing multiple product categories forward at the same time. Instead, it’s about adding cohesiveness and commonality between product categories. Apple is making it easier for people to buy multiple Apple devices. As users move deeper into the Apple ecosystem, satisfaction and loyalty rates stand to go even higher. The end result is that Apple’s billion users aren’t just any billion users. Instead, they are a billion users less likely to use non-Apple devices and services going forward. For the competition, this is a highly concerning development.
More worrying for competitors, Apple is still in the early stages of bringing its users deeper into the ecosystem. According to my estimate, approximately 50% of Apple users still own just one Apple device: an iPhone. This group serves as a prime market for products like the iPad, Apple Watch, AirPods, and various Apple services. In a few years, that percentage may decline to something more like 30%. Such a development will remove much of the remaining oxygen from the markets Apple plays in.
Competition Is Weakening
While Apple sails forward with a strengthening ecosystem made possible by a clear product vision and a functioning organizational structure that prioritizes design (i.e. the user experience), the competition is rudderless.
Apple competitors have been striking out with one bad product bet after another. Few have long-term vision as to where computing is headed. Consider the following events, developments, and observations. By no means is this an inclusive list.
Samsung remains rudderless from a product vision perspective. With no clear direction as to where to go, the company aimlessly launches new products and features for no other reason than to say they are first. The strategy is no different than throwing things against the wall and hoping something sticks. Even worse, the products and features that Samsung is announcing aren’t even ready for public usage.
Google continues to prioritize technology over design. While new software features may seem compelling on paper, the lack of attention given to the user experience quickly becomes apparent. It has also become difficult to miss the growing enthusiasm gap between Android and iOS. On the hardware front, Google is struggling to match such efforts with its ambient computing future (which doesn’t make much sense to me).
Amazon’s massive bet on voice with Alexa and Echo was the wrong one. The stationary smart speaker space was a mirage. Amazon should have instead bet on wearables with voice as a user input. However, the company doesn’t have the corporate culture to excel with computers worn on the body.
Microsoft appears to be running into growing trouble with the consumer when it comes to Surface. What had been a genuine chance to rip into the iPad and Mac stronghold due to growing user unrest looks to have been successfully crushed by Apple. Microsoft Surface revenue is increasingly being driven by commercial clients (i.e. Microsoft is taking share from its OEMs rather than Apple).
Facebook ended up placing the wrong social bet. Instead of going after our closest social network, Facebook evolved to offer a curated version of the web via the News Feed. The company’s pivot back to a privacy-focused social platform built around messaging emphasizes this wrong bet. A message sent through Apple’s Messages is a message not sent through a Facebook property.
Snap, the company considered to have the best odds of competing with Apple on AR, botched its first major foray into AR hardware with Spectacles. The company has backed itself in a corner by management’s refusal, and then failure, to appeal to older demographics. This will serve as a headwind for mass market AR successes.
Spotify was not able to prevent Apple Music from gaining critical mass despite Apple Music not having a free tier. The same is now taking place with Netflix, which is unable to stop new entrants into paid video streaming from gaining traction. This ends up diffusing near universal praise in the press for first movers.
For an industry that was expected to put Apple in its place, that sure is a lot of fails, flops, and disappointments. When looking outside the U.S., the overall picture isn’t dramatically different. While some companies still have pockets of strength where Apple is not a major player, in geographies Apple is playing in, the company continues to see growing ecosystem momentum while the competition flounders. The number of paid subscriptions being run through Apple’s platform points to increased services and app adoption outside the U.S.
The never-ending tales of Apple being crushed by the local competition in China have been met with Apple seeing existing users move deeper into the ecosystem as measured by App Store, iPad, and wearables momentum. Huawei’s struggles in Europe appear to be benefiting Apple at the premium end of the market.
Changing Narrative
If there was still doubt about Apple’s momentum in the marketplace, one doesn’t need to look any further than the dramatic change in narrative facing Apple in the press.
For years, Apple was positioned as one iPhone update away from implosion. Low market and sales share were paraded around as signs of an incompetent product strategy. Simply put, Apple was framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on revenue sources that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to the competition.
The narrative has completely shifted. The press is now infatuated with Apple’s power, its ironclad grip over the App Store, and the idea that Apple users are stuck or imprisoned in a massive walled garden where things like iMessage, Apple Watches, and AirPods force people to remain within Apple’s walls. Government regulators are viewed as the only entity capable of protecting Apple users from Apple.
If competitors actually believe this narrative, they are setting themselves for more failure. Thinking that Apple users are somehow being forced against their will to buy products like Apple Watches and AirPods is nothing more than looking for someone to blame for market failures when the problem is found internally with a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, and lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.
Risks
On a list of risk factors facing Apple, greater regulation is far from the top. The same can be said about things like App Store policies and employee retention. While these items make for juicy headlines capable of grabbing people’s attention, they won’t play a major role in Apple’s future. Instead, Apple is where it is today by saying “no” more than “yes.” By remaining focused on making technology more personal, which is inherently about using a design-led culture to push the user experience, Apple is able to develop a dynamic, yet nimble, ecosystem of tools that people are willing to pay for. lf it were to lose focus, Apple would move that much closer to its competitors.
Apple ends up being its toughest competitor as it releases products that surpass the previous version. This is where betting on the user experience and taking a unique stance on innovation is critical.
Next Ten Years
When the iPhone was unveiled in 2007, Steve Jobs claimed that Apple had a five-year head start against the competition. He ended up being mostly right. By 2012, Samsung and Google were shipping credible iPhone alternatives, thanks partially to ruthless copying that led to time in the courtroom.
With wearables, my thinking has been that Apple has a lead that is closer to 10 years. This estimate reflects not just software or hardware advantages, but also the byproduct of Apple controlling both items and its resulting achievements with custom silicon.
As time passes, Apple has been facing less competition in wearables. This is remarkable considering how Apple Watch has already ushered in the next paradigm shift in computing. We are seeing the future today. Yet most companies either don’t see it or even worse, see it but are unable to respond.
Giving Apple a 10-year head start against the competition with wearables may end up giving too much credit to the competition. Excelling in wearables requires a corporate culture, product development process, and business model that few companies other than Apple possess. In many ways, Apple was built to excel in wearables. Apple should probably get used to being its own toughest competitor.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
Moving Forward in a Pandemic
More has happened in the past month from a global economic and health perspective than in the past ten years. We are in uncharted territory as 200 million people in 21 U.S. states find themselves facing “stay at home” directives while a growing list of countries including Italy, Spain, France, Australia, the U.K., and India are in complete lockdowns. Travel around the world has essentially come to a standstill.
Although it may be natural to search for comparisons between the coronavirus pandemic and prior crises, such an exercise will prove inadequate. Silicon Valley finds itself in the most difficult operating environment it has ever faced.
Apple’s strategy for navigating the coronavirus pandemic is centered around continuing to move forward, however difficult that is proving to be. Along those lines, management is taking recently learned lessons from how coronavirus trended in China, South Korea, and Japan to come up with a blueprint for what to do around the rest of the world.
Key Developments
Over the past two weeks, Apple has announced a number of initiatives and actions related to slowing the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. and around the world. This includes helping those workers on the front lines.
Apple and its corporate peers were early in embracing social distancing and allowing employees to work from home.
Apple was the first major retailer to close its retail stores in the U.S. The decision wasn’t a light one as Apple stores are vital sources for customers looking to get help and service for their communication devices. A third of Apple store visitors are there for service.
Apple has joined most of its peers in donating medical supplies that had either been stockpiled to protect employees from California wildfires or were in some way connected to the company’s extensive supply chain and manufacturing apparatus.
The preceding actions are desperately needed and should be applauded and serve as a model for others to follow.
There were two other announcements from Apple that spoke volumes as to how the company planned to navigate the coronavirus pandemic:
Unveiling a reimagined and revised WWDC. With Apple historically holding its annual developer conference in June, the company had the time to turn misfortune into something positive by turning the cancellation of an in-person conference into a reimagined online-only WWDC (still scheduled to take place in June).
Unveiling a number of new products. Apple announced updates to the MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad Pro, a new Magic Keyboard (with trackpad) for iPad, 20 new Apple Watch bands, and iPadOS 13.4 which brought system-wide support for cursors, trackpads, and mice.
As large portions of the U.S. hunkered down to combat the coronavirus and Apple’s board likely invoked certain provisions of its business continuity plans given the sudden deterioration in market and operating conditions, Apple went forward with plans for its biggest event of the year and its spring product release.
Along with doing its part to help combat the virus, Apple is also recognizing the reality that society doesn’t stop, even during a pandemic. That decision may come off as distant, or even careless, as if Apple isn’t willing to recognize the seriousness of the matter. However, this is a misreading of the situation.
By continuing to move forward, even during a pandemic, Apple is being true to itself. Apple is a toolmaker developing products capable of improving people’s lives. Such a mission never stops, even during a pandemic plaguing 180+ countries.
Anecdotal reports out of China point to sustained demand for iPads, despite lockdowns and quarantines, as families look for education tools to supplement children’s time away from the classroom. The U.S. now finds itself in a similar situation with some states having closed schools indefinitely. Employees are finding that work obligations haven’t disappeared, even in the face of new challenges in the form of closed schools, daycares, and the need to keep families safe.
In such trying times, we still need functioning tools in the form of smartphones, laptops, desktops, and even wearables, not to mention accompanying services and software powering those tools. One has to imagine FaceTime usage is at record highs as video calls replace face-to-face interactions.
Challenges
It would be an understatement to say that Apple faces challenges in its quest to continue moving forward in the midst of a pandemic.
Consider the following developments:
Stay at Home Directives. California is currently in a “stay at home” directive under which residents are urged to stay at home and only leave the house for essential needs such as food and medicine. California’s governor doesn’t think there will be any significant change to the order through at least mid-April.
Tim Cook, along with most other Silicon Valley CEOs, is following the order and working from home (as shown in the video clip below).
Google positioned the order as a key factor for canceling I/O, its annual developer conference, altogether. Apple’s announcement of running with a revised WWDC this June was announced prior to California’s stay at home order. It’s not entirely clear how Apple can create an online-only WWDC while employees are urged to stay at home. In a worst case scenario, will we see executives give presentations and product demoes from their homes?
Social Distancing. There is irony found with how social distancing efforts, which have been proven to be very effective in slowing the virus spread, stand at odds with the vision and goal behind Apple Park as a place for spontaneous collaboration. Even when stay at home directives are rolled back, Apple still faces a massive challenge in keeping employees safe from the virus at Apple Park and other corporate offices.
Retail Closures. Apple’s 460 stores outside Greater China have been closed indefinitely with most of Apple’s 70,000 retail employees unable to help hundreds of millions of Apple users. While Apple has announced plans to slowly reopen stores, the company is taking a localized (and cautious) approach to such openings.
Travel Restrictions. Apple’s massive supply chain and manufacturing apparatus require Apple employees to spend time with partners on the ground and to collaborate on product development. Last year, an unintentional leak from United Airlines showed that Apple was responsible for 20% of all business seats that fly between San Francisco and Shanghai. It’s an astounding percentage that speaks to the degree to which Apple’s design, engineering, and operation teams spend time in Asia. The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a near halt in global travel, and it is logical to assume this will have an impact on product development timelines.
Operating Environment
A scenario that many people may not want to admit to is that the next 12 to 18 months may be the most difficult operating environment Silicon Valley will ever face. Even if the U.S. is successful at slowing the virus spread in hot spots, ongoing travel restrictions around the world will cause long-term headaches. There are then the possibilities of additional virus waves in the fall and winter. This may end up leading to permanent changes in how companies get work done.
Some of the challenges found with the coronavirus pandemic may very well lead to product launches being delayed. Despite having one of, if not the, most formidable supply chains in the world, Apple isn’t immune to disruptions. The products Apple unveiled last week were mostly ready to go prior to the coronavirus pandemic spreading around the world. As a general rule, the products Apple is working on today are targeted for release 12 to 18 months from now.
Despite having $40 billion of cash and cash equivalents and another $167 billion of marketable securities on the balance sheet, is it imperative that Apple recognizes market dislocations in short-term lending markets. There is then the potential financial fallout from a prolonged period of subdued customer demand. No one knows for sure whether or not customer demand will snap back in the U.S. and Europe once stay at home directives and lockdowns have been rolled back. China, South Korea, and Japan provide hope that the demand answer is yes. However, the U.S. is clearly attacking coronavirus differently and that may mean that the rebound will trend differently as well. Even stellar balance sheets can turn south in a prolonged pandemic.
While the preceding challenges are daunting, a realization that is only now starting to sink in is that the top five giants (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Facebook) have business models that aren’t dependent on the public leaving their homes. It’s an observation that will have implications for decades to come.
Strong Brands
Apple finds itself at an advantage to most of its peers as it saw firsthand how China, South Korea, and Japan handled coronavirus (and are now working to keep the virus at bay). In terms of the supply chain, Tim Cook and his inner circle were at the company during the SARS outbreak in 2003. Jony Ive reportedly spent three months quarantined at Foxconn during the SARS outbreak, working on the Power Mac G5 Tower. The current executive team was also at Apple during the aftermath of September 11th, 2001 when Apple unveiled the iPod six weeks later. There are then the natural disasters that Apple’s supply chain works around. However, there is something about the coronavirus pandemic that is different. It’s a challenge like Apple has never faced.
Earlier this week, Nike reported earnings (which were better than consensus expected). Nike’s new CEO, John Donahoe, of eBay fame, said “We know it’s in times like these that strong brands get even stronger.”
He’s right. The best brands will come out of this challenging time stronger than ever. Why? The companies with the best brands always strive to continue moving forward.
Listen to the corresponding Above Avalon podcast episode for this article here.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.
For additional discussion on this topic, check out the Above Avalon daily update from March 30th.
Apple's Product Strategy Is Changing
This year’s WWDC felt different. While every WWDC keynote is filled to the brim with new features, this year’s announcements included highly anticipated items like a new Mac Pro and differentiated iPad software features. In addition, there were some genuine surprises such as SwiftUI (a big deal with wide-ranging implications for Apple’s ecosystem). Despite there being no discernible change to the grand vision behind Apple’s product development, there does appear to be a noteworthy change to strategy.
The Past
Apple had been following a product strategy that can be thought of as a pull system. The company was most aggressive with the products capable of making technology more relevant and personal.
One way of conceptualizing this product strategy is to think of every major Apple product category being attached to a rope. The order in which these products were attached to the rope was determined by the degree to which technology was made more personal via new workflows and processes for getting work done. Accordingly, Apple Watch and iPhone were located on the end of the rope held by Apple management. Meanwhile, Mac desktops were located at the other end of the rope while iPads and Mac portables were somewhere in the middle.
As Apple management pulled on the rope, the Apple Watch and iPhone received much of the attention while the Mac increasingly resembled dead weight.
The preceding exhibit may make it seem like all of Apple’s product categories moved in sync with each other as Apple management pulled on the product “rope.” In reality, the quicker Apple pulled on the rope, the more chaotic the end of the rope moved. The following exhibit does a better job of demonstrating the chaos found at the end of the rope.
The Apple Watch and iPhone were Apple’s clear priorities while the iPad, Mac portables, and Mac desktops ended up facing a battle for management attention. The iPad seemed to have the clear advantage in that battle, at least when it came to capturing mindshare among Apple’s senior ranks. Recall Tim Cook’s comment about the iPad being the clearest expression of Apple’s vision of the future of personal computing.
Today
Over the past two years, we received clues that a major change was beginning to take hold in Apple’s product strategy. This change was on display during this year’s WWDC. Consider the following announcements:
The Apple Watch continues to gradually gain independence from iOS and the iPhone with its own App Store and the ability to create watchOS apps without an iPhone app.
iPadOS is a promise from Apple that iPad will be given unique software features versus iPhone. Features like multitasking and Apple Pencil support give iPad differentiation from its more popular sibling (iPhone).
The new Mac Pro is clear evidence of Apple industrial design, along with the engineering and product design teams, attempting to come up with a long-term solution for the most powerful computer in the product line.
SwiftUI is the kind of foundation Apple needs to properly leverage a thriving iOS developer ecosystem in order to benefit other product categories.
Apple no longer appears to be relying so much on a pull system when it comes to advancing its product line. Instead, a push system is being utilized, and every major product category is being pushed forward simultaneously. The change was designed to reduce the amount of chaos found at the end of the “rope” that Apple was pulling. Accordingly, the primary benefactors arising from this new strategy are the iPad and Mac. This explains why this year’s WWDC announcements felt more overwhelming than those of previous years. Apple was able to move its entire product category forward at the same time.
This revised strategy ends up supporting a core tenet of my Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products - a product category's design is tied to the role it is meant to play relative to other Apple products. (A deep dive into Apple’s product vision and the Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products is available here for Above Avalon members.) By pushing the products geared towards handling the most demanding workflows, Apple has a greater incentive to push the products capable of making technology more personal and relevant.
It’s not that every product category in Apple’s line is now on equal footing in terms of importance and focus. Some products will receive updates every few years while others require more attention due to needing annual updates. In addition, Apple’s revised product strategy likely won’t change the sales ratios between product categories (iPhone outselling iPad by four times while iPad outsells Mac by more than two to one). Instead, the change from a pull to push system manifests itself with each product category being given a defined and unique role to handle within the Apple ecosystem.
Wearables are tasked with handling entirely new workflows in addition to a growing number of workflows that had been given to iPhones and iPads.
The iPhone is the most powerful camera and video player in our lives.
iPads and Macs are content creation tools.
Implications
There are a number of product-related implications arising from Apple’s revised strategy:
Mac Desktops. Despite being in the post-PC era, desktops are experiencing some kind of renaissance. Some of this isn’t entirely surprising given how the desktop has always been viewed as an antidote to some of the ideals found with mobile. However, what is new is the realization of the desktop’s role in the AR era. Mac desktops are niche in terms of the number of users relative to other Apple product categories, albeit a very powerful and crucial niche.
Mac Portables. It is time to take Apple management at its word when it says the Mac is important to Apple’s future. Mac portables will likely retain a place in Apple’s product line for the foreseeable future. A few years ago, low-end Mac portables seemed to be on a dead-end path thanks to iPads. There is no longer any evidence that such thinking is widely held in Apple’s senior ranks. An ARM-based Mac portable seems inevitable at this point.
iPad. Just a few years ago, some in the tech pundit world thought the iPad lacked a future. Such thinking was due to slowing iPad sales combined with larger iPhones being able to handle many of the use cases originally given to iPad. While the iPad has always been viewed as the future of computing within Apple, we are starting to see that vision materialize. iPad sales are now routinely surprising to the upside as Apple adds a “pro” layer to the iPad category in terms of powerful hardware and software.
iPhone. The iPhone as a product category continues to mature, as seen with a longer upgrade cycle. Going forward, the iPhone will primarily be known as the most powerful camera in our lives and a video consumption device. Many of the less intensive use cases and workflows currently given to the iPhone will naturally flow to wearables over time.
Wearables. Apple is the wearables leader. Fitbit would arguably be the closest from the perspective of unit sales but even then, the company is quickly losing momentum. Lessons that Apple learned with iPhone and iPad are now giving the company a wearables advantage that is likely at least five years. An independent Apple Watch not requiring an iPhone to set up is inevitable. The move would increase Apple Watch’s addressable market by three times overnight. In addition, Apple is well on its way to establishing a wearables platform as it competes for prime real estate on our wrists, in our ears, and in front of our eyes.
Will It Work?
Is Apple making the right product strategy decision moving from a pull to push system? It’s too early to tell. At first, the revised strategy may seem like a no brainer as each product category ends up benefitting from more attention. However, it’s not a given that such a dynamic is in Apple’s best long-term interests.
The source of my hesitation in Apple’s new product strategy is that the company’s long-term success is dependent on one item: making technology more personal. Anything that takes away from that goal ends up being a hurdle. Is Apple supporting legacy workflows to the detriment of Apple’s long-standing mission of making technology more personal and relevant?
One reason Apple decided to change product strategies in the first place was to avoid an all-out uprising among the 1% of the user base creating content consumed by the other 99%. The mistake Apple made over the past few years was pulling the product “rope” too fast and in the process, leaving many of its pro users, defined by the workflows needed to be supported, behind.
For a company that is resource constrained when it comes to time and attention, there is no guarantee that Apple’s functional organizational structure and design-led culture can realistically scale to push an endless number of product categories at the same time. This was the key benefit found with Apple’s pull system. The focus was to advance the products capable of making technology more personal and relevant while trying to bring as much of the broader product portfolio along for the ride. The move to a push system is inherently more complex. Apple finds itself doing a whole lot more that it did just a few years ago.
Some will push back at the claim that Apple is resource constrained considering the company has $113 billion of net cash on the balance sheet. However, such a view doesn’t take into account how Apple functions. Apple could have thrown together some components in a big box and shipped a new Mac Pro shortly after realizing that the previous Mac Pro design was a dead end. Instead, Apple’s industrial designers, working in close collaboration with various teams, took a little over two and a half years to come up with what is marketed as a long-term solution for handling the most demanding content creation workflows. Similar questions now plague Apple pertaining to its approach to “pro” Mac portables.
My concerns regarding Apple’s revised product strategy would be alleviated if Apple came up with a plan to push legacy platforms forward by doubling down on future initiatives involving making technology more personal. This is why SwiftUI is intriguing. Apple is positioning SwiftUI as a way to improve a developer's productivity by requiring less code, resulting in better code. What if that is only scratching the surface as to Apple’s ultimate objective? What if the Mac is being repositioned as an AR creation platform while iOS is gradually positioned as a platform for developing wearables apps? Using a billion iPhones to develop apps consumed on billions of wearable devices is the type of goal that would require years of work, foundation building, and periodic changes to product strategy.
Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories per day, 10-12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.