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'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.
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.
Above Avalon Podcast Episode 165: The iPad's First Decade
There was no shortage of writers, pundits, and industry analysts using the iPad’s 10th anniversary las month to give eulogies for the product in terms of its inability to be revolutionary, grab momentum, or even just meet expectations. In episode 165, Neil discusses his perspective on the iPad’s first decade and why we shouldn’t feel bad for the iPad. Additional topics include a different way of looking at the iPad unveiling in 2010, how the iPad foreshadowed iPhone success, how Apple pivoted the iPad, the iPad’s primary problem today, and how the iPad’s value is found in letting the product be itself.
To listen to episode 165, go here.
The complete Above Avalon podcast episode archive is available here.
Don't Feel Bad for the iPad
Last month marked the tenth anniversary of Apple unveiling the iPad. The occasion took on a somber feel as the most common reaction in tech circles ended up being sadness and disappointment for what the iPad had failed to become. While some are convinced that the iPad is in some way a victim of neglect, mismanagement, or even worse, such feelings are misplaced. We don’t need to feel bad for the iPad.
Anniversary Reactions
Apple unveiled the iPad on January 27th, 2010. To mark the tenth anniversary of the unveiling, a few publications had articles recapping the iPad’s first decade. Some of the reactions were complicated, to put it gently.
Here’s John Gruber, over at Daring Fireball, in a post titled, “The iPad Awkwardly Turns 10”:
“[Steve] Jobs’s on-stage pitch was exactly right. The iPad was a new class of device, sitting between a phone and a laptop. To succeed, it needed not only to be better at some things than either a phone or laptop, it needed to be much better. It was and is.
Ten years later, though, I don’t think the iPad has come close to living up to its potential. By the time the Mac turned 10, it had redefined multiple industries. In 1984 almost no graphic designers or illustrators were using computers for work. By 1994 almost all graphic designers and illustrators were using computers for work. The Mac was a revolution. The iPhone was a revolution. The iPad has been a spectacular success, and to tens of millions it is a beloved part of their daily lives, but it has, to date, fallen short of revolutionary.”
Ben Thompson, over at Stratechery, agreed with Gruber and went further in his own article, “The Tragic iPad”:
“It’s tempting to dwell on the [Steve] Jobs point — I really do think the iPad is the product that misses him the most — but the truth is that the long-term sustainable source of innovation on the iPad should have come from 3rd-party developers. Look at [John] Gruber’s example for the Mac of graphic designers and illustrators: while MacPaint showed what was possible, the revolution was led by software from Aldus (PageMaker), Quark (QuarkXPress), and Adobe (Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat). By the time the Mac turned 10, Apple was a $2 billion company, while Adobe was worth $1 billion.
There are, needless to say, no companies built on the iPad that are worth anything approaching $1 billion in 2020 dollars, much less in 1994 dollars, even as the total addressable market has exploded, and one big reason is that $4.99 price point. Apple set the standard that highly complex, innovative software that was only possible on the iPad could only ever earn 5 bucks from a customer forever (updates, of course, were free).”
There were then tweets (lots of tweets), regarding the current state of iPad. Here are two:
Riccardo Mori: “What I believe is that the iPad and its OS could have been so much more than a reinvention of the computing wheel adapted for a touch interface.”
Loren Brichter: “[T]he App Store is what killed the iPad.”
You get the point. There was no shortage of writers, pundits, and industry analysts using the iPad’s 10th anniversary to give eulogies for the product in terms of its inability to be revolutionary, grab momentum, or even just meet expectations.
A handful of people talked highly of iPad on its anniversary. However, such perspectives were few and far between. Interestingly, the articles that were published still ended up including noteworthy disclaimers and qualifiers. For example, here’s Om Malik in “iPad at 10. An affair forever”:
“A decade after its introduction, I think the iPad is still an underappreciated step in the storied history of computing. If anything, it has been let down by the limited imagination of application developers, who have failed to harness the capabilities of this device.”
My Reaction
I hold a very different view of the iPad at 10 years old. In recapping the 2010s, I went so far as to position the iPad as one of two most important tech products of the decade (the iPhone being the other one). The iPad has become ubiquitous in various industries and sectors, and in the process, it has altered modern computing.
How can there be such a dramatic difference in opinion when it comes to iPad?
Different perspectives.
To see how important perspective becomes in this discussion, we need to go back to the iPad unveiling in January 2010.
Selling a Problem
A closer look at the iPad unveiling reveals it wasn’t that Steve successfully made the sales pitch for a new product category. Instead, Steve successfully sold consumers on a problem they weren’t even aware they faced.
A few daily tasks like email, web browsing, video watching, and mobile games could be better handled on a large piece of glass with multi-touch than on a small piece of glass with multi-touch (iPhones) or a non-multi touch device (MacBooks). Such juxtaposition elevated the iPad at the expense of the iPhone and Mac. The iPhone was positioned as a tiny device designed for portability while the Mac was positioned as a heavy beast blown out of the water by iPad when it comes to handling simple tasks.
Consumers agreed with Steve that there was an indeed a problem and that the iPad was a genuine solution to the problem. The iPad became Apple’s best-selling product out of the gate with the company selling 22 million devices in just the first 12 months. Ten years later, it is difficult to envision a new Apple product that will be able to grab that kind of adoption so quickly.
The iPhone
In January 2010, the iPhone was more of an idea and a promise than anything else. When the iPad was unveiled, there were only about 30 million people using an iPhone. Apple now sells that many iPhones in about two months. In 2010, it was the iPad, not the iPhone, that was considered to be the more important product in the future.
Given such lofty expectations, maybe it shouldn't have come as a surprise that the iPad’s tenth anniversary was met with awkwardness, sorrow, and even sadness as some look at the product as a promise that wasn’t kept. However, the early promises found with the initial iPad were met. There was just an unexpected twist.
The iPhone ended up carrying the vision found with a larger piece of glass supporting multi-touch that Steve unveiled on stage in January 2010. As iPhone screens became larger over the years, the product leveraged the inspiration found with the initial iPad and turned it into something consumed by nearly a billion people. There are 32x more iPhone users in the world today than there were when the iPad was unveiled in 2010. The iPhone became an iPad that fit in one’s pocket. Based on the iPhone’s resounding success, it is fair to say that those early calls that the iPad would turn into something very big ended up being true.
A Pivot
Instead of raising the white flag and letting the iPad set sail into the sunset after being replaced by the iPhone, Apple pivoted the product category to accomplish two things:
Serve as a content creation machine (Apple Pencil for drawing / keyboard accessories for typing).
Represent a low-cost entry point into the Apple ecosystem ($329 starting price).
Those two changes gave the iPad a very successful second chapter. Unit sales have stabilized at 45 million per year with approximately 20 million new people entering the iPad installed base each year.
The iPad is currently shaping industries far more than some people are giving the product credit for. There are at least 350 million people using an iPad in some capacity. The iPad has indirectly added billions of dollars of market cap to companies ranging from Slack and Microsoft to Square when considering the product’s widespread adoption and influence in enterprise settings.
A Line in the Sand
The iPad has become a line in the sand between those who grew up on laptops and desktops and those who never felt comfortable with such devices. Apple finds itself walking a thin line when it comes to adding functionality to the iPad for some users while keeping the device’s simplicity and intuitiveness front and center for other users.
Multi-tasking is a great example of this battle. For instance, some Mac users are not pleased with Apple’s implementation of multi-tasking on the iPad. These users find multi-tasking on an iPad to be a mental exercise. Meanwhile, a portion of iPad users have no need or desire for multi-tasking on iPad. These users are also likely to view multi-tasking on a laptop or desktop as not intuitive. Going a week with no laptop or desktop usage will do interesting things to one’s perception about computing and intuitiveness. When returning to a laptop or desktop, the machines feel like taking a step back. Our brain has to be rewired to handle something that is inherently less intuitive.
The iPad’s Problem
Apple doesn't sell perfect products. There will always be room for improvement, refinement, and new thinking. In some ways, the lack of perfection is what serves as motivation for Apple to keep pushing. When defining the problems now facing the iPad, my criticism is a bit unconventional.
The iPad’s primary problem is that it is viewed by some as needing to be a laptop replacement in order to have any value. This unrealistic viewpoint has resulted in a type of expectational debt being placed on the device. The iPad is expected to become more like the Mac and macOS over time. This is problematic as the iPad is not a laptop replacement.
MacOS should not be positioned as inspiration for where to bring the iPad or iPadOS. This isn’t meant to belittle macOS. Instead, touch-based computing has blurred the line between consumer and professional devices. When debating content consumption versus content creation and the broader definition of work, there is a habit in tech circles to not consider how such terms have dramatically different meanings for hundreds of millions of people.
The takeaway is that the iPad has become a different kind of product, and it should be allowed to stand apart from the iPhone without being forced to replace macOS. Hence, there is iPadOS and things like Apple Pencil support. Instead of asking how best to handle multitasking on an iPad, a better question is to wonder what multi-tasking should even mean on an iPad. Such questions present new challenges regarding user interfaces and design.
Being Itself
Apple’s product strategy is to push all of its major product categories forward at the same time. This is different from pushing the iPhone forward and trying to have the iPad and Mac come along for the ride. Positioning the iPad as a content creation platform for the masses, designed to handle some tasks given to laptops and desktops while also handling completely new tasks, is a winning strategy. It allows the iPad to be itself while not forcing the product into a corner in order to satisfy certain segments of the Apple installed base.
A lot has changed during the iPad’s first 10 years. Some may be disappointed with how the iPad has evolved, even to the point of thinking Apple lost a great opportunity. However, I wouldn’t feel bad for a device that revealed the iPhone’s true potential and then became a different kind of content creation tool now used by more than 350 million people.
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 2nd: The iPad’s First Decade, The iPad’s Second Decade.
Above Avalon Podcast Episode 163: A Revolution on the Wrist
In addition to being a sales success, the Apple Watch has ushered in a paradigm shift in computing. In episode 163, Neil discusses how the Apple Watch is fundamentally changing the way we use technology. Additional topics include paradigm shifts, Apple Watch sales, Apple’s new Apple Watch Connected initiative, stationary smart speakers as extensions of existing products, and Neil’s new framework for recognizing paradigm shifts in computing.
To listen to episode 163, go here.
The complete Above Avalon podcast episode archive is available here.
The "Apple Tax" Died Years Ago
Two weeks ago, Business Insider caused a stir with a video titled, “Why Apple Products Are So Expensive.” The video was part of Business Insider’s “So Expensive” series, which takes a look at why certain items are priced the way they are.
The video was troubling for the number of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and outright lies it included about Apple and its pricing strategy. According to Business Insider, Apple products are expensive because loyal users are willing to pay an “Apple Tax,” or a higher price attached to products containing an Apple logo. A closer look at Apple’s actual pricing strategy reveals a fundamentally different explanation for why Apple products are priced the way they are. The days of there being an “Apple Tax” ended years ago.
The Video
The following video was pushed out to Business Insider’s 2.3M YouTube subscribers on November 23rd, 2019. The video currently has a little more than 660,000 views.
The video included a long list of claims regarding Apple, its product pricing strategy, and the company’s overall positioning in the marketplace.
Apple was said to be bringing in huge profits by charging higher prices for its products. The progression of pricing from iPhone 6 to iPhone 11 ($649 to $999) and the Mac mini ($499 to $799) were used as examples of Apple charging more for basically the same product. These higher prices are said to be part of Apple’s strategy to squeeze as much profit as possible from loyal customers “unwilling to switch out of the Apple ecosystem.”
Apple products were said to contain components that are standardized and comparable to what is found in competing products. Accordingly, higher-priced Apple products are more expensive than products from competitors despite not including additional functionality. An iPhone’s bill of materials was positioned as a useful tool for tracking how profitable an iPhone is for Apple.
Apple was said to rely on “sneaky” tactics to grab additional profit from these loyal users by charging more for higher-end configurations and requiring users to buy expensive dongles, keyboards, mice, and cables.
When assessing the video’s long list of issues, the primary problem was found with how much long-standing narratives about Apple guided Business Insider’s talking points. Numbers and data were cherrypicked to support false narrative after false narrative while Business Insider ignored or brushed aside evidence that would prove its narratives wrong. For example, Apple’s downright aggressive pricing with Apple Watch and AirPods was ignored. Meanwhile, strategies that have proven to be flat out wrong, such as relying on a product’s bill of materials to figure out profitability, went unchecked.
In an effort to come off as more authoritative, Business Insider relied heavily on commentary from Mohan Sawhney, a marketing professor at Northwestern University. The problem was that Sawhney viewed Apple through a marketing prism - the company was said to be nothing more than a luxury brand selling nice-looking tech gadgets. Sawhney claimed the only reason Apple is able to extract so much profit from the industries it operates in is because people are willing to pay more for the Apple logo. There was no mention of Apple controlling much of the profit within an industry by purposely avoiding the low end of that market while also offering a wide range of devices with different amounts of technology.
Apple Tax
The theory of there being an Apple Tax has been around for more than a decade. The term was coined during the mid-2000s to refer primarily to Apple laptops (iBooks and then MacBooks). A MacBook was said to cost more money than a Windows laptop with similar specifications because of there being a premium built into the MacBook’s price. Said another way, the MacBook was more expensive than other products since it included an Apple logo.
The “Apple Tax’ phrase became a way to poke fun at MacBook users for their apparent cluelessness in paying more for a product despite cheaper alternatives being available. In recent years, the Apple Tax definition has morphed to merely refer to higher-priced Apple products like the iMac Pro and new Mac Pro.
There has always been a glaring hole in the Apple Tax narrative: Since Apple does not license its Mac operating system to OEMs, a MacBook running Apple software ends up being very different than a Windows laptop said to have similar specs. In addition, while Apple made a number of content creation applications available for free on the Mac, Windows laptops positioned as direct competitors lacked such free applications. It may be more correct to say that the Apple Tax reflected the price of Mac software instead of some kind of premium created out of thin air.
Apple’s Pricing Strategy
Apple’s pricing strategy is not based on the idea of forcing users to pay an “Apple Tax.” Instead, Apple follows a revenue and gross profit optimization strategy. Here is Apple’s CFO Luca Maestri talking about the strategy on various Apple earnings conference calls:
4Q17: “We tend to think about maximizing gross margin dollars because we think that's the most important thing for investors at the end of the day. When we look at our track record over years, I think we've found a good balance between unit sales growth and gross margins and revenue, and we will continue to do that as we go forward.”
2Q18: “Our primary consideration is always around maximizing gross margin dollars, and that is the approach that we take around pricing decisions.”
4Q18: “[W]e make our decisions from a financial standpoint to try and optimize our revenue and our gross margin dollars.”
1Q19: “It is important for us to grow gross margin dollars. And if at times we grow services that are at a level of gross margins, which is below average, as long as this is good for the customer and as long as we generate gross margin dollars we're going to be very pleased.”
2Q19: “[W]hat really matters to us and what we look at -- when we look at the elasticity of these [iPhone upgrade] programs is to see the impact on our gross margin dollars.”
While “revenue and gross margin optimization” may sound like loaded terminology, the idea underlying the strategy is straightforward. Instead of Apple including a certain amount of “tax” or premium in a product’s price to maintain a specific gross margin percentage, Apple prices its products in a way that maximizes gross margin and revenue on an absolute basis. Gross margin is cost of goods subtracted from revenue.
The strategy requires Apple to come up with forecasts for how a product’s price will impact customer demand for that product. Price a product too high, and the lower unit sales (as a result of weaker demand) may more than offset the higher amount of revenue and gross margin found with each device. Price a product too low, and the higher unit sales (as a result of stronger demand) may not offset the lower amount of revenue and gross margin found with each device.
Gross Margin Data
A closer look at Apple’s gross margins demonstrates this “revenue and gross margin optimization” strategy in action. Exhibit 1 highlights Apple’s gross margin percentage going back to 2000.
Exhibit 1: Apple Gross Margin (Percent of Revenue)
As shown in Exhibit 1, Apple’s gross margin as a percent of revenue has been steady since 2013. On the surface, such stability would seem to validate Business Insider’s claim of there being some kind of price premium automatically added to Apple products - as if management determines a product’s price by adding a certain premium on top of the cost of goods sold.
However, Apple’s overall gross margin doesn’t tell the full story. There are notable shifts underway when looking at the two components that make up overall gross margin. A decline in Apple’s products (hardware) gross margin percentage is being offset by an increase in services gross margin percentage. This dynamic is seen in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2: Apple Gross Margin (Percent of Revenue) - Products vs. Services
In just the past two years, Apple products gross margin percentage has declined by 10% (350 basis points). That is noteworthy. This means that Apple hardware has become less profitable when looking at gross margin as a percent of revenue. The decline is due to two factors:
Apple is lowering product pricing which is eating into the delta between revenue and cost of goods sold. Most of these price cuts are designed to roll back the impact from foreign exchange. However, another factor is that Apple is willing to run with lower gross margin profiles for certain products with the goal of selling more products.
Apple is including more technology in its products while not increasing prices enough to maintain gross margin percentages. As with the first factor, Apple is becoming more aggressive on price in an effort to sell more products and generate more revenue and gross margin dollars.
The decline in products gross margin percentage doesn’t become apparent when looking at overall gross margin because Apple Services is offsetting the decline. Services gross margin is up a very strong 16% (870 basis points) over the past two years as services with naturally higher margins (licensing, AppleCare, paid iCloud storage) gain momentum.
While Apple’s products gross margin percentage has declined by 10% over the past two years, products gross margin dollars declined by only 2%. This tells us that Apple is willing to let products gross margin percentage decline (less profit found with each device) if it means stronger customer demand results in more units being sold. This is the epitome of Apple’s revenue and gross margin optimization strategy.
Implications
There are two major implications associated with Apple’s revenue and gross profit optimization strategy:
Apple’s product portfolio has become increasingly competitive from a pricing perspective. In the case of Apple Watch and AirPods, pricing is downright aggressive compared to the competition. A $159 pair of AirPods sent shockwaves around the industry as competing products were priced in the $200 to $300 range. Even today, it’s difficult for genuine competitors to come close to AirPods pricing. A similar dynamic is found with wrist wearables as Apple Watch pricing remains highly competitive.
Apple has embraced a bifurcation strategy in which product lines have been expanded to include a broader range of models and corresponding prices. This dynamic applies to most of Apple’s products including the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and AirPods. The primary benefit of Apple becoming aggressive both at the low end and high end of the pricing spectrum is more choice for consumers. Products like the 10.2-inch iPad represent the gateway into the iOS ecosystem for millions of people each year. The MacBook Air remains the most popular Mac. The end result is that products with various margin profiles may end up offsetting each other.
Accessories
When it comes to how Apple prices various accessories like dongles, Watch bands, and iPad keyboards, the company isn’t relying on an Apple Tax. Instead, accessories by their very nature have high gross margins given that the items are sold to customers looking to personalize their experience. A similar philosophy applies to Mac memory and storage upgrades. While those upgrades are indeed profitable for Apple, the fact that Apple charges the prices they do is not a sign of Apple users being held hostage and forced to pay an Apple Tax. Instead, positioning certain items as accessories or upgrades plays a role in Apple keeping entry-level product pricing low for the mass market.
Narrative Violations
A new school of thought positions Apple as a monopoly not because it has significant market share, but because it has loyal and engaged users. The idea is that since these users would apparently face such a dreadful experience by moving outside the Apple platform, it’s as if they have no alternatives. Apple is said to be taking unfair advantage of this situation and its position as the only provider of a premium experience. A byproduct of this stance is that certain Apple actions, such as the way the App Store is managed, are viewed as uncompetitive.
There is no question that Apple has loyal, satisfied users. However, the premise that these users are in some way held captive or hostage by Apple, and therefore forced to pay high Apple prices, just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Contrary to popular opinion, a new Apple product doesn’t sell simply because it has an Apple logo. Apple users are discerning when it comes to determining what products are worth buying. We see this when it comes to upgrade rates for existing products as well as adoption trends for new products.
Apple’s declining products gross margin percentage is driven in part by lower iPhone profit margin percentages. This has occurred despite iPhone ASPs rising, which goes against nearly every narrative that has been put forth about higher iPhone prices.
The App Store is run at just a 10% gross margin (my estimate). This goes against the idea that Apple is being unfair to developers when charging 15% or 30% revenue share. While some developers want Apple to charge them more like 5% to 10% of revenue, or nothing at all, such revenue share arrangements would likely lead to the App Store being operated at a loss considering that a majority of apps do not share any revenue with Apple.
It’s easy to look at Apple pricing and take a cynical view that management is trying to squeeze as much profit as possible from its users. However, Apple’s incentive isn’t to milk users for all they can but rather to expand the Apple user base and provide users great experiences. Apple’s ability to grab monopoly-like share of industry profits isn’t a result of there being an Apple Tax but rather a byproduct of Apple following a design-led product strategy that ultimately marginalizes industries.
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'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.
Walmart Discounting Apple Products: Gloom or Boom?
This past Friday, Walmart announced on its Facebook page that it was rolling back its iPhone and iPad pricing for a limited time. Within minutes, the announcement flew around tech blog circles, quickly reaching mainstream publications such as ABC and CNN.
The discussion soon took a new direction as bloggers began to wonder if Walmart’s discounted pricing actually meant Apple was imploding; unable to sell supply due to lackluster demand. One blogger summed up that attitude well, writing:
"Apple has finally thrown in the towel on pretending there is a supply shortage and admitted there is simply not enough demand at the given price point, by proceeding to sell the margin flagship iPhone 5 at a third off the original price, at the bargain basement commodity expert Wal-Mart of all places….And just like that, the “niche premium” magic of the once uber-cool gizmo is gone, not to mention AAPL’s profit margins, very much as the stock price has been sensing over the past two months…”
The blog known as Reuters added additional fuel and mystery to the Apple bear argument, in their usual naive style:
"Apple has focused on high-priced, premium gadgets for many years and has strictly enforced its prices with retailers and other distributors. However, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said on Friday that the discounts were arranged with Apple.
'We worked together with them on this,' the spokeswoman, Sarah Spencer, said. 'They are a great partner.'
Why is Walmart Discounting Apple Products?
Third-party retailer discounts are nothing new. Best Buy and RadioShack routinely sell entry-level iPhone 5 units for less than $199 (Best Buy is currently selling the 16 GB iPhone 5 for $149.99). Apple’s wholesale pricing and margins remain intact as these third-party retailers eat the discount (ignoring differences between wholesale and retail prices). Similar campaigns are seen with iTunes gift card promotions, where retailers offer free iTunes gift cards when purchasing Apple products. Best Buy is also well known for promotions similar to “Buy $100 of iTunes gift cards for $75” - where Best Buy (not Apple) is responsible for the discount.
Diving into Walmart’s latest iPhone and iPad price discount campaign sheds additional light.
1) The promotion is only valid in-store. For brick and mortar retailers, store traffic and same-store sales metrics are important. One of Walmart’s ultimate goals in discounting iPhones and iPads is having customers travel to a Walmart and make their way through the store before finally reaching the iPhones and iPads (conveniently not located near the store entrance). Walmart feels confident that it will be able to sell additional items to these customers, similar to placing milk and eggs at the back of a supermarket so that a customer has to walk through the entire store just to buy a few essentials. In addition, many consumers will narrow their holiday shopping destinations to a few stores over the next week and Walmart wouldn’t mind making that exclusive list - using discounted iPhones and iPads as the carrot for getting people into the stores.
2) The promotion is only good while supplies last. Many consumers have flocked to Walmart’s Facebook wall to point out that quite a few Walmart locations don’t have iPhones or iPads in stock. Walmart receives good press coverage from discounting popular items, while not losing much money as product supply limits sales; sneaky, but efficient.
3) Brand awareness. By advertising discounted iPhones and iPads, Walmart is using the promotion as a marketing campaign to strengthen consumer’s association between Walmart and Apple. Many consumers don’t think of Walmart as the first place to visit for iPhones and iPads. I can only imagine how many people now have Walmart at the top of their destination list in search of that perfect Apple gift for the holidays.
What about that little gem from Reuters indicating Apple was working with Walmart on this discount? On the surface, it sounds somewhat damning for Apple, but in reality, it doesn’t mean much; only that Apple is okay with Walmart eating iPhone and iPad price discounts. Sounds like an iPhone and iPad boom to me.
A New AAPL Era
Apple reported its most recent quarterly earnings this evening. Impressive would be an understatement.
Here are some talking points:
1) Emerging Market Growth. Skewed perspective is making it hard to understand how fast Apple is growing. Many tech analysts are situated in developed countries and economies where the Apple brand is well established, and accordingly have a harder time conceptualizing how Apple can maintain dramatic growth rates. The combination of rising standards of living and the increasing availability of lower-priced Apple products is a new trend for emerging markets, and it is reasonable to expect this scenario to drive Apple’s growth in the future.
2) Product Line Diversification. Similar to the iPod, we are seeing the emergence of the iPhone product line: a series of iPhones with a sliding scale of features and capabilities. By the end of 2011, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPhone (4S or 5) will most likely round out Apple’s iPhone line. Importantly, each iPhone utilizes iOS apps and has access to the iTunes store. I see the same trend happening with the iPad in due time; multiple versions sold simultaneous at different price points. Apple will rely on this product line diversification to cater to different market segments using price as a key differentiator. Emerging markets will have iPhone 3GS, mainstream will be content with iPhone 4, and early adopters will go crazy over iPhone (4s or 5). In addition, Apple’s overall margin benefits from the continued sale of “older” products as component pricing generally declines over time.
3) Big Losers and Winners. Apple management was very clear on the earnings conference call: iPads are eating away at Windows PC sales and iPhone continues to grow like a wild weed. Companies focused on selling consumer hardware (Dell, HP, RIMM, Motorola, and Samsung) are in a very difficult position as each is starting to understand that having good software is just as important as selling sexy hardware. Big winners (besides Apple) include companies who luckily aren’t competing in the consumer market, and are instead focusing on selling enterprise services or infrastructure needed to foster commerce and further innovation (IBM and Oracle come to mind). It is no coincidence that Dell, HP, RIMM, Motorola, and Samsung have indicated (or will indicate) an interest in entering the enterprise services market.
Random Bytes:
-) Look for Android activation numbers to become less relevant as time goes on. I have this growing feeling that Google is nervous that Android is becoming nothing more than a large void, taking up mobile space, and is relying on activation numbers to impress app developers to dedicate resources to the platform. It’s not working. iOS reached critical mass a few quarters ago and Android will not stop iOS momentum.
-) While I will keep AAPL stock thoughts to myself (at this time), it is important to remember that the large institutional holders control Apple stock and many of these entities are not interested in quick 5-10% stock moves, but instead the attractiveness of AAPL 5-10 years out. Potential AAPL dividend payout ratios, cash flows, and cash holdings will begin to matter just as much as iOS market share, iOS user statistics, or other random Apple product data points. The big boys will continue to support AAPL as long as they feel confident they will receive an annual return that beats other asset classes (fixed income, real estate, etc.) over an extended period of time.
I love these vintage photos (if you can call a photo from the 1990s and the original iPhone introduction as vintage). You should be able to name at least two people from these photos - most likely three. If you can name all four: congrats, you are a true Apple believer. Sometimes we forget what Apple is really about. #TrueApple
Clue: First photo: H A T J Second Photo: J H A
iPhone Can Still Beat Android in Smartphone Market Share
On smartphone battlefields where iPhone hasn’t yet arrived, Android is winning the battle.
It is premature to declare Android the eventual winner in the smartphone market share race, even with Google now activating 300,000 Android units/day. Steve Jobs noted on Apple’s recent quarterly earnings call that there is "no solid data" on Android phone shipments. For this argument, let me assume Google is actually selling 300,000 Android units/day (27 million/quarter). Apple sold 14.1 million iPhones in the most recent quarter and is on track to sell 15-16 million iPhones/quarter.
How can iPhone outsell Android if these sales numbers are correct? Here are the reasons why I think iOS can still beat Android in terms of smartphone unit market share:
1) iPhone (4 and 3GS) is outselling Android (dozens of models) in markets where both iPhone and Android are competing face-to-face on the same carrier.
iPhone dominates European mobile ad market
Mobile OS usage; iOS #1 in North America, Europe, and Australia
When a customer has the choice between iPhone and Android, side by side, they are choosing iPhone.
(I recognize that these links rely on data that carries a number of disclaimers and is often based on some sort of survey, to which I say, show me clearer evidence. With Google, mobile carriers, and phone manufactures not releasing actual Android unit sales figures, what other type of evidence can be obtained on a regional basis? The only surveys and evidence that even try to depict OS mobile market share continuously point to iOS leading Android in regions where both are sold on the same carriers)
2) Verizon. Android has received a ton of attention and mind share due to its strong hold on Verizon’s 90 million customers. While a few million Verizon subscribers have jumped ship over the past three years to buy iPhone on AT&T, the majority haven’t due to high carrier switching costs, including termination fees, sticky family plans, and differing coverage areas.
Why are Verizon customers buying Android phones?
A) Coming from a feature phone, any Android phone will appear amazing. The ability to use the internet or check email on a touchscreen is truly amazing for someone coming from a basic phone.
B) Android phones are in front of Verizon customers. Most Verizon subscribers pick a phone from the selection that they see in a Verizon store or kiosk. If the only thing a customer sees is Android, chances are good that they will buy an Android phone.
C) Verizon customers have few options: stay with a feature phone, buy Android, or leave Verizon and buy iPhone on a network that doesn’t support phone calls due to their awful coverage and service. Which option would you choose?
In addition, with Sprint and T-Mobile not selling the iPhone, Android has the perfect incubator to flourish - a market of about 180 million subscribers with no access to iPhone (AT&T has 90 million subscribers).
3) Interesting Android developments in recent weeks have actually supported my thinking that iOS isn’t in as bad shape as some may say. For example, the Samsung Galaxy Tab has sold 1 million units in its first 28 days - nearly as fast as the iPad - pretty remarkable.
Although the Galaxy Tab is a tablet computer and not a smartphone, I think there is an interesting development to be seen from this data. The Galaxy Tab has done well thanks in part to its sales in South Korea, a country where android has 80% market share, a country where Samsung is a source of national pride. Reports indicate that approximately 50,000 - 70,000 Galaxy Tabs were sold in South Korea in the first 28 days (the Galaxy Tab went on sale in a total of 30 countries). What about iPad? In South Korea, the the iPad just went on sale three weeks ago and initial sales are already on par with Galaxy Tab and I imagine iPad sales will soon exceed the Galaxy Tab. The Galaxy Tab entered a market that was void of iPads, with people eagerly wanting to get their hands on iOS.
Google VP of Engineering Andy Rubin recently said, “After the US, (Android) saw Asia go crazy” with sales in South Korea going “berserk” in the past four months. Once again, it’s funny how Android is doing so well in South Korea. How about iPhone? Well, South Korea recently decided to allow iPhone sales in South Korea. So Android was doing great in South Korea, a country where iPhone was banned. A true battle is one where both sides are present.
China is another interesting story. China Unicom, China’s second largest mobile carrier with approximately 175 million customers, is the exclusive provider of iPhone in China. Last year, the iPhone unveiling was a disaster in China due to restrictions imposed on the device by the Chinese Government. In 2010, iPhone 4 is a complete success with over 200,000 pre-orders being taken for the device and curbs having to be put in place to control the buying frenzy in Apple stores. Overall though, Apple still has a small presence in China with only four retail stores and the largest mobile carrier, China Mobile and its 570 million customers, still not carrying the iPhone. A true battle is one where both sides are present.
My thesis will be validated, or disproven, by Verizon iPhone data in 2011 (and possibly by China Mobile carrying iPhone in 2011). If Verizon sells the same number of iPhones as AT&T (somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 million in the first year), my thesis will most likely hold true and iOS will be the top selling smartphone platform in the U.S.