Apple Glasses Are Inevitable

All of the pieces are coming together for Apple to sell glasses. Using fashion and luxury lessons learned from selling Apple Watch, Apple will enter the glasses industry and in the process launch its first product category designed specifically for the augmented reality (AR) era. While ARKit has taken the world by storm, the development platform is already making it clear that new form factors are needed to take full advantage of AR. It is no longer a question of if, but when, Apple will use AR to rethink glasses. 

ARKit

ARKit is Apple's new framework for developing AR apps on iOS. Apple defines AR as the illusion of virtual objects placed in a physical world. There are three ARKit layers:

1. Tracking. Using Visual Inertial Odometry (VIO), camera sensor data is combined with CoreMotion data to get the device's location and orientation.

2. Scene Understanding. Using the camera view, the device can find horizontal planes in a room in addition to estimating the amount of available light in a scene.

3. Rendering. A constant stream of camera images, tracking information, and scene understanding can be inputted into any renderer.

ARKit transforms iPhone and iPad cameras into smart eyes. Developers then use those eyes, and the technology already found with iPhones and iPads, to enhance our reality. Of course, that enhanced reality is constrained to what appears on our iPhone and iPad screens. Despite this limitation, the possibilities seem limitless. 

While some of the earliest examples are interesting, it is difficult to ignore how many of these examples make more sense for a pair of AR glasses. Any AR app involving holding up an iPhone or iPad while not requiring much user manipulation directly on screen makes more sense for glasses. For example, virtual turn-by-turn directions are destined for AR glasses as it’s just not ideal to have to hold up a smartphone in front of our face as we are walking down the street. 

This isn’t meant to discredit iPhones and iPads as powerful AR tools. In fact, the iPhone’s future will be one as an AR navigator. However, wearable form factors will likely outpace iPhone and iPad over the long arc of time in terms of their ability to extract utility from AR.

Inevitability

AR glasses check off all of the boxes for a product in Apple's wheelhouse and are deserving of a rare green light to market. 

1. Hardware and software integration. There is room for Apple to create value by controlling both the hardware and software comprising AR glasses. The sum will be greater than its parts.

2. Wearables manufacturing. Apple is learning quite a bit about manufacturing techniques and materials from Apple Watch and AirPods. These lessons can be transferred over to glasses, an item that will need to include a plethora of technology yet remain light.

3. AR technology. Apple's big bet on AR will represent the catalyst for turning glasses and sunglasses into something more. An engaged base of iOS developers experimenting with ARKit will give Apple Glasses a hospitable app environment.

4. Personal technology evolution. AR glasses represent the evolution of Apple's decades-long quest to make technology more personal - allowing people to get more out of technology without having it take over their lives.

5. Fashion and luxury themes. Apple Watch has taught Apple much about how to get people to wear personal technology.

6. Health/Medical. The ability to improve one's vision fits within Apple's expanding interest in health and medical.

7. Retail demoes. Nearly 500 Apple Retail stores offer prime demo areas for customers to try on various glasses.

In terms of selecting the next big industry and product category to enter, AR glasses are high on Apple's list. 

Glasses are Misunderstood

Glasses have gotten a bad rap. The item hasn't been able to shake the connotation of being a medical device used grudgingly by those in need of clearer vision. It is still commonplace for people to say something along the lines of "I wouldn't wear glasses if I didn't need to." Such a description undersells glasses, ignoring the device’s purpose and potential.

People wear glasses because they provide utility. For many, that utility comes in the form of improved vision. This is another way of saying corrective lenses (glasses and contact lenses) provide a clearer sense of reality to the wearer. Recent statistics show that nearly 75% of the population has vision that can be improved with corrective lenses. For certain age demographics, the percentage is even higher. 

It cannot be overstated how clearer vision is one of the most value-add items a product can provide to its user. There aren’t too many gadgets or devices that would be selected over a smartphone in terms of its importance in our lives. However, corrective lenses would certainly be at the top of the list for many people. Corrective lenses are even required for certain tasks, such as operating heavy machinery like cars. In these situations, clearer vision isn’t just a luxury, but it's a requirement to ensure one's safety. 

Glasses also provide a different kind of utility than clearer vision. A growing number of people are wearing glasses despite having perfect vision. Glasses are increasingly becoming accessories for the face, a fashion item complimenting a particular outfit, haircut, or even social occasion. Sunglasses have become a universal fashion accessory. A quick stop by the local shopping mall will reveal a number of stores focused on selling one accessory: sunglasses. Consumers have thousands of frames to choose from in order to find that one pair of glasses that best matches their personality. The glasses/sunglasses industry, led by Luxottica, has played a major role in pushing this new fashion narrative.

Evolution

Apple’s attitude toward face wearables has evolved. In 2013, Tim Cook was interviewed at the D11 conference, and the topic of wearable computing came up. Cook was very clear in his messaging: The wrist made more sense for computing than the face.

Here’s Cook:

"I wear glasses because I have to. I can't see without them. So I kind of have that problem. I don't know a lot of people that wear them that don't have to. People that do wear them generally want them to be light, they want them to be unobtrusive. They probably want them to reflect their fashion, their style, and so forth. And so from a mainstream point of view, [glasses] are difficult...I think the wrist is interesting."

It's noteworthy how Cook undersold glasses, positioning them as merely something he was forced to wear. In early 2015, Jony Ive, overseer of Apple's product strategy, referred to the wrist as "the obvious and right place" for a wearable device while saying the face "was the wrong place." Cook once again dismissed glasses: 

"We always thought that glasses were not a smart move, from a point of view that people would not really want to wear them. They were intrusive, instead of pushing technology to the background, as we’ve always believed."

It is easy to dismiss Cook's and Jony’s comments as simple posturing. In the case of Cook, Apple was well on its way to developing Apple Watch in 2013. It had become clear that the wrist would represent Apple’s entry into wearable computing. Regarding Jony's and Tim's later comments, Apple was just a few months away from the Apple Watch launch, arguably the largest product launch for the company since iPad. For them to talk up anything other than Apple Watch and wrist utility would have been surprising. 

However, this current Apple management team is not big into misdirection. Apple rarely shoots down product categories only to enter the same space shortly thereafter. Instead, there is a good probability that management was actually not completely sold on the idea of face wearables (i.e. glasses) when Cook and Jony provided their comments. Cook’s initial comments took place well before Apple began acquiring AR companies, which likely play a crucial role in justifying Apple selling glasses. In addition, prior to Apple Watch, Apple had little experience in selling an item as personal as glasses or sunglasses.

Hesitation

I have held much hesitation over the years regarding the idea of wearing computers on the face. Much of this skepticism originated out of questions regarding design (how the device would be used). Computers on the face can very easily become a barrier to getting the most out of technology. Taking a look at the current lineup of computers designed to be worn on the face, it is not difficult to see why such hesitation has been warranted.

None of the preceding devices represent the future of face wearables for the mass market. The best case scenarios for such devices are found with niche applications such as gaming and certain enterprise settings. For AR glasses to go mainstream, the product will have to shed the “computers for the face” image portrayed by Google Glass, HoloLens, and every VR headset. This will involve innovative software and technology as well as a breakthrough user interface. 

Something Changed

Apple's success with Apple Watch has done much to calm some of my fears and hesitation regarding face wearables. With 29 million Apple Watches sold to date, Apple has turned the dynamic of tech meeting fashion on its head. Apple has been able to get people to wear an item that was increasingly losing its place in a smartphone world.  

Before Apple unveiled Apple Watch, smartwatches were bulky computers on the wrist with mediocre user experiences and questionable value. The product did not play in the fashion and luxury realms. Instead, smartwatches were judged by the degree to which their functionality could replace a smartphone.

Apple was able to completely change the connotation found with smartwatches and make them a mass-market item. The Apple Watch is now just as much of a fashion item as it is a computer. That is a good, not bad, thing. Watch bands and the ability to easily swap bands allow Apple Watch to be worn all day, every day, for various occasions and activities. Much of this dynamic can be recreated for glasses. Apple has the potential to change the narrative surrounding glasses, including our perception of the device. 

M&A

In the clearest sign to date of Apple's growing interest in AR glasses, the company recently acquired SensoMotoric Instruments, an eye-tracking company. While the company's technology can improve various Apple products, my suspicion is the deal was all about Apple developing a pair of AR glasses that can be controlled by our eye movement. The idea of controlling technology using just our eyes is very intriguing.

Apple also acquired a number of AR-related entities in 2015 and 2016 including Metaio, Emotient, Polar Rose, Faceshift, PrimeSense, Flyby Media, and Perceptio. All of these companies in one way or another can play a role in Apple Glasses. In fact, all of the work Apple is doing with iPhone and iPad cameras can ultimately play a role in glasses.

Apple Glasses

When it comes to envisioning what a pair of Apple Glasses would look like, there is value in not overthinking the topic. Marc Newson, the most recent addition to Apple’s Industrial Design group, has experience designing face wear. In 2014, Newson designed various glasses (seen below) for Safilo as part of a special collection marking the company's 80th anniversary. 

My suspicion is that Apple Glasses would look similar to Newson’s previous designs. Certain attributes such as being lightweight while having lenses with a large surface area will likely be carried over to Apple Glasses. There is precedent in Apple Industrial Design relying heavily on Newson's prior designs. A number of Apple Watch bands were clearly inspired by Newson.

Strategy

Apple Glasses would be a mass-market item with a target market measured in the hundreds of millions of users – similar to Apple Watch and AirPods. The go-to market strategy for a pair of Apple Glasses is relatively straightforward. Consumers would purchase hardware via Apple (online and in store) and through third-party retailers including retailers focused on selling corrective lenses, such as LensCrafters.

Apple Glasses would be a continuation of Apple's wearables strategy. The product would initially be positioned as an iPhone accessory, similar to other Apple wearables including Apple Watch and AirPods. Apple would also likely launch glassOS in an attempt to create an ecosystem of third-party AR apps destined specifically for glasses.

Instead of selling just one version, Apple would likely sell an entire line of Apple Glasses including various lenses (prescription, light-responsive, polarized, and clear). There would also be different sizes for men and women. The prescription lenses carry the important implication of Apple Glasses following Apple Watch in potentially qualifying as an item covered by insurance plans. In addition, prescription glasses can be bought using flexible spending or health spending account dollars.

In terms of pricing, Apple Glasses would likely continue Apple's current strategy of underpricing their wearables relative to the competition. 

Marketing

It is crucial to not miss the forest for the trees when it comes to Apple Glasses. The device's purpose will be to enhance, not replace, reality for the wearer. As of today, glasses enhance reality by making things appear clearer. In the future, this utility will be transformed. Glasses will not just make our surroundings appear clearer, but also use AR to provide additional context related to our surroundings. The implications related to such a feature are far and wide. 

This raises a few questions:

• What would be the "killer app" for Apple Glasses?

• Will Apple Glasses replace iPhones?

The idea of a product having a "killer app" has been misconstrued over the years. The iPhone really doesn't have a killer app. Instead, the device itself has turned into the killer app - the most valuable computer in our lives. In addition, the iPhone's role in our lives has evolved over time - a true sign of value. Apple Glasses would provide an improved view of the world to its user. For some, this will come in the form of clearer vision plus additional context. Others will gain value just from receiving additional context. 

Apple Glasses won't "replace” an iPhone. However, it's not likely any product will replace the iPhone. Thinking about new products in the sense of their ability to replace existing products is faulty. iPhones and iPads didn't replace PCs and Macs. Instead, they became viable alternatives to PCs and Macs for hundreds of millions of people. Similarly, Apple Glasses will one day serve as a viable alternative to the iPhone, handling a new set of tasks never given to iPhone. 

Timing

Historically, Apple has launched a major new product category every few years. While consensus thinks the gap between when Apple enters new product categories is something like three years, it is more likely five to seven years. However, there isn't a large sample size to allow us to place much confidence in any particular pattern. Since the Apple Watch was unveiled in 2015, Apple still has some time before the inevitable pressure arises for the company to launch a new product category. It is certainly plausible that Apple Glasses have become Apple's most likely new major product category, even ahead of any Apple transportation initiative. It is no longer a question of if Apple will sell its own AR glasses, but when. 

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.

Wall Street Has Begun to Think About Apple In a New Way

For the past few years, Apple shares have been judged by one metric on Wall Street: iPhone unit sales. As iPhone growth has fluctuated, so has the stock price. Analysts have been infatuated with quarterly iPhone sales gyrations and the impact they may have on Apple earnings and the stock. However, things are changing. The iPhone’s influence over Apple’s stock is subsiding on Wall Street. 

Wild Ride

Over the past five years, Apple shares have been volatile. As seen in Exhibit 1, Apple's stock has experienced distinct stretches of severe underperformance and outperformance. For a company valued at more than $700B, a 70% move in a year is surprising, if not downright shocking. 

Exhibit 1: Apple Stock Price Performance

Five years of Apple stock price performance can be broken into four distinct eras:

1. Samsung competitive fears. The 2012 to 2013 period was symbolized by Samsung commercials mocking Apple users waiting in line to buy small screen iPhones. The market was beginning to demand larger smartphone screens, and Samsung was running fast to fill the need. There were growing fears of iPhone losing to smartphones running Android, resulting in lower iPhone ASP and margins. Apple shares dropped nearly 45% over this stretch.
2. iPhone 6 and 6 Plus excitement. The iPhone launch at China Mobile, along with Apple's entry into large screen phones, drove a two-year stretch that saw Apple shares more than double in price. iPhone sales growth returned with a vengeance, with quarterly shipment growth up as high as 46% in late 2014.
3. iPhone's first sales decline. Once the excitement surrounding the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus launch subsided, the new reality set in for the iPhone business. iPhone warning signs were appearing. The era of significant unit sales growth was coming to an end. The iPhone business registered its first quarterly sales decline in early 2016. During this period, Apple shares fell 30% from the previous high. 
4. Something new. Apple shares are now up nearly 70% from the low experienced in mid-2016. 

Recent Outperformance

Over the past year, AAPL shares have outperformed the overall market. There are now questions regarding what has driven a 53% increase in Apple's stock price from the bottom experienced in May 2016. 

• Is Apple's services narrative finally catching on Wall Street?
• Are investors becoming increasingly optimistic about iPhone sales prospects?

Apple has become much more vocal in telling its services story. Management went so far as to provide a rare financial projection of doubling the Services business over the next four years. While Apple analysts have certainly been talking more about Apple services, it's not clear if new investors have actually bought into Apple's new messaging. At the same time, greater attention is being placed on the upcoming OLED iPhone, which may be the most significant iPhone update to date. Not only is Apple expected to announce a completely redesigned iPhone, but the device will likely include significant changes to the user experience. Some analysts have been adamant that the device will kick off a "mega upgrade cycle." 

It may be easy to assume Apple services or new iPhones may have been responsible for much of Apple's latest stock outperformance. However, I don't think those factors alone were able to drive a 50% increase in Apple's share price.

Services represents less than 15% of Apple's overall revenue. Truly recurring services revenue in the form of subscription revenue occupies an even smaller portion of that total. It is a stretch to argue that such a small piece of the business can drive what amounts to nearly $250 billion of market capitalization gains in a little over a year. There would need to be a widespread change across Wall Street when it comes to investor attitude towards Apple services, and there just isn't any evidence of that occurring.

In terms of a new iPhone driving a mega upgrade cycle, consensus EPS estimates have barely budged for FY2018. This tells us there isn't widespread optimism flooding into the market. In fact, the trend has actually been for Apple EPS estimate cuts as talk of iPhone supply issues and potential delays grow louder.

Exhibit 2 takes Apple's stock price data from Exhibit 1 and superimposes iPhone unit sales growth (set on a three-month forward basis to account for investors' forward-looking tendencies). As clearly seen in Exhibit 2, Apple shares have skyrocketed over the past year despite a lack of iPhone sales growth. This represents a significant change from previous years. Something just doesn't add up. 

Exhibit 2: iPhone Unit Sales Growth vs. Apple Stock Price Performance

Note: iPhone unit sales growth is on a three-month forward basis (3Q17 and 4Q17 growth metrics are estimates).

One may look at Exhibit 2 and argue that Wall Street is taking a longer view of the iPhone business. Instead of just looking at the next quarter of iPhone sales, the focus is on 2018 and even 2019 sales. That could very well be true. However, it may not be that investors are necessarily expecting the iPhone business to return to some kind of sustainable growth. In what is the most telling sign that something unusual is occurring, rumors of iPhone supply issues and delays that would typically send Apple shares sliding now seemingly have no impact on the stock. Something major has changed regarding how Wall Street is thinking about Apple. 

Balance Sheet Optimization

My theory is that the iPhone no longer has the same kind of influence over Apple shares as it once did. Instead, Apple has turned into a balance sheet optimization story on Wall Street. Apple's growing net cash balance (now standing at an all-time high of $158 billion) has taken the place of iPhone unit sales growth as the most influential variable impacting Apple shares. 

The best way to lay out this theory is to compare Apple's stock price performance to the change in market capitalization. As seen in Exhibit 3, over the past five years, the two data points have increasingly been on a divergent path. Apple's stock price is up 74% while its market capitalization has increased just 35%. Apple's enterprise value (market cap + debt - cash) is up just 36%. Why is Apple's share price significantly outperforming the company's overall change in valuation on Wall Street? The share buyback program is impacting Apple's share price.  

Exhibit 3: Apple Stock Price vs. Market Cap Performance

Apple management is using share repurchases to funnel excess cash from the balance sheet to shareholders selling their Apple shares. This not only reduced the number of Apple shares outstanding, but also gave each remaining share a larger ownership claim to Apple's future cash flows and earnings. It's not that share buyback is creating shareholder value with excess cash simply moving from the balance sheet to those selling their shares. Instead, investors are now willing to pay more for Apple's future cash flows and earnings.

There are a few reasons likely driving this higher valuation of future Apple cash flows.

1. Higher ownership stake. As Apple uses excess cash to reduce the number of shares outstanding, each remaining Apple share has a higher ownership stake in a more optimized balance sheet and cash flows. This has led to a significant increase in EPS. Over the past five years, Apple's operating income has increased just 15%. However, Apple's EPS has increased 45%. As long as Apple continues to use excess cash and low-cost debt to buy back shares, this trend will continue indefinitely.
2. Apple cash discount. While it may seem counterintuitive, it's actually not wise for a company to hold a significant amount of excess cash on the balance sheet. Apple was likely being penalized for holding so much cash. Another way of saying this is that investors were not fully valuing the $150B of net cash sitting on the balance sheet. This would materialize via below-average price-to-earnings (P/E) multiples. Investors just weren't interested in paying up for the full amount of cash on the balance sheet (technically, the amount of cash left over once Apple brought its foreign cash back to the U.S. at a lower tax rate). There is plenty of financial theory behind investors pricing excess cash at a discount, including fear of management misusing the cash on bad M&A or other improper uses. 
3. Expectations for additional capital management. Wall Street is forward-looking and with $240B of foreign cash and cash equivalents sitting on Apple's balance sheet, investors are increasingly contemplating various use cases for the cash if it is returned to the U.S. The most likely outcome would be a significant increase in the share buyback pace. At that point, a Dutch auction tender offer would even be a possibility. This would reduce the number of Apple shares outstanding by up to another 25% (which would boost EPS even higher). 
4. Shareholder base. Share repurchases are systemically shrinking Apple's shareholder base. Apple has reduced the number of outstanding shares by 20% since kicking off its buyback program. Apple investors who have done nothing but hold on to their shares over the past five years would have seen their ownership stake in Apple grow by 20%. As a result, long-term shareholders who have bought into the Apple story are gradually becoming larger Apple owners over time. While some of these holders may not be comfortable with their Apple stakes continuing to grow and represent an outsized portion of their portfolios, in theory, Apple is relying on fewer investors to buy into its narrative. 

Declining Influence

One unintended consequence of Apple's cash hoard gaining influence over Apple shares is that the iPhone no longer has the same kind influence it once did. This isn't to say that Wall Street ignores iPhone trends. The vast majority of free cash flow used for share buyback is coming from iPhone sales. The key difference is that Wall Street has grown less concerned about the quarterly gyration in iPhone sales. In the grand scheme of things, there is little difference between Apple selling 200M iPhones per year and 300M iPhones per year. It also doesn't matter if a new iPhone is delayed by a few months. These are relatively minor details that just don't matter in terms of the big picture. I suspect this is why ongoing iPhone delay rumors are having little impact on the stock. In addition, Apple's ongoing iPhone sales pressure and troubles in China and India are no longer viewed as significant hiccups that could derail the stock. Both countries combined represent approximately 20% of overall iPhone sales. U.S. and European sales strength would likely be enough to maintain the iPhone's current sales level.

Warren Buffett Symbolism

Warren Buffett's recent purchases of Apple shares over the span of less than a year (the stake is now worth $20 billion) symbolize how Wall Street is thinking differently about Apple. While Buffett is on record talking about how the iPhone is such a compelling consumer product, his comments regarding share buyback are quite telling.

Here's Buffett back in May on his Apple investment:

"Well the shares when we bought 'em, at least, were much more reasonable in relation to current earnings. Apple didn't have to do a lot better in the future than they were doing at the current time." 

It's not that Buffett expects any significant change in Apple's business going forward. Instead, he viewed Apple's valuation as compelling given Apple's current performance. This begs the question, why now? Why didn't Buffett buy Apple years ago when the valuation was lower? Buffett claims he now understands the competitive landscape facing Apple. However, my suspicion is that Apple's balance sheet optimization story had simply become too hard for Buffett to ignore. Here's Buffett back in February responding to questions about Apple's market cap being too large to grow from here in any significant way:

"[Y]ou could have a lot fewer [Apple] shares outstanding at some time and still do very well on a per share basis. [Apple management] bought about 4 percent of the company last year. And they've been pretty, pretty aggressive on that. So my guess is they've got about 5.25 billion shares outstanding now, but my guess is that ten years from now they'll have substantially fewer."

Buffett is buying Apple because he has confidence that the iPhone business is a good cash generating machine that can fund aggressive share buyback. The Apple story on Wall Street now revolves just as much around the company's balance sheet and significant cash balances as it does around the iPhone business.

Future Implications

There are a number of implications related to Wall Street thinking differently about Apple. 

1) Apple earnings will take on a different meaning. While quarterly earnings will still matter from the perspective of providing a window into Apple's current business trends, the way Wall Street responds to earnings will change. There will be less focus on weak/strong guidance or a beat/miss to iPhone or iPad sales. Instead, the focus will be on whether the overall Apple story has changed. This new reality will actually make it more important than ever for market observers to possess a longer view of Apple. Fresh and unique perspective will be needed to assess just how Apple's long-term competitive positioning is holding up. 

2) Share buyback will continue to gain importance. The single biggest factor impacting Apple shares isn't the upcoming new iPhone or competition with Amazon or WeChat. Instead, it's the probability of Washington passing U.S. corporate tax reform, including a lower tax rate for bringing offshore cash back to the U.S. Apple is poised to spend a significant portion of its $240B of excess cash currently sitting in foreign subsidiaries on buyback, assuming it can be bought back at a lower tax rate.

3) A potential new long-term Apple story. Apple still lacks a compelling business narrative on Wall Street. For analysts and investors focused on modeling Apple's forward cash flows, a company that sells customer experiences comprised of hardware, software, and services isn't exactly the easiest company to forecast. Of course, there is also unknown found with companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet. However, those companies have easier (and simpler) narratives revolving around non-hardware revenue. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple is now viewed as a design company focused on something much larger than just selling hardware. Apple's R&D pipeline, an item that plays a critical part in the company's mission statement of coming up with future product that can improve people's lives, is still not valued on Wall Street.

This dynamic presents an interesting theory as to Apple's future as a public company. The notion of Apple being considered some kind of annuity with recurring hardware and software revenue may never catch on Wall Street. At the end of the day, Apple's future will always be focused on coming up with new products. This makes it incredibly difficult for investors to model Apple cash flows going forward. What if Apple were instead viewed as a balance sheet stock? The company would go through cycles based on a varying degree of share repurchases. These repurchases would be based on the company's ability to generate strong cash flows. For example, we are currently in the cycle in which iPhone is funding share repurchases. In the future, we may see Apple AR glasses or transportation initiatives fund share repurchases. Simply put, regardless of Apple's product line at any particular moment, investors will likely remain more focused on Apple's balance sheet and cash levels. As a result, Apple's future as a public company would be one of a cash generating machine supporting the largest share repurchase program in the world. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

iPhone Turns Ten

Today marks the tenth anniversary of Apple launching the iPhone. It would be an understatement to say that the iPhone has changed Apple and the broader mobile industry. The iPhone fundamentally altered the way Apple views the world and measures ambition when contemplating new industries to enter. At the same time, Apple's steadfast approach to controlling both iPhone hardware and software ended up being a bet that is still giving mobile competitors headaches a decade later. 

The Numbers

There are three sets of numbers that stand out when thinking about ten years of iPhone. 

Unit Sales

On a cumulative basis, Apple has sold 1.2 billion iPhones to date. The magnitude of this number is difficult to grasp and put into context. Prior to launching the iPhone in 2007, Apple had sold approximately 180M devices since being founded in 1976 (70M Macs and 110M iPods). Assuming Apple is able to ship at least 200M iPhones per year for the next few years, Apple is on track to sell its two billionth iPhone at some point in 2020.  

Exhibit 1: iPhone Unit Sales (cumulative)

Revenue

With an average selling price (ASP) exceeding $600, more than one billion iPhone sales translates to $743 billion of cumulative revenue. Apple is on track to report one trillion dollars of revenue from iPhone sales by the end of 2018. Even more remarkable, the iPhone's evolving role in our life has led to iPhone ASP increasing as time goes on. The probability of Apple unveiling the first $1,000 iPhone SKU in the U.S. this coming September is quite high.

Exhibit 2: iPhone Revenue (cumulative)

Profit

Apple has a monopoly on smartphone profits. Assuming an average gross margin of approximately 45%, Apple has earned approximately $330 billion of profit from iPhone over the past ten years. On a net income basis, the iPhone has brought in 1.5x more profit than the combined profits of Amazon, Facebook, and Google during the same time period.

Exhibit 3: iPhone Gross Profit (cumulative)

iPhone Lessons

The more intriguing impact from ten years of iPhone cannot be measured or quantified by sales, revenue, or any chart for that matter. Instead, the iPhone contributed quite a bit to preparing Apple for future pivots into new industries. Along those lines, there are three specific items that stand out when it comes to lessons Apple learned from the iPhone over the past 10 years: 

• Ambition
• Control
• Platform

Ambition. Prior to the iPhone, Apple was primarily a computer company selling Macs and Mac accessories. The company had only recently begun to see broader consumer appeal with iPod. Apple had no expertise in mobile telephony prior to developing the iPhone. On paper, Apple shouldn't have been able to come up with something like iPhone. The company just didn't have the required core competencies for selling a great phone.

Former Palm CEO Ed Calligan's now infamous words regarding Apple's entrance into the phone industry were based on the belief that Apple would never be able to learn as much as established phone players:

We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.

There was one glaring hole found in Calligan's logic. Phones were going to become computers. Instead of Apple worrying about becoming a good phone maker, phone makers should have been worrying about becoming good computer makers. 

The innate desire to rethink a gadget that many people had trouble using drove Apple into smartphones. Of course, the fear of smartphones one day impacting iPod sales also pushed Apple management. This led to a more than two year process during which Apple learned quite a bit about phones, mobile carriers, and itself. The learning didn't stop after launching the iPhone in 2007. In subsequent years, Apple learned, at times the hard way, about the ins and outs of mobile telephony. Over time, Apple's long-standing strengths in building computer hardware and software gave the company its advantage over the Blackberries and Nokias of the world. 

Today, Apple's ambition continues to be underestimated. Apple is approaching new industries in a way that is similar to how it looked at the mobile phone arena in the mid-2000s. The Apple Watch was tasked with rethinking wrist watches. Apple had to learn quite a bit when it came to fashion and luxury in order to get people to want to wear Apple gadgets. Management now has its sights set on the transportation industry, a sector that hasn't seen much change in 100 years. In addition, Apple is moving into the health and medical arena at an incredible pace.

Just a few years ago, this kind of product pipeline would have been labeled an ambitious pipe dream for Apple. Something changed over the past 10 years. The iPhone showed Apple how a single product with a rethought user experience can change an entire industry to make it much more hospitable for the company. At this point, it is fair to say that Apple is willing to compete in any industry as long as there is room for someone to rethink the user experience. The same couldn't be said prior to iPhone. 

Control. The iPhone taught Apple quite a bit about the power found in controlling one's destiny. While the iPhone did not introduce the company to the idea of controlling both software and hardware, the iPhone played a major role in showing Apple benefits associated with owning the core technologies powering a device. Some of the early bets Apple placed in this regard, such as the P.A. Semi acquisition in 2008, are still paying dividends.

Here's Tim Cook talking to Businessweek following the WWDC keynote earlier this month:

Steve’s DNA will always be the base for Apple. It’s the case now. I want it to be the case in 50 years, whoever’s the CEO. I want it to be the case in 100 years, whoever’s CEO. Because that is what this company is about. His ethos should drive that—the attention to detail, the care, the ­simplicity, the focus on the user and the user experience, the focus on building the best, the focus that good isn’t good enough, that it has to be great, or in his words, “insanely great,” that we should own the proprietary technology that we work with because that’s the only way you can control your future and control your quality and user experience.

It says a lot that Cook looks at owning core technologies as an inherent aspect of Apple's culture. The iPhone contributed quite a bit to that reality. There is now an increasing amount of evidence pointing to Apple working on its own GPU solution in addition to LTE modem chips. We are moving to the point at which it will no longer be enough for Apple to just own the most important components powering a device. Rather Apple will need to come up with its own solutions that combine the most important components to power increasingly smaller, wearable gadgets. 

What were once hardware and software bets that gave Apple a five-to ten-year head start on the competition are now turning into technological bets that will give the company advantages measured in decades. 

Platform. While Wall Street remains infatuated with iPhone sales, Apple continues to see a strengthening iOS platform thanks to robust new iPhone user growth and an engaged developer community. The iOS platform has afforded Apple a new way to think about the world. There are signs of Apple management being well aware of the power and influence found with iOS.  

Here's Eddy Cue in August 2016: 

[Apple] can’t be everything. One of the reasons we’ve been highly successful is that we focus. We can’t be great at everything; nobody’s great at everything. I mean, come on. So, if you want to be great at something, you have to focus and do a few things. We’ve been lucky. We’ve had a few, and not just one. That’s the only way we know how to work. So we don’t want to be Amazon and be Facebook and be Instagram and so on. Why? Or Uber. Why? I think it’s awesome that Travis [Kalanick, Uber’s CEO] and his team have done Uber on our platform. It would not exist without our platform, let’s be clear. But great for them for thinking of that problem, and solving it. We would never have ever solved that problem. We weren’t looking that way. We would have never seen it.

It's easy to read Cue's response as Apple taking responsibility for Uber's success in rethinking personal transport. However, Cue is correctly pointing out that the iOS platform served as the breeding ground for innovative ideas and business models. With the iOS platform, Apple has played a major role in creating a number of new industries. In the coming years, management will determine which parts of the iOS platform are worth Apple playing in themselves. Management has already determined a need to play in music and video streaming in addition to messaging and mobile payments. It's not yet clear if ridesharing or another larger industry will one day make sense for Apple. Even more importantly, the iOS platform has given Apple a fighting chance to create the most attractive platforms for third-party developers around a new suite of products including Apple TV (tvOS) and Apple Watch (watchOS).

Defining Legacy

A great deal of iPhone's success can be traced back to the fact that Apple bet on a very big product category at just the right time. The smartphone redefined a computer for billions of people in just a few years. 

While some people are convinced that nothing will match the smartphone in terms of its influence on our lives, such prognostications end up selling future innovations short. Odds are very good that a new device, or series of devices, will one day serve as a viable smartphone alternative. It's likely that these new devices will achieve even greater market penetration than smartphones.

Regardless of where technology is headed, we are already starting to get an early glimpse of the iPhone's legacy. The iPhone spawned an industry that redefined a computer, transforming it from a niche tool into a mass-market phenomenon. For Apple, the iPhone went further than any other Apple product before it in terms of making technology more personal. The iPhone was Apple's first genuine mass-market product. All of this occurred in just ten years, which ends up being the most remarkable part of the story. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

WWDC Clues Hint at Mac's Future

Apple used this year's WWDC keynote to let the world know it has every intention of supporting the Mac for the long haul. When reading between the lines, it becomes evident that the Mac's future is one of a niche product within Apple's portfolio. Meanwhile, Apple's messaging around the iPad during the same keynote couldn't be any different. As the Mac is going in the direction of niche, the iPad is being groomed to be the Mac/PC alternative for the masses.

Turning Point

The past few years have been an odd stretch for the Mac. Hardware updates have been unusually sporadic although the few updates that did ship were noteworthy. The MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, unveiled in October 2016, represented a prime example of Apple's strategy to use aspects of mobile to push the Mac forward. Apple silicon, Touch ID, and multi-touch displays bring a different kind of experience to the Mac. Throughout this awkward stretch for the Mac, the Apple Industrial Design team's influence on the Mac remained quite obvious, which only increased the level of uneasiness felt by many pro Mac users.

Management used this year's WWDC keynote to officially put an end to this odd Mac stretch. The keynote couldn't have been any different from the previous, somewhat awkward Mac event that took place this past October. This time around, Apple unveiled item after item, clearly targeting pro Mac users.

The new $4,999 iMac Pro was announced to much surprise and with certain configurations that were unimaginable for a Mac all-in-one just a few months earlier. Apple's decision to sell an external graphics development kit was also unthinkable just a few months ago.

It is likely that all of these Mac announcements had been in the pipeline for a while. Nevertheless, Apple seemed eager to spin a fresh Mac narrative around pro users. Much of this change in narrative and attitude was a carryover from management's recent Mac intervention with journalists at Apple HQ this past April. At that meeting, SVP Phil Schiller, SVP Craig Federighi, and VP John Ternus clearly telegraphed a revised Mac strategy focused on placing more attention on the tail end of the business. While one would think the new iMac Pro marks Apple's extent into niche Mac territory, the company still plans on releasing a completely redesigned Mac Pro. Given iMac Pro pricing, it is not out of question the for a new Mac Pro configuration to surpass $10,000. Let that sink in for a minute. 

The iPad Juxtaposition

If this year's WWDC keynote doubled as a Mac event (Apple dedicated 23% of stage time to the Mac), the event could have also moonlighted as an iPad event (Apple dedicated 21% of stage time to iPad). My full WWDC review is available for members here. However, when the two products were viewed back-to-back, there couldn't have been a more stark difference between them. While the pro in iMac Pro and Mac Pro stood for professional, the pro in iPad Pro stood for productivity.

During the Mac portion of the keynote, management's focus was on addressing the tail end of a 100M Mac user base. A $4,999 iMac Pro is not about adding productivity for the masses. Instead, it is targeting a particular kind of professional. Apple will likely sell fewer iMac Pros than cylinder Mac Pros sold to date. In terms of a redesigned Mac Pro, it is difficult to picture the machine even qualifying as niche. Instead, it will be a niche of a niche.  

Meanwhile, the iPad portion of the WWDC keynote was all about Apple bringing additional productivity to the masses. The new $649 10.5-inch iPad Pro continued Apple's multi-year bet on larger iPad screens (a very sound strategy). Apple also unveiled iOS 11 refinements for iPad that some had been hoping to see for years. One key aspect found in every major iPad software refinement was optionality. For those users craving additional capability, the new software features will prove to be quite valuable. However, for many iPad users, items like multitasking or the new Files app may never be used. In those cases, the same, familiar iOS experience will still be available. Apple was able to add productivity options to the iPad without changing what had gotten the product to where it is today - simplicity and ease of use. The not-so-subtle implication made on stage at WWDC was that the iPad is becoming more of a genuine laptop alternative for hundreds of millions of people.

Change in the Air

This year's WWDC keynote provided a glimpse of the Mac's future. A large portion of the Mac user base are going to find their computing needs met with iPad Pro. According to Apple, approximately 70% to 85% of the current Mac user base does not rely on professional Mac software. This amounts to approximately 80M people. These users are not app developers, nor do they have the need for the kind of power found in a MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, or Mac Pro. Instead, these users are likely attracted to the Mac for keyboard computing. 

As Apple pushes the iPad Pro forward with hardware and software advancements, including various keyboard improvements, these 80M Mac users are going to discover that the iPad is getting better at handling their computing needs. It's not that the Mac will lose value, but rather that a large multi-touch display running iOS will gain value. The shift won't occur overnight for the simple fact that consumers hold on to Macs for years. In addition, it is important to point out that Apple management won't have any issue with this development as long as these Mac users remain within the Apple ecosystem.

Over time, the exodus of non-pro Mac users to iPad Pro will transform the Mac into a niche product category. There will still be millions of users, but the machines will increasingly be geared toward narrow use cases such as VR and AR content creation. In addition, the Mac will become the preferred tool for those in various academic, science, and engineering fields.

One may ask, what will happen to consumer-grade Macs, including the MacBook Air and 12-inch MacBook? They will be cannibalized by the iPad Pro line, much as the iPad mini has been cannibalized by larger iPhones. In fact, the entire Mac portable form factor is at risk of cannibalization at the hands of iOS screens. While this won't stop Apple management from pushing the MacBook form factor forward, consumer purchasing habits will speak volumes. 

The Achilles' Heel

Two months ago, I published "The Mac Is Turning into Apple's Achilles' Heel." My thesis was that Apple's inability to move beyond the Mac represents a vulnerability in an otherwise strong product strategy geared toward the mass market. Reaction to the piece came in swift and spanned the spectrum.

The issue facing the Mac has never been Apple's ability to give the product category attention. We saw evidence of this first-hand at this year's WWDC. Apple is able to update the Mac, along with every other product category. In fact, it is not a stretch to say the Mac's outlook within Apple has never been brighter and stronger than it stands today. If one were to place a bet on which current Apple product category will remain within Apple's product line the longest, the Mac would certainly be high on the list. This ends up supporting my thesis that the Mac is Apple's Achilles' heel.

It is very difficult envisioning Apple being able to move beyond the Mac. The product is on track to become a permanent niche within a continuously changing product line.

Apple is moving to a point where the product line will look something like: 

• iPhone: An AR navigator (mass market item)
• iPad: Computer for the masses (mass market item)
• Wearables: Various form factors with broad use cases (mass market items) 
• Transportation: Autonomous transport (mass market item)
• Home: Various form factors with broad use cases (mass market items)
• Mac: Graphics intensive content creation and computation (niche) 

This may not seem like a problem for Apple. The Mac has been responsible for a lot of beneficial things at the company, including inspiring the current generation of content creators. However, the problem for Apple is that having a long tail end of the business comprised of niche Macs may pose a new kind of challenge. Apple Industrial Designers will need to look after the user experience found within a portfolio of mass market product. At the same time, they will need to handle the dramatically different user needs found with a niche product category, the Mac. It's not clear how they will do this. Will Apple designers cede control over the user experience to their engineering peers when it comes to niche Mac hardware? 

Unchartered Territory

While some people look at Apple's big risk as management's inability or unwillingness to move beyond the iPhone, that fear is misplaced. Apple is already moving beyond the iPhone as seen with more personal gadgets worn on our body.

Instead, the genuine risk facing management is that Apple will be unable to move beyond the Mac. This is unchartered territory for Apple. The theory that Apple has to move beyond legacy products in order to completely focus on the future is going to be put to test. It is also possible that the Mac will end up being the first product category that represents genuine growing pains for Apple. In the past, the company would have been able to bring its entire nimble user base from one product category to the next. A niche Mac line will put an end to that era.

Despite gaining niche status, the Mac will still play a major role in creating content consumed on future Apple products including wearables and transportation products. This will give the Mac a level of influence that should not be underestimated. While it is difficult for some to believe, now has never been a better time to be a pro Mac user. This year's WWDC made it clear that the Mac has a future at Apple. However, the amount of change headed towards the Mac should not be underestimated. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

HomePod

Apple unveiled a brand new product category last week at WWDC: HomePod. On the surface, HomePod seems like an unusual product for Apple. The company's most recent new products (Apple Watch and AirPods) form the foundation of an expanding wearables strategy. How does a stationary smart speaker fit into such a product strategy? Meanwhile, Amazon Echo and Google Home have led many to assume HomePod is merely Apple's me-too response to speakers piping voice assistants throughout the home. This isn't correct. HomePod isn't actually about Siri. Instead, HomePod will serve as the foundation for augmented hearing in the home.

A Computer with Speakers

While HomePod is technically a smart speaker, it is more correct to say HomePod is a computer with a touchscreen, speakers, and microphones. The device is powered by Apple's A8 chip, the same chip found in an iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. This chip is responsible for turning HomePod into a computer that contains the best-sounding speakers most people will have ever owned. 

I was able to listen to HomePod play various music genres last week. (My full WWDC review is available for members here.) Apple is not overselling the device's speaker capabilities. In a somewhat controlled environment resembling a typical living room, HomePod's sound output clearly stood out from that of Amazon Echo and Sonos Play 3. In fact, it made the Amazon Echo sound like a cheap toy, and the Sonos Play 3 sounded so inferior, I wondered if something was wrong with the Sonos.

As I walked around the room, there was no change in sound quality coming from HomePod. Standing to the side of the computer, I mean speaker, rather than sitting right in front led to the same listening experience. When two HomePods were used simultaneously (there was about a five-foot gap between the two computers), a different experience was produced. Instead of just amplifying the sound, the two units worked together to produce a richer experience. It is easy to imagine how situating two HomePods in opposite corners of a room could lead to a revolutionary listening experience.

HomePod's Value

During the WWDC keynote, Apple positioned HomePod as a great speaker for playing music that can do a few other things. Those "other things" involve using Siri as a digital voice assistant. In addition to controlling various HomeKit-enabled devices around the house, Apple plans on allowing Siri to handle a set of its most popular requests out of the gate. These capabilities will be similar to those of other smart speakers in the marketplace. 

This has led many to conclude that HomePod isn't actually too different than the competition, especially if Siri is deemed not as capable as other voice assistants. However, such logic severely misinterprets the situation. HomePod's value isn't found in asking Siri for sports scores or controlling the kitchen lights. HomePod's value is found in an A8 chip controlling a series of microphones and speakers.  

HomePod is a computer capable of mapping a room and then adjusting its sound output accordingly. This is another way of saying that HomePod is able to capture its surroundings and then use that information to tailor a specific experience to the listener. It is easy to see how collecting data and then using that data to improve the experience will position HomePod as an augmented reality (or maybe we should say augmented hearing) device. 

Augmented Hearing

Whenever the topic of augmented reality (AR) is discussed, most people automatically think of the visual world. We are able to view additional information that augments reality. Apple began to lay out its big AR push with ARKit for iPhone and iPad. However, AR can also apply to hearing and sound. In both cases, we are given new sensory stimuli capable of changing our perception of the surrounding environment. 

Augmented hearing in the home begins to play in the realm of omnipresent computing. It is not out of question that HomePod will eventually be able to grab data from our surroundings and then provide personalized feedback to us wherever we are at home. (Given how multiple HomePods can communicate with each other, this could be both in and around the house.) Signal processing and far-field voice recognition, items which were not demoed last week, will make it possible for the user to respond to or interact with HomePods in a normal environment containing people and plenty of other noise. While HomePods will handle this task indoors, AirPods can serve as the solution for when we are away from the home. One would be correct to think of HomePods and AirPods as siblings. 

A few augmented reality examples include the HomePod recording and copying the sound from one location or room and then replicating that sound in another room. This would be game changing as it would be as though we were in a completely different room even though we hadn't changed locations. An adult would be able to speak to a child in another room by simply talking out loud in a regular tone thanks to multiple HomePods. In these examples, we are beginning to redefine how we consume sound in the home. Discussions will one day be able to be wired through HomePods and then delivered directionally so that someone in a crowded room will be able to have a private chat without the need for headphones. In effect, the definition of sound as we currently know it will be altered. In these examples, the use of multiple HomePods working together with each other multiples the value found with using the devices. 

The Strategy

The competitive tech landscape is changing as the battle for our attention when using smartphones is broadening into a massive land grab for the most valuable real estate in our lives. The tech battle lines are being redrawn around three areas: cars, homes, and bodies. HomePod is part of Apple's growing battle for our home.

There a few variables guiding this new competitive landscape. 

1. Monitoring. Value will flow to devices and software that can monitor significant portions of our day.

2. Intelligence. Devices will learn from this data in order to provide feedback to the user.

3. Personalization. Hardware personalization will gain importance as the line between technology and fashion becomes blurry.

HomePod plays squarely in two of those three factors out of the gate. A HomePod will make for a great monitoring device while it will also be able to provide intelligent feedback via speakers and microphones. While HomePod doesn't play in hardware personalization similar to that of Apple Watch and other wearables, the personalization angle takes the form of tailored, personalized listening experiences suited to our specific hearing needs. 

When it comes to the concept of a smart home, we are still looking at pretty rudimentary ideas. A home won't be truly smart until tech companies build housing and we are no longer able to tell between smart and non-smart items. Up to that point, a smart home describes the concept of controlling things around the home that move. Given how the smart home battle is still in the early stages, Apple has the opportunity to do quite a bit with HomePod and the concept of augmented hearing in the home.

HomePod is not Apple's first product designed to compete for our attention in the home. Instead, Apple has been selling Trojan horses in its battle for our home called iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. These mobile devices are very likely to remain near us, or in some cases, on us, when we are at home. HomePod is unlike the Amazon Echo because it doesn't pretend that we lack smartphones, tablets, or wearables. This is one reason why Apple decided to take a straightforward path in pitching HomePod as a great music speaker. The device is all about producing sound so great that it cannot be replicated by any of our other devices, even if the HomePod has touch controls located on the top of the device. 

Pricing

When it comes to pricing, HomePod should not be compared to voice assistant conduits such as Amazon Echo or Google Home. The HomePod is not just a "smart speaker." Saying that HomePod is competing against Amazon Echo is equivalent to saying the iPod competed against generic MP3 players.

Instead, a more relevant HomePod comparison would be dedicated speaker systems from Sonos and Bose. With HomePod, Apple is aiming to sell the best speaker someone has ever owned. The Sonos Play 5, at $499, may be the closest comparable speaker to HomePod within the Sonos lineup. At $349, HomePod is priced very competitively not only when it is compared to the Play 5, but even when it is compared to the $299 Sonos Play 3, which was inferior to HomePod in terms of sound quality. Meanwhile, surround sound speaker systems from Bose retail from $700 to $1,000, or the same price as three HomePods. 

Of course, comparing HomePod to existing speakers in the marketplace ignores the fact that HomePod is powered by an A8 chip. This is like comparing AirPods to a simple pair of bluetooth wireless headphones lacking Apple's W1 chip. While Sonos claims to do some form of room mapping to alter its sound output, the process just doesn't compare to that which is found with HomePod. 

Challenges

As with any major new product category from Apple, management is placing a few big bets on HomePod. Apple is ultimately looking to sell a new idea to consumers. This idea involves positioning stationary speakers throughout the home. The concept may seem like a stretch today because it mostly is when looking at the current state of standalone speakers. Judging by sales, the standalone speaker market is niche. We have not seen the need to buy stand-alone speakers to accompany existing speakers found in TVs, iPhones, and iPads. Apple wants to change consumer behavior with HomePod. The other challenge Apple faces is convincing people of the value attached to augmented hearing. 

Goals

Apple likes to point out how music is in its DNA. We can look at iTunes, iPod, iPhone, Apple Music, and now AirPods, as well-known Apple products tasked with rethinking how we consume music. One product missing from that list is the iPod Hi-Fi. In what may come as a surprise to many, Apple actually sold a standalone speaker (which also retailed $349). The fact that iPod Hi-Fi was available for just 17 months back in 2006 and 2007 speaks volumes as to its ultimate success.  

There are key differences between that speaker and HomePod. iPod Hi-Fi was meant to sell iPods (and iTunes) by making it easy to connect an iPod to a great-sounding home stereo. HomePod is given a much more ambitious goal, which is to reinvent sound in the home. In fact, Apple wants HomePod to redefine sound in the home much as iPod, iPhone, and now AirPods, redefined sound on the go. Apple will begin this quest by initially positioning HomePod as a great speaker that can add value to the Apple ecosystem. Apple's audio engineering team is at a completely different place today than it was 10 years ago. However, the fundamental difference between HomePod and iPod Hi-Fi quickly becomes obvious as Apple silicon allows the HomePod to do revolutionary things with speakers and microphones. 

The writing is on the wall: Apple wants to control as many speakers in our lives as possible. Controlling sound is Apple's secret strategy for gaining a stronger foothold in the home.

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.

iPhone Evolution

The iPhone's most remarkable quality is the degree to which its role in our lives has changed. In 2007, the iPhone was a computer that fit in our pocket. The product evolved into the most valuable communications tool in our life thanks to advances in camera technology. We are now on the verge of the iPhone becoming a new kind of personal navigator as Apple embraces augmented reality. The iPhone's role in our life doesn't remain static, but rather it evolves. This fact has major implications when it comes to thinking about iPhone sales and pricing, screen size preference, upgrade trends, and even how other gadgets will fit into our lives. 

The iPhone 7 Plus

One takeaway from Apple's 2Q17 earnings was that the iPhone 7 Plus is selling surprisingly well. Management assumed the larger iPhone form factor would gain popularity, but iPhone 7 Plus demand has exceeded Apple's internal expectations. Not only has the iPhone 7 Plus sold well in the U.S. and Europe, but the model is seeing double-digit sales growth in China.

Relying on app usage trends provided by Fiksu, iPhone 7 Plus demand looks to be up at least 20% year-over-year compared to the iPhone 6s Plus. Given that overall iPhone sales are trending flat year-over-year, sales of the other iPhone models are not as robust as that of iPhone 7 Plus. In fact, management commented on how subdued interest in older iPhone models drove much of the sales weakness in China last quarter.

This raises an obvious question: Why has the iPhone 7 Plus seen such strong demand? The model looks very similar to an iPhone 6 Plus and iPhone 6s Plus. In addition, consumers have had the option to buy an iPhone with a 5.5-inch screen for three years. 

The most logical explanation is that the iPhone's role in our lives continues to change, and iPhone 7 Plus features have become more appealing than those of smaller iPhones. Bigger screens are gaining popularity because photos and videos are becoming a more crucial part of our daily communication. While large screen smartphones have been popular in Asia for years, momentum is only now building in Western markets. In addition, the dual-camera system in the iPhone 7 Plus has led to Apple's significant marketing campaign around Portrait Mode. The iPhone 7 Plus camera is actually one of the more marketable iPhone features in years, which speaks volumes about iPhone being the key communication device in our lives. 

Evolution

Up to now, iPhone evolution has meant the process of Apple gradually improving features and components each year. Rather than calling a new iPhone a revolutionary update, we look at year-to-year hardware and software changes as evolutionary. However, this doesn't do a great job of describing what is really taking place with the iPhone. The iPhone's role in our lives is the item actually evolving. The iPhone is not a static product providing a similar experience year in and year out, much like a laptop or desktop. Instead, the iPhone's definition changes over time thanks to software and hardware advancements.

2007. Next month marks the tenth anniversary of the iPhone's launch. In what is now widely referred to as the greatest product unveiling of all time, the iPhone introduction provides an easy way to see the iPhone's initial definition out of the gate. The iPhone was positioned as a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet communicator wrapped into one product. Judging by the audience's reaction and applause, the most anticipated feature was the revolutionary mobile phone, not the internet communicator. Said another way, the iPhone was initially viewed as a different kind of phone. 

Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone in January 2007.

2008. The App Store introduction in July 2008 set the iPhone on its current trajectory. It became clear that the iPhone wasn't just a phone, but rather a computer that fit in one's pocket. The potential found with iOS was not fully appreciated at launch. A smartphone was initially looked at as a device supplementing our PC usage while away from the desk or home. This is one reason why Blackberry was so popular among business users. For the first time, they had access to their email while away from the office.

2012. Facebook's acquisition of Instagram in 2012 was a turning point not for Facebook, but rather for the smartphone camera. Around this time, the iPhone's role in our lives was also changing. The device was no longer just about having email or webpage browsing in our pocket. The camera began to gain value. We started using cameras for more than just capturing memories. Social networks based entirely on pictures started to take off. Other companies, including Snapchat, soon followed in terms of fostering new forms of communication based on new visual mediums. If the camera renaissance began in 2012, then the video renaissance started a few years later. Everyone is now battling for live streaming prominence. The latest trend with video filters begins to reveal where things are headed: augmented reality.  

AR Navigator

There are signs that the iPhone's role in our lives is about to change once again. We are on the verge of the augmented reality (AR) era. Apple has been investing heavily in AR for years with a number of notable acquisitions including Metaio, Emotient, Polar Rose, Faceshift, PrimeSense, Flyby Media, and Perceptio. AR is going to turn the iPhone into a smart pair of eyes. These eyes will transform the iPhone's functionality. Much of what has been written and said about AR positions the technology as merely an interlacing of objects with a real-world layer. Snapchat filters come to mind. However, the much more interesting and valuable attribute found with AR is having a device extract data from our surroundings and then offer additional value and context to the user. The dual-camera system found in the iPhone 7 Plus is able to extract more data than any other iPhone camera. 

Near-Term Implications

Higher Pricing. As the iPhone's role in our live continues to evolve, the device has been able to capture an increasing amount of value. When phones were just phones, we were willing to spend a certain amount on the device and corresponding service (voice minutes and text messages). Once the iPhone kicked off the era of smartphones turning into computers, we valued "phones" differently. We were willing to pay much higher prices because the devices provided additional value. Once an iPhone becomes an AR device, we are going to place even more value on the device. This will manifest itself in higher iPhone pricing. There is a reason why there has been an increasing number of reports and rumors about future iPhone pricing exceeding $1,000: It makes plenty of sense. 

Higher Costs. Simply put, it is costing Apple more to build iPhones. Apple is passing these higher component costs on to consumers. Apple increased iPhone pricing by $100 in 2014 for the 5.5-inch screen found with the iPhone 6 Plus. Pricing was raised by another $20 last year to account for the dual-camera system found in the iPhone 7 Plus. An iPhone model exceeding $1,000 is inevitable due to the simple fact that screen and camera technology costs are increasing. This may seem to be a recipe for disaster when it comes to iPhone demand. However, iPhone 7 Plus shows there has been a certain level of inelasticity found with iPhone demand. It all comes back to iPhone evolution and the iPhone's role in our lives changing to support higher pricing. 

Screen Size Preference. The 4-inch iPhone SE served Apple well over the past year. According to my estimates, Apple sold 30M iPhone SE units to date. However, the iPhone's evolution will likely impact screen size preference going forward. The desire for one-handed iPhone use is being surpassed by the desire to consume photos and videos on larger screens. It is becoming difficult to see 4-inch iPhone screens remaining in Apple's product line. Instead, the product will likely be cannibalized by iPhones with larger screen to bezel ratios. Apple will be able to fit larger screens in a similar form factor, thereby solving the dilemma experienced by those wanting not only one-handed iPhone use, but also larger screens.

Long-Term Implications

iPad Demand. As larger iPhone screens become the norm, small iPad screen demand will continue to decline. As discussed in my "Peak iPad Mini" article published in November 2015, there is no room for the iPad mini in Apple's evolving product line. Going forward, the iPhone will continue to represent the iPad's biggest headache. Larger iPhone screens handle many of the core items that were initially positioned as key iPad selling points. This will force Apple to position the iPad as a high-end device focused on larger screens and tasks such as writing, drawing, and sketching.

Wearables Demand. The iPhone may be great at capturing the world around us, but it comes up short in terms of capturing a crucial part of our lives: biometrics data. Health monitoring will represent a key use case for wearables (not just for Apple Watch). It may seem counterintuitive, but the more crucial of a device the iPhone becomes in our life, the more room there may be for a new breed of device. 

Upgrade Trends. While the iPhone upgrade cycle will continue to elongate, a ceiling may begin to appear preventing the iPhone upgrade cycle from approaching that of a PC or Mac. The iPhone's evolving role in our lives makes the product much more dynamic than a laptop or tablet. The amount of change seen over the course of four to five iPhone versions will likely keep the average upgrade cycle from extending beyond five years. The wild card is the degree to which consumers embrace annual upgrade plans that take much of the decision-making out of the process and make iPhones that much more accessible to the mass market. 

It's All About the Camera

Critics have been wrong about iPhone over the past 10 years because they failed to predict iPhone evolution. When the iPhone was just a computer in our pocket, the device was said to eventually lose to lower-priced computers. Instead, the iPhone became the most valued communication tool in our lives. Some now think the iPhone will lose to the most powerful communication services currently running on the iOS platform. However, the iPhone won't just remain a communication tool. Instead, the iPhone is quickly becoming a personal navigator capable of capturing much more data around us. 

My theory as to why the iPhone has evolved while larger screens like tablets, PCs, and TVs have seen much less change is that the iPhone contains the most valuable camera in our lives. As the iPhone's role in our lives has changed, camera usage has increased. We are giving much more value to the most mobile camera in our lives. The fact that we have our iPhones on us throughout the day breeds this evolutionary process. It also helps having an industry the size of the smartphone industry work on advancing certain core technologies found with the camera (hardware and software). The camera's importance to iPhone evolution raises an intriguing idea. The iPhone's future may be found by forecasting how we will use and value cameras in our lives.

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Apple Wearables Sales Outpacing iPhone out of the Gate

Apple's wearables platform is gaining momentum. According to Apple's most recent earnings and management commentary, the company sold more than five million wearable devices last quarter. When combined, Apple Watch, AirPods, and W1 chip-enabled Beats headphones are now outselling Mac in terms of unit sales. More impressively, Apple wearables are tracking ahead of iPhone in terms of unit sales out of the gate. As competitors continue to approach wearables with caution, Apple is doubling down. 

Apple's Wearables Platform

Apple's wearables platform consists of three product categories:

• Apple Watch. Launched in April 2015, Apple Watch is Apple's first wearables device. After reconfiguring the Apple Watch line this past September, Apple now sells five Watch models ranging from a $269 Apple Watch Series 1 to a $1,499 Apple Watch Hermès. To date, Apple has sold 25M Apple Watches (my estimate). 
• AirPods. AirPods are much more than just a pair of wireless headphones. The inclusion of Apple's new W1 chip, along with a series of sensors and voice accelerometers, position AirPods as Apple's second major wearables product. Despite launching with very limited supply in December 2016, Apple has managed to ship at least three million AirPods (my estimate) in a little more than three months on the market. This amounts to $475 million of revenue in just the first 14 weeks on the market. 
• Beats headphones. The inclusion of Apple's new W1 chip means three Beats headphone models (BeatsX, Solo3, and Powerbeats3) should be classified as Apple wearables. The expectation is that these headphones will gain additional features in subsequent versions. 

Apple launched a wearables platform with Apple Watch two years ago in April 2015. Apple has since expanded the platform to include devices for the ears (AirPods and Beats headphones). As Apple unveils new wearable devices and form factors, those products will expand the company's wearables platform.

Sales Trends

There has been an intense debate involving wearables and how to define sales success. The best way to begin addressing the issue is to go over the sales numbers. As seen in Exhibit 1, Apple Watch and iPhone have been trending similarly when we look at sales out of the gate. When looking at the first two years each product was available in the market, we see that both Apple Watch and iPhone are outpacing early iPod sales by a wide margin.

Exhibit 1: Early Sales Trends (Two Years Following Launch)

Rearranging the data from Exhibit 1 into cumulative unit sales removes the seasonal impact. It becomes easier to see how Apple Watch and iPhone are running neck-and-neck for second best-selling Apple product category across the first eight quarters following launch. The fact that Apple has sold nearly the same number of Apple Watches as iPhones during the first two years on the market will surprise many people. The narrative surrounding Apple Watch does not match that of a product very close to being the second best-selling product out of the gate in Apple's history.

This past quarter marked the eighth quarter that Apple has been selling a wearable device. When AirPods and Beats headphones unit sales are added to Apple Watch sales, the true extent of Apple's wearables platform becomes apparent. Apple's total wearables sales are outpacing iPhone sales out of the gate. As seen in Exhibit 2, AirPods and Beats headphones sales boosted Apple wearables sales in the seventh and eight quarters following Apple's wearables platform launch.

Exhibit 2: Early Sales Trends (Two Years Following Launch)

On a cumulative unit sales basis, Apple wearables sales are exceeding iPhone sales by two million units after the first eight quarters on the market. Wearables are Apple's second best-selling product category out of the gate.

Key Considerations

Whenever sales comparisons are made between Apple wearables and iPhone and iPad, there are a number of key differences between the product categories that need to be discussed.

iPhone. In 2007, Apple launched the iPhone with very limited distribution. For the first four months, iPhone was only available at AT&T in the U.S. By time the iPhone 3GS launched in 2009, the iPhone was available in 80 countries. The iPhone's limited distribution masked the product's underlying adoption trends. During those first two years on the market, consumers began to see value in a hand-held computer. This makes it impossible to know how well the first iPhone would have sold if it was given a much wider launch. It took a few years for the mass market to become interested in iPhone. 

iPad. The iPad launch was timed perfectly and enabled the iPad to ride the iPhones' coattails. The iPhone app bonanza certainly contributed to iPad sales in addition to the fascination found with much larger multi-touch screens running iOS. While the iPad saw a limited rollout at launch, distribution was much wider than it was with the iPhone launch a few years earlier. 

Apple Watch. Despite Apple Watch seeing a much wider rollout at launch, the product has faced a different kind of constraint. Apple Watch requires an iPhone. This has the effect of more than doubling the entry-level price of Apple Watch for non-iPhone owners. Even though the Apple Watch was available in nine countries, including China, at launch, the product's target market was closer to 500M people. 

AirPods. AirPods launched this past December in more than 100 countries. Exhibit 2 adds AirPods sales to Apple Watch and Beats headphones sales beginning in the sixth quarter following Apple's platform launch. This ends up adding quite a bit of conservatism to Apple wearables sales as AirPods will likely be on an annual sales pace measured in the tens of millions per year by time they have been available in market for eight quarters. As long as supply improves, AirPods will likely give the iPad a run for its money in terms of it being the best-selling Apple product out of the gate over the first two years. (The methodology and math behind my AirPods sales estimates are available for members here.)

Context

One takeaway from all of these launch and distribution differences is that each product has faced its own set of unique situations and challenges. However, there is value found in comparing sales of wearables to those of early iPhone and iPad because such comparisons provide context for wearables sales.

Many people have been grading Apple wearables on a curve, looking at the devices through an iPhone lens. Since unit sales pale in comparison to current iPhone unit sales (220M a year), wearables are being cast off as either disappointing or irrelevant. This ignores what is growing momentum for Apple's wearables platform.

To have Apple wearables sales outpace iPhone sales out of the gate when looking at the first two years of availability demonstrates that wearables are a thing. Apple has built and sold more wearables than iPhones after the first two years in the market. That fact goes a long way in helping to define just how significant Apple wearables sales have been. It is irrelevant if Apple could have shipped additional iPhones by launching with wider distribution back in the late 2000s. An argument can be made that Apple would have sold many more wearables this past quarter if it wasn't for severely constrained AirPods supply.  

Redefining Wearables

Too much attention is being placed on Apple Watch as holder of the wearables torch. Instead, the focus needs to be placed on both Apple Watch and AirPods, with W1 chip-equipped Beats headphones representing Apple's third wearables product category. Instead of looking at these wearable devices as standalone products with few similarities or overlap, we should view them as coming together to create a platform, as shown below. AirPods usage increases the value found with Apple Watch ownership. The reverse applies as well. Apple Watch usage increases the value found in AirPods ownership. This interdependency is only going to intensify and likely boost overall Apple wearables sales.

Looking Ahead

According to my estimates, Apple is on track to sell more than 30M wearable devices in 2017. This is an astounding figure considering that it would represent approximately 15% of the number of iPhones Apple is expected to sell in 2017. As seen in Exhibit 3, there is a strong probability that Apple wearables sales will continue to outpace iPhone sales when looking at the first three years of availability following launch.

Exhibit 3: Early Sales Trends (Three Years Following Launch)

Note: AboveAvalon.com projections used for wearables sales quarters 9 to 12.

Looking out a bit further to the first five years of availability following launch, things become even more interesting. The iPhone began to outsell the iPad three years following launch, and the sales gap has increased ever since. Similarly, Apple's wearables platform is positioned to outsell iPad in roughly the same amount of time following launch. It is not out of question that Apple wearables will continue outpacing iPhone as we move to four years of availability following launch. While this is no small task as Apple would likely need to double the number of wearables it is currently selling, AirPods would play a key role. 

Exhibit 4: Early Sales Trends (Five Years Following Launch)

Note: AboveAvalon.com projections used for wearables sales quarters 9 to 12.

Momentum Building

This past holiday season, Apple passed Fitbit to grab the title of largest wearables company. This past quarter, for the first time, more Apple Watches than Fitbit devices were sold. The number of people wearing an Apple wearable device has likely surpassed 20M. Apple is laying the foundation for a wearables platform that will eventually grow to annual unit sales in the hundreds of millions of devices. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Apple Isn't a Tech Company

Apple continues to be misunderstood. With the company's cash cows showing signs of maturity, Apple's interest in new industries is growing. Questions are swirling as to where Apple may be headed next. The answer is found by assessing how Apple views itself and the role it has to play in the world. Apple isn't a tech company, but rather it's a design company betting that consumers want something more than just technology in their lives. 

Defining Apple

Over the years, Apple has been given a number of labels: 

• Computer company

• Technology company

• Product company

• Consumer electronics provider

• Mac company

• iPod company

• iPhone company

• Luxury retailer

• Consumer discretionary company

• Consumer staples company

Some of these labels were more valid than others. In some cases, the label was meant to represent Apple's relationship with customers. Other labels went a bit further in an attempt to describe some aspect of Apple's culture or product philosophy.

Even Apple contributed to a few labels. In January 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple would drop the "Computer" from its name and become just "Apple Inc." to reflect the changing product line. The name change led some to believe that Apple now viewed itself as a consumer electronics company or even an iPhone company. However, a corporate name change doesn't tell us much about how best to define a company.

A more interesting clue about how Apple views itself came three years later, at the end of the iPad unveiling keynote, when Jobs talked about how Apple was able to make a device like the iPad. Here's Jobs: 

"The reason that Apple is able to create products like the iPad is because we've always tried to be at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. To be able to get the best of both. To make extremely advanced products from a technology point of view but also have them be intuitive, easy to use, fun to use, so that they really fit the users and users don't have to come to them, they come to the user. And it's the combination of these two things that I think let us make the kind of creative products like the iPad."

Clues

This location at the intersection of technology and liberal arts explained why competitors had such a difficult time competing against iPad (as they still do today). There was something more to the iPad than just technology. However, this still doesn't tell us how best to define Apple going forward. Instead, a closer examination of Apple's business provides more valuable clues. 

Power Structure. In the late 1990s, Steve Jobs shifted the power structure within Apple so that designers had control and influence over engineers. The logic in turning Apple into a design-led company was that design is the item that leads to great products. The iMac was the first product to be born out of this new power structure. 

Since becoming CEO in 2011, Tim Cook has made a number of leadership and managerial changes that amount to giving even more power to Apple designers. My theory is that these changes have reinforced a structure that splits Apple leadership into two groups:

• Operations and corporate strategy

• Product

An inner circle comprised of Tim Cook, Eddy Cue, Phil Schiller, and Jeff Williams oversees Apple's day-to-day operations and broader corporate strategy. This inner circle is supported by a number of SVPs and VPs. In addition, Cook increased the number of direct reports to the CEO while expanding the managerial reach of those making up the inner circle.

Meanwhile, the Apple Industrial Design group is positioned as the overseer of Apple's product direction. Christopher Stringer is a veteran Apple industrial designer who recently was reported to be leaving Apple. A few years ago, during Apple's Samsung trial, he explained that the job of an Apple industrial designer is "to imagine objects that don’t exist and to guide the process that brings them to life."

As seen in the following diagram, which was published in my "Grading Tim Cook" article, Apple leadership is split into two groups: operations/corporate strategy and product. This structure doesn't resemble that of a technology company. The Industrial Designers have continued to consolidate power during the Tim Cook era. 

Organizational Structure. It is logical to assume that the significant amount of change in power structure has resulted in cracks forming elsewhere within Apple. While some of this has manifested itself in certain groups losing influence or sway with management, the broader culture at Apple doesn't appear to have been jeopardized. The company's functional organizational structure has played a significant role in keeping corporate politics somewhat at bay. The focus, by design, remains on the product. 

In managing the Industrial Design group, Howarth isn't simply overseeing a team of 17 industrial designers. Instead, he is managing Apple's in-house design studio. Even after including the Human Interface team, Apple's core group of designers is remarkably small. This creates a contrast with tech companies employing hundreds of designers or utilizing various outside design consultants. Today, Apple handles all of its design internally.  

By rearranging the Apple leadership structure diagram shown above, we obtain a different look at Apple. The company is comprised of a nimble design studio supported by one of the largest technology arms in the world. It would be incorrect to classify Apple as just a design studio. The technology arm allows Apple to develop the technologies powering products created by the Industrial Design group. This dynamic is made possible by close collaboration between the designers and Apple's significant engineering resources. 

Storytelling. The next big clue as to how best to define Apple comes from observing how management has tried to tell the Apple story through the press. Consider some of the recent articles and interviews published in cooperation with Apple executives.

• Jony Ive profile in The New Yorker (February 2015). The 16,000-word profile had Apple's full support and was one of the defining pieces written about the company this decade. Ian Parker used the Apple Watch as a prism to show how today's Apple is Jony's Apple. The messaging was clear: Apple's product strategy was now led by an industrial designer. Jony now had the role formerly held by Steve Jobs.

• Charlie Rose's exclusive look inside Apple (December 2015). Rose was given unprecedented excess inside Apple for a 60 Minutes report. The tour included the world's first genuine look inside Apple's Industrial Design studio. While a few photos of the studio were released in the past, Rose's access was unprecedented. In one scene, Rose and Jony talk about how few people get to be in the lab. Jony laughed and said "We don't like people in this room, period," in an obvious recognition of how unusual it was to have Rose and his entire entourage sitting in the studio. This raised the question of why Apple gave Rose such access in the first place. Apple felt that a look inside the design studio would help explain itself to the world.

• Charlie Rose interview with Jony Ive (March 2016). The 72-minute interview aired in March 2016 and was aimed at figuring out what drives Apple. The interview went into detail as to how products are developed at Apple. It also addressed various topics pertaining to Jony and his design philosophies.

In each of the preceding examples, Apple had one goal in mind: Shape its public image. Apple wanted to be known as more than just a technology company. Instead, Apple viewed itself as a company that puts the product above everything else. 

Products. Given that the product plays such a prominent role at Apple, the clue that best helps us define Apple is found in its products. Last month, Apple unveiled a number of new products through a series of press releases. (My complete review of Apple's new products is available for members here.) The new Apple products that contained the most intrigue were Apple Watch bands. There were a number of new Woven Nylon bands as well as Classic Buckle, Sport Band, and Hermès band options. The changes amounted to Apple unveiling its spring 2017 Watch band collection.

While Apple Watch bands remain a source of mockery within some Apple user circles, the product is incredibly important for Apple. Watch bands are the primary reason Apple has been able to sell close to 25M Apple Watches to date and become the wearables leader in the process. While there is value and convenience found with having a small screen positioned on the top of one's wrist, the only reason people are willing to wear that screen in the first place is because of Watch bands. It is not a coincidence that Apple Watch bands are the most frequently updated product at Apple.

With Watch bands, Apple is shipping a product that isn't powered by any software or technology. Instead, Watch bands are judged by tangibles and intangibles more likely to be found in the fashion world than in Silicon Valley. Watch bands end up serving as a big clue for the kind of company Apple is striving to be. It's certainly not to be just a tech company. 

The Mac provides another clue as to how best to define Apple. While we can point to a number of red flags appearing in the Mac business, the major trend taking place with the Mac is that the product is changing in an iOS world. What was once geared toward the liberal arts mindset is now finding itself more appealing to those in fields such as engineering. This transition coincides with the Mac becoming a bigger headache for management. The company knows how to make technology more personal, as with the iPad. However, when the same goal is attempted with the Mac, Apple receives pushback from a small but influential segment of the Mac user base. The struggles Apple is having with Mac end up showing that Apple isn't just a tech company. There is something else at play. 

Not Tech, but Design

All of the preceding clues for how best to define Apple contain a similarity: They revolve around some element of design.

1. Apple is a company in which designers hold the most power and influence.

2. Apple is structured to position the product above anything else.

3. Apple management is eager to use design to tell its story.

4. Apple's product line embodies the principle of technology not being enough.

At every turn, Apple is quick to discuss how something more than technology is needed. Even Apple's WWDC 2017 announcement reiterates this point, saying "Technology alone is not enough." That is a powerful statement to define what is arguably Apple's most tech-focused event of the year. 

Apple isn't a tech company, but rather it's a design company. 

By being defined as a design company, Apple is positioning the user experience  - how consumers interact with technology - as more important than focusing on the sheer power found with technology. This goal permeates throughout Apple. The company isn't just a design studio with a technology arm. Instead, every group at Apple is in one way or another focused on design. Apple is betting that design is the ingredient that will continue to put the product above anything else. 

Design vs. Technology

There is a way to differentiate a design company from a tech company: Observe how the company approaches technology. In every case, Apple views core technologies not as products themselves, but as ingredients for something else. Instead of wanting to chase after technology's raw capability, Apple is more interested in technology's functionality as it relates to the user experience. This brings up Jobs' reference to Apple being at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. By looking at the world through this lens, we receive a clearer roadmap as to where Apple is headed in terms of product strategy. 

Augmented Reality (AR). Apple has been investing significantly in AR for the past few years. Instead of acting like a tech company and positioning AR as a standalone product, Apple's primary focus is to incorporate the technology into products we already use (smartphones, tablets) and products we will begin to use in the future (entirely new wearable form factors). Apple views AR as a core technology that will transform products into a new breed of navigation tools. This will add a new dimension to the technology. The way we will interact with AR is often the part of the equation not discussed much by tech companies. Apple will attempt to figure it out. 

Autonomous Driving. Contrary to reports, Apple still wants to design its own car. Apple recently was granted a permit to begin testing autonomous driving technology on California public roads. Apple is researching autonomous driving technology because it will be a core ingredient powering a range of Apple products in the transportation space. Instead of partnering with legacy auto companies, Apple will look to do everything on its own. The motivation and ambition in such a move is born from Apple's adherence to design and the quest to control the entire user experience. 

Health Monitoring. There is a reason why Apple Watch bands are the most frequently updated product in Apple's line. The best way to get people to wear health monitoring technology is to have people want to wear health monitoring technology. Today, health monitoring primarily describes simple fitness and health tracking. Apple is actively researching different technologies, including those for possible blood sugar monitoring. If successful, the technology will play a vital role in Apple's wearables products. 

Voice. A tech company positions a voice assistant as the product. Cheap standalone speakers would be positioned as a way to get people to use the voice assistant as much as possible. Apple sees voice playing a different role in computing. Voice assistants can add value to products we already use and wear throughout the day. Instead of making the voice assistant the focus, Apple is interested in how we can use our voice to make technology more manageable. 

TV. Apple's decision to not ship a television set provides an example of not enough core technology resulting in a product receiving a "no" from the company. According to reports, Apple was not able to figure out a way to differentiate itself from the competition. This is another way of saying there was little found with a television set that could lead to an entirely new user experience. Television sets are stationary, large pieces of glasses positioned a few feet in front of us. While new technology in the form of a few front-facing cameras and sensors may add a few new twists to the equation, Apple didn't think the final offering would be compelling enough. Instead, Apple focused on the piece of the television experience we do interact with - the remote control and tvOS user interface. As it turned out, Apple ended up selling more than 255M "television sets" in 2016 anyway. They are called iPhones and iPads. 

Criticism

Much of the criticism directed at Apple can be traced back to how the company is defined. Because it is not a tech company, some have questioned Apple's ability to grasp future technology waves. These critics don't give Apple enough credit for the large technology arm connected to its design studio. Suggestions that Apple's services will remain inferior to those of its peers are becoming common occurrences. However, the progress Apple has made with Apple Maps suggests this is not the case. Apple's ability to excel at machine learning is routinely questioned. The criticism boils down to Apple focusing too much on functionality (how we use the technology) and not enough on capability (what the technology can do). 

At the same time, Apple receives pushback from being a design company. The significant backlash Apple is receiving from a portion of its pro Mac user base boils down to a broader dissatisfaction with the company betting too much on design. There are some Apple users who don't want the version of technology Apple is selling. In addition, there is no sign of this dissatisfaction going away.

In reality, Apple's largest risk isn't found in being a design company or not being a technology company. Instead, it's in becoming a tech company. If Apple finds itself moving away from being design-led, the product will be put into jeopardy. This is likely one reason why Cook continues to bet so heavily on design. 

The Apple Design Book

AirPods wasn't the surprise product of 2016. Rather, Apple's $199 design book came as a shock to the Apple community.

While many looked the book as Apple designers getting intoxicated by nostalgia, the book ends up being the clearest expression of what makes Apple a design company. Apple is focused on creating products that can change the world. The secret to accomplishing this goal is to place a bet that technology alone is not enough. 

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.

The Mac Is Turning into Apple's Achilles' Heel

Apple's decision to change course and develop a new Mac Pro has received near-universal praise from the company's pro community. While developing a new Mac Pro is the right decision for Apple to make given the current situation, it has become clear that the Mac is a major vulnerability in Apple's broader product strategy. The product that helped save Apple from bankruptcy 20 years ago is now turning into a barrier that is preventing Apple from focusing on what comes next. 

Apple's Mac Meeting

There were three takeaways from Apple's recent on-the-record meeting with five journalists in Cupertino to discuss the Mac.

1. Apple is sorry about the lack of Mac updates targeting pro users.

2. The current Mac Pro suffers from a fatal design decision (although the device will continue to be sold).

3. Management debated the Mac Pro's future and decided to change strategy and begin work on an entirely new Mac Pro. The company will also work on an Apple-branded pro display to go along with a new Mac Pro.

(My complete review of Apple's emergency Mac meeting is available for members here.)

It is easy to look at this highly unusual meeting as being just about the Mac Pro and Apple trying to prevent influential content creators from jumping to a competing platform. However, read between the lines, and it becomes clear that Apple has a much bigger problem on its hands than simply an outdated Mac Pro.

The Mac has become a major headache for Apple, and management is on the verge on going down the Mac rabbit hole, funneling an increasing amount of resources and attention into a product category that doesn't represent the future of personal computing. The risk is that Apple will be stuck with a $25B legacy business and corresponding user base that will threaten the company's increasingly ambitious product strategy.

Tale of Two Apples

Apple is like a novel where two characters are battling each other in the post-PC era. When it comes to mobile, Apple's success is unmatched. The company is connecting with the mass market like never before. The iPhone is bringing more than 100M new people into the Apple ecosystem each year. Apple Watch momentum is building with a user base surpassing 20M people. Early AirPods sales trends look even more promising. More importantly, Apple executives have been on the same page with each other when it comes to strategy. 

This cohesion in strategy extends to how Apple continues to place big bets in an effort to control its own destiny in mobile. Recent news of Apple developing its own GPU solution is the latest step in the company's quest to ship a single system-on-the-chip (SOC) powering a range of mobile and wearable devices. This will give Apple a competitive advantage measured in decades. The company is also placing big bets on mobile services such as mapping and payments, items that will serve to create a competitive advantage in the changing tech landscape. 

In stark contrast, Apple's Mac strategy looks like a slow-motion train wreck. While Apple has made some progress with bringing elements of mobile such as Touch ID, multi-touch displays, and ARM processors, to the Mac, years of sporadic updates have overshadowed the positives. Apple's relationship with its pro Mac user community has deteriorated and can now be described as toxic. To make matters worse, there appears to be a growing rift among Apple executives concerning Mac strategy. 

As for why Apple's problematic Mac strategy hasn't caused too many issues for the company up the now, the business has become niche. As seen in Exhibit 1, Apple is selling more than 250M iOS devices per year.  In comparison, they are selling fewer than 20M Macs. The Mac accounts for just 11% of Apple's overall revenue. More importantly, the Mac is no longer the primary way new users enter the Apple ecosystem. In addition, one can also argue that pro Mac users haven't had much in the way of alternative platforms up until recently, although this is still being debated. 

Exhibit 1: The Post-PC Era at Apple

View fullsize

The Achilles' Heel

Apple's Achilles' heel is becoming visible. As Apple gets better at making technology more personal for the mass market, the company is losing touch with its legacy pro users. The situation came to a head last week with Apple announcing that it began work on a new Mac Pro. While one can chalk up a new Mac Pro as a one-off cost for keeping iOS app developers engaged in the platform, Apple's vulnerability extends much deeper than one Mac model.

There appears to be a growing rift among Apple executives when it comes to Mac strategy. Apple Industrial Design and Apple management have spent the better part of the past 10 years focused on devices designed to move hundreds of millions of people beyond the Mac. However, this strategy did not address 30M Apple users dependent on pro Mac hardware and software. While this segment only accounts for 4% of Apple's user base, it is responsible for creating content consumed by the other 96% of Apple users. These content creators have played a major role in Apple's mobile success. 

Apple's Achilles' heel is found with the niche devices at the tail end of the business. As seen in Exhibit 2, when compared to smaller screen unit sales, devices targeting pro users barely register. Apple has come to the realization that these niche devices, instead of being cast off or ignored, need ongoing attention and resources. 

Exhibit 2: Apple Device Sales Mix (Screen Size)

View fullsize

Path to Today

It is fair to ask how Apple got into this predicament.  

The Mac isn't like the iPod, a device cleanly and quickly cannibalized by a newer Apple product. iOS and multi-touch are not able to handle all of the tasks given to Mac. This is one reason why Apple has been extremely vocal about continuing to invest in the Mac despite running forward with iPhone and iPad. The debate was never about whether or not Apple will continue to sell Macs, but rather about how best to bring the Mac into the future. 

One path forward was for Apple to consolidate resources and place a bet that higher-end MacBook Pros and iMacs would be able to handle the needs of most Mac Pro users. Apple ended up being partly right. A majority of pro Mac users have transitioned their workflows to MacBooks and iMacs without incident. 

Apple ran into an issue when it came to addressing the niche of the niche. Millions of pro users could not make the jump from Mac Pros or other high-end PCs to a MacBook Pro or iMac. Apple needed to support these users for no other reason than they create the content consumed by the rest of the user base. 

Issues

Apple's decision to work on a new Mac Pro raises a number of red flags. 

Resource strain. Even though Apple has $246B of cash and cash equivalents, the company is resource-constrained when it comes to time and attention. Apple's functional organizational structure produces a constant battle among products and teams to grab that finite amount of management's attention. For management to dedicate attention to new pro Mac hardware, the company may need to take its foot off the accelerator with other products. This may seem like a major flaw, and judging from the amount of criticism directed towards Apple's organizational structure, such an opinion is widely held. However, Apple's structure is put in place in order for the product to be put ahead of everything else. It is not a disadvantage or weakness, but rather one of Apple's secrets to success. There is value found in having Apple's Industrial Design team, along with Tim Cook and his inner circle, move from product to product throughout the year in order to place a select few big bets.

Broader cultural differences. Some may argue that Apple is capable enough to develop mobile and wearable devices while selling pro Macs at the same time. This ignores the much more complicated aspect of Apple satisfying vastly different user needs with pro Macs. Apple would not only be developing a new Mac Pro or standalone display, but also sustaining a small but influential base of pro users dependent on macOS. Similar to how the iPhone user base is changing, Apple's overall user base has become quite heterogeneous in terms of technology wants and needs. It may be nearly impossible for Apple to satisfy all of its users. 

Product strategy hole. According to consensus, the biggest challenge Apple is facing is finding a business as profitable and influential as the iPhone. This extends to Apple not being able to expand its developer and app success to newer product platforms. It has become clear that Apple's inability to move beyond the Mac poses a much bigger long-term risk. 

There may be a hole developing in The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products (shown below). The idea behind the theory is that Mac portables and desktops are positioned as the most powerful machines in Apple's product line. These machines will then serve to push the rest of Apple's product line forward. However, there isn't much evidence of this actually taking place. Instead, iPhones and iPads are being used to decide where to bring MacBooks and iMacs. There is also the awkward situation of iPad Pro beginning to give Mac a run for its money in terms of performance. 

View fullsize

Meanwhile, there isn't much evidence of MacBook or iMac features serving as inspiration for Apple's smaller screens. This is a sign of value destruction occurring with larger screens found at Apple's tail end of the business. We are giving more of our time to the smaller screens in our lives. Where does this leave Macs within Apple's broader product strategy? It increasingly looks like an odd fit as the Mac becomes a legacy platform.

Additional Concerns

The need to have a highly unusual private, on-the-record briefing with five journalists to explain a complete reversal in Mac strategy signals a management team on defense. Apple is afraid of influential Mac content creators jumping ship. This is the exact opposite of the aggressiveness Apple has shown with mobile and wearables. The more one looks into the topic, the more worrying things appear.

In an attempt to explain Apple's new Mac strategy, Apple SVP Phil Schiller wiped the dust off the old quadrant product grid. At the same time, Schiller has been increasingly vocal about the Mac being around for the next quarter of a century. Here's Schiller in late 2016:

"The new MacBook Pro is a product that celebrates that it is a notebook, this shape that has been with us for the last 25 years is probably going to be with us for another 25 years because there’s something eternal about the basic notebook form factor. You have a surface that you type down on with your hands, with a screen facing you vertically. That basic orientation, that L shape makes perfect sense and won’t go away." 

Schiller is likely guided by the desire to calm pro Mac users' fears. Arguing that the Mac will be around for 25 years means that these users won't need to worry about transitioning away from the Mac during their careers. However, this stance places Apple in an awkward situation. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Apple's recent iPad Pro ad campaign. On one hand, Apple is saying it thinks the laptop form factor will be around for 25 years. However, Apple then launches a marketing campaign positioning the iPad Pro as a better computer than MacBook. 

The Way Forward

My suspicion is that instead of trying to get around its Achilles' heel, Apple will try to be more cognizant of it. It is likely that a majority of Apple's senior executives, including Apple's Industrial Design group, still view the iPad and iOS as the more promising platform than Mac and macOS for the next 25 years of computing. Apple is pushing iPad like never before. New pro Mac hardware will not change this dynamic. However, it has become clear that Apple realizes its previous Mac strategy fell short as there was no viable path forward for tens of millions of pro Mac users.

Apple disclosed a few facts about its pro Mac users as measured by pro software usage. The data contains clues as to where Apple's product strategy may be headed. According to Apple, 70% of the Mac user base does not use pro software and would not classify as pro users. This is another way of saying that the iPad Pro could do quite well serving the needs of 70M Mac users. Meanwhile, the other 30% of the Mac user base wants and needs the power and flexibility that Apple has historically had trouble selling. 

Apple will likely position the Mac as a computing platform for legacy pro users while iOS will be targeted to everyone else. This will entail a few steps: 

1) Triple down on iPad. The writing is on the wall. Apple will not be able to address its Achilles' heel until iPad can be used for developing apps. This will involve Apple ramping investment and resources into iPad software, hardware, and accessories. While consensus assumes Apple should look to the Mac for iPad software inspiration, the more appropriate course of action is to look at the iPhone for inspiration. There is a reason that the iPhone is outselling the Mac by 10x. People enjoy iOS as a computing platform. After all, the iPad is just a bigger iPhone.

2) Continue to be aggressive with Mac design. Apple Industrial Design will continue to be aggressive in bringing the Mac experience forward. There have been some controversial Mac design decisions taken recently, including decisions about the Touch Bar and the insistence that multi-touch does not make sense on vertical Mac displays. Some may argue that Apple needs to look at a new Mac Pro as a hardware engineering problem and have the Industrial Design team take a back seat. This may be a recipe for disaster. It just goes to show how tricky of a proposition pro Mac hardware is for this management team. 

3) Running fast with new endeavors. The Mac does not represent Apple's future. Instead, the changing tech landscape will require Apple to play in new industries. The company needs to be extra aware of the long-term damage done by the Mac becoming a resource strain and jeopardizing other initiatives.  

Figuring Out What Comes Next

Apple still needs the Mac. Tens of millions of users aren't able to pack away their large displays and embrace iPhones and iPads. However, the Mac debate has never been about whether or not Apple will stop selling Macs. Instead, the question has been, how will management be able to retain the value of the laptop and desktop form factors in today's mobile world?

The most important thing for Apple to do when it comes to the Mac is to think about what comes next. Apple's broader mission is to use devices capable of making technology more personal to inspire a new generation of content creators. It is clear that iPhone and iPad are already inspiring tomorrow's content creators. Apple Watch and AirPods are not far behind in terms of being able to inspire.

When taking into consideration new technologies such as augmented reality, it is fair to wonder just how important large screens will even be in our lives in the future. Small screens are going to transition from being just tablets, smartphones, and smartwatches to being augmented reality navigators. In such a world, large screens will look like relics. The path forward for Mac looks bumpy.

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 Is Pushing iPad Like Never Before

Apple is pulling out all the stops when it comes to selling iPad. We are seeing the company take its most aggressive stance yet in getting existing iPad owners to upgrade. For the first time, Apple is also making a concerted effort to reach prospective iPad owners by targeting PC users. On the surface, these efforts seem like a last ditch effort to save iPad, which faces continued sales declines. However, Apple is guided by a different motive. There are signs of Apple pushing iPad like never before in order to solve its growing Mac dilemma.

Initial Look at iPad Sales

A quick look at overall iPad sales reveals an ominous trend. Sales have declined for 12 consecutive quarters. After topping out 74M units in 1Q14, the annualized iPad sales rate has declined by 42% to 43M units.

Exhibit 1: iPad Unit Sales (TTM)

View fullsize

When iPad is compared to iPhone and Mac, its sales weakness becomes even more pronounced. The sales gap between iPad and Mac continues to shrink. This has drawn into question Apple's vision for iPad and whether or not the device is the best representation of the future of personal computing. There are even people beginning to question some aspects of the post-PC era as steady Mac sales suggest consumers aren't moving away from laptops and desktops. 

Exhibit 2: iPhone, iPad, Mac Unit Sales (TTM)

View fullsize

For the past four years, we have seen various theories put forth to explain the significant drop in iPad sales. Longer upgrade cycles, larger iPhones, inferior software, lack of professional apps, and even poor Apple storytelling have been given as factors driving iPad sales weakness. 

iPad Strategy Changes

As sales have declined, Apple has implemented a number of significant changes in its iPad strategy. Many of these changes have occurred within the past year and a half. The latest changes were unveiled last week when Apple announced the new 9.7-inch iPad. (My complete review of Apple's new product announcements is available for members here.)

iPad Pro. The most obvious change relates to the iPad Pro line. The defining features of the iPad Pro are the Apple Pencil and Smart Keyboard support, which were introduced in 2015. One of the biggest criticisms facing the iPad over the past few years is that it is a consumption device used primarily for watching video. The iPad Pro seeks to change that narrative. The overall strategy with the iPad Pro is to release higher-priced SKUs offering additional functionality and capability.

Additional Simplicity. The iPad Air era is officially over at Apple. By positioning the new 9.7-inch iPad as the iPad Air 2 successor, the overall iPad line is much simpler. In fact, the iPad line contains the most simplicity in years. The "iPad Air" nomenclature had lost much of its meaning last year following the 9.7-inch iPad Pro unveiling as each device shared similar dimensions and identical weight. 

As seen below, Apple reduced the iPad line by 20% (five models down to four) and simplified the branding. 

View fullsize

By removing the iPad Air from the line, Apple made the iPad buying equation that much easier for consumers. This simplicity is a sign of Apple doubling down on the 9.7-inch iPad as the flagship iPad size. (The actual screen size may change slightly going forward depending on the screen to bezel ratio.) The choice is either between an iPad Pro or an iPad. Meanwhile, the iPad mini will become niche, available for consumers wanting an iPad with a smaller footprint.

Aggressive Pricing. Apple slashed the entry-level price for the 9.7-inch iPad to $329 from $399. Special $299 pricing for education institutions is also available. This is an aggressive pricing strategy considering that Apple was selling the 9.7-inch iPad Air 2 for $499 as recently as 12 months ago. The iPad mini had represented the entry-level iPad model when it came to pricing. Since the company is now positioning the smaller iPad as a niche device, the new distinction comes with a higher price.

Clearer Storytelling. Apple recently launched its largest iPad ad campaign to date. In what is called "Real Problems... answered," Apple showcases real tweets depicting computing problems and then demonstrates how the iPad Pro offers solutions. The ad campaign is a big deal for Apple and a sign of management directly reaching out to PC users as potential iPad purchasers. The company has been quite aggressive with its airing of the ads in recent weeks. 

Real problems... answered. Your computer could be better than a computer, if your computer was an iPad Pro. Learn More: http://apple.co/2l9DB3A

One of the more interesting observations about the ads is how they end up making long-time MacBook users nervous. Apple is positioning iPad Pro as a better computer than laptops, and by extension, MacBooks.

Closer Look at iPad Sales

In order to properly assess all of the recent changes to iPad strategy, a closer look at sales is needed. While overall iPad sales have been in decline for years, reports of iPad's death have been greatly exaggerated. There is much more going on behind the scenes.

iPad sales have faced one major headwind in recent years. This item explains a significant portion of the sales decline. It's not inferior software, weak storytelling, or even a longer upgrade cycle. Instead, the iPad's problem has been the iPad mini.

People aren't buying as many iPad mini devices these days. Excluding 7.9-inch iPad mini sales from overall iPad sales results in a completely different sales picture. As seen in Exhibit 3, iPad mini unit sales have declined 70% after peaking in 4Q13 and 1Q14. The product's value proposition has been permanently reduced due to larger iPhones. Apple has clearly experienced Peak iPad Mini. It's not that the iPad mini form factor is going away, but rather that it will play a smaller role going forward. 

iPad mini sales weakness has masked stronger sales trends for larger iPads. In what will come as a surprise to many, the iPad Air 2 has been the best-selling iPad to date. In addition, more than half of people buying an iPad Air 2 were new to iPad. These are very promising signs for the iPad business. Not only are large screen (9.7-inch and 12.9-inch) iPad sales relatively unchanged over the past four years, but they actually have increased year-over-year this past holiday quarter. The iPad Pro line played a major role in this sales rebound. 

Exhibit 3: iPad Unit Sales by Screen Size (TTM)

View fullsize

Given iPad mini sales weakness, management is placing a big bet on larger iPad screens. By lowering the entry-level cost of the 9.7-inch model to $329, Apple is looking to make the most appealing iPad size more accessible. At the same time, the company is offsetting margin and ASP pressure by moving up market with more capable iPad Pro SKUs and accessories. The Apple Pencil accessory is one of the most underrated Apple products in years. 

Solving the Mac Dilemma

Since large screen iPads having shown much more resiliency over the past few years, Apple's recent iPad changes seem peculiar. Why double down on the iPad now?

Apple is pushing the iPad like never before in order to solve its Mac dilemma.

Ultimately, management has two options for the Mac:

1. Double down. From a product perspective, there is a clear path forward for the laptop and desktop form factors at Apple. The company could continue bringing elements of mobile to the Mac. Apple can control more of the core technologies powering the Mac, and this would include bringing a version of iOS to the laptop and desktop form factors. The effort would take years to accomplish and utilize a significant amount of resources. 
2. Move beyond the Mac. This option would begin with more sporadic updates to the Mac line and then eventually lead to Apple placing less and less attention on the category as other products gain priority and resources. While Apple would still sell Macs, it would become clear that the company's focus is on newer products designed to handle the tasks currently given to the Mac.

Management faces a difficult choice between the two options as the Mac is still selling very well. The product category is bringing in nearly $23B of revenue per year, $4B more than iPad thanks to a much higher ASP. Some companies are powered by Macs (although Apple executives seem to rely quite a bit on their iPads these days). Tens of millions of users rely on Macs to get work done every day. A portion of these users are adamant that a move away from Mac is nearly impossible given their current workflows.

My suspicion is that Apple is pushing larger screen iPads because management is determined to move beyond the Mac. Apple thinks now is the time to raise awareness that the iPad is a legitimate PC alternative for hundreds of millions of consumers. 

A move away from the Mac goes against much of the public commentary from Apple management. Tim Cook, Phil Schiller, and others have been quick to mention Apple's long-term commitment to the Mac with Phil Schiller even saying the laptop form factor will be around for another 25 years. However, management's recent actions speak louder:

• Tim Cook calling the iPad the clearest expression of Apple's vision of the future of personal computing.
• The new iPad Pro ad campaign elevating the iPad at the expense of Mac.
• Aggressive iPad pricing highlighting Apple's desire to position the device for mass market consumption, while Mac pricing is more reflective of a niche product.

The iPad Strategy

As seen in Exhibit 4, the sales gap between large screen iPads and Mac peaked five years ago. The gap has since closed, with large screen iPad sales bouncing around 30M units annually and Mac sales seeing a slight improvement to 19M units. If Mac were to outsell iPad, this would certainly make Apple's goal in moving beyond the Mac that much more difficult. It would demonstrate how Apple has a serious problem on its hand as the iPad is not able to entice users away from Mac. Management is interested in avoiding that outcome.

Apple wants to push iPad sales now like never before in order to widen the sales gap between iPad and Mac. Large screen iPads have experienced some momentum in recent months. Management is building off that strength to unveil a broader campaign to boost iPad sales. If Apple is successful in increasing large screen iPad sales to a 40M unit sales annual pace (a 30% increase from current levels), iPad would be outselling Mac by 2x. This would certainly help change the iPad versus Mac narrative in the marketplace, giving Apple that much more motivation to dedicate attention and resources to other products. 

Exhibit 4: Mac, Large Screen iPad Unit Sales (TTM)

View fullsize

Apple is making its iPad sales pitch to two groups: existing iPad users and long-time PC users. According to my estimates, there are 100M users still using older iPads (iPad 1, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini). A significant portion of these users are using devices that don't even support the latest iOS release. Management thinks simpler storytelling and an aggressively low $329 price will entice these users to upgrade to the new 9.7-inch iPad.

The fact that 100M people are still using older iPads demonstrates that the product provides value. Apple is also confident that users will see the significant improvement between the latest iPads and models from five to seven years ago. As for PC users, Apple thinks the iPad Pro line is capable of handling the vast majority of tasks currently given to laptops. Apple looks at the iPad Pro line, which includes Apple Pencil and Smart Keyboard, as a better solution for consumers than even the Mac. This is quite telling as to management's long-term motivation. 

While the iPhone has likely reduced the iPad's long-term sales trajectory, the iPad category is being underestimated. Apple thinks that now is the time to become much more aggressive in selling iPad. Fortunately, we will be able to judge Apple's progress by monitoring quarterly iPad sales. With a dramatic price cut, simpler sales pitch, reduced headwind from iPad mini sales, and a differentiated product line, Apple is confident the iPad will return to growth. A growing iPad business will then make it that much easier for Apple to move beyond the Mac and focus on creating a new breed of personal gadgets that make technology more personal. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

The Curious State of Apple Product Pricing

As Apple pushes deeper into luxury brand territory, the company is making its products more accessible through lower pricing. At $159, Apple is underpricing AirPods. The same can be said for Apple Watch, priced at $269. In just ten years, we have moved from the "Apple Tax" days, when Apple was accused of pricing products artificially high, to Apple products being priced below the competition. Apple is using its balance sheet and scale to grab new users, and in the process, redefine luxury. 

Underpricing AirPods

After using AirPods for the past three months, one takeaway relates to pricing. It is clear that Apple is underpricing AirPods. While this statement may sound outlandish considering that a pair of EarPods is included in every iPhone box, AirPods are not just any pair of headphones. The combination of accelerometers, optical sensors, Apple's new W1 chip, and a well-designed charging case, position AirPods as Apple's second wearables product. AirPods are computers for your ears. This distinction does a better job at framing the device's surprisingly low $159 price. 

View fullsize

Contrary to the conclusions found in most headphone buying guides, AirPods should not be compared to lower-priced, wired headphones. These buying guides not only lean on sound quality to unfairly shortchange truly wireless headphones, but also misidentify why consumers want to buy wireless headphones in the first place. AirPods' primary value proposition isn't found with sound quality but rather with not having any wires. Accordingly, the product should be compared to other truly wireless headphones. 

It is very difficult to find a pair of wireless headphones priced lower than AirPods. In the run-up to Apple unveiling AirPods this past September, the wireless headphone market consisted of the following players: 

• Kanoa: $300

• Bragi Dash: $299

• Erato Apollo 7: $289

• Skybuds: $279

• Earin: $249

• Motorola VerveOnes+: $249

• Samsung Gear IconX: $199

• Bragi Headphone: $149

Given the preceding list, a strong case could have been made for Apple to price its new wireless headphones at $249, or even $299. The fact that Samsung priced its Gear IconX at $199 seemed to suggest a sub-$200 retail price for AirPods was unlikely. Instead, Apple sent shockwaves pulsing through the market by pricing AirPods at only $159. The action instantly removed all available oxygen from the wireless headphone space. The idea of Apple coming out with a new product that would underprice nearly every other competitor was unimaginable ten years ago. 

Many wireless headphone companies have been forced to cut pricing in an attempt to better compete with AirPods. Even after price cuts, competitors are still unable to come close to AirPods pricing. While some of these competing headphones include additional capabilities and functionality, much of this benefit is overshadowed by the lack of Apple's W1 chip. When it comes to contributing to the premium experience found with AirPods, the W1 chip is near the top of the list.

Underpricing Apple Watch

A similar pricing dynamic is found with Apple Watch. After cutting the entry-level price $50 to $299 in March 2016, Apple unveiled a new Apple Watch pricing strategy last September. Apple upgraded the first generation Apple Watch device with a new dual-core processor, the same processor found in the higher-priced Apple Watch Series 2 models. In addition, Apple gave the Watch a new name, Apple Watch Series 1, and a $30 price cut to $269.

View fullsize

At $269, Apple Watch Series 1 is one of lowest-priced smartwatches worth buying in the marketplace. Attractive pricing was one key factor driving record Apple Watch sales this past holiday quarter. In fact, even the Apple Watch Series 2, at $349, is one of the lowest-priced smartwatches in its class:

• Fossil Fenix 5: $599

• Garmin Forerunner 630: $399

• Michael Kors Access: $350

• Samsung Gear S3: $349

• Fossil Q Founder: $275

Apple's aggressive pricing strategy has also gone a long way in shrinking the price gap between Apple Watch and dedicated health and fitness trackers. There is now only a $70 difference between an Apple Watch Series 1 and Fitbit Blaze. 

Three Pricing Theories

There are three theories to explain Apple's AirPods and Apple Watch pricing strategy. 

A) iPhone as Hub. Instead of making a profit on Apple Watch and AirPods, Apple is underpricing the devices in an effort to boost iPhone sales. The logic is that since Apple Watch and AirPods are being positioned as iPhone accessories, Apple views the devices as tools to keep consumers attached to their iPhones. Apple compensates for the lack of Apple Watch and AirPods profit by selling high-margin iPhones and Services. 

B) Manufacturing Scale. This is the most straightforward theory. Apple has simply gotten better at making products at a lower cost. With a sizable production ramp (millions of units), Apple management can use scale and its existing supply chain to quickly bring down component and manufacturing costs for a new breed of personal tech gadgets. 

C) Consumer Segmentation. Management is using product pricing to grow Apple's user base. On one end, management cuts entry-level pricing in an effort to make products more accessible. However, management then pushes at the other end of the pricing spectrum with premium SKUs targeting a different part of the user base. The higher-priced SKUs help boost Apple's overall margin profile. 

History

On the surface, each of the three preceding theories seem to contain some logic. The iPhone is not only Apple's best-selling product, but also the most effective tool for growing the user base. At the same time, Apple has seen much progress in keeping component costs contained across its product line.

However, upon further examination, there is a serious flaw found with Theory A (besides the fact that Apple is moving beyond the iPhone as Hub product strategy). AirPods and Apple Watch pricing doesn't reflect a new strategy designed to juice iPhone sales. Instead, Apple has actually been traveling down this pricing path for years. Apple's decision to unveil the initial iPad at $499 in 2010, and then come out with a $329 iPad mini just two years later, marked a sea change in the way Apple approached product pricing. 

In the mid-1990s, Apple made a series of strategic mistakes related to the Mac. Instead of trying to grow market share, management chased profit. Apple introduced a variety of high-priced Macs targeting existing Mac users. Apple was having difficulty targeting new users in the face of the strengthening Windows empire. Apple was doubling down on niche instead of chasing mass market. 

Apple took a completely different strategy with iPad. With iPad, Apple cared much more about grabbing market share. This attitude was born from motivation to not repeat Apple's dark days from the 1990s. Up until last year, there was thought to be one major caveat to Apple's market share ambition. Apple was interested in initially grabbing share in the premium segment of the market and then gradually working its way down market. There is evidence to suggest this attitude is now changing a bit as Apple is selling wearables.

Apple's Pricing Strategy

AirPods and Apple Watch pricing demonstrate how Apple is looking to own not only the premium segment of the wearables market, but rather the entire market. As Apple runs deeper into luxury, the company is reducing entry-level pricing. This is a curious development as one assumes the opposite would have occurred - Apple would keep prices high to maintain a certain level of exclusivity or scarcity. Instead, Apple is redefining the concept of luxury in order to sell mass-market products. 

Consider Apple's approach to Apple Watch pricing. With $269 and $369 Apple Watch options, Apple is very competitive with nearly every smartwatch. However, at the other end of the product line with Apple Watch Hermès and Edition starting at $1,149 and $1,249 respectively, Apple is selling different materials, and a different kind of experience, at much higher prices. Apple is segmenting the product line to appeal to a wider variety of users. 

View fullsize

With Apple's entry-level Apple Watch pricing, management isn't necessarily targeting a premium segment of the smartwatch market, but rather its going after the entire market. AirPods represents an even more extreme case study of this mass-market appeal. 

Apple is able to sell product at low prices by utilizing its strong balance sheet and powerful supply chain to secure very attractive component orders. In addition, the company's efforts to own its own silicon and other core technologies are starting to pay dividends from both a performance and pricing perspective. Apple's growing vertical integration is allowing the company to run with lower pricing yet still maintain historically high margins. The growing legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm isn't just about Apple being unhappy with Qualcomm's business model. Rather, it's about Apple wanting to eventually get into the baseband processor business. (A full primer related to the lawsuit is available for members here.) This will come in handy when selling a cellular Apple Watch down the road as Apple can create its own system on a chip (SOC) containing its own AX processors, GPU, and an LTE modem chip. 

Lower-priced Apple products result in increased sales, which leads to Apple's ability to place even larger component orders. Apple will soon be on pace to sell 20M Apple Watches per year. For AirPods, annual unit sales will likely be even higher. These sales numbers provide Apple flexibility to reduce the pricing of older models even further. Meanwhile, competitors are unable to get a foot in the door. We saw a version of this dynamic unfold in the tablet market during the early 2010s. The same thing is now taking place in the smartwatch market, and it could even expand to the wireless headphone industry. 

Things to Monitor

Given Apple's revised pricing strategy, there are a few developments worth monitoring: 

1. Apple Watch. A $199 Apple Watch is inevitable at this point. On the other end of the pricing spectrum, new partnerships with luxury brands similar to Hermès seem likely.

2. AirPods. It is not unreasonable for Apple to eventually have an entire AirPods platform comprised of lower-priced models with certain features and components as well as higher-end options targeting a more premium segment of the market. Interestingly, Apple started towards the low end and may work its way up market as additional functionality is added.

3. iPhone. Stronger than expected demand for the higher-priced iPhone 7 Plus tells us that higher-priced iPhones are coming. Higher prices will be justified as iPhones morph from being computers that fit in one’s pocket into personal augmented reality navigators utilizing the most capable cameras to ever fit in a pocket. Meanwhile, Apple continues to reduce entry-level iPhone pricing. The most recent example is Apple bringing back the iPhone 6 in a few select markets and pricing it a bit lower than iPhone SE.

4. iPad. Given the iPad's position within Apple's broader product line, the product category is following the iPhone in terms of higher-priced models. On the other end, there may not be much room left for Apple to lower iPad's entry-level pricing to significantly less than $269.

Redefining Luxury

Apple's pricing strategy is ultimately about bringing new users into the Apple ecosystem. While the iPhone remains the most effective tool for accomplishing this, Apple wearables will increasingly represent another new user tool at management's disposal. It may be difficult to believe, but AirPods likely represent the first Apple product for more than a few people. Additional value will flow to companies selling multiple wearables products to the same user. As it currently stands, the average Apple user owns more than one Apple product. This trend will only intensify as time goes on when considering Apple Watch and AirPods. 

The trickiest aspect of Apple's pricing strategy is running with lower prices while at the same time, becoming more of a luxury brand. In essence, Apple is redefining luxury. While other luxury brands have utilized lower-priced items to serve as brand entry points, Apple is taking the practice to an entirely new level by pricing products below the competition. Apple is making luxury much more accessible with the idea that low-priced gadgets can create an experience just as luxurious as that of premium gadgets. It's going to be difficult for other consumer tech companies to play in this game. 

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.

The New Leader in Wearables

There has been a sea change within the wearables industry. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple looks to have grabbed the wearables unit sales crown from Fitbit this past holiday season. It's time to begin thinking about wearables not just as standalone devices for the wrist, but rather platforms containing a number of products designed for different parts of the body. In this environment, Apple has become the new wearables leader.

Change Is in the Air

Over the past few years, the wearables industry had come to revolve around two product categories targeting the wrist: 

• Health & fitness trackers
• Smartwatches

Fitbit and Apple have been the top two companies selling wearables in volume. While Fitbit's assortment of health & fitness trackers outsold Apple Watch in terms of unit sales, the higher-priced Apple Watch gave Apple the revenue edge. After initially positioning Apple Watch as a mini iPhone on the wrist, Apple changed strategies last year in an effort to close the unit sales gap between Fitbit and Apple Watch. Management shifted Apple Watch marketing more towards health & fitness while lowering the entry-level price and expanding the product line to include more fitness-oriented Watches. 

The ingredients for an interesting holiday quarter for the wearables industry seemed to be in place. The debate centered on whether or not Apple would be able to entice people to embrace smartwatches instead of dedicated health & fitness trackers. However, Fitbit had an early November surprise announcement. The company disclosed a sudden deterioration in customer demand in 3Q16, and the negative trends had continued into October. The slowdown caught Fitbit off guard. Management was forced to issue very weak financial guidance for the upcoming holiday shopping season. More worrying, management didn't seem to know what was driving the sudden decline in demand. While Apple Watch was a prime suspect, Fitbit has never publicly viewed Apple as a competitive threat.

Despite lowering sales expectations, Fitbit still ended up missing its holiday sales forecast. The company hit a brick wall in terms of sales growth. Demand for Fitbit products completely evaporated at the end of the year with the company seeing a 21% decline in unit sales in 4Q16. Just one year earlier, Fitbit had reported 55% unit sales growth. 

While Fitbit saw weakening consumer demand, other wearables players reported much more positive results. Apple reported record Apple Watch sales in 4Q16. Fossil and Garmin also saw promising smartwatch trends. (My Fossil and Garmin 4Q16 earnings analysis is available here and here, respectively.) Garmin even described a scenario of robust smartwatch demand during the holidays. While consumers turned away from Fitbit health & fitness trackers during the second half of 2016, smartwatches have been gaining momentum. 

By the Numbers

The shift in consumer preferences regarding fitness & health trackers and smartwatches is visible when comparing Fitbit and Apple Watch unit sales. As seen in Exhibit 1, Apple nearly closed the unit sales gap between Apple Watch and Fitbit last quarter. During 4Q16, Fitbit sold 6.5M devices at an average selling price of $85. Meanwhile, Apple sold 5.6M Apple Watches at an average selling price of $372. 

Exhibit 1: Fitbit vs. Apple Watch Unit Sales

View fullsize

Exhibit 1 would seem to suggest that despite significant sales trouble, Fitbit was still able to keep its title as the best-selling wearables company in the world. Upon closer examination, there is more to the story. Apple was not able to meet Apple Watch demand during the holiday quarter as Apple Watch Series 2 faced severe supply shortages. Meanwhile, Fitbit was stuck with elevated inventory levels throughout the holiday season. Accordingly, on a sell-through basis, Apple Watch and Fitbit demand was likely neck and neck. This is an astounding turn of events from the previous holiday quarter when Fitbit outsold Apple Watch by 1.7x.

A New Product

On a sell-through basis, Fitbit may have been able to just squeak by Apple Watch to retain the title of best-selling wearables company over the holidays. However, there is still a missing piece to the discussion. The definition of wearables has changed. This past holiday season saw the introduction of AirPods, Apple's second wearables product. 

After a two-month delay, Apple began selling AirPods in mid-December. When taking into account AirPods launch sales during the last two weeks of December, I estimate Apple sold more wearables devices than Fitbit during the holiday quarter.

Apple's 4Q16 Wearables Sales:

• Apple Watch: 5.6M units (my estimate - details are available here)
• AirPods: 1.0M units (my estimate - details are available here)
• Total: 6.6M units

Note: This total does not include Beats headphones containing Apple's W1 chip. 

When taking into account AirPods sales, the sales data from Exhibit 1 looks a bit different. As seen in Exhibit 2, Apple sold more wearables than Fitbit for the first time last quarter. Considering how both Apple Watch and AirPods were supply constrained (AirPods are still severely supply constrained), it is responsible to assume Apple could have easily sold eight or nine million wearables devices last quarter. This would be 60% more than the number of Macs sold and 65% of iPad unit sales. 

Exhibit 2: Fitbit vs. Apple Watch and AirPods Unit Sales

View fullsize

Platform Play

On Apple's 1Q17 earnings call, Apple introduced a new way of describing Apple Watch and AirPods. Here's Tim Cook: 

"With AirPods off to a fantastic start, a strong full first year for Apple Watch, and Beats headphones offering a great wireless experience using the Apple-designed W1 chip, we now have a rich lineup of wearable products. Their design, elegance, and ease of use make us very excited about the huge growth potential for wearables going forward."

The wearables industry is rapidly turning into a platform play. The winners will be those companies offering a range of wearable devices. Apple Watch, AirPods, and W1 chip-equipped Beats headphones represent Apple's wearables platform. As seen in the following diagram, the wearables market is best viewed as a collection of distinct battles for real estate: wrists, ears, eyes, and body (i.e. clothing). At this point, the wrist and ears are the two areas ready for mass-market products. Additional battles for the eyes and body remain R&D projects at this point given design and technological barriers. 

View fullsize

Apple is currently the only company playing in at least two wearables geographies at scale (wrist and ears). Many are underestimating the benefits associated with this type of control over a wearables platform. Similar to how strong loyalty and high satisfaction have resulted in low churn within the iPhone installed base, satisfied Apple Watch owners are that much more likely to buy AirPods and vice versa. As consumers embrace a full suite of wearables products, it doesn't hurt Apple to have an existing user base of more than 800 million people. 

Changing Competition

The significant change found at the top of the wearables market with Apple overtaking Fitbit in terms of unit sales signals a broader shift within the industry. Consumers are gravitating toward greater utility on the wrist. Dedicated health & fitness trackers are displaying many of the same characteristics shown by cheap MP3 players at the beginning of the iPod era. Consumers are beginning to bypass cheap alternatives with limited functionality and reliability and instead value additional functionality. 

Fitbit's growing struggles provide a new perspective on how competition is unfolding in the wearables market. Instead of the battle existing between wearables companies, the true competition is found between wearables and non-wearables. Apple's primary wearables competitor isn't Fitbit, Garmin, Fossil, or Samsung. Instead, Apple is competing for the same wrist real estate as legacy watch and jewelry companies. Even bare wrists represent prime competition for Apple Watch. Going forward, this battle for real estate is only going to intensify and expand to the ears. 

A closer look at Fitbit's strategy would reveal the company misidentified its competition. Instead of looking at bare wrists and non-wearables as the competition, which would have led Fitbit to push much further and faster up market in terms of capability and functionality, Fitbit assumed its only competition was multi-purpose smartwatches retailing for four or five times the price of Fitbit. Management assumed the dedicated health & fitness tracker and smartwatch segments were distinct enough to coexist and appeal to different target markets. In reality, the pricing gap between the two categories had been rapidly shrinking, and the two product categories were increasingly chasing after the same group of people, which only made matters worse for Fitbit. The company got caught with an inadequate product line that didn't resonate with consumers. This would explain Fitbit's recent decision to reduce its product line in 2017 and instead go up market with its own smartwatch.

As for Apple, the company is showing all of the signs of placing a very big bet on wearables. Not only is management completely on board with wearables, but the company's Industrial Design group has been moving towards wearables for years. As seen in Exhibit 3, the wearables segment represents a key growth opportunity for Apple. In 2016, there were approximately 50M wearable devices shipped (not including cheap step and sleep trackers). This compares to the nearly 175M tablets and 1.5 billion smartphones shipped. It is only a matter of time before wearables outsell tablets. 

Exhibit 3: Wearables, Tablets, and Smartphones Unit Sales (2016)

View fullsize

The body represents a new battleground in tech. A vibrant wearables platform consisting of Apple Watch, AirPods, and Beats headphones has positioned Apple as the new leader in the wearables market. While Apple still faces various risks and challenges in the wearables space when it comes to adoption, the amount of progress seen in just the past two years bodes well for wearables playing a pivotal role in our lives.

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Apple Doesn't Need to Buy Netflix

Calls for Apple to buy Netflix are getting louder. Instead of evaluating whether Apple should buy Netflix, a more valuable question is whether or not Apple actually needs to buy Netflix to accomplish its goals. Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that calls to buy Netflix are misplaced as Apple is chasing after something entirely different in the video streaming space.

Music Streaming Lessons

One way to judge Apple's approach to video streaming is to look at how the company approached music streaming. In 2014, Apple had a growing problem on its hands. A music streaming startup called Spotify had amassed 40 million subscribers by positioning free music as a carrot for signing up to paid music streaming, for which there were 10 million paying subscribers. While Apple was still seeing increasing revenues from its paid music download empire, the company lacked a viable music streaming alternative. iTunes Radio wasn't an answer as it was chained to the paid download model. 

With $147 billion of cash on the balance sheet at the end of 2013, Apple could have bought Spotify for $15 billion in 2014. Apple would have not only acquired an entirely new business model for content, but also solved its music streaming service problem overnight. Spotify would have had a difficult time turning down Apple's offer since $15 billion would be overvaluing the firm.

Instead of buying Spotify, Apple bought Beats for $3 billion in 2014. Three years later, many are still not sure what to make of the acquisition. Beats was a headphones company with a questionable balance sheet. The company also had a fledgling music streaming business via its MOG acquisition two years earlier. These items didn't position Beats as a traditional Apple acquisition target. If management wanted quick access to a successful music streaming service, the obvious path forward ran through Spotify, not Beats.

However, Apple wasn't looking to buy just a music streaming service. Instead, Tim Cook and Eddy Cue, Apple SVP of Internet Software and Services, were looking for a long-term vision as to how Apple should approach music content. Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine was selling that vision. In fact, Iovine had tried to sell that vision to Apple more than a decade earlier as co-founder of Interscope Records. With Spotify gaining power and cracks beginning to appear at the edges of the iTunes empire, Apple decided it was time to buy into Iovine's vision in 2014. Instead of buying Spotify, Apple bought Jimmy Iovine. 

Music M&A

Apple relies on a very particular M&A strategy. Management acquires companies in order to fill holes in product strategy. As a result, Apple uses M&A primarily to buy technology and teams of people behind a certain technology. In such a scenario, the product is placed above all else. In recent years, Apple has been an active acquirer, buying 15 to 20 smaller companies every year. 

Apple looked at its music strategy and concluded that the product hole involved more than just streaming technology. If that were the case, Spotify would have done a great job at plugging up that hole for Apple. Instead, management saw weakness when it came to talent, ideas, and a broader vision for content. Apple wanted fresh connections and relationships with the music industry - items Spotify lacked. Management was searching for a vision as to how it could strengthen its relationship with Hollywood, push the music industry forward, and strengthen the iOS ecosystem. Jimmy Iovine and the Beats team, including former music industry executives such as Larry Jackson, had the relationships Apple was chasing.  

Streaming Results

By acquiring Beats, has Apple's streaming music plans worked out? Would Apple have done better by acquiring Spotify? As seen in the following chart, Apple Music has done well when looking at the number of paid subscribers. While some thought the product had little chance of gaining adoption out of the gate, Apple now has more than 20 million paying subscribers after just 17 months in the market. Apple management is likely pleased with that total. The service has obviously benefited from Apple's extensive marketing campaign as well as prominent placement within the iOS platform. The company has unofficially positioned its goal as surpassing 100 million paying subscribers. 

View fullsize

When it comes to assessing Spotify's performance, the task becomes more complicated. On the surface, Spotify's paid subscriber growth rate appears to have remained steady following Apple Music's launch. The streaming service last disclosed 40 million paying subscribers. The problem is that Spotify has moved the goal posts when it comes to paid subscribers. The term has lost much of its meaning due to Spotify's heavy usage of promotions and bundling. In addition, Spotify's disclosures have become more sporadic when it comes to paid subscribers. Apple Music's disclosures have remained consistent to date. 

There are also questions regarding Spotify's business model and sustainability. It's not clear when or how those questions will be answered. This has placed a shroud of mystery over the music streaming space. 

In the meantime, Apple appears to be running fast with Apple Music as it positions "Planet of the Apps" and "CarPool Karaoke: The Series" as the first two original video shows for its streaming service. Apple's efforts with Apple Music don't appear to have been jeopardized by passing over Spotify as an acquisition target. It remains unclear if Spotify will serve as a ceiling to Apple Music's user growth. This is why Spotify's financial well-being is such a crucial topic to consider when thinking about Apple's long-term strategy to play in the music streaming space via Jimmy Iovine.

Why Acquire Netflix?

When it comes to the world of video streaming, Netflix is in an even stronger position than Spotify. With close to 90 million paying subscribers, Netflix has seen an incredible amount of success in getting people to pay for video content.

The crux of the argument for why Apple should buy Netflix centers around revenue growth. However, a few other reasons are often cited.

1. Revenue growth. By owning Netflix, Apple management would be well on its way to reaching their goal of doubling the Services business in four years. A $12 billion per year stream of subscription revenue (100 million Netflix customers paying $10 per month) is approximately 40 percent of Apple's annual Services revenue.
2. A different business model. Subscription revenue would help smooth the lumpiness found with Apple hardware sales and could eventually help the company make a push into a more encompassing subscription/service business model.
3. Original content. Netflix would give Apple a shot in the arm when it comes to original content programming. Instead of spending years to build something from scratch, Apple would quickly be in a position of producing enough original video content to match ESPN. 

Netflix Acquisition Lacks Rationale

Upon closer examination, calls that Apple should buy Netflix are misplaced as they do not take into account how Apple actually views the world. Many of the arguments assume Apple's current hardware-centric revenue model is in trouble. In addition, each of the three primary reasons cited for why Apple should buy Netflix contain significant gaps in logic and rationale. 

1. Revenue. Apple doesn't, and shouldn't, use M&A to directly acquire revenue streams. Apple didn't buy Beats for its revenue-generating headphone business. Instead, Apple bought Jimmy Iovine's music vision. A headphones business just happened to be attached to that vision. If M&A is used as a tool to grow revenue, Apple's effort to place the product above everything else is put into jeopardy. This logic explains why Apple doesn't acquire the large companies often paraded in the press as possible acquisition targets.
2. A different business model. Apple has already shown the willingness to embrace change when it comes to selling product. This is a company that pivoted from a very successful paid music download model for iTunes to paid subscriptions with Apple Music. With more than 20 million paying subscribers for Apple Music after only 17 months, the streaming service is already 20 percent the size of Netflix - and this is with little to no video content.
3. Original content. There is no evidence to suggest Apple wants to own large portfolios of video content. Instead, the company is still focused on being a content distributor with its iOS platform. In addition, rather than buying legacy content portfolios (Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, etc.) or original content initiatives found at tech companies masquerading as media companies (Netflix, Amazon), Apple is more interested in buying great ideas. This was very much on display with Apple's approach to music streaming. 

Apple's Video Strategy

In essence, Netflix is like Spotify. Apple could acquire Netflix and instantly become the leader in paid video streaming. However, there is evidence that Apple is instead looking for something different. Apple is searching for another "Jimmy Iovine," new connections and relationships with Hollywood. 

Apple's content goals have a better chance of being reached by working with smaller Hollywood production companies than by acquiring Netflix. This explains Apple's reported interest in Imagine Entertainment. According to The Financial Times, Tim Cook and Eddy Cue discussed a range of possibilities with Imagine Entertainment, founded by Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, including a possible acquisition. The takeaway from those talks doesn't revolve around Apple getting its hands on an existing content portfolio. Rather it focuses on bringing people on board to come up with new ideas. 

Another scenario that would likely interest Apple would be sitting down with a well-known entertainer and producer, such as Oprah, to discuss the possibility of working together on a few big ideas. Such an opportunity would let Apple stand out from the pack in the video streaming space instead of competing head-to-head with Netflix or Amazon Video. Such actions may seem trivial compared to Netflix doing 1,000 hours of original content programming. However, Apple would be looking to compete on different terms. 

The preceding Apple strategy is the cornerstone of my Apple Studios theory. Apple would build a Hollywood arm tasked with coming up with original video (and music) content. Instead of viewing this as a Netflix 2.0, Apple Studios would be more of an incubator for trying out new entertainment ideas. Apple Studios would sit uniquely within Apple's organizational structure in order to have the independency needed to prosper yet not be completely cut out of Apple. 

View fullsize

Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine like to say they are positioning Apple Music to be all about culture. When Apple says "culture," the company is actually referring to relevancy. Apple wants to remain relevant in the entertainment space. They want people to talk about what is going on in Apple Music. Eddy Cue recently compared Apple Music to MTV. While the juxtaposition may not be the most flattering thing for Apple Music these days considering MTV's weakened influence, Cue likely meant the MTV of yesterday. The cable channel was a cultural force for decades.

Apple is more interested in acquiring select ideas that have the potential to extend beyond just video or music content than it is in using a portion of its $230 billion of cash to buy huge content libraries. Apple held a monopoly on music mindshare during much of the late 2000s and early 2010s with iTunes. Management wants that mindshare back with Apple Music. This explains Apple's unusual arrangements with artists like Drake, Frank Ocean, and Chance the Rapper. Apple is showing us their blueprint for regaining relevancy.

This drive for relevancy also explains Apple's decision behind "Planet of the Apps." A show about apps doesn't seem to have much in common with a streaming music service. However, Apple Music has never been just about music, but rather it is about capturing relevancy. While the premise behind Planet of the Apps is similar to Shark Tank and The Voice, the integration with iOS is new and different. Planet of the Apps will include video content via an iOS app as well as broader iOS integration by having the apps that appear on the show featured prominently in the App Store. We are still firmly living in an app world. Apple thinks Planet of the Apps can get people talking - the same goal the company has for the broader Apple Music initiative. 

Apple never had iTunes-like mindshare in the video space. That title went to a collection of traditional broadcast and cable companies. Looking ahead, Apple isn't trying to be like HBO, Showtime, Netflix, or Amazon Video by owning large swaths of content. Instead of buying Spotify, Apple bought Jimmy Iovine's vision for regaining relevancy in music. Apple is now looking to translate Jimmy Iovine's music vision around relationships, ideas, and mindshare into a broader strategy for video. The strategy doesn't require owning Netflix. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Apple on Track to Buy 50% of Itself in Three Years

A path has appeared where Apple management can realistically buy back 50% of AAPL's outstanding shares within three years. With a stable iPhone business, a growing Services business, and U.S. corporate tax reform, Apple will have close to $300B of cash available to spend on share buyback in the coming years. The numbers are daunting, and as Apple management has shown no sign of curtailing its buyback plans, it's time for Wall Street to take notice. 

Share Buyback 101

Share buyback is the opposite mechanism of an IPO or secondary offering. Instead of raising cash by selling shares, a company uses excess cash on its balance sheet to buy back its shares from investors. These shares are then retired, or removed from the market, resulting in a lower share count. By using cash to buy back stock, a company's assets and equity totals decline while debt remains the same, all else equal.  

There are a few reasons for a company to buy back its stock. 

• Signaling effect. Management teams can use buyback to signal to Wall Street its confidence in future prospects. In addition, share buyback is often thought to be a sign that management views its stock as undervalued.  
• Balance sheet optimization. There is such a thing as holding too much cash on the balance sheet, especially if investors are not properly valuing it. By issuing low-cost debt to buy back stock, some companies will be able to lower their overall cost of capital, which is a value creation activity. 

Buying back shares increases the ownership percentage for existing shareholders. If a management team buys back all of a company's shares except for one, that last remaining share would, in theory, own 100% of the company. Of course, in the real world, this example isn't likely as the last remaining shareholders would have little incentive to sell their shares to the company at a low price. 

A few other considerations regarding share buyback:

• Share buyback is not created equally. Not every company should repurchase their shares. Industry dynamics and company-specific issues may make share repurchases an unwise use of excess cash for some companies. Share buyback has gotten a bad rap on Wall Street in recent years because of its widespread use, including that by companies not in a strong position to be buying back shares. This buyback misuse has overshadowed examples of buyback representing a good use of excess cash. 
• Share buybacks don't create shareholder value. Contrary to popular belief, share buybacks don't create value for shareholders. While existing shareholders do get a greater share of the balance sheet via share buybacks, the act of using cash to buy back shares means they are getting a greater share of a smaller balance sheet. Meanwhile, share buyback does not have any direct impact on how a company performs when it comes to using its assets to generate cash flows. The one example in which buyback may produce a small amount of value for a company is when the overall cost of capital is reduced due to share repurchases. 
• Apple is not using buyback to secretly go private. One myth that has been circulating for years is that Apple is secretly using share buyback to go private. Not only is this false, but it ignores one crucial aspect found with Apple's share buyback program. Management is not holding on to repurchased AAPL shares. Instead, the shares are retired and removed from circulation. Existing shareholders see their ownership stakes rise due to buyback.

For more information on share buyback, and in particular Apple's stock repurchase program, an Apple Stock Buyback Primer is available for Above Avalon members here.

Apple's Buyback History

Since kicking off its buyback program in 2012, Apple management has repurchased 20% of outstanding AAPL shares. As shown in Exhibit 1, after peaking in 4Q12 at 6.6 billion shares, Apple's share count has declined by 20% to 5.3 billion at the end of 1Q17.

Exhibit 1: Apple Shares Outstanding (1Q11 to 1Q17)

View fullsize

Apple management has been a very reliable and consistent repurchaser of its stock. This stands at contrast with the average buyback program in which management teams are more interested in the positives associated with announcing a share buyback instead of actually parting ways with cash to repurchase stock. Share buyback authorizations often remain open as companies never finish their buyback programs. Apple has been an outlier in terms of its very aggressive pace of buyback, regardless of share price. 

The Path to 50%

With 20% of shares already repurchased, here's how Apple management can repurchase an additional 30% of shares over the next three years to reach 50% of Apple outstanding shares:

1) Continue to funnel $30B to $35B of excess cash into share buyback every year. Apple is currently relying on operating cash flow (U.S.) and debt issuance to fund its share buyback. With the iPhone business displaying a new level of consistency and with a growing Services business, Apple will likely see similar levels of cash generation in the coming years. If Apple can funnel approximately $30B to $35B of cash into share buyback in FY17, FY18, and FY19, the company will be in a position to buy an additional 16% of outstanding shares by the end of 2019. As seen in Exhibit 2, simply keeping the status quo should bring shares outstanding to 4.5B shares in three years, a 32% reduction from the 2012 peak.

Exhibit 2: Apple Shares Outstanding (1Q11 to 1Q20E)

View fullsize

2) Bring back most of the $230B of cash held in foreign subsidiaries. Apple currently has $230B of cash held in foreign subsidiaries. If Washington passes corporate tax reform and foreign cash is taxed at a rate of 15% or lower, Apple will bring back the vast majority, if not all, of this amount to the U.S. Apple will need this cash in the U.S. if it intends to use it for share buyback. Apple has been maintaining a deferred tax liability (now at $27B) related to foreign earnings as management has been accruing U.S. taxes related to unremitted foreign earnings. This will make it possible for Apple to pay tax on most of this foreign cash without taking a significant EPS hit.  

3) Use $150B of repatriated cash to repurchase another 23% of AAPL shares. Assuming Apple pays taxes on foreign cash at some point in FY17 or FY18, Apple will have approximately $250B of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities on its balance sheet. If Apple uses 60% of this total for share buyback, Apple will be able to buy back 23% of outstanding shares. Management could repurchase these shares quickly through a modified Dutch auction tender offer. Even after spending $150B on buyback, Apple would still have close to $100B of cash left over on the balance sheet. While the company's net cash balance would be at a multi-year low given Apple's increasing amount of long-term debt (quickly approaching $100B), the company would still be kicking off $50B of cash each year. As seen in Exhibit 3, using more than 60% of repatriated cash, in addition to keeping the status quo in terms of quarterly buyback, would bring shares outstanding to 3.3B shares in three years, a 50% reduction from the 2012 peak.

Exhibit 3: Apple Shares Outstanding (1Q11 to 1Q20E)

View fullsize

Risk Factors

There are four risk factors that may derail Apple's path to buying back 50% of outstanding shares. Deteriorating business fundamentals may jeopardize the amount of cash flow generation required to maintain a robust buyback program. If iPhone unit sales decline more than 10% year-over-year, this may have a negative impact on buyback. 

When it comes to corporate tax reform, if there are strings attached to the cash Apple brings back from foreign subsidiaries, this would have an adverse impact on Apple's plan to use the cash to buy back a significant portion of outstanding shares. If Washington simply lowers the tax rate on foreign cash instead of getting rid of the tax rate altogether, Apple may have more freedom as to how the cash is spent. Of course, there is no guarantee that Washington will be able to come to an agreement on corporate tax reform, although Tim Cook sounded confident in such reform occurring this year.

Apple's board would need to provide enough buyback authorization in order for management to use a significant portion of its cash to buy back shares. One likely scenario is that the board grants management larger share buyback authorization in FY17, FY18, and FY19, but it's spread out over a longer period. This would give management added flexibility when it comes to timing buyback. 

The last risk factor is a rising AAPL share price. As shares increase in price, it will become that much more expensive for Apple to buy back its shares. If shares rise 10% in 2017, it will be 10% more expensive for Apple to buy back shares in 2018. If Apple shares increase in price, the path to repurchasing 50% of shares becomes that much more narrow.  Of course, if AAPL shares fall in price, Apple will have a much easier time repurchasing 50% of outstanding shares, as buyback would require less cash. 

Calling a Bluff

Apple's iPhone and Services businesses are throwing off more cash flow than management needs to run the business and to invest for the future (M&A and R&D). This produces a very rare situation of a company generating hundreds of billions of dollars of excess cash. 

With shares trading in the vicinity of $130, Wall Street doesn't seem to believe Apple will actually spend $250B on buyback in the next three years. Wall Street thinks Apple is bluffing. Meanwhile, Apple has shown no indication that it will slow its share buyback pace and instead embrace a strategy of retaining excess cash for other purposes. This may set up a situation in which Wall Street calls out Apple on a bluff (i.e. the share price doesn't change much from current levels). In such a situation, Apple is given a clear path to buying back 50% of shares in three years.

The biggest takeaway from buying back 50% of outstanding shares is that Apple's shareholder base would essentially be cut in half. Shareholders as of year-end 2012 would see their ownership stake in Apple double in just seven years by simply holding on to their shares. This is quite rare on Wall Street. As Apple's path to buying back 50% of shares becomes more clear to Wall Street, Apple's share buyback program will gain more attention from investors. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Apple 1Q17 Expectations

There will be two ways to interpret Apple's 1Q17 earnings report. On an absolute basis, Apple is going to report its best quarter yet. Records will likely be broken when it comes to quarterly revenue, gross profit, iPhone unit sales, Apple Watch unit sales, and Services revenue. However, if judging Apple by year-over-year growth, Apple will report simply an OK quarter. Most line items will show only modest improvement from 2016 results. 

The following table includes my 1Q17 Apple estimates.  

View fullsize

My full perspective and commentary behind all of my estimates are available for Above Avalon members. (Click here to become a member and access the six parts of the earnings preview available here, here, and here.) 

Items Worth Watching

There will be a few numbers holding extra importance when Apple reports 1Q17 results on Tuesday.

1. iPhone ASP. There has been a notable amount of evidence from the past three months pointing to the iPhone 7 Plus selling well. This has major implications for Apple's iPhone strategy going forward as a strong-performing iPhone 7 Plus suggests there is demand for higher-priced iPhones driven by feature differentiation. In addition, Apple's new iPhone storage configurations likely boosted iPhone ASP. Given that the $399 iPhone SE was not on sale during 1Q16, an iPhone ASP close to or exceeding the $691 reported in 1Q16 would confirm iPhone 7 Plus popularity. 
2. Other Products revenue. Apple will likely report record Apple Watch sales. Similar to previous quarters, Watch results are expected to be lumped in with "Other Products" revenue. The major difference with 1Q17 results is that AirPods revenue will now be included in "Other Products" given the December 2016 launch. This will make it a bit trickier to back out Apple Watch revenue. Accordingly, one should expect a wider variation in Apple Watch sales estimates. In addition, the "Other Products" line item contains revenue from Beats headphones, a good seller during the holiday quarter. Taking into account AirPods and Beats revenue, "Other Products" revenue exceeding $4.5B will bode extremely well for strong Apple Watch sales (5M+ units). 
3. iPad unit sales. The iPad has turned the corner. While unit sales growth may still be out of reach, a unit sales number close to 15M would suggest that iPad fundamentals are continuing to improve. 
4. R&D expense. My suspicion is that Apple's Project Titan was the primary factor driving the significant increase in R&D expense beginning summer of 2014. With Apple making some modifications to the project in recent months, will this change be reflected in slowing growth when it comes to R&D expenditures?
5. 2Q17 guidance. Since Wall Street is forward-looking, management's revenue and margin guidance will likely always have a place on a list containing important quarterly numbers. With a relatively strong year-over-year compare (i.e. 2Q16 revenue growth was weak), management's 2Q17 revenue guidance will likely point to continued top-line growth. 

1Q17 Expectation Meters

Each quarter, I publish expectation meters for Apple earnings. These diagrams help add value to what is fundamentally a complicated estimating process. Quite a bit of modeling goes into each Apple financial estimate. Accordingly, there is room to turn single-point estimates into ranges in order to more accurately judge Apple's quarterly performance. 

In each expectation meter, the grey shaded area is considered to be my expectation range. In most cases, a result that falls within this range would signify that the product or variable being measured is performing as expected. A result that lands in the green shaded box would denote strong performance, likely leading me to raise my assumptions and estimates going forward. Vice-versa, a result that lands in the red shaded area would have the opposite effect and lead me to reduce my assumptions going forward. 

For Apple's 1Q17 earnings report, I am publishing three expectations meters: iPhone sales, iPad, sales, and 2Q17 guidance. My iPhone unit sales expectation range stretches from 77M to 81M iPhones. Any unit sales number within this range would be labeled "expected." 

View fullsize

Turning to iPad, unit sales between 15M and 16M would fall within my expectations range. Unit sales in excess of 16.1M would signify the iPad has returned to unit sales growth. 

View fullsize

When it comes to guidance, Apple management has displayed a tendency to not play the expectations game and provide artificially low guidance simply to report a big  "beat."  Accordingly, Apple looks to be in a good position to report a revenue guidance range that exceeds 2Q16 results, implying ongoing revenue growth. 

View fullsize

The primary question facing AAPL (the stock, not the company) is, how much will Wall Street care about modest iPhone sales growth or declines? Attention has already shifted to what is being built up as a significant update to the iPhone line later this year. It remains unclear if such a shift in attention is masking a much broader development where Wall Street is focused more on earnings and cash flow stability than on unit sales growth. We will likely get some answers regarding this development in a few days. 

Above Avalon members have access to additional commentary regarding my Apple 1Q17 estimates (six parts):

1. Setting the Scene
2. Services, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch
3. iPhone
4. 2Q17 Guidance
5. Estimate Summary
6. Apple and Wall Street Expectations

Members will also receive my exclusive earnings reaction notes containing all of my thoughts and observations on Apple's earnings. To access my Apple earnings preview and receive my earnings reaction notes, become a member by visiting the membership page. 

Grading Tim Cook

It's not easy describing Tim Cook's role within Apple. Yes, he is CEO serving at the discretion of Apple's board of directors. However, there is much more than this going on behind the scenes and Cook's formal title. Apple isn't run like an average company and shouldn't be judged as one. This impacts how we should grade Tim Cook's performance as Apple CEO. 

A double standard is being used to judge Tim Cook. No other tech CEO is being graded on the same scale as Cook. He is being penalized for not entering questionable product categories. In addition, the new products that Apple has decided to sell are looked at through an iPhone lens. Apple has the best-selling smartwatch in history, with sales approaching 25M units in less than two years, and yet the product is looked at by some observers with a yawn. This type of criticism is just not found when it comes to judging Cook's peers. In fact, some of Apple's largest competitors have voting structures in place that make judging CEO performance a mere formality as boards don't have enough power to do much of anything. 

In an effort to grade Tim Cook fairly, one soon discovers that this is no easy task.  Apple has a unique corporate culture and organizational structure, and Cook is not your typical tech CEO. 

Tim Cook, COO

Tim Cook joined Apple in March 1998 as Chief Operating Officer. His job was to save Apple, literally. Cook quickly went to work drawing down excess Mac inventory in addition to laying the groundwork for Apple's outsourcing strategy. When it came time to build the iPod, it was Cook who built the supply chain and positioned Foxconn as an Apple assembler. When it came time to build the iPhone, it was Cook who made sure all the trains were running on time in terms of procurement and production. When it came to time introduce the iPhone to new customers around the world, it was Cook who negotiated with mobile carriers to begin selling the iPhone. 

By the end of Cook's time as Apple COO, a title he held for 13 years, Cook had taken on a role much more similar to that of a traditional CEO. In a little known fact, during the last few years of the Steve Jobs era, it was Cook (and Apple SVP Marketing Phil Schiller) who were tasked with coming up with Apple's corporate strategy. This allowed Steve Jobs to spend time with Jony Ive and focus on the product. Said another way, Tim Cook was the one that allowed Steve to be Steve. 

When it came time to relinquish his CEO title, Steve selected Cook as his successor. While the move was met with controversy outside Apple, the selection signaled that Steve didn't look at the CEO position as something that needed to be held by a product person. Much of that belief likely resulted from the fact that Cook had been handling many of the traditional CEO duties himself as COO for years. 

Tim Cook, CEO

How has Tim Cook been doing over the past six years?

In trying to find an answer to this question, much more information is needed regarding Cook's actual role within Apple. Is he single-handedly guiding Apple forward or has Cook come to depend on a smaller, inner circle within Apple's SVP ranks? The answer plays a role in determining Cook's contributions to Apple. Meanwhile, how much of Apple's product strategy is actually determined by Cook rather than Jony Ive? This seems like critical information to have when judging Cook's performance. 

The Apple Watch serves as a great example of how power within Apple is much more decentralized than many assume. Apple Watch is Jony's baby. As told in the The New Yorker profile of Jony Ive published two years ago, Jony met some resistance among Apple executives regarding the Apple Watch's main tenets involving fashion and luxury. Apple would become a very different company selling a device like Apple Watch. After some convincing, Jony was able to alleviate most concerns, and Apple marched towards Apple Watch. When it came time to manage the Apple Watch team, Apple COO Jeff Williams was eventually put in charge. This doesn't exactly jump out as an obvious decision given that Jeff Williams is a supply chain expert.

With this information in hand, who should we look to as being responsible for Apple Watch's performance? The people in charge of the product's design and user experience (Jony Ive, Marc Newson, and the rest of Apple's Industrial Design group)? Those in charge of Apple Watch development (Jeff Williams)? Tim Cook as Apple CEO? 

One can repeat this exercise with every major Apple product and initiative. Should Tim Cook be judged by Apple's success or failure in music and video streaming even though that is clearly Eddy Cue's domain? 

Cook's Inner Circle

Tim Cook is leading a different type of Apple than that which existed under Steve. Things are done differently, down to how decisions are made and then communicated throughout Apple. This leads to a theory that may seem controversial today but is becoming increasingly clear as time goes on. It is impossible to grade Tim Cook as CEO without grading Cook's inner circle. 

While Cook has at least seventeen VPs and SVPs reporting directly to him, a very high number, there is evidence that many of the key decisions regarding Apple's strategy are determined by a much smaller group of SVPs.  This team likely includes Eddy Cue, Phil Schiller, and Jeff Williams. The three have been at Apple since the 1990s, experiencing Apple at its best and also worst. Eddy Cue joined Apple in 1989. 

Instead of grading Cook by himself, on his own contributions, it makes more sense to grade this inner circle with Cook as its leader. The primary reason is that it is difficult to differentiate where and how Apple strategy is decided within this group. Notice how some of the key product responsibilities have been doled out in recent years: 

• Jeff Williams, COO: Oversees Apple Watch development and Apple's health initiatives. 

• Eddy Cue, SVP Internet Software and Services: Controls Apple's expanding content strategy into music and video streaming although he is also in charge of Apple's overall services strategy. 

• Phil Schiller, SVP Worldwide Marketing: Took on more responsibility with the App Store and developer relations, items that lack a direct relationship to product marketing. 

Apple's most important new product and initiative (Apple Watch and health) are run by a member of Cook's inner circle. In addition, the items that have caused the most pain and controversy for Apple in recent years (services and the App Store) are now run directly by people in Cook's inner circle. 

Outside board seat appointments provide another clue as to the power held by this inner circle.

• Tim Cook sits on Nike's board. 

• Eddy Cue sits on Ferrari's board

• Phil Schiller recently joined Illumina's board.

It is not a coincidence that Apple's product road map includes plenty of wearables and fashion (Nike), transportation (Ferrari), and health (Illumnia). 

The removal of Scott Forstall as SVP of iOS back in 2012 takes on a new level of importance when discussing the topic of Tim Cook and his inner circle. It has been reported that Forstall did not get along with other Apple executives. While we have never officially heard Forstall's side of the story, which is odd, Cook's desire for a powerful inner circle does support the theory that Forstall was removed in order to position this tight-knit group of Apple SVPs as a type of brain trust. Forstall was clear in his ambitions to one day be CEO. Cue, Schiller, and Williams don't hold similar ambitions. Instead, ideas are bounced off each other and disagreements are hashed out within this group before being funneled to the rest of the company. Forstall threatened to throw off this dynamic and risk having Cook's leadership structure collapse. 

There is one missing piece pertaining to Cook's inner circle. Who is in charge of the most important thing at Apple, the product? This is where Jony and the Apple Industrial Design group enter the equation. Cook and his inner circle have given much more power to Jony and the Apple Industrial Design group in recent years. The biggest benefactor in terms of grabbing power from Forstall's departure was Jony. 

Jony has taken on the role of Apple's product visionary while Tim Cook's inner circle has taken on the role of running Apple. In attempt to visualize this leadership structure, the following diagram depicts Apple's leadership structure. 

View fullsize

Tim Cook and his inner circle look after Apple's day-to-day operations, while the Industrial Design group look after Apple's product strategy. Meanwhile, Jony Ive as Chief Design Officer is left to do what he wants. If that role sounds familiar, it is the exact role formerly held by Steve Jobs. 

Evaluating Cook and His Inner Circle

With this new framework regarding Tim Cook's inner circle in mind, let's grade their performance:

Product Strategy. While companies like to think they have a lead against Apple when it comes to the next "big thing," it's difficult to find major fault with Apple's overall product strategy. We have been in the iPhone era for the past six years and unsurprisingly, the iPhone has performed well. Apple's primary new product initiative, Apple Watch, is starting to gain momentum. Apple is on track to sell more than 10M Apple Watches in 2017. This would position Apple very close to taking the title of best-selling wearables brand away from Fitbit. Meanwhile, AirPods will likely end up outselling Apple Watch. Blemishes when its comes to Apple's product strategy include sporadic Mac and iPad updates, seemingly slow progress with Siri, questionable user interface choices with new products like Apple Watch and Apple Music, and early mishaps with Apple Maps. 

Product Pipeline/R&D. The competitive landscape in tech is changing with the battleground centering around the body, automobile, and home. Apple is showing significant investment and interest with wearables (body) and transportation. Apple has been funneling cash into R&D at an alarming rate. In addition, Apple's M&A activity points to continued elevated awareness of Apple's limitations and weaknesses.

Operations. Ironically, one of Apple's sore spots in recent years has been Tim Cook's long-standing area of expertise. Apple has been experiencing increasingly noticeable supply chain troubles. It is becoming rare for Apple to have much, if any, supply available on product launches. While one assumes much of this is due to Apple simply meeting greater demand at launch, that is unable to explain everything. For much smaller product launches, such as that of Apple Watch, Apple has also faced severe supply issues. It has been three months since Apple Watch went on sale, and there is still a three-week wait to buy Apple Watch Series 2. Meanwhile, specialty items like Apple Pencil are pretty much out of stock for months at launch. Is this a byproduct of Apple having troubling maintaining such a large supply chain? Is it becoming harder to source components? Is Jeff Williams being stretched too thin? With all of that said, it's important to not grade Apple on a curve. The company is shipping more than 290M devices per year - not exactly a small feat.  

Marketing/Storytelling. Apple has had its fair share of lows over the past six years when it comes to product marketing, both with ads and explaining new products. Cook and the inner circle have been making changes to Apple's ad campaigns, including beefing up Apple's internal teams. The recent hire of Tor Myhren as VP Marketing Communications contains much promise, and early indications do show an improvement in Apple ads. However, Apple is still struggling when it comes to telling a product's story. While Jony appears to be the one able to tell that story, the lack of desire on his part to participate in keynotes leaves this story to be told either through keynote videos or subsequent press interviews. It probably is worth pointing out that this is one area on which Steve spent quite a bit of time and attention. Apple appears to be still trying to figure out how to fill his shoes in this regard. 

Culture. It's clear that Apple has changed under Cook. Power has moved to new people, which implies others have lost power. Apple is not the same little startup that it was during the iPod days. There is evidence that Cook and team are comfortable with giving Richard Howarth and the Apple Industrial Design group quite a bit of power. This implies other groups have likely lost some influence with Cook and his inner circle. The fact that Project Titan is completely separated from Apple suggests management is aware of some changes in how things are done within Apple. Titan needs more of a start-up mentality, something that may be more difficult to find within Apple itself. However, at the end of the day, the most important aspect of Apple's culture is putting the product above everything else. There is no clear evidence to suggest this ideal has disappeared or is any less important to Cook and team. 

Public Face. Cook has displayed the motivation and fortitude to represent Apple to the outside world. If judging Cook strictly on his own performance, this would likely represent his strength, which is surprising given his operations and numbers background. Cook recognizes that Apple holds quite a bit of power as the most valuable company in the world and truly believes that Apple and its broader mission should follow the concept of leaving the world in a better place. 

Financials. If we were grading Apple strictly by financial performance, Cook and his inner circle would get a passing grade. Apple's revenue is up 99% to $216B since 2011. Operating margins have remained steady. More than $185 billion of excess cash has been returned to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Apple shares are less than 10% off from their all-time highs. With all of that said, there are blemishes. It would be difficult for Cook and team to earn an "A" if going strictly by Apple financials. Apple hit a rough patch in 2016. Apple reported its first annual decline in revenue in 15 years. Management missed its revenue and operating income performance targets for 2016. In addition, AAPL shares have essentially been tracking the broader indices over the past two years. Nevertheless, it's been rare to see a public board penalize a CEO for essentially performing in-line with the overall market. 

In attempt to add a bit of relative context to this subjective grading: 

• Product Strategy: A- 

• Product Pipeline/R&D: A 

• Operations: B- 

• Marketing/Storytelling: C+ 

• Culture: B+ 

• Public Face: A+ 

• Financials: B 

Obviously, there is room for improvement. The three weak points include: marketing/storytelling, supply issues, and finding a sustainable Wall Street narrative. While some people may penalize Cook and his inner circle for their treatment of the Mac, it would be tough to hit them over the lack of a Mac strategy driven by the Industrial Design group. (There is one although some may disagree with it). In addition, many have been quick to hit Cook for Apple being "behind" its peers when it comes to core technologies. There is not only quite a bit of subjectivity found in such a claim, but also evidence that suggests capability should not be interchanged with functionality and usefulness. 

The Apple ecosystem now includes more than 1.1 billion devices and approximately 800 million users. The iPhone, iPad, and Mac installed bases have seen significant growth over the past six years. If Apple were a sandcastle, Cook has overseen quite the massive construction phase. While credit for this achievement should indeed flow to Cook and his inner circle (the four were instrumental with iPhone, iPad, and Mac), there is a much more straightforward way to judge Cook as Apple's CEO. Is the product still the most important thing at Apple? It's not by accident that the only way to answer that question is to bring Jony and the Apple Industrial Design group into the question. This leads us to the most effective way to judge Cook and his inner circle. Is Apple still a design studio with a large technology company attached to the side? In response to that question, Cook and his inner circle are doing what needs to be done in order to maintain Apple's relevancy. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (3 stories per day, 12 stories per week). Available to Above Avalon members. To sign up and for more information on membership, visit the membership page.

The Battle Lines in Tech are Being Redrawn

The competitive tech landscape is changing. Some companies with proven track records in mobile will struggle while new players are poised to find success. The battle for our attention is broadening into a massive land grab for the most valuable real estate in our lives. Unlike the usual refrain found with new technologies, this new era is already upon us. In fact, it began years ago.

Old Landscape

This week marks the 10th anniversary of Apple unveiling the iPhone. While many looked at that original iPhone as just a smarter smartphone, the device set off a revolution that is still unfolding today. The iPhone kicked off two battles; one has been settled while the other is still going strong.

Contrary to popular belief, the iPhone's most formidable competitor was never Google and its Android operating system. Instead, the iPhone's success was dependent on a smartphone being able to gain power and value in a sea of laptops and desktops. Apple saw this battle coming from a mile away. Here's Steve Jobs explaining why Apple decided to use OS X to power the iPhone:

"[S]oftware on mobile phones is like baby software. It's not so powerful, and today we are going to show you a software breakthrough. Software that's at least five years ahead of what's on any other phone. Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OS X. [big round of applause from audience] Now, why would we want to run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it's got everything we need. It's got multi-tasking. It's got the best networking. It already knows how to power manage. We've been doing this on mobile computers for years. It's got awesome security. And the right apps. It's got everything from Cocoa and the graphics, and it's got core animation built in, and it's got the audio and video that OS X is famous for. It's got all the stuff we want. And it's built right into iPhone."

Apple knew in the mid-2000s that smartphones would become more than just smart phones. It took some of Apple's competitors years to come to this realization. The smartphone not only became much smarter, but also turned into the most valuable computer in our lives. While there is still a place for laptops, desktops, and of course tablets, the smartphone's value proposition no longer needs to be explained. That battle is over. 

However, the other battle kicked off by the iPhone is still ongoing and involves how we use our smartphones. Every company from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snap to Netflix and Spotify are competing against each other. All of these companies are chasing our time and attention. Time spent watching video on Facebook is time not spent watching original content on Netflix. Sharing photos on Instagram takes time away from sharing photos on Snapchat. We have a finite amount of time each day available to give to these companies. At stake is not just relevancy but all of the advertising and content dollars that are found with relevancy.

The Winners

Thanks to geographical limitations, this battle for our attention has produced two big winners:

• Facebook (1.1 billion mobile daily active users)

• WeChat (800 million daily active users)

Facebook and WeChat share much in common as they aren't just social networks or messaging platforms but instead curated versions of the web. There is then a long list of secondary players, including some Facebook-owned properties like Instagram and WhatsApp. Others like Snapchat and Twitter are struggling to match Facebook's users numbers but still have more than 100 million daily active users. These companies are battling each other for the advertising leftovers. 

Another big winner in the fight for our attention has been Apple. In a battle between Facebook and Twitter, Apple wins as the iPhone is the common denominator. The same can be said for competition between Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, and YouTube. This is one reason why Apple has been so complementary over the years to Facebook, Netflix, WeChat, Twitter, Uber and pretty much every other major iOS partner. It is in Apple's best interest for there to be a vicious fight for our attention when using iPhones as the more disjointed our attention is among various apps and messaging platforms, the more power falls to the device itself. Of course, Apple wouldn't mind if we spent time using their own dedicated apps, content, and services. Judging by Apple's profit share in the smartphone industry and cumulative iPhone unit sales, competition for our attention when using iPhones has resulted in very good business for Apple over the years. 

Exhibit 1: iPhone Unit Sales (Cumulative) 

View fullsize

In the extreme case of consumers giving most of their attention to a single company like WeChat in China, Apple still has a built-in advantage of being the company responsible for not just crucial components like the screen, processor, and fingerprint sensor, but also the camera and overall design of the phone. Bear case scenarios involving iPhone sales drying up in China due to WeChat grabbing so much power haven't panned out. Last month, WeChat reported that half of its users spend 90 minutes on one its properties every day. This means that attention is still being shared among a handful of mobile properties.  

New Landscape

Change is in the air. While the fight for our attention and relevancy is not over, advancements in hardware and data collection are leading to tech battle lines being redrawn. While the smartphone is the most valuable computer in our lives today, a new crop of devices are popping up. A land grab is unfolding as companies go after the most valuable real estate in our lives: our cars, homes, and even bodies. 

View fullsize

There are three key variables guiding this redrawn competitive map:

1. Monitoring. Simply grabbing our attention while we use hand-held computers is no longer enough. Instead, value has begun to flow to devices and software that can monitor significant portions of our day. The end goal is capturing more of our data.

2. Intelligence. As devices collect a growing amount of our data, there will be a stronger need for these devices to learn from this data and then provide feedback to the user. Buzzwords like "machine learning" and "artificial intelligence" are now paraded around to describe this variable. In reality, a much simpler way of describing this trend is that computers will have to become smarter.

3. Personalization. In what may be the most underappreciated trend in tech today, new manufacturing techniques are allowing hardware personalization like we have never seen before. This will become critical as the line between technology and fashion becomes blurry.

New Battleground

The best way of mapping this new competitive landscape is to look at the new battleground. 

Body. While smartphones continue to gain value in our lives, the form factor doesn't lend itself to being a great monitoring device. As software continues to invade the healthcare industry, the need for biometrics monitoring will increase. Advancements in terms of what can be captured using noninvasive sensors have already led to a new range of small computers that can be worn throughout the day and night. 

Automobile. We have been using boxes on wheels to get us from Point A to Point B for the past 100 years. The extent to which these boxes can be customized after purchase has involved folding down a seat or two. In addition, car utilization associated with car ownership is abysmal. The combination of electric powertrains, ridesharing, and autonomous driving represent the change that is needed for massive innovation to occur in the auto industry. Once these technologies and services become a reality (we are still waiting for autonomous driving), new design and manufacturing ideas will render boxes on wheels into smart rooms on wheels. This will have major implications not only on how we travel, but also on what takes place inside automobiles. 

Home. The smart home has been forecasted for decades. Ironically, much of what is now taking place in the category isn't too different from the utopian picture of us talking to our appliances. We are currently seeing a wave of what will likely turn out to be transitory products in the form of stand-alone microphones and speakers, such as Amazon Echo and Google Home, that use voice assistants to control what is still a very manageable number of smart home items. Over time, as the number of smart home items increase, new control methods and interfaces will need to be developed. 

Key Considerations

If the new tech battleground is expanding to the body, home, and car, each one of those realms seems to be a logical area for voice to gain quite a bit of power. At the same time, there are ongoing questions as to the role screens and cameras will hold in our lives. 

Voice. The current buzzword in tech is voice. The major theme from this year's CES dealt with hardware companies announcing their support for Amazon's voice assistant, Alexa. The plan is to put Alexa in anything that contains a microphone and speaker. Everything from large-screen TVs to cars is on the table. This has led to a narrative centering on "voice first" and "voice only" interfaces. Instead of relying on screens to gather and consume data, we will instead simply talk to a digital assistant using microphones worn on our bodies or situated throughout our homes and cars. In a world without screens, the tech landscape would be turned on its head. 

There are a number of glaring issues with the idea of voice as an interface. The biggest problem is that voice is simply not a great conduit for sharing and consuming large amounts of data. A simple weather query demonstrates this limitation. While a quick question about the current temperature to Alexa or Siri will lead to a straightforward answer, it becomes much harder to rely on voice to get the forecasted hourly temperature change throughout the day. This information can be easily consumed via a screen in a few seconds. Another example is found with consuming news. Using voice to stay informed of current news, also known as radio, will produce an experience inferior to a quick swipe through one's Twitter timeline or Facebook news feed.

Many are using voice in 2017 in a very transitory way, as a stepping-stone to something much more sustainable and valuable. No wonder one of the most popular uses for Amazon Echo is setting kitchen timers - something easily done with a smartphone. 

Instead of voice replacing our screens or becoming the only way we interact with our computers, voice will become a way we interact with our proactive assistant. However, the smarter this assistant becomes, the less talking will take place.

• Why ask about the weather when a proactive assistant will know the best time to feed us the information we want to know?

• Why ask about the day's top news when a proactive assistant can curate and then deliver stories to our nearest screen when it thinks it is the most convenient time?

• Why use voice to turn on or off our smart home devices when home automation is a much better alternative?

The smarter a computer becomes, the less we should need to talk with that computer. The future of voice will include a whole lot more listening than talking. 

Screens. A bet that screens will retain value in the future will likely end up being a very good bet. Screens provide something that voice will never be able to offer: a visual window into the world. While the look and feel of screens as well as how we use screens in our lives will change, we will continue to use screens for a very long time to consume images, video, and even text. 

Cameras. One of the biggest revolutions to take place during the smartphone era has involved the camera. There is a very high likelihood that the camera found in your current smartphone is the best camera you have ever owned in your life. This has produced a situation in which photos and video are no longer just about memory capture. They have become a primary form of communication. Instead of voice wiping this medium away, there is a much higher likelihood that additional cameras and screens will enter our lives. Cameras will be the smart eyes that make self-driving cars possible. Cameras will make it possible for augmented reality to be consumed on our iPhones. Cameras will begin to be found in many devices, some of which will come as a surprise. 

Apple's Roadmap

Apple has done extremely well in the current tech landscape. The company has sold more than a billion iPhones and grew its iPhone installed base by a hundred million users in 2015 and 2016. Since unveiling the iPhone, Apple's stock price is up 800%. As the competitive maps are redrawn, Apple will face new opportunities and challenges. New competitors are going to enter the arena while surprising partnerships will likely jolt the space. 

Body. Apple's best chance of success will be found with the body. Apple excels at creating devices that require a deep integration of breakthrough hardware design and software. Wearables closely fit the bill. In addition, the manufacturing experience Apple has spent more than a decade building will help the company tremendously when it comes to producing increasingly smaller and more personal devices that fit into our lives. Apple is already on track to sell 30M wearable devices this year when combining Apple Watch and AirPods sales. In addition, Apple's stance on privacy has the potential to become a much more important topic in a world where devices are monitoring and collecting an increasing amount of our data, including sensitive biometric data. 

When it comes to competition for the body, Nike and Under Armour should not be ignored. While Nike was correct in getting out of the wrist wearables space years ago, the environment is going to change as the gap between technology and fashion shrinks. Nike's adaptive lacing technology may seem like a gimmick today, but it is a sign of Nike embracing technology in a much more direct way. We already see Nike and Apple partner with Apple Watch Nike+. This will likely grow into a much broader partnership between Apple and Nike that spans a number of products. Meanwhile, the legacy watch and fashion industries are going to face extinction-level competition.

The other realm of competition will come from the same companies currently competing for our attention on smartphones. Spectacles are the beginning of a much broader push by Snap that will eventually lead to the company selling augmented reality glasses. Facebook has indicated similar interest in placing screens on our faces. These devices will represent a prime example of how screens and cameras will continue to a play a pivotal role in our lives for a very long time. Will Apple be able to recreate the iOS platform for glasses? The company benefits from the fight for our attention on smartphones, and creating an environment in which there is a new battle in front of our eyes may be even more attractive. (Jony Ive and the rest of Apple's Industrial Design group are going to first need to solve the many issues found with wearing computers on the face.)

Automobile. When it comes to rethinking the car, some of the major themes found in the smartphone market are going to reappear. Today's cars are boxes on wheels. Tomorrow's cars are going to be smart rooms on wheels. There may be an opportunity for the car industry to experience its very own "iPhone" moment. Tesla's current offerings don't represent this earth-shaking change. 

As it does with the smartphone industry, value is going to flow to the companies that control both auto hardware and software. Autonomous driving and the machine learning powering these cars will require both significant hardware and software advancements. In addition, passenger compartments are going to become prime real estate for lots of data consumption (music, video, etc.). The fact that these smart rooms on wheels will be surrounded by lots of screens (i.e. windows and windshields) should give us clues as to how important augmented reality will become in the auto space. 

Apple has many of the ingredients to go very far in the car industry although the company is also missing some crucial technologies. My suspicion is that Project Titan's change in strategy is geared to first fill some of these technology gaps before proceeding with automobile hardware. Meanwhile, ridesharing and different ownership models will increase a car's utilization rate by almost 20x. This will have a major impact on the cost of travel. However, at the end of the day, design and manufacturing will be the two most important variables to watch in the auto space - two of Apple's biggest strengths. There is simply too much at stake for Apple (or any major tech company for that matter) to not have a comprehensive strategy for the automobile as cars turn into smart rooms on wheels.

Home. This is where Apple has the least attractive position. Given Apple's culture and functional organizational structure, one should not expect Apple to move down the path of selling various smart devices for the home. Selling niche hardware that will be owned for long periods of time without upgrading doesn't exactly sound too attractive of a business for a hardware maker either. Apple's answer to get around the lack of Apple-branded hardware is HomeKit and the Home app: Rely on third-party device manufacturers to come up with smart devices that can be controlled via iOS and Siri.

On paper, the strategy makes sense. Unfortunately, reality is quite a bit different. Expecting consumers to go out and buy lots of smart home devices at prices that are in some cases 10x more than those of their non-smart alternatives doesn't bode well for the smart home going mainstream any time soon. This is why Apple expects this process to proceed gradually, with consumers buying a few smart items in the beginning and then slowly building their collections over time. This is why predictions of Amazon and "voice only" interfaces ruling the home seem immature. It is simply way too early. When it comes to the home, value is going to eventually flow to automation, an element that Apple seems to be betting big on with its Home app. However, the hardware piece of the equation just isn't there. 

The TV industry remains a mess with no clear winner when it comes to video streaming, and the home may end up in a similar state. In some ways, Apple's Home app is similar to its TV app. Both strategies contain holes. 

After the iPhone

Everyone wants to know what will come after the iPhone. This is likely the wrong way of thinking about the future tech landscape. The new tech battle lines being redrawn don't assume there will be a "new iPhone." The iPhone will likely remain a very valuable device in our lives for many years, and companies are still going to be fighting for our attention when using smartphones. However, value has begun to flow to those companies able to place hardware and software in the most important parts of our lives: our bodies, cars, and homes.

The unknown found in this new competitive landscape concerns just how much autonomy these new devices will have. (Hint: It's much more than people think.) Instead of seeing wearables remain as iPhone accessories, we are going to see smartwatches, wireless headphones, and maybe even smart glasses gain independency. Instead of cars being controlled by our iPhone, cars will become like our iPhones.

The iPhone has had a major impact on society because it redefined a computer. For the first time, we had a computer that could fit in our pocket. We are quickly moving to the point of having many new computers on our bodies, on our roads, and in our homes.

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 Questions for 2017

I don't see any value in coming up with tech predictions at the beginning of a calendar year. Predictions are nothing more than an attempt to add a bit of manufactured clarity to what is ultimately a lot of unknown. Instead, January is a great time to embrace that unknown. One easy way of doing this is to come up with a list of questions for the new year. This not only helps guide our analysis in the coming months, but also proves incredibly useful for navigating Silicon Valley and Wall Street. 

My first set of Apple questions was published in January 2015 (available here), followed by the second installment in January 2016 (available here). My thoughts and observations on Apple's 2016 are available here. 

Here are my Apple questions for 2017: 

iPhone

• New iPhones. How many new iPhone models will Apple unveil in 2017? For the first time, Apple is in a position to potentially unveil three different iPhone screen sizes simultaneously. Significant design changes are on the table for at least one model as well. This should not be treated lightly as it will test Apple's supply chain and demand forecasting.

• New Features. What will be the key new features found with the new iPhones? Traditionally, Apple has positioned three or four new features as the primary selling points. These are often a combination of hardware and software features. With the iPhone 7, Apple unveiled a list of 10 features although one could boil the list down to four primary features: Jet Black, the camera, stereo speakers, and wireless (AirPods).

• OLED Displays. How will the rumored OLED display shortage hamper Apple's iPhone strategy in 2017? It's been hard to miss stories about the looming shortage of OLED displays. Meanwhile, the long-standing rumor about the iPhone line has been that Apple wants to transition to OLED due to the potential benefit on battery life in addition to OLED producing better picture quality.

• iPhone Plus. Will Apple continue to differentiate the iPhone Plus model from the rest of the iPhone line? In 2016, the iPhone 7 Plus received a dual-camera system. It is not unreasonable for Apple to eventually give the largest-screen iPhone a completely different design than its smaller siblings.

• iPhone SE. What are Apple's plans for the iPhone SE? The $399 4-inch iPhone SE was the sleeper hit of 2016. While the product may not garner many headlines, the iPhone SE has played a major role in returning the iPhone line to unit sales growth. The combination of a smaller form factor and low price has been appealing to many customers (both existing iPhone users and new users).

• Pricing. How will Apple price its new iPhone lineup? Apple wasn't shy in passing along higher component costs found with the iPhone 7 Plus. At the same time, Apple is currently milking the iPhone when it comes to positioning the device as a new user magnet. This involves continuing the multi-year trend of gradually lowering iPhone pricing.

• New User Growth Trends. Will Apple see a slowdown in iPhone new user growth in 2017? While the iPhone's contribution to Apple financials cannot be overstated, the product plays an even more important role for Apple. The iPhone is Apple's single most effective tool for expanding the user base. In 2016, the iPhone installed base grew by more than 100M users. This is on top of the iPhone seeing 100M new customers in 2015. (The math behind these figures is available here.) A vast majority of these users are new to the Apple ecosystem. No other Apple product comes close to having these new user numbers.

• Upgrade Cycle. The iPhone upgrade cycle has been slowing as iPhone users hold on to their devices for a longer stretch of time. How will the new iPhones impact the upgrade cycle heading into 2018?

Apple Watch

• New Apple Watches. Will Apple unveil new Apple Watches in 2017? Given the product's unique attributes, one cannot assume that Apple will follow an annual cadence with Apple Watch updates. However, September is a logical time for updates given the device's propensity to be gifted at the holidays. In addition, Apple's expansion of the Apple Watch line into Series 1 and Series 2 opens the door for a number of different options when it comes to updating the Watch line.

• New Features. How will Apple push the Apple Watch forward? Given the product's smaller supply chain footprint, especially in comparison to iPhone and iPad, there has been a noticeable lack of leaks surrounding potential new Apple Watch features. Logical choices include better battery life and faster processors.

• Watch Bands. What kind of new Apple Watch bands will Apple unveil? Watch bands play a crucial role in Apple Watch adoption. New colors, materials, and collections seem likely at some point this year.

• watchOS 4. Which new features will anchor watchOS 4? New Watch faces and complications are high on the list. In addition, further refinements to the user interface would go a long way.

• Marketing. How will Apple Watch marketing evolve? We have seen Apple take Apple Watch messaging from a mini iPhone on your wrist to a health & fitness device that can do other things. This change gives Apple a much more effective strategy for competing against Fitbit. While the health & fitness focus may suffice in the near term, it's not a long-term marketing strategy as it will ultimately sell Apple Watch short.

• Price Cuts. Will Apple lower Apple Watch's entry-level price? The company has been aggressive when it comes to Apple Watch pricing. In just 17 months on the market, Apple Watch's entry-level price went from $349 to $269. This past holiday shopping season, Apple Watch Series 1 was available for $199 thanks to Black Friday promotions in the U.S.

• New Partnerships. Will Apple unveil new partnerships for Apple Watch? In 2015, Apple kicked off its Hermès partnership. Instead of announcing another traditional luxury partnership in 2016, Apple unveiled a significant tie-up with Nike for Apple Watch Nike+. Each partnership contains much intrigue with Apple not holding anything back in supporting its Watch partners.

• Financial Disclosures. When will Apple begin to disclose additional details about Apple Watch sales? The company already provides clues as to how Watch sales are trending. At a certain point, the benefits associated with releasing quarterly unit sales data will outweigh the drawbacks.

AirPods

• New AirPods. Does Apple plan on updating AirPods in 2017? AirPods aren't just a pair of wireless headphones. They are Apple's second wearables product. September would seem to be the most logical time for a revised version given its proximity to the holiday shopping season.

Mac

• New Mac Desktops. Does Apple plan on updating Mac desktops in 2017? Due to a number of reasons, Apple has been updating the Mac line in a piecemeal way. In 2015, Apple unveiled a 12-inch MacBook that gave major clues as to Apple's design strategy for Mac portables. Seventeen months later, Apple unveiled the new MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, which unsurprisingly shared much of the design language found in the 12-inch MacBook. We have not yet seen Apple's plans for the Mac desktop.

• Mac Pro and Mac mini. What is going to happen with the Mac Pro and Mac mini? A Mac mini increasingly looks out of place given its heritage as a product designed for enticing Windows users to Mac. Meanwhile, the Mac Pro may still interest the Apple Industrial Design group for no other reason than lessons learned from its unique manufacturing process.

• iMac. Where is the iMac's place within Apple's ecosystem? Management has provided a few clues suggesting that the iMac will continue to receive attention and resources. This may alleviate some concerns held by current iMac users worried about the lack of future updates. However, it's difficult to shake the theory that there may be something greater in store for the iMac. Are we moving to a point at which Apple will look at the iMac as the only Mac desktop? This would certainly create a firestorm within some parts of the Mac community.

• MacBook Pro Pricing. Will Apple reduce pricing for the new MacBook Pro in 2017?

iPad

• New iPads. Will Apple unveil new iPads in 2017? As with the Mac line, Apple has been updating the iPad line in a piecemeal way. Apple unveiled a 12.9-inch iPad Pro in September 2015, and this was followed by a 9.7-inch iPad Pro in March 2016. The current iPad line feels incomplete as only two of the five models that make up the line are new.

• iPad mini. What are Apple's plans for the 7.9-inch iPad form factor? Even though we have seen Peak iPad Mini, Apple is still selling more than 10M 7.9-inch iPads every year. There would be demand for an updated model.

• New Apple Pencil. The Apple Pencil was released in November 2015. Should we expect an updated Apple Pencil in 2017? Will the iPhone receive Apple Pencil support?

Apple TV

• Original Content. Will Apple push further into original content programming? We will soon get a look at "Vital Signs," Apple's first scripted TV series as well as "Planet of the Apps," Apple's unscripted reality TV show.

iOS

• Redesign. What does Apple have in store for iOS 11? This question could arguably turn into an entire post on its own. Given Apple's direction with the iPhone, an iOS redesign is high on the list. The traditional home screen and rows of apps are dated. In addition, an iPhone with the home button built into the screen requires iOS changes. We already saw some of these changes with iOS 10 with the greater emphasis on swiping left, right, up, and down instead of going back and forth to the home button. There is much more that Apple can do along those lines to have iOS 11 build off of iOS 10.

Apple Music 

• Paid User Trends. What is a realistic year-end goal for Apple Music paid users? Apple grew Apple Music by approximately 10M paid users in 2016. This would suggest that 35M to 40M paid users is an attainable year-end goal for Apple Music.

• Pricing. Will Apple reduce Apple Music pricing to drive stronger customer adoption?

• Music Exclusives. We know Apple will continue to bet on music exclusives. How will Apple double-down on music exclusives?

• Tidal. What is going to happen to Tidal? Jimmy Iovine has been very careful to paint a rosy picture of the relationship between Apple Music and Jay-Z. However, Iovine is then quick to argue there will be consolidation in the music streaming space. Notice how Tidal, and not Spotify, received a spot on this year's questions list. Apple Music's success is increasingly becoming decoupled from Spotify's path forward (an IPO or sale).

Services

• Apple Maps. How will Apple improve Apple Maps? We are getting to the point where Apple Maps is legitimately great in certain parts of the world compared to its competition. In the U.S. Northeast, Apple Maps is a winner. In other parts of the world, it's another story. Nevertheless, Apple has made much progress with Apple Maps and the incentive is there for ongoing improvement given maps' importance to Apple's transportation initiatives.

• Apple Pay. How will Apple work to improve Apple Pay acceptance in the U.S.? Outside the U.S., Apple Pay is seeing quite a bit of success. However, the U.S. is proving more difficult from the perspective of getting retailers to support Apple Pay. This has had a negative impact on customer adoption.

• Messages. What new features will Apple bring to Messages? Apple Pay support is coming eventually. Picture and video filters are other items worth considering.

• Siri. Needless to say, Siri will be a popular talking point in 2017. What does Apple have in store for SiriKit? Greater third-party support via Siri APIs would be high on the list. In iOS 10, the Siri API works with just six types of applications. Regardless of the progress made with Siri, I have a strong feeling that a certain segment of the Apple user base will remain incredibly disappointed with Siri's capability in 2017.

Project Titan

• Autonomous Driving. After a strategy shift in 2016, what kind of progress will take place within Project Titan in 2017? Reports have positioned 2017 as a critical year for Apple's autonomous driving R&D efforts.

• Hardware Hires. Will there be new clues regarding Apple's ongoing interest in automobile hardware? A few months after Titan hit some speed bumps, Apple poached Alexander Hitzinger, a Porsche technical director responsible for the Porsche 919 hybrid. Hitzinger easily qualifies as one of Apple's most accomplished and talented hardware hires from the auto industry.

• Bob Mansfield. A hardware guru, with a proven track record of success, is leading Apple's car development project. It's difficult not to come up with a long list of questions about that dynamic.

Washington and Wall Street

• U.S. Tax Reform. When will we see U.S. corporate tax reform? While this question is seemingly put forth every year, odds of some kind of progress in 2017 are at their highest in years.

• U.S. Manufacturing. How will Apple respond to calls to bring more manufacturing to the U.S.? Upon closer examination, there is little chance of Foxconn and other Apple assemblers bringing high volume production to the U.S. any time soon.

• Wall Street Narrative. Apple still doesn't have an effective narrative on Wall Street. Will management find a sustainable narrative for Apple on Wall Street?

• Buyback. How will Apple approach its buyback program in 2017? For the past few years, Apple CFO Luca Maestri has been overseeing a buyback program operating at its limits. Having the vast majority of its cash offshore hasn't helped Apple's capital management program. Apple can only raise so much debt to fund its dividend and buyback activity. Corporate tax reform, including changes to how offshore cash and earnings are taxed, will have a major impact on Apple's buyback (and dividend) strategy.

Management

• Turnover. Will there be any executive turnover in 2017? There hasn't been much movement within Apple's upper ranks in recent years.

• M&A. Will Apple continue to adjust its M&A strategy in 2017? Even though Apple continues to rely on M&A for filling holes in its asset base, there have been signs of change taking place in terms of Apple's investment philosophy. The company is willing to be a bit less secretive in order to get better access to newer technologies. The $1B investment in Didi and allowing AI researchers to publish are two examples. We already see signs of this revamped M&A strategy in 2017 as Apple just confirmed it will invest $1B into SoftBank's tech fund.

Apple Industrial Design (ID)

For the first time, I am giving ID its own dedicated question category. Given the sheer amount of power given to ID within Apple, it only seems fitting.

• Jony Ive. Simply put, will we get any surprises from Jony in the new year? It's safe to say Jony will continue to make some people uneasy in 2017. For 2016, the Apple design book certainly counts as a surprise. The completion of Apple Campus 2 this year may represent a major news event involving Jony given his immense contribution to the project.

• Marc Newson. Will we get any clues as to Marc Newson's role within Apple? I continue to think Marc Newson's involvement within Apple is being underestimated. Newson played a critical role with Apple Watch development and has experience with various product categories, including jewelry and cars, as well as a range of materials.

• Departures. Will we see any departures from the close-knit group of industrial designers in 2017? Danny Coster, who was considered one of the most senior members of the team, left Apple last year to help GoPro find a future. While one departure is not necessarily a sign of concern, it is something worth noting. Additional departures would clearly reveal changes are taking place within Apple Industrial Design.

Wildcards

• New iPhone Nomenclature. Will Apple change its iPhone naming strategy? As the iPhone upgrade cycle gets longer, it makes that much less sense for Apple to stick with its current iPhone nomenclature. I will admit there is quite a bit of risk found with altering naming for such an iconic and popular product. However, that is usually the exact scenario that requires a name change. We are likely moving to the point where we simply refer to iPhones as "iPhone mini," "iPhone," and "iPhone Plus."

• An iOS-powered MacBook. When are we going to see an ARM-based MacBook powered by an iOS variant? Given Apple's unusual Mac updating schedule, 2017 seems off the table for a release. Nevertheless, we may receive additional clues during the year that such a product is coming down the pipeline. It is becoming not a question of if, but of when.

• Foxconn. What should we expect from Foxconn in 2017? Apple's relationship with Foxconn is becoming more intriguing by the day. Foxconn has become Apple's most important business partner.

• New Products. What are the leading candidates for brand new Apple products in 2017? For 2015, I positioned an "Apple Pen" as a likely product in the R&D labs. That same year, Apple unveiled the Apple Pencil. Last year, I positioned a ring and "wireless EarPods" as the leading candidates for a brand-new Apple product. We got AirPods in December 2016. For 2017, a brand new health-focused product, possibly working alongside an Apple Watch, and a ring worn on your finger stand out as possible new products. Wearables are increasingly becoming a focal point for Apple's industrial design group.

• Other Products. There is a somewhat large bucket of rumored products (hardware, software, and services) in the Apple labs. We can include various AR, VR, wearables, stand-alone speakers, etc. Will any of these see daylight in 2017?

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.

AirPods Kick off Apple's Battle for Our Ears

AirPods are Apple's surprise hit product of 2016. While their simplicity may evoke comparisons to previous Apple blockbusters like iPod, AirPods are something very different. We are witnessing a new chapter unfolding at Apple in which Jony Ive and the Industrial Design group press down on the wearables accelerator. While Apple Watch wages a war for our wrists, AirPods are kicking off Apple's battle for our ears. 

A Wireless Future

There were hints that AirPods were going to be popular. Back in September, at Apple's annual iPhone event, the focus didn't end up being on the iPhone 7 or 7 Plus, or even new Apple Watches, but instead on a pair of wireless headphones. While Apple SVP Phil Schiller did not talk up AirPods much on stage, Apple's Chief Design Officer, Jony Ive, didn't hold anything back. The fact that AirPods received its own Jony video spoke volumes. Here's Jony describing the motivation behind AirPods: 

"We believe in a wireless future. A future where all of your devices intuitively connect. This belief drove the design of our new wireless AirPods...We're just at the beginning of a truly wireless future we've been working towards for many years where technology enables the seamless and automatic connection between you and your devices."

On the surface, Apple's focus on a wireless future seems to describe the company's efforts to remove wires from our lives. As our iPhone and iPad usage have increased, the number of headphone wires and charging cables in our life have grown in number as well. However, Apple's interpretation of a wireless future isn't just about the lack of wires. Instead, Apple is focused on empowering people through a new collection of personal technology devices. This ends up serving as a good background for AirPods, Apple's second wearables product. 

Impressions

I have been using AirPods for the past week. Here are my impressions:

Wireless Headphones. AirPods are Apple's answer to rethinking headphones. Relative to Apple Watch, AirPods contain much less risk as a product category. Given our increased dependency on consuming content via smartphones and tablets, headphone usage has been on the rise. In addition, wireless headphones had already begun to gain momentum in the marketplace. AirPods can best be described as wireless headphones that can do a little bit more. The wireless headphone part of the product will drive sales today while the "little bit more" part represents the vast potential found in a wearables product for the ear. 

Pricing. At $159, AirPods are Apple's lowest-priced wearables device. The starting price for Apple Watch is $269. AirPods are also priced very competitively considering Samsung's Gear IconX retail for $199 and Bragi's Dash goes for $299. While there are much less expensive headphones available, including the free pair of EarPods that come with every iPhone, the value proposition found with AirPods centers around not having to deal with any headphone wires. In addition, there is value found with being able to seamlessly connect AirPods to my Apple devices. Given historical trends, it's safe to assume there will one day be a sub-$100 pair of AirPods. The prospects of a $99 wearables device from Apple goes a long way in redefining mass-market luxury. 

Usage. I do not find myself wearing AirPods throughout the day. Instead, usage is heavily dependent on my current environment. While sitting at my desk, AirPods often remain in their case. However, AirPods become incredibly more valuable when I'm on the move. The lack of wires makes AirPods an ideal product for fitness activities and various workout routines (such as snow shoveling). 

Comfort. Even though AirPods have a near identical shape to Apple's wired EarPods, the lack of wires gives AirPods a noticeably more comfortable feel. Without wire tension, it is extremely easy to forget that AirPods are in my ears. This will have many implications when AirPods receive additional functionality down the road. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which we will want to wear AirPods for long durations (or at least until the battery dies). 

Fit. AirPods are without question more snug than EarPods. Throughout my week of usage, I didn't have one instance of AirPods falling out or becoming loose. One reason I suspect AirPods are much more snug than EarPods, despite having a very similar shape, is their ability to sit at a slightly different angle in my ear. With wired EarPods, the device has to be worn at a particular angle due to the hanging cord. While AirPods fit my ears, others have had significant issues with AirPods fitting in their ears. It's difficult to put a number on the people impacted by ill-fitting AirPods. It probably isn't trivial. There is too much on the line for Apple not to eventually address various ear shapes with a few different AirPods sizes. 

Sound. AirPods sound better than Apple's wired EarPods. With that said, wireless headphones don't strike me as a product category in which sound quality is high on the value proposition list. Instead, AirPods derive much of their value from the lack of wires and ability to seamlessly connect to my devices. For the vast majority of consumers, AirPods will sound just fine. 

Siri. Double tapping on an AirPod will bring up Siri. It took a few days of practice to figure out how to get the double tap just right to activate Siri nearly every time. After a week of using AirPods, I have seen a modest increase in my Siri usage. While it is nice to have Siri access through AirPods, I haven't found it to be a game-changing experience...yet. Half the time I wear AirPods, I end up just saying "Hey Siri" since my iPhone is close by. While some people are jumping with both feet into a voice-only paradigm of computing pushed by devices like Amazon Echo and Google Home, I still have major reservations. Voice is an incredibly inefficient way to transfer data, and I am finding that I really don't want to talk with my computers. Siri's potential continues to be found in being more of a proactive assistant. In that scenario, Siri and AirPods will be incredibly useful in my life. We aren't there yet.

Simplicity. Apple was deliberate in maintaining a high degree of simplicity with AirPods. There is only one control available on AirPods. A double tap to an AirPod enables one to either activate Siri or answer a call. This produces a rather obvious drawback when it comes to music playback controls. The user is required to either use Siri or a controller (nearby iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad etc.) I think Apple made the right decision in not adding a lot of controls to AirPods V1.0. If not done correctly, additional controls such as swipes and triple taps could lead to a disaster. In terms of music playback, I find using 1) Apple Watch 2) iPhone 3) "Hey Siri" to be adequate options. For the first time, Apple Watch's Digital Crown proved to be useful when it controlled the music volume for my AirPods. 

Design. AirPods are designed to be worn and seen. Everything about AirPods, from their white color and long stem to their charging case, screams Apple Industrial Design (ID). The product is an example of how the Apple ID group is firing on all cylinders when it comes to its push into wearables. 

View fullsize

Given Apple's culture and functional organizational structure, the ID group holds near to absolute power within Apple. This structure is one of the most critical elements to keep in mind when analyzing Apple's product strategy, including AirPods' trajectory. I have been very outspoken about Apple ID gaining power within Apple. 

• Exhibit A: The Jony Ive Promotion
• Exhibit B: Jony Ive Is Making People Uneasy

This power is manifesting itself in Apple's aggressive push into wearables.

Window into a Wearables World

One of the main takeaways from using AirPods for the past week is that they represent a window into a wearables world. When the Apple Watch was unveiled, Apple talked about a scenario in which one can leave the iPhone by the door and just use an Apple Watch around the house. This hasn't happened. As it turns out, AirPods end up having a much better chance of achieving what the Apple Watch was originally tasked to achieve. AirPods help break the chains that have held me so close to the iPhone. Combine AirPods with an Apple Watch, and an even greater number of chains are broken. While we aren't at the point of being able to move beyond the iPhone, AirPods provide glimpses as to how this process is going to occur. 

Sales Implications

I think Apple is going to sell a lot of AirPods. While the device is not an impulse purchase with a $159 price, AirPods have a few things going for them that should result in significant sales.

1. AirPods work with any device that supports bluetooth. This gives the product an addressable market that is at least 7x larger than that of Apple Watch. There are faint similarities between AirPods working with Android and the iPod working with Windows. It was that Windows support that set iPod sales on its eventual blockbuster sales trajectory. 
2. AirPods have a very clear value proposition out of the gate. Many customers are going to see value in AirPods as they are wireless headphones. All of the device's additional functionality found with Siri (available with Apple devices) is just an added benefit. 

The most accurate measurement of AirPods demand will likely be measured in tens of millions of units over the next two years. For context, Apple sold 20M Apple Watches in 20 months while Amazon has reportedly sold 5M Echoes in two years. The ingredients are in place for AirPods to be a multi-billion dollar business within the next few months. It doesn't hurt that sales expectations facing AirPods are much more contained than the lofty goals set for Apple Watch at launch. 

The Battle for Our Ears

Apple Watch kicked off Apple's battle for the wrist. Given the finite amount of wrist real estate available, there is an incredible amount of power found in getting a device on one's wrist. This means that Apple Watch is in one way or another competing against everyone from Swiss watchmakers to fitness & health trackers and jewelry makers. Much of Apple's future strategy with Apple Watch will be guided by this battle for the wrist. 

Apple is now kicking off a new battle with AirPods. This time, the battle is for our ears. Every pair of AirPods sold and worn represents another set of ears ready for Siri. In some ways, Apple has a head start as the company has been selling hundreds of millions of wired EarPods each year. In addition, Beats gives Apple instant access to parts of the headphone market not addressed by AirPods. My suspicion is that this difference in target markets is one reason why Apple has given Beats headphones a bit of independence since the acquisition. However, the message is clear: AirPods are Apple's flagship weapon in its quest for our ears.  

Over time, Apple will expand AirPod functionality to include additional voice capabilities such as translation, various types of audio curation and delivery, biometrics monitoring, and augmented reality. The greater the number of AirPods that are out in the wild, the more valuable these additional capabilities will become.  

As the smartphone battle quiets down, the battles for our wrist and ears are only beginning. Welcome to the wearables era. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

The Elephant in the Smartwatch Room

Apple is consolidating power within the smartwatch industry at an alarming rate. A growing number of competitors are exiting the space as the anticipation and promise found with wrist computing has materialized for only a select few. For the rest, smartwatches have been nothing but frustration and despair. The writing is on the wall. There isn't a smartwatch industry. Instead, there's only an Apple Watch industry.

The Beginning

Even though it feels like the smartwatch is a relatively new phenomenon, the idea of redefining utility on the wrist is more than five years old. Apple began to investigate a device for the wrist in 2011, just four years after launching the iPhone. The idea was simple: Create a device that pairs with a smartphone. This device would allow the user to spend more time enjoying his or her surroundings while staying informed of need to know data throughout the day.

As the project progressed within Apple, there were ongoing questions as to which parts of the smartphone experience would best qualify to be brought to the wrist. In some ways, this experiment is still ongoing five years later. Some of the earliest smartwatches tried to recreate the entire smartphone experience on the wrist, all the way down to recreating a screen of third-party apps. Others bet that smartwatches with more in the way of dedicated (i.e. limited) functionality would do better. In both cases, smartwatches were looked as a much needed growth opportunity that would partially offset the inevitable slowdown in smartphone sales. 

Industry Sales

When compared to smartphone and tablet sales, smartwatch sales are still having a difficult time showing up on a chart. Since the start of 2015, there have been approximately 35M smartwatches shipped, compared to 385M tablets and 2.9B smartphones. In 2015, for every smartwatch shipped, there were 12 tablets and 80 smartphones sold. In 2016, these ratios are expected to improve slightly. For every smartwatch shipped, 10 tablets and 78 smartphones will have been sold. People are buying smartwatches. The problem for the industry is that not many non-Apple Watch smartwatches are being sold. 

Exhibit 1: Smartwatch, Tablet, and Smartphone Unit Sales (2016E)

View fullsize

The Players

There have been only three legitimate players in the smartwatch industry.

1. Apple
2. Garmin 
3. Samsung

Combined, these three companies have represented 78 percent of smartwatch shipments over the past two years. Even more remarkable, no other company has come close to these three in terms of unit sales. Since the beginning of 2015, only seven companies have shipped more than 200,000 smartwatches in any given quarter. Out of those seven, one will soon be broken up in a fire sale (Pebble), another just announced it was getting out of smartwatches (Motorola), and two have shown little interest in releasing new smartwatches (Huawei and LG). This leaves Apple, Garmin, and Samsung. 

Even more astounding, the "Other" category, the usual industry catch basin for dozens of other companies, is on track to account for just 11 percent of smartwatch shipments in 2016. One group of companies found in the "Other" category are the original sellers of utility on the wrist - watchmakers. The Swiss watch industry continues to dabble with connected watches. However, one would be correct in questioning the motivation guiding some of these companies. TAG Heuer, apparently in an attempt to claim its position as one of the more successful Swiss watchmakers when it comes to smartwatches, announced it will sell just 75,000 connected watches in 2016. Those kinds of sales make the Swiss watch industry completely irrelevant in terms of the broader smartwatch market. 

Consolidating Power

As seen in Exhibit 2, Apple Watch has represented between 45 percent and 65 percent of quarterly smartwatch shipments since launching in 2Q15. Given Tim Cook's recent comments about Apple expecting record Apple Watch sales during 4Q16, Apple Watch is poised to capture an even greater share of industry sales. When considering that the iPod had around 70 percent marketshare in the MP3 market at its height, the Apple Watch is approaching iPod-like sales share within the smartwatch industry. It's clear: Apple Watch has consolidated power after just a few quarters of sales. 

Exhibit 2: Smartwatch Unit Sales Share

View fullsize

The primary question facing the smartwatch industry isn't why most companies have been unable to find sales success. The answer is simple: Most smartwatches haven't been appealing to consumers. Instead, the more intriguing question is found with Apple Watch's success. How has Apple been able to sell close to 20M Apple Watches to date? I suspect there are four reasons: 

1) Design. The Apple Watch is popular because people want to wear one on their wrist. Jony Ive and Marc Newson are on to something with Apple Watch design. In what isn't a coincidence, the best-selling smartwatch is a device that looks the least like a traditional watch. 

Even though the themes of fashion and luxury are no longer discussed as frequently with smartwatches, they remain critical ingredients for Apple Watch's sales success. Apple has positioned interchangeable watch bands as key fashion items for the Watch. In addition, Apple is redefining luxury with Hermès and Edition Watch pricing. 

2) Fun. The Apple Watch doesn't have one "killer" app. Instead, the device is a health and fitness tracker for some and a notification and messaging device for others. In both cases, consumers view the Watch as a fun iPhone accessory. The changes found in watchOS 3, including the greater focus on Watch faces, emphasizes the "fun" theme found with the Watch. 

3) iPhone. With more than 700M iPhone users out in the wild, the Apple Watch has benefited from being positioned as an iPhone accessory. This type of halo around the iPhone is not found with competing devices. Garmin's success has been limited to certain fitness circles. Meanwhile, Samsung has seen some smartwatch sales success by bundling watches with smartphone purchases. Outside of bundling, there is no evidence to suggest the same kind of halo around Galaxy smartphones exists. 

4) Price. In just 17 months, Apple cut Apple Watch's starting price from $349 to $269, a 23 percent reduction. When considering that the cost of a Watch Sport Band has remained steady, the starting price for an Apple Watch case has seen a 27 percent price reduction. In addition, retailers have run with steep discounts for Apple Watch during the holidays. This led to Apple Watch Series 1 going for $199 on Black Friday last month. In what shouldn't come as a surprise, Apple Watch sales have increased as prices have fallen. In addition, these price reductions have left little room for competing devices to breathe. In many cases, Apple Watch pricing is less than that of other smartwatches. 

New Developments

We are getting our first good look at the current state of the smartwatch market. There isn't much to see outside of Apple Watch land. This dynamic will likely lead to a few new developments in the wrist wearables space in the coming quarters.

1. The sales gap between smartwatches and fitness & health trackers will shrink.
2. Competition begins to emulate Apple Watch much more closely.

This past November, Fitbit released an alarming earnings report. The company hit a brick wall in terms of sales growth. Fitbit's issues provide a big clue that the market for dedicated health and fitness trackers will have trouble reaching mass market. The fact that Fitbit has already hit a wall in terms of sales growth, despite only selling 55M cumulative devices, suggests the wrist wearables future is much brighter for multi-purpose devices with a screen. This will pressure Fitbit to continue expanding its line and truly enter the smartwatch space. 

The company has been busy acquiring assets, including pools of talent such as Pebble's software engineer team, in an effort to fill obvious resource holes. However, it will be tough for Fitbit. To make matters worse, Apple's reconfigured marketing pitch for Apple Watch Series 2 is targeted squarely at Fitbit. Apple management saw how Fitbit was outselling Apple Watch, although at a much lower ASP, and wanted in on the action. 

As seen in Exhibit 3, the Apple Watch versus Fitbit battle may be nearing a new chapter. In 4Q15, Fitbit outsold Apple Watch by 3.5M units. Over the subsequent three quarters, Fitbit grew its lead. It appeared Fitbit was gaining momentum (discussed in greater detail in the article, "Apple Is Going After Fitbit."). However, taking Cook's recent comments about Apple Watch sales, and Fitbit's guidance, it appears that Apple Watch will cut into Fitbit's sales lead by 25 percent this holiday quarter. Fitbit is on track to outsell Apple Watch by only 2.6M units in 4Q16. 

Exhibit 3: Fitbit and Apple Watch Unit Sales

View fullsize

Meanwhile, on the smartwatch side of the equation, the more successful Apple Watch becomes, the higher the probability that competitors will begin to emulate Apple Watch. We should expect to see competing devices that look much more like Apple Watch in looks and functionality. The design language will increasingly move away from traditional timepieces and instead towards Apple Watch. The design language found with Apple Watch will eventually extend even to luxury watchmakers. 

Road Ahead

The smartwatch industry was born at an awkward time. A product designed to handle tasks given to smartphones launched when the average consumer was still only discovering the value found with smartphones. This has removed much of the oxygen from the smartwatch industry, and it appears that Apple is the only one with an oxygen mask. While Apple Watch sales confirm that wrist wearables are indeed a thing, there is still much unknown as to how far away from Apple this sales success will extend. It increasingly looks like Apple's game to lose. Apple is onto something with wearables, and the rest of Silicon Valley (and Wall Street) haven't yet come to terms with that reality. 

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily updates (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.