Author: Horace Dediu

Is an iPhone worth 8 Nokia phones or 2 Blackberries?

Pricing is a leading indicator of value. Some might argue price and value are often out of whack but, in the long term the two converge.

So it’s instructive to measure how a vendor creates value by what it’s able to charge for its goods. In the case of mobile phones, price is summarized by something called ASP (average selling price) which is measured each quarter across a vendor’s entire portfolio.

Again, there might be local fluctuations, but the trend is your friend here.

Take a look at these charts I prepared based on the group of seven vendors I previously analyzed in terms of their sales and volume performance.

First, a history of pricing since Q2 2007. All figures are in US dollars current as of time of reporting.

Continue reading “Is an iPhone worth 8 Nokia phones or 2 Blackberries?”

In phone sales, RIM plus Apple equals Nokia

Following up from the last article on the global phone units sold over the last three years (Visualizing the winners and losers of three years of smartphone share growth), we take a look at the sales in dollar terms over the same period.

Remember that in the article on units, the pure-play smartphone entrants HTC, RIM and Apple grew from a combined unit share of 1.3% in Q2 2007 to a combined unit share of 7.7% in Q2 2010.  That’s a 6 fold increase in volume share. Quite remarkable for companies lacking the vast resources and industry connections of the incumbents.

However, when we look at their performance in value (dollar sales) vs. units sold, the performance of the entrants begins to look miraculous.

Continue reading “In phone sales, RIM plus Apple equals Nokia”

US as epicenter for mobile data utilization

Japan and Korea have further 3G reach but use it significantly less.

His findings support notions that Android and iPhone are controlling data use in the US. The iPhone’s current exclusive home, AT&T, and Android-favorite Verizon both make up 75 percent of American data use

via Smartphone data use up 50% in just six months | Electronista.

Is there any surprise that in the country where the iPhone and Android are most popular there is the highest data usage even though it has one of the poorest mobile data infrastructures in the developed world?

What does that say about the importance of the device (and not the network) to the adoption of data services.

There are implications about the relative power shift between operators and device vendors. Within the mobile value chain, as mobile data overtakes mobile voice, the economics and value propositions will shift. The motivation of participants will begin to diverge and a schism will occur.

Visualizing the winners and losers of three years of smartphone share growth

Many consider June 2007 to have been a pivotal moment in the history of mobile phones. Apple’s entry with the iPhone has re-defined the market in many ways. However, there was a smartphone market before then. About 28 million smartphones shipped the quarter when Apple launched out of an overall phone market of 265 million. Apple’s entry with 270k phones was a drop in the bucket.

I thought it would be instructive to chart what happened between that quarter, exactly three years ago and today. I collected the data from IDC, Gartner and Canalys and company reports to paint a few pictures.

First, the market shares (by units) of the top mobile vendors, Q207 vs. Q210. I highlighted the smartphone vendors by separating their wedges from the pie. Note that I also separated Nokia’s smartphones from Nokia’s regular phones as two separated wedges–Nokia ex-SP for no smartphones and Nokia SP as their “converged” units. I did the same with “other”.

Continue reading “Visualizing the winners and losers of three years of smartphone share growth”

The parable of the transistor

This weblog could be read as a diary of the disruption of the mobile industry. There is lots of topical analysis and opinion, but sometimes I’ll post on the “theory” which describes what’s going on in a more abstract, and long-term, level. Theory is like a bullion cube: savory, but too concentrated to be enjoyed undiluted. For this reason, the most palatable way of administering theory is through example. So we kick off with an example of what happened to another technology industry as a result of the emergence of a disruptive technology.

The following is a draft article I wrote describing the “electronics industry” for POSTWAR AMERICA: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, CULTURAL, AND  ECONOMIC HISTORY. It is itself based on a presentation by Clayton Christensen at the Open Source Business Conference in 2004.

—-

The consumer electronics (CE) industry began in 1920 when radio broadcasting commenced in the United States. Radio technology sustained a growing electronics business throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s, however, the electronics industry underwent a major transformation after the war. The critical development came after 1948 when the transistor was first invented. The transistor and the subsequent development of solid-state semiconductors dramatically and profoundly changed the industry. The change the transistor brought was not just evident in measures of technical performance but also in the economics of the industry and the business models required of its participants

Continue reading “The parable of the transistor”

Warner Music slows while iTunes grows

Revenue from digital sales of recorded music grew just 3.7 percent to $169 million. That’s a slower pace than the 4.5 percent growth posted a year ago and 39 percent growth two years earlier.

via Warner Music CEO looks `beyond iTunes’ amid losses – Yahoo! Finance.

For the record, iTunes did grow at 35% in the quarter that Warner Music grew digital sales by 39% two years ago.

But the two diverged a year ago with 17% iTunes vs. WMG’s 4.5% and this past quarter iTunes grew at 27% vs. 3.7%.

Gives us an idea of how much Apps have swelled iTunes’ top line.

Why Apple's cash is worth more than Microsoft's cash

My recent exposé of Apple’s cash (and cash equivalents and long-term securities and short-term securities) drew quite a bit of attention, which is good. Because it needs to be demystified. However, the story does not end there. Part of the problem of cash is that the liquid stuff can often itself change in perceived value due to mis-management.

Cash has to be valued on the basis of what’s to become of it. So what can become of it?

The value in liquid assets can be returned to shareholders in the form of a dividend, which means double taxation on profits; not the best idea usually. Or it can be returned in the form of share re-purchase which tends to have only a temporary effect on share prices, again not a great return. The value can also be increased by means of investment in projects that return higher than what investors expect their cost of capital to be. This is the best option but investment is difficult when the amount involved is so big that no project or set of projects could possibly cost enough to employ the capital. Finally, the value can be completely destroyed through large acquisitions.

I say destroyed because the history of large acquisitions is almost universally known to be value destructive (1). The urge to M&A is why cash on the balance sheet for large companies is usually discounted and share prices “get no credit for it.” This is plaguing Apple with a P/E ex-cash in the teens.

Is this fair?

Continue reading “Why Apple's cash is worth more than Microsoft's cash”

T-Mobile US celebrates nearly 20 percent smartphone users

T-Mobile loses 93,000 customers but triples smartphone base | Electronista.

Thanks to Android, T-Mobile tripled its smartphone user base in one year. Evidence again of a secular shift to smartphones and the value of Android as gap-filler for Apple’s inability/unwillingness to satisfy demand.

70 percent of college freshmen are entering school with Macs [Updated 2]

Increasingly, companies are giving their employees a choice to either use Microsoft Windows PCs or Apple Inc.’s Macs, the analyst said. And, increasingly, employees are choosing Mac over Windows. To boot, Chowdhry said 70 percent of college freshman are entering school with Macs, up about 10 percent to 15 percent from a year ago.

via Microsoft shares retreat after downgrade.

Remarkable indeed.  I remember when in 2007 40% Macs was headline news at Princeton, having quadrupled from 10% in 2003.

[Update] Chowdry’s estimate seems an exaggeration but Mac share on campus seems to be growing. The most current data shows a probable 50% penetration in private colleges (my estimation is 70% is accurate for Ivy League schools) but a probable 20% penetration at public schools.  Still way above retail share in the US (10%) and way above corporate share of practically naught.

[Update 2] According to survey data from Student Monitor, among those who planned to purchase a new computer, 87% planned to buy a laptop. And among those students 47% planned to buy a Mac.
47 percent of 87 percent is a lot more believable. The chart from Fortune Tech shows that intent to buy for Apple went from 14% to 47% since 2005.

More data, some courtesy of Macobserver readers: Continue reading “70 percent of college freshmen are entering school with Macs [Updated 2]”

RIM's decomposing innovation

It’s hard to get excited about the new RIM Blackberry Torch.  It’s not exciting in a positive way and not exciting in a negative way. It’s just more of the same and the same is not all that bad. Then again, the same is not all that good either. Every piece of the Torch product is playing catch-up with others’ innovations without enhancing the core innovation RIM itself brought into the market years ago.

RIM has a significant but deteriorating share and is a company that has done very well as an entrant in a space dominated by larger incumbents.  But there is a strong smell of Palm about it.  The musty smell of decomposing innovation. Wall Street seems to smell it too (two year stock price chart relative to AAPL below)

The problem seems to be that, like in Palm’s case, mobile computing is a game for big companies.  If you ask why Palm and RIM became uncompetitive you get two different reasons. Palm could not do hardware and distribution well and RIM can’t do software well. But these reasons have remedies which neither company can bring to bear: resources and processes. Palm did not have the resources for distribution and production and RIM did not have the processes to be a software platform company.

Their values and priorities are adequate but competitiveness today, in this market, requires projecting market and development power.

I can only conclude that RIM is simply too weak to make it in the long run.