Notes From The Road: Apple Watch, Apple Car

 

 by Jean-Louis Gassée

Taking a closer look at the size and precision of Apple’s manufacturing operations has made me rethink my skepticism about the putative Apple Car.

I’ve been in Paris for the last two weeks, mostly disconnected. I won’t wallow in specifics; suffice it to say that the struggle with cable TV, Internet, and cellular providers here is eerily similar to what we commonly endure in the Valley. There is one difference, however: A few hours ago, I watched as a cable technician spliced a fiber connection into our apartment, something I can’t get in downtown Palo Alto.

A few Web-free days watching people and eavesdropping on conversations in Left Bank cafés helped me rethink my position on the Apple Car – because of the Apple Watch.

The local level of interest in the Apple Watch is mild at best, nothing like the paroxysms in the States. Never have we seen such large-scale derangement over an Apple product announcement, not for the iPhone or for the iPad, Steve Ballmer’s and Dan Lyons’ shouts notwithstanding. Google “Apple Watch fail” and you’ll get more than 61M hits – and this is before anyone has had a chance to pay for and use the product.

The latest instance of mental poisoning comes from the NewYork Times’ tech columnist Nick Bilton. The (original) title of his anti-Watch column, “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?”, sounds like the work of a netwalker striking a provocative pose to attract pageviews. But Bilton is no carnival barker; he’s a real journalist with an otherwise impeccable professional record and a solid reputation for insightful writing. As you’ll see when you click on the link, the title has been changed to a less prurient “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech”, and a long Editor’s Note and a Correction have been appended. If that weren’t enough, Margaret Sullivan, the Grey Lady’s Public Editor, has weighed in with an apology of sorts, calling some of Bilton’s assertions “pseudoscience”.

As detox, we can turn to “How Apple Makes the Watch” on Greg Koenig’s tech-porn blog Atomic Delights. Using pictures from the Apple Watch films, Koenig offers a lovingly detailed exploration of Apple’s industrial design decisions and manufacturing feats:

“Apple appears to have eschewed any revolutionary alchemy and instead, applied an innovative work hardening process to create gold that is (claimed to be) significantly harder than the typical 18kt used by other watchmakers. “

From gold alloys and steel forging, to CNC (Computerized Numerically Controlled) machining, laser clean-up, and in-process measurement exploits, Koenig’s post impresses us with the depth of the technical organization behind the product.

360-Mak_of_watch

After mentioning “rumors of entire German CNC mill factories being built to supply Apple exclusively” and the disappearance of manufacturing experts who later reappear in Cupertino or Shenzhen, Koenig concludes:

“While we all are massively impressed with the scale of Apple’s operations, there is constant intrigue as to exactly how they pull it all off with the level of fit, finish and precision obvious to anyone who has examined their hardware.”

(I can safely say you won’t be bored with Koenig’s blog. After reading about the Watch, you should continue down the page to his article on Mac Pro Manufacturing, followed by a 15-second video that shows how objects we can’t live without, springs, are made.)

After a couple of readings, Koenig’s thoughts on the scale and precision of Apple’s manufacturing process got me to rethink my views of the putative Apple Car. In two Monday Notes, The Fantastic Apple Car and Apple Car: Three More Thoughts, I expressed strong skepticism.

In the first place, I wrote, a long history of eating and drinking at the best restaurants on the planet doesn’t qualify you to become a successful restaurateur. More important, Jony Ive’s justly renowned prowess in coming up with exquisitely polished objects misses the point of car manufacture where the focus isn’t on the object itself, but on the machine that excretes the cars in high volume, high quality, and well-managed cost. It’s the Industrial in Industrial Design that matters.

On the weight of these two points I concluded that while the idea of an Apple Car is attractive, Apple shouldn’t confuse its love of cars and its high regard for beautiful swage lines with an ability to become a successful car maker.

Now, I wonder if I ought to Think Different.

The scale of Apple’s Supply Chain makes it clear that the company knows how to make the machine that makes the machines on a very large scale and at a high quality level. In a comparison at the beginning of his post, Koenig helps us grasp the otherwise unimaginable size of Apple’s manufacturing [emphasis mine]:

“Apple is the world’s foremost manufacturer of goods. At one time, this statement had to be caged and qualified with modifiers such as “consumer goods” or “electronic goods,” but last quarter, Apple shipped a Boeing 787’s weight worth of iPhones every 24 hours. When we add the rest of the product line to the mix, it becomes clear that Apple’s supply chain is one of the largest scale production organizations in the world.

787 of iPhones

(Initially, I read Koenig’s statement as “one 787 full of iPhones everyday”. But, no, this is the entire unladen weight of the 787 itself.)

How does this compare to cars? US sales of the 3,000 pound (1,500 kgs) Nissan Leaf averaged 2,500/month in 2014. That’s 7.5M pounds worth of cars. The iPhone’s monthly weight (240K lbs * 30 days) is…7.2M pounds. As another reference point, Tesla sold 2,500 cars in September 2014.

Such number play is just that, a feeble attempt to seize sizes. And even if we grant Apple the numbers — if we stipulate that Apple can manage a supply chain that produces a month’s weight worth of electric cars that are equivalent to the size and weight of a Nissan Leaf or, two notches up, of a Tesla — the next question is whether or not such a product will move the needle. Will it sell in multiples of Apple’s new unit of currency: $10B?

(Apple 2015 sales are expected to significantly exceed $200B.)

For this to happen, the putative Apple Car would have to sell in volumes about 10 times higher than what Nissan did last year in the US: 30K vehicles/month, at $30K each, times 12 months = $10.8B.

Of course, I’m looking at the putative Apple Car in terms of the car as we know it today, just as we all initially looked at the iPod and the iPhone using existing products as the frame of reference. Perhaps Apple has something more imaginative, more in keeping with its Think Different mantra than a mere derivation of existing designs. But whatever it intends, I no longer believe that Apple can’t design a machine to make cars.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Beware of Airbnb entering the hyperlocal travel guide business

 

by Frédéric Filloux 

Airbnb has every reason to enter the news services sector – and to threaten a broad range of media/services such as Trip Advisor or Yelp. 

Seen through the eyes of travel information publishers, Airbnb holds a dream position: a huge base of 25 million potential readers/users, spread over 34,000 cities in 190 countries, well in tune with the brand’s core product and attributes.

359_heatmap

For a start, should Airbnb develop a publishing arm, this unparalleled notoriety would spare it tens of millions dollars otherwise required to promote its content services: In the travel industry, advertising and marketing demand high spending. To put things in perspective, this year, according to the trade site Skift.com, HomeAway, one of Airbnb’s key competitors, plans to spend $100m (after shelling out $60m in 2014) “To show it’s not Airbnb“. HomeAway was created in 2005 and received $504m in funding before going public in 2011 — the stock lost 18% since. Airbnb has yet to go public after raising more than $800m. Its latest confirmed round closed in October was for $50M with a $13bn valuation. Airbnb is now rumored to be raising a $1bn “war chest” at an even higher price: $20bn.

Today, Airbnb’s expansion is a matter of concern not only for its direct competitors but also for large players in the travel information segment.

Last November, Airbnb fired the first shot: Pineapple, a 128 page, ad-free, glossy quarterly magazine, mostly written by hosts and guests gently discussing their experiences. With a tiny print run of 20,000 copies, it was distributed for free in some Airbnb hotspots and sold at selected bookstores such as WH Smith in Paris, where I got my copy for €12. According to Pineapple publisher Christopher Lunekzic (interview on the FIPP site), “The idea came from a desire to capture the unique nature of traveling through Airbnb. We wanted to bring that sense of creativity, culture and connection to life”. All the talking points of an elegant PR campaign are checked, part of Airbnb recent rebranding. Nothing to freak out travel press behemoths.

Except… Now, a sizable part of Airbnb community is aware of the company’s recent push into the magazine business. Which could make a serious difference.

That said, print is certainly not a key part of Airbnb’s media future. Mobile apps are. Last year, only 20% of Airbnb traffic came from mobile. That was before last December’s app redesign. Today, the Airbnb ranks in the top 5 apps in 7 countries, and in the top 100 in… 152 countries. That’s where the real potential is. And the San Francisco-based icon of the sharing economy is betting heavily on mobile: it recently announced a partnership with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile to pre-install its app on Android smartphone across 13 markets in Europe (TechCrunch story here). A decisive move for Airbnb’s mobile expansion.

Now let’s indulge in a little bit of fiction — from the perspective of an Airbnb guest.

I’m booking a flat in, say in London’s Marylebone district. I’m not familiar with the best places to go out. In the dedicated section of the new Airbnb app, I enter the host’s postal code, which is precise down to the building (likewise, the American “Zip+4″ code provides a city block location; in other cities, the Lat-Long associated to a street address does the job). My host has listed her preferred spots: organic groceries, wine bars, galleries, shopping places, movie theaters… Every place shows up on a Google map. The practical details I might need appear over my host’s comments: business hours, booking information, etc. I can also check the reviews on third party sites, but given my host’s profile, I assume our tastes will match; plus, I don’t want to get drowned into a tedious (and too often dubious) series of five-stars searches.

On my phone, I now enjoy a mini-guide of the neighborhood where I’m going to spend the next few days, filled with trusted, non-commercially-induced recommendations. Right from the app, I can make reservation via Open Table, and even call a Uber car. That’s what API’s are for: connecting applications together, in a mutually beneficial way. The third-party service provider expands its reach and the app publisher offers a wider range of services while keeping the customer “inside”. Similarly, a gallery or museum can make its program available within the app.
APIs will be a major development engine for the apps ecosystem as the number of features and services that can be added is boundless. For example, Uber has recently made its API system much more accessible and now partners with 11 companies, including Hyatt, OpenTable, Starbucks, Time Out, TripAdvisor, TripCase — curiously, not Airbnb nor Yelp.

Why would such integration threaten large travel business publishers?

Beyond developing its gigantic global footprint, Airbnb wants to build a community of users, itself structured in homogenous layers (e.g. young families looking for budget rentals, yuppies aiming at trendy places…) There’s even the growing crowd of professionals who prefer an Airbnb apartment free of the check-in/out hassles of hotels, and who will gladly trade unexciting room service for a super-fast DSL connection. (I’m told a growing number of Googlers do so for their business trips, with their employer’s blessing.) Each of these sub-communities will be far more likely to trust their peers than the usual travel guides where it’s always difficult to sort actual user opinions from bogus reviews and paid-for insertions, disguised advertorials, etc.

The beauty of this powerful combination lies in its scalability. Airbnb listings contain a broad range of properties, including high-end, luxury items. Those who might be willing to cough up €2,000 a night for a two-bedroom unit with a stunning view of the Hong Kong harbor might also want a special cicerone, a much more sophisticated one than the peer-to-peer guide described above.

Sometime ago, Louis Vuitton — the main brand of LVMH luxury conglomerate — had the idea of creating a dedicated app aimed at its rich Chinese clientèle, at those able to spend €20,000 or more in a single afternoon shopping stroll through Avenue Montaigne in Paris. This special application was to offer the services of a personal shopper, but also a personal city guide (Louis Vuitton already publishes its own collection of high-end guides) to be used from planning the trip to the actual journey. Even better, the app was to rely on the Chinese-made WeChat application (500 millions users, roughly 85% from mainland China) connected to an actual human able to guide the wealthy tourist on a real-time basis, either with messages or voice contact. In such case, relying on peer recommendations made no sense, but a highly personalized service did. A couple of selected partners were in the loop.

Regardless of the market segment, a notorious brand coupled to a set of mobile services is a potent combination. In the case of Airbnb, the “full stack” company — a concept coined by Andreesen Horowitz’ Chris Dixon —  is likely to be a master tool for securing the position of a brand in its market.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

News Media Should Drop Native Apps

 

by Frédéric Filloux

When it comes to the most basic form of news delivery, facts keep piling up in a way that makes native apps more and more questionable. Here is why it’s worth considering a move back to mobile sites or web apps…  

One of the most shared statistic on mobile use is this one: Applications account for 86% of the time spend b’y users. This leaves a mere 14% for browser-based activities, i.e. sites designed for mobile, either especially coded for nomad consumption, built using responsive design techniques that adapt look and feel to screen size, or special WebApp designs such as FT.com.

This 86/14 split is completely misleading for two reasons: the weight of mobile gaming, and the importance of Facebook.

Take a look at this chart form Flurry Analytics:

358_time_spent

 

If you combine gaming, Facebook and Social Messaging, roughly 60% of time spent on mobile is swallowed by this trio. As for Facebook, it reaped the top four slots in downloads for non-gaming apps worldwide:

358_2

Mobile consumption will concentrate even more as messaging and free direct communication (red dot in the chart) combine into the fastest growing segment by far. Mobile carriers have reason to be scared. Consequently, Facebook will tighten its grip on the mobile ecosystem as it commands the two dominant direct communication apps. If this wasn’t enough, there are two other fast-growing usages: Video streaming (+44% downloads last year) and Travel & Transportation — Uber, AirBnB, CityMapper — (+31%.)

The main characteristic of these services is they couldn’t be designed outside of a full-fledged application: They require key phone features not easily accessible through a browser such as radio modules, GPS,  image rendering (for maps, graphics), camera, etc.

By comparison, news-related applications do not requires a lot of phone resources. They collect XML feeds, some low resolution images and render those in pre-defined, non-dynamic templates. They use a tiny fraction of a modern smartphone’s processing power.

In fact, for news media, as the following matrix shows, native apps (iOS, Android and soon Windows) become a questionable proposition:

358_Matrix_3b
Summing up, apps for news distribution are technically justified for speed, ability to send notifications, inApp purchases, and the hypothetical use of phone sensors. That’s much money and a lot of complications for a small number of features. (On this subject, see the previous The Future of Mobile Apps for News column.)

Unless you are fighting for the prime phone screens, say the first three swipes, or if you are determined to provide key visual or functional differentiators, going for a set of native apps must be carefully weighed. Depending on the level of sophistication and required features, developing a native application costs between $50,000 and $100,000, for each environment, plus dedicated SDKs for marketing, analytics, etc., plus a 30% fee paid to the app store if you go for a paid or subscription model, plus hassles for approval of the smallest update in the messy iOS App Store…

But if you are already big on social and SEO, a mobile site, lightweight, clearly focused on a small feature set can be quite effective. Disappointing as it may be, HTML5-based web apps are all but dead (the difficulty lies in finding good developers and in managing them.)

Among all players, Google has the ability to overhaul the mobile ecosystem. If it comes up with an SDK or a framework aimed at creating simple and effective apps, indeed with limited performance but with enough features to accommodate news delivery, this could become an industry game-changer.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

358_banner_Prez_d

After The First 3 Million AppleWatches

 

By Jean-Louis Gassée

We’ll soon know what the AppleWatch is and what it can do…it may take a while to understand why Apple has gone to such lengths to hype the device.

Under Steve Jobs‘ leadership, Apple 2.0 obsessed over the marriage of form and function. Starting with Jony Ive’s Bondi Blue iMac, Apple products stood out in a sea of beige and black boxes. But even so, fashion, the providential spawn of this fecund marriage, has always been a by-product — welcome, but not a first-order pursuit

With the AppleWatch things have changed: Fashion is now a primary component, co-equal with silicon and software. The assertive, carefully planned, and richly resourced entrance into the world of the dernier cri is as notable as the device’s technical challenges (battery life, user interface, sensors…).

357-applewatchPSD

We saw fashion writers at the September unveiling. Karl Lagerfeld and Anna Wintour attended the private event at Colette, one of Paris’ chicest stores on the ultra-chic rue Saint-Honoré. That these two fashion world divas — who don’t make paid appearances —  “found the time” to drop by speaks to the depth and strength of Angela Ahrendts’ (ex-CEO of Burberry), Paul Deneve’s (ex-CEO of Yves Saint Laurent), and Jony Ive’s various connections into a new world for Apple.

This recognition that  “fashion matters” has shown us something new: Apple is buying its way onto the covers of fashion and lifestyle magazines. (Search for “Apple Watch magazine covers” and you get about 57.6 million results; this may be a pittance compared to the 559M hits for a plain Apple Watch search, but it’s an impressive number, nonetheless.)

This is novel. Apple has a history of spending zero dollars advertising products it hasn’t delivered yet. Pre-launch rumors, whether erroneous or pinpoint accurate, are erogenous enough to enflame desire. On the first day of physical availability, customers happily line up at Apple Stores around the world.

Before we address the question of Apple’s foray into the world of Vogue, let’s admit that none of it will work until we know what the AppleWatch actually is, how it will affect and infect customers’ brains and entrails. We’re impressed by the physical objects we see in pictures on the dedicated website, including some famous Marc Newson designs for bands and clips, but the “live” experience, its intellectual and emotional nature will have the final word. For this we’ll have to wait — but not for long.

The first three million watches will sell “instantly”, in a couple of weeks, maybe less. These first sales won’t matter as much as will their consequence, the all-powerful Word of Mouth.

Let’s consider one scenario: The eager purchaser explores the device and shows it off to friends — who will want the full tour. As a result, the battery is exhausted in much less than the presumed day, perhaps a couple of hours in the most enthusiastic hands.

Bloggers shout from the rooftops: Let’s add the AppleWatch to the list of failed Apple products.

If this were a real problem, such as Antennagate or Apple Maps, we’d see a reaction from Apple, whether in the form of contorted explanations and settlement checks, or a sincere apology from Tim Cook — followed by management changes.

In the battery-exhausted-by-enthusiasm scenario, I don’t think Apple execs will wait and react. I expect them to be proactive. One law of good salesmanship is you don’t let the customer discover an important limitation – you proactively adjust expectations to forthcoming reality. (On that note, 9to5Mac has an good post on Apple Watch sales training for store employees. This old salesman agrees: Just help the purchase decision that’s already been made come to the surface.)

On Monday, when Tim Cook and other Apple execs do the AppleWatch Launch 2.0, let’s listen to the battery-life proaction. With months of field-testing by a large number of insiders, chances are management has an accurate view of early-adopters’ reactions.

One caveat: insiders might be just a bit too competent and thus consciously or unconsciously avoid the traps “naive” users will fall into. I’m optimistic, the Maps fiasco hasn’t been forgotten.

When we look beyond the first few weeks, it’s tempting to adopt the mercenary position and just consider the numbers. For the first year of sales, projections range from 8M to 30M units. Just for fun, I’ll use an iPhone-like average price, about $650. This adds up to revenue between $5B to $20B. That’s a wide range, from a minimally-noticeable contribution to the projected $250B company-wide (again, an approximation), to an insignificant blip.

Now let’s step back a bit and think about the AppleWatch’s place in Apple’s business.

The play, at least initially, is for the AppleWatch to make iPhones more valuable. The first iteration doesn’t pretend to stand on its own, it depends on the iPhone in the customer’s purse or pocket. For example, navigation might look good on the watch, but it has no GPS and thus needs the iPhone for geolocation. No sin, at least not in my book: The AppleWatch is an innovative and fashionable device that makes the iPhone, Apple’s monster money machine, more pleasant and more valuable.

Second, user interface innovations (the crown, pressure sensors on the screen) will generate new apps, new ideas, new usage patterns that will be adopted by other Apple products.

Third, critics may deride the enthusiasm of Apple devotees and cast them as cultish zealots, but given this level of unforced devotion, why spend so much advertising effort on the AppleWatch, particularly when the articles that accompany the pricey magazine covers do nothing to clarify what the product actually does?

Apple’s equal investment in both the technology and fashion of its watch may be glibly mocked, but I don’t think it’s so easily dismissed. I doubt Apple would go to such lengths for just one watch.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Afterthoughts…
One: John Kirk offers yet another of his literate, fun and relevant posts, this time, about AppleWatch, a cure for the pervasive malady of Premature Evaluation.

Two: Personally, if I had a choice between an AppleWatch and a new, even slimmer MacBook Air with a Retina screen and the latest Intel processor… I know which screen I’d look at the longest, which object I’d tinker with the most. But, of course, I want both.

Three: For perspective, see the March 24th, 2014 Wearables Fever Monday Note.

NYT vs Buzzfeed: Valuations Discrepancies – Part II

 

by Frédéric Filloux

My last column about new valuations in digital media triggered an abundance of comments. Here are my responses and additions to the discussion. 

The most revealing part of argument used by those who tweeted (800 of them), commented or emailed me, is how many wished things to remain simple and segregated: legacy vs. native media, content producers vs. service providers, ancestral performances indicators and, of course, the self-granted permission to a certain category of people to decide what is worthy. Too bad for cartesian minds and simplifiers, the digital world is blurring known boundaries, mixing company purposes of and overhauling the competitive landscape.

Let’s start with one point of contention:

Why throw LinkedIn, Facebook and old companies such as the NYTimes or the Guardian into the equation? That’s the old apples and oranges point some commenters have real trouble seeing past. Here is why, precisely, the mix is relevant.

Last Tuesday February 17, LinkedIn announced it had hired a Fortune reporter as its business editor. Caroline Fairchild is the archetypal modern, young journalist: reporter, blogger with a cause (The Broadsheet is her newsletter on powerful women), mastering all necessary tools (video editing, SEO tactics, partnerships) as she went from Bloomberg to the HuffPo, among other gigs. Here is what she says about her new job:

 LinkedIn’s been around for 11 years and today publishes more than 50,000 posts a week (that’s roughly 10 NYTs per day) — but the publishing platform is still an infant, debuting widely less than a year ago. The rules and roles are being defined and redefined daily; experimenting is a constant.

Here we are: LinkedIn intends to morph into a major business news provider and a frontal competitor to established business media. Already, scores of guest columnists publish on a regular basis on LinkedIn, enjoying audiences many times larger than their DeLuxe appearances in legacy media. (For the record, I was invited to blend the Monday Note into LinkedIn, but the conditions didn’t quite make sense to us. Jean-Louis Gassée and I preferred preserving our independent franchise.)

For a $2.2bn revenue company such as LinkedIn, creating a newsroom aimed at the business community definitely makes sense and I simply wonder why it took them so long to go full throttle in that direction — not only with an avalanche of posts but with a more selective, quality-oriented approach. If it shows an ability to display properly value-added editorial, LinkedIn could be poised to become a potent publishing platform eventually competing with The Economist, Quartz, FT.com or Les Echos. All of it with a huge data analytics staff led by world-class engineers.

That’s why I think the comparison with established media makes sense.

As for Facebook, the argument is even more straightforward. Last October, I published a column titled How Facebook and Google Now Dominate Media Distribution; it exposed our growing dependence on social media, and the need to look more closely at the virtues of direct access as a generator of quality traffic. (A visit coming from social generates less than one page view versus 4 to 6 page views for direct access.) Facebook has become a dominant channel for accessing the news. Take a look at this table from Reuters Institute Report on Digital News Report (PDF here.)

356-ReutersIns

There’s no doubt that these figures are now outdated as media’s quest to tap into the social reservoir has never been greater. (In passing, note the small delta between News Lovers and Casual Users.) It varies widely from one country to another, but about 40% of the age segment below 35 relies on social as its primary source for news… and when we say “social”, we mostly mean Facebook. Should we really ignore this behemoth when it comes to assess news economics? I don’t think so.

More than ever, Facebook deserves close monitoring. No one is eager to criticize their dope dealer, but Mark Zuckerberg’s construction is probably the most pernicious and the most unpredictable distributors the news industry ever faced.

For instance, even if you picked a given media for your FB newsfeed, the algorithm will decide how much you’ll see from it, based on your past navigation and profile. And numbers are terrible: as an example, only 16% of what the FT.com pushes on Facebook actually reaches its users, and that’s not a bad number when compared to the rest of the industry.

And still, the media sector continues to increase its dependence on social. Consider the recent change in the home page of NowThis,  a clever video provider specialized in  rapid-fire news clips:

356-NowThisHome

No more home page! Implementing a rather bold idea floated years ago by BuzzFeed’s editor Ben Smith, NowThis recently decided to get rid of the traditional web access to, instead, propagate its content only via, from left to right: Tumbler, Kik, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, and Snapchat. We can assume that this strategy is based on careful analytics (more on this in a future Monday Note.)

Among other questions raised by Monday Note readers: Why focus solely on the New York Times and why not include the Gannetts or McClatchys? It’s simply because, along with The Guardian or the FT.com, the NYT is substantially more likely to become predominantly a digital brand than many others in the (old) league.

To be sure, as one reader rightly pointed out, recent history shows how printed media that chose to go full digital end up losing on both vectors. Indeed, given the size of its print advertising revenue, the Times would be foolish to switch to 100% online — at least for now. However, the trends is there: a shrinking print readership, fewer points of copy sale, consequently higher cost of delivery… Giving up the idea of a daily newspaper (while preserving a revamped end-of-the-week offering) its just a matter of time — I’ll give it five years, not more. And the more decisive the shift, the better the results will be: Keep in mind that only 7 (seven!) full-time positions are assigned to the making of the Financial Times’ print edition; how many in the vast herd of money-losing, newspaper-obsessed companies?

Again, this is not a matter of advocating the disappearance of print; it is about market relevancy such as addressing niches and the most solvent readerships. The narrower the better: if your target group is perfectly identified, affluent, geographically bound — e.g. the financial or administrative district in big capital — a print product still makes sense. (And of course, some magazines will continue to thrive.)

Finally, when it comes to assessing valuations, the biggest divide lies between the static and the dynamic appreciation of the future. Wall Street analysts see prospects for the NYT Co. in a rather static manner: readership evolution, in volumes and structures, ability to reduce production expenditures, cost of goods — all of the above feeding the usual Discounted Cash Flow model and its derivatives… But they don’t consider drastic changes in the environment, nor signs of disruption.

Venture Capital people see the context in a much more dynamic, chaotic perspective. For instance: the unabated rise of the smartphone; massive shifts in consumer behaviors and time allocation; the impact of Moore’s or Metcalfe’s Laws (tech improvements and network effects); or a new breed of corporations such as the Full Stack Startup concept exposed by Andreessen Horowitz’ Chris Dixon (the man behind BuzzFeed valuation):

Suppose you develop a new technology that is valuable to some industry. The old approach was to sell or license your technology to the existing companies in that industry. The new approach is to build a complete, end-to-end product or service that bypasses existing companies.
Prominent examples of this “full stack” approach include Tesla, Warby Parker, Uber, Harry’s, Nest, Buzzfeed, and Netflix.

All of it is far more enthralling than promising investors a new print section for 2016, two more tabs on the website all manned by a smaller but more productive staff.

One analysis looks at a continuously evolving environment, the other places bets on an uncertain, discontinuous future.

The problem for legacy media is their inability to propose disruptive or scalable perspectives. Wherever we turn — The NYT, The Guardian, Le Monde — we see only a sad narrative based on incremental gains and cost-cutting. No game changing perspective, no compelling storytelling, no conquering posture. Instead, in most cases, the scenario is one of quietly managing an inevitable decline.

By contrast, native digital players propose a much brighter (although riskier) future wrapped in high octane concepts, such as: Transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere, for everyone (Uber), or Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful (Google), or Redefining online advertising with social, content-driven publishing technology, [and providing] the most shareable breaking news, original reporting, entertainment, and video across the social web (BuzzFeed).

No wonder why some are big money attractors while others aren’t.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Apple Car: Three More Thoughts

 

by Jean-Louis Gassée

[Update appended]
Beside free publicity, and huge amounts of it, the putative Apple Car raises interesting questions about car manufacturing, the future of automobiles, and the part that an interloper such as Apple could play in this century-old industry. 

The volume of comments and Twitter traffic in reaction to last week’s Monday Note, The Fantastic Apple Car, was just one small rivulet in this week’s gusher of rumors, jokes, and proclamations about Apple becoming a car manufacturer. Bloomberg takes the car as fait accompli, telling us that “Apple…is pushing its team to begin production of an electric vehicle as early as 2020”. A recent 9to5mac post provides a long list of car experts and executives hired by Apple, thus giving more than gossipy credence to the story of Apple committing huge resources to such a project.

There are many products and services I’d love to see Apple get into. For example, how could Apple not do a better job than Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T at providing wired and wireless broadband? But the Cupertino company stays out of that arena for a number of reasons: regulations, fragmentation, manpower, equipment both under and above ground.

One could argue that cars present a simpler challenge. Roads are roads and country regulations are well understood. And, yes, a car made and serviced by Apple could be an affordable quality product.

Still, I remain a skeptic. Monday Note commenter Hamranhansenhansen does a good job of summarizing my position:

“[…] if Apple were doing a car, why not just buy Tesla in the exact same way they bought Beats? Apple already made headphones for about 14 years and then bought Beats anyway. Tesla is the Beats of cars, and it is local to Apple and already has a factory and really great mindshare. If they did not want Elon Musk, he has SpaceX and could likely make a graceful exit. Apple’s car line would then be named “Tesla” same as their PC’s are named “Mac” and headphones named “Beats.” The price of Tesla right now is excellent, especially considering the battery crossover to iPhones and iPads.
It makes much more sense to me that Apple is going to become a car component manufacturer, so that BMW, Bentley, Ferrari, etc. can buy Tesla-style in-car dash systems from Apple, just as Ford bought the awful Sync from Microsoft. The itch that needs to be scratched is Jony Ive getting into his Bentley and his iPhone won’t hook up reliably and sits in a bolt-on cradle.

This week, I’ll add three vignettes, three morsels of food for thought about the hotly desired AppleCar.

For more than twenty years, two Apple execs roamed the Earth in search of technologies, suppliers, contractors, and entrepreneurs to acquihire. In their travels, they fortified themselves at many of the best restaurants on the planet, becoming friends, or so they thought, with the astute chefs, sommeliers, and maîtres d’hôtel.

Impressed by their own accumulated knowledge of the restaurant industry the two decided to parlay the money and ambition they had been soaking in at Apple and open a high-concept, high-end saloon. They spared no expense on location, decoration, wine cellar, state-of-the-art kitchen, big name chef, experienced front-of-the-house staff and, of course, a publicist.

After two miserable years of quarrels with prime donne, theft and drug use by the staff, bad reviews planted by rivals, and calamitous “surprise” food inspections, our two wannabe restaurateurs closed their dream place, millions of dollars gone to waste.

They got confused. After all the years they spent in the best restaurants in the world, they thought they knew the restaurant business. What they did know was how to be great patrons… how to talk wine with the sommelier, when to compliment the chef, how to respectfully send back a dish that isn’t just so. They were customers, not restaurateurs.

You know where I’m going with this: Some Apple execs are great car connoisseurs — one senior VP is even on the Board of Directors of Ferrari. They have the resources to own and operate, on roads and tracks, many of the choicest automobiles on the planet, but that doesn’t automatically give them the knowledge to be manufacturers.

The second vignette takes me back a few decades to Northern Italy. During my years at Apple, I took an Industrial Design team to pay a visit to Giorgetto Giugiaro, a towering figure in the automobile industry who would later be recognized as one of the Car Designers of the Century. (Both Wikipedia articles just linked to make for terrific reading – if you’re into cars.) Our goal, in visiting Giugiaro, was to find fresh inspiration, new stanzas for our design language. I had long admired not only the aesthetics of the cars Giugiaro had designed, but also their practicality and efficiency. The historic success of his work on the Volkswagen Golf re-started the company and put it on a trajectory to one day challenge Toyota.

When we walked into Giugiaro’s Italdesign offices, a surprise awaited us. When I thought of Industrial Design — Esthétique Industrielle in French — aesthetics first came to mind, industry second. But what Giugiaro showed us was the opposite: The industrial side of his practice was, for him, truly foremost. In his own words, his job wasn’t to design an award-winning shape for a car, his job was to design the process, the factory that would eventually excrete a continuous flow of vehicles.

An example from Giugiaro’s portfolio: The Renault 19. At a time when the French manufacturer saw a hole in its product line, Giugiaro raided the corporate parts bank, designed a production line, installed it, and trained the production technicians.

More than 25 years later, the conversation is still with me: One doesn’t design a car, one designs the machine, the process, the supply ecosystem that produces the vehicle. As Horace Dediu puts it, innovations are in the production system:

(Beside his Asymco blog and @asymco Twitter stream, Horace also produces Asymcar, a podcast series dedicated to the auto industry.)

I would love to be wrong about the AppleCar — I join the choristers who would love to see what Apple could do with a car — but we’ve heard a bit too much about Apple’s ability to design an interesting electric vehicle and not enough about the industrial part, about the machine that makes the machines.

Finally, there’s Carlos Ghosn. (Again, you won’t regret reading the Wikipedia article.)
How do you compete with this man?
The Brazilian born Ghosn spent his early school years in Lebanon, attended the prestigious École Polytechnique in Paris, and started his automotive career at Michelin, the very techie and idiosyncratic tire maker. After rising to CEO of Michelin North America, Ghosn was recruited by the ailing Renault, and Ghosn managed to turn two companies around by creating a global alliance with Nissan. He’s now the CEO of both companies – and a hero in Japan, featured in manga (a comic strip genre). He speaks Portuguese, Arabic, French, English and some Japanese.

As CEO of Renault-Nissan, Ghosn was instrumental in the creation of the best selling electric car on the market today, the Nissan Leaf (another interesting Wikipedia read). With 158,000 units sold, representing about $6B, the Leaf is a well-rounded implementation of an affordable “pure” electric car (as opposed to hybrids such as the Toyota Prius, or the Chevy Volt, or BMW i3 and i8 that are assisted by small accessory gasoline engines).

I don’t know which fine cars Ghosn drives for pleasure, but he certainly knows how to make the machines that create them. If Apple wants to make and sell electric cars in numbers large enough to garner revenue in multiples of 10 billion — the unit of currency for Apple in 2020 — they’ll first have to figure out how to beat Carlos Ghosn at his game.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Update
Tim Bradshaw, the author of the Financial Times article referred to above, points out his story came out before the Wall Street Journal piece and resents the “rewrite” label for his work.
I regret the error.
What led me astray is this, on FT.com, with a Saturday Feb 14 date:
“The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Mr Zadesky’s team was overseeing a project code-named Titan that had produced an initial design for a vehicle resembling a minivan.”
And that’s why I thought the WSJ (Fri 2/13) got there first.
It looks like the Feb 14th date was the stamp for the latest update to the article, not the 1st publication date that appears to have beaten the WSJ by “several hours” according to Arash Massoudi, one of Tim’s colleagues at the FT.”

The NYTimes could be worth $19bn instead of $2bn  

 

by Frédéric Filloux

Some legacy media assets are vastly underestimated. A few clues in four charts.   

Recent annual reports and estimates for the calendar year 2014 suggest interesting comparisons between the financial performance of media (either legacy or digital) and Internet giants.

In the charts below, I look at seven companies, each in a class by itself:

355-1
A few explanations are required.

For two companies, in order to make comparisons relevant, I broke down “digital revenues” as they appear in financial statements: $351m for the New York Times ($182m in digital advertising + $169m for digital subscriptions) and, for The Guardian, $106m (the equivalent of the £69.5m in the Guardian Media Group annual report (PDF here).

Audience numbers above come from ComScore (Dec 2014 report) for a common reference. We’ll note traffic data do vary when looking at other sources – which shows the urgent need for an industry-wide measurement standard.

The “Members” column seemed necessary because traffic as measured by monthly uniques does differ from actual membership. Such difference doesn’t apply to news media (NYT, Guardian, BuzzFeed).

For valuations, stock data provide precise market cap figures, but I didn’t venture putting a number the Guardian’s value. For BuzzFeed, the $850m figure is based on its latest round of investment. I selected BuzzFeed because it might be one of the most interesting properties to watch this year: It built a huge audience of 77m UVs (some say the number could be over 100m), mostly by milking endless stacks of listicles, with clever marketing and an abundance of native ads. And, at the same time, BuzzFeed is poaching a number first class editors and writers, including, recently, from the Guardian and ProPublica; it will be interesting to see how Buzzfeed uses this talent pool. (For the record: If founder Jonah Peretti and editor-in-chief Ben Smith pull this off, I will gladly revise my harsh opinion of BuzzFeed).

The New York Times is an obvious choice: It belongs to the tiny guild of legacy media that did almost everything right for their conversion to digital. The $169m revenue coming from its 910,000 digital subscribers didn’t exist at all seven years ago, and digital advertising is now picking up thanks to a decisive shift to native formats. Amazingly enough, the New York Times sales team is said to now feature a ratio of one to one between hardcore sales persons and creative people who engineer bespoke operations for advertisers. Altogether, last year’s $351m in digital revenue far surpasses newsroom costs (about $200m).

A “normal” board of directors would certainly ask management why it does not consider a drastic downsizing of newspaper operations and only keep the fat weekend edition. (I believe the Times will eventually go there.)

The Guardian also deserves to be in this group: It became a global and digital powerhouse that never yielded to the click-bait temptation. From its journalistic breadth and depth to the design of its web site and applications, it is the gold standard of the profession – but regrettably not for its financial performances, read Henry Mance’s piece in the FT.

Coming back to our analysis, Google unsurprisingly crushes all competitors when it comes its financial performance against its audience (counted in monthly unique visitors):

355-2
Google monetizes its UVs almost five times better than its arch-rival Facebook, and 46 times better than The New York Times Digital. BuzzFeed generates a tiny $1.30 per unique visitors per year.

When measured in terms of membership — which doesn’t apply to digital media — the gap is even greater between the search engine and the rest of the pack :

355-3

The valuation approach reveals an apparent break in financial logic. While being a giant in every aspects (revenue, profit, market share, R&D spending, staffing, etc), Google appears strangely undervalued. When you divide its market capitalization by its actual revenue, the multiple is not even 6 times the revenue. By comparison, BuzzFeed has a multiple of 8.5 times its presumed revenue (the multiple could fall below 6 if its audience remains the same and its projected revenue increases by 50% this year as management suggests.)  Conversely, when using this market cap/revenue metric, the top three (Twitter, Facebook, and even LinkedIn) show strong signs of overvaluation:

355-4
Through this lens, if Wall Street could assign to The New York Times the ratio Silicon Valley grants BuzzFeed (8.5 instead of a paltry 1.4), the Times would be worth about $19bn instead of the current $2.2bn.

Again, there is no doubt that Wall Street would respond enthusiastically to a major shrinkage of NYTCo’s print operations; but regardless of the drag caused by the newspaper itself, the valuation gap is absurdly wide when considering that 75% of BuzzFeed traffic is actually controlled by Facebook, certainly not the most reliably unselfish partner.

As if the above wasn’t enough, a final look confirms the oddity of market valuations. Riding the unabated trust of its investors, BuzzFeed brings three times less money per employee  than The New York Times does (all sources of revenue included this time):

355-5
I leave it to the reader to decide whether this is a bubble that rewards hype and clever marketing, or if the NYT is an unsung investment opportunity.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The Fantastic Apple Car

 

by Jean-Louis Gassée

Forget the iWatch, Apple Pay, and the iPhone 7…the next big thing from Cupertino will be the Apple Car.

At first, I didn’t pay much attention to the Apple Car rumors. I saw them as the another wave of clickbait along the lines of the wiped-out Apple Television Set canards.

I even thought of writing a little parody piece:

WinCar, Microsoft Disrupts The Auto Industry.

After penetrating offices and homes, Microsoft will now hitch a ride in the third most important location (and time slice) in peoples’ lives: The Car.

As part of Satya Nadella’s Mobile First – Cloud First vision, the Azure-enabled WinCar is the ultimate personal mobility and connectivity device. Quoting Nadella’s July 10th message to the troops:
“We will think of every user as a potential ‘dual user’ – people who will use technology for their work or school and also deeply use it in their personal digital life.
[…] Microsoft will push into all corners of the globe to empower every individual as a dual user – starting with the soon to be 3 billion people with Internet-connected devices. And we will do so with a platform mindset. Developers and partners will thrive by creatively extending Microsoft experiences for every individual and business on the planet.”

Microsoft’s connections to the auto industry are old and obvious: Steve Ballmer’s father was a manager at Ford; Microsoft wrote successive generations of Sync, Ford’s dashboard infotainment system; Dr. Helmut Panke, an illustrious auto industry figure and former Chairman of BMW’s Board of Management, sits on Microsoft’s Board of Directors. Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus. Ballmer? He’s a Ford Fusion man...

No.
As I saw the growing stream of Apple Car tweets and blog posts, two minutes of research took me to what seems to be the source of the reverberating fracas, a single Wall Street Journal story titled Apple Gears Up to Challenge Tesla in Electric Cars; iPhone Maker Has 100s Working on Design of a Minivan Like Vehicle. The article tells us that the project, code named “Titan”, is being shepherded by Steve Zadesky, a former Ford engineer who “helped lead the Apple teams that created the iPod and iPhone” — two products that have many, many fathers.

Most of the echoes of the rumor emanate from that one story. The Financial Times’ Apple hiring automotive experts to work in secret research lab isn’t much more than a rewrite. The always “reliable” Business Insider tells us that Tesla and Apple are poaching each other’s engineers and throws in a quote from an unnamed Apple employee: “We’re working on something that will give Tesla a run for its money”. A Mac Observer post tells us that they have it on good authority from someone who “travels in more rarefied circles” that “a lot of people at the top in Silicon Valley consider it a given that Apple is working on a car”.

The posts and reposts are quick to find “evidence” that back up the rumors. Apple’s Sr. VP Eddy Cue, who sits on Ferrari’s Board (a fact that’s omitted from Cue’s official bio), has long been a conduit between choice automobiles and highly paid company engineers and executives. Apple recently hired Johann Jungwirth, former president and chief executive of Mercedes-Benz Research and Development North America. Recent sitings of Apple’s mysterious unmarked vans fitted with a dozen cameras proves they’re building an autonomous vehicle.

The picture wouldn’t be complete without a juicy link to complaints about American cars by “design god” Jony Ive and no less divine watch designer Marc Newson, who says that American car design is on the “shit we hate” list.

(Let’s give ourselves a moment of contemplation, here. These two august industrial artists come from Britain, whose auto industry is now either German or Indian. Bentley, Sir Jony’s choice, is owned by Volkswagen; Rolls Royce is a subsidiary of über Bavarian BMW; Jag-ü-ar and Land Rover are in the competent hands of the Tata conglomerate.)

Just as in the little Microsoft parody above, the signs are unmistakable, Apple is definitely making a car.

Let’s count the ways….

The company has the money. With $178B in the bank, it could easily afford to build a car factory. The cost of doing so, a couple billion, is certainly less than the price of a microprocessor fabrication unit where costs approach $10B. And the company is no stranger to large industrial bets. As Horace Dediu notes, Apple spent close to $4B in Machinery and Equipment in the quarter preceding the launch of the latest iPhone; for the latest quarter, spending of more than $3.2B is 60% higher than a year before. As Horace tells us, large increases in Machinery and Equipment spending presage big product launches – which is a little besides today’s topic:

355_dediu
Short of building everything from the ground up, perhaps Apple is going to buy their way in. Why not acquire Tesla and enjoy a running start? Tesla’s market cap of $26B makes it an affordable acquisition. The current Model S is, in several ways, the first Silicon Valley car, built nearby in Fremont, with a modern touch-based UI, autopilot features, and regular over-the-air software updates.

An Apple car would almost certainly be out of many drivers’ budgets, but let’s recall that Apple has a history of disrupting from the top. They took over the MP3 player market and the smartphone industry by providing a more expensive product and carefully building an ecosystem of software, content, services, and retail operations that deliver user experiences that, in turn, generate higher margins. And as car technology matures, Moore’s Law will help drive down prices.

But now let’s look at the reality.

Yes, Apple has plenty of money, but the century-old auto industry doesn’t seem like a good way to make more of it. Ford, the healthiest US car company, made $835M in net income last quarter, less than 4% of their $34B in sales. Compare that number to Apple’s record-breaking $18B profit. Tesla, Apple’s supposed rival in the fantasy blogs, pulled in a little less than $1B last quarter, and it lost about 10% of that. There isn’t an inkling of an explanation for why and how a superior product designed and built by Apple would bring superior returns.

Furthermore, there is no Moore’s Law for cars. In a Tesla Model S, the computers are a small part of the bill of materials. Batteries, which contribute the most to the price, don’t double in power or halve in cost every 18 months.

A simple chart by Benedict Evans sheds light on the opportunities before us:

355-UniqueTech

The sort of money that apple has come to expect just isn’t in cars.

An autonomous car is good PR and to some it may seem like an inevitability, but as Lee Gomes, a former tech writer for the Wall Street Journal, explains in this Slate piece: The autonomous Google car may never actually happen. This isn’t because Google engineers are incompetent, but because actual, in-the-wild autonomous driving is fraught with countless intractable exceptions. What happens in heavy rain or snow, or when the software behind the camera has trouble recognizing objects that are blown onto the road?What happens when your car approaches a a last minute detour around new construction site?

Apple’s life today is relatively simple. It sells small devices that are easily transported back to the point of sale for service if needed. No brake lines to flush, no heavy and expensive batteries and cooling systems, no overseeing the installation and maintenance of home and public chargers. And consider the trouble Tesla faces with entrenched auto dealers who oppose Tesla selling cars directly in some states. Apple doesn’t need these headaches.

There is a simpler and regrettably less grand explanation for the rumors.

Johann Jungwirth, the Mercedes Benz R&D exec that Apple hired last September, worked on infotainment systems, which makes him a natural for Apple’s work on CarPlay. The mystery vans are most likely part of the company’s Maps product.

Apple has made a commitment to better in-car systems, not in and for themselves in isolation, but as a reinforcement of the iOS ecosystem. If the large number of engineers that they’ve “poached” from Tesla seems a bit much, consider again the enormous size of iPhone (and iPad) revenue for this past quarter: $60B – compared to GM’s $40B for the same period. To Apple, anything that helps the iOS ecosystem is well worth what looks like oversized investments to outsiders.

Cars have always excited humans, they are a way to extend the reach of our bodies. As Roland Barthes once said about the Citroën DS 19 [emphasis mine]:

“I think that cars today are almost the exact equivalent of the great Gothic cathedrals; I mean the supreme creation of an era, conceived with passion by unknown artists, and consumed in image if not in usage by a whole population which appropriates them as a purely magical object.”

An Apple car feels good: design, quality, service, trust. A winner. I’ll buy two. It’ll work because it’d be really great if it did… but a small matter of implementation – actually the larger Moore’s Law intrudes.

The fantastic Apple Car is a fantasy.

JLG@mondaynote.com

How Many Laws Did Apple Break?

 

by Jean-Louis Gassée

Apple’s most recent quarterly numbers broke all sorts of records and, as we shall see, a number of laws.

Apple just released its numbers for the quarter ending last December, the first quarter of its 2015 Fiscal Year. The figures are astonishing:

iPhones:  Apple sold 74.5M, + 57% over last year’s same quarter. iPhone revenue was $51.2B, + 57%. That’s enough iPhones for 1% of the world population, 9.4 iPhones for every second of the past quarter. I hope to see some day a documentary movie on the supply chain heroics leading (parts manufacturing, assembly, transportation logistics) required to achieve such numbers. But I’m not holding my breath.

Overall company revenue grew 30% to $74.6B, with the iPhone representing a never-before 69% of total sales. This why some now call Apple the iPhone Company.

Profit (a.k.a. Net Income): $18B. This appears to be the highest quarterly profit ever achieved by a company:

Apple Largest Quarterly Profit Ever Edited

Record quarterly profits is becoming commonplace for Apple. The company has broken into the top ten list five times since Q1 FY 2012.

(The Wikipedia article on record profits and losses has Fannie Mae’s $84B in 2013 in the #1 spot, but Fannie’s categorization as a Government-Sponsored Enterprise puts it in a different race – not to mention the $77.8B and  $64.2B losses in Q4 2009 and Q4 2008 respectively.)

Cash: After generating $33B from operations, the company now holds $178B in cash and cash equivalents. To get a sense of the magnitude of this amount, $178B represents $550 for every US citizen, or $25 per human on Earth. The World Bank has more data here on income levels and other such numbers, and the Financial Times has a helpful blog entry, If Apple were a country…, that compares Apple’s “economy” to those of various nations.

If you’re hungry for more Apple numbers, I suggest you feast your eyes on Apple’s 10-Q (its quarterly SEC filing), especially the meaty MD&A (Management Discussion & Analysis) section starting on page 24. Management also discusses the quarterly numbers in its customary conference call; the transcript is here.

But not everyone thinks highly of Apple’s doings.

We have academics spewing sonorous nonsense under the color of authority, such as Juan Pablo Vazquez Sampere’s We Shouldn’t Be Dazzled by Apple’s Earnings Report, published in the Harvard Business Review. Sampere, a Business School professor, finds Apple’s display of quarterly numbers unseemly:

Announcing boatloads of money, as if that were point, makes us think Apple no longer has the vision to keep on revolutionizing.

John Gruber offers a reasoned retort to the professor, but it probably won’t sway the likes of Joe Wilcox, a Sampere defender who writes: Atop the pinnacle of success, Apple stands at the precipice of failure.

Or consider Peter Cohan, an habitual Tim Cook critic, who recently told us there are “6 Reasons Apple Is Still More Doomed Than You Think”.

Apple… always one foot in the grave. But in whose grave?

This last quarter hasn’t been kind to the Apple doomsayers. A bundle of their lazy, ill-informed or poorly reasoned — and often angry — predictions are offered here for your compassionate amusement. Or we can turn to the ever reliable Henry The iPhone Is Dead In The Water Blodget for morsels such as this one, from November 2013: Come On, Apple Fans, It’s Time To Admit That The Company Is Blowing It. One of Henry’s points was Apple prices were too high. It’s getting worse: Last quarter, the average price per iPhone rose to $687.

We now turn to law-breaking.

Law 1: Larger size makes growth increasingly difficult.
This is the Law of Large Numbers, not the proper one about probabilities, but a coarser one that predicts the eventual flattening of extraordinary growth. If your business weighs $10M, growing by 50% means bringing in another $5M. If your company weighs $150B, 50% growth the following year would require adding $75B – there might not be enough customers or supplies to support such increase. Actual numbers seem to confirm the Law: Google’s FY 2014 revenue was $66B, +19% year-on-year; Microsoft’s was $87B, +11.5%; Apple’s $183B in revenue for 2014 was a mere +7%.

And yet, last quarter, Apple revenue grew 30%, breaking the Law and any precedent. iPhone revenue, which grew 57%, exceeded $51B in one quarter — close to what Google achieved in its entire Fiscal 2014 year.

Right now, Apple is “guiding” to a next quarter growth rate that exceeds 20%. For the entire 2015 Fiscal Year, this would mean “finding” an additional $37B to $40B in sales, more than half a Google, and a little less than half a Microsoft.

Law 2: Everything becomes a commodity.
Inexorably, products are standardized and, as a result, margins suffer as competitors frantically cut prices in a race to the bottom.

Exhibit 1: The PC clone market. As mentioned, the iPhone ASP (Average Selling Price) moved up, from $637 in Q1 FY 2014 to $687 last quarter. Moving the ASP up by $50 in such a competitive market is, to say the least, counterintuitive. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, a rising ASP means customers are freely deciding to give more money to Apple.

We’re told that this is just a form of Stockholm Syndrome, the powerless customer held prisoner inside Apple’s Walled Garden. Not so, says Tim Cook in a Wall Street Journal interview:

“…fewer than 15% of older iPhone owners upgraded to the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus…the majority of switchers to iPhone came from smartphones running Google Inc.’s Android operating system.

This correlates with Apple’s 70% revenue growth in Greater China, a part of the world where, in theory, cheap clones rule.

Law 3: Market share always wins.
Why this one still has disciples is puzzling, but here we go. With the bigger market share come economies of scale and network effects. Eventually, the dominant platform becomes a gravity well that sucks application developers and other symbionts away from the minority players who are condemned to irrelevance and starvation. Thus, just as the Mac lost to Windows, iOS will lose to Android.

Well… As Horace Dediu tweets it, Apple’s loss to Windows hasn’t hurt too much:

Dediu Losing PC War

Apple has gained PC market share in all but one quarter over the past eight years — that’s 31 out of 32 quarters.

But even that impressive run isn’t as important as the sustaining number that really does matter: profit share. Despite its small unit share (around 7% worldwide, higher in the US), Apple takes home about half of all PC industry profits, thanks to its significant ASP ($1,250 vs $417 industry-wide in 2014, trending down to $379 this year). Apple’s minority unit share in the mobile sector (13% to 15%) captured 90% of mobile profits this past quarter.

Small market share hasn’t killed the Mac, and it’s not hurting the iPhone — which enjoyed a much happier start than the Mac.

Law 4: Modularity Always Wins.
This is one of Clayton Christensen’s worries about Apple’s future. In the end, modularity always defeats integration:

“The transition from proprietary architecture to open modular architecture just happens over and over again. It happened in the personal computer. Although it didn’t kill Apple’s computer business, it relegated Apple to the status of a minor player. The iPod is a proprietary integrated product, although that is becoming quite modular. You can download your music from Amazon as easily as you can from iTunes. You also see modularity organized around the Android operating system activity that is growing much faster than the iPhone. So I worry that modularity will do its work on Apple.”

This was written in May 2012. Three years later, the iPod is all but gone. The music player that once generated more revenue than the Mac and paved the way for the iPhone by giving rise to the iTunes infrastructure has become an ingredient inside its successor. With 400M units sold, Apple no longer even reports iPod sales. One could say integration won.

Christensen rightly points out that in the PC clone market, modularity allowed competitors to undercut one another by improving layer after layer, smarter graphic cards, better/faster/cheaper processing, storage, and peripheral modules. This led to the well-documented PC industry race to the bottom. But Christensen fails to note that the Mac stubbornly refused (and still refuses) to follow the Modularity Law. And, as Apple’s recent numbers show, the iPhone seems just as immune to modularity threats.

I have no trouble with the Law of Large Numbers, it only underlines Apple’s truly stupendous growth and, in the end, it always wins. No business can grow by 20%, or even 10% for ever.

But, for the other three, Market Share, Commoditization, and Modularity, how can we ignore the sea of contradicting facts? Even if we set Apple aside, there are so many “exceptions” to these rules that one wonders if these so-called Laws aren’t simply convenient wishful thinking, a kind of intellectual Muzak that fills an idea vacuum but has no substance.

As Apple continues to “break the law”, perhaps we’ll see a new body of scholarship that provides alternatives to the discredited refrains. As Rob Majteles tweeted: “Apple: where many, all?, management theories go to die?

JLG@mondaynote.com

From “Trust In News” to “News Profiling”

 

by Frédéric Filloux

For news organizations, the key challenge is to lift value-added editorial above Internet noise. Many see “signals” as a possible solution, one that could be supplemented by a derivative of ad profiling.   

Last year Richard Gingras and Sally Lehrman came up with the Trust Project (full text here, on Medium). Richard is a seasoned journalist and the head of News and Social at Google; Sally is a senior journalism scholar at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California.

Their starting point is readers’ eroding confidence in media. Year after year, every survey confirms the trend. A recent one, released ten days ago at the Davos Economic Forum by the global PR firm Edelman confirms the picture. For the first time, according to the 2014 version of Edelman’s Trust Barometer, public trust in search engines surpasses trust in media organizations (64% vs 62%). The gap is even wider for Millennials who trust search engines by 72% vs 62% for old medias.

353-1

 

And when it comes to segmenting sources by type — general information, breaking, validation –, search leaves traditional media even further in the dust.

353-2

 

No wonder why, during the terrorist attack in Paris three weeks ago, many publishers saw more than 50% of their traffic coming from Google. This was reflected on with a mixture of satisfaction (our stuff surfaces better in Google search and News) and concern (a growing part of news media traffic is now in the hands of huge US-based gatekeepers.)

Needless to say, this puts a lots of pressure on Google (much less so to Facebook that is not that much concerned with its growing role as a large news conduit.) Hence the implicit mission given to Richard Gingras and others to build on this notion of trust.

His project is built around five elements to parse news contents with:

#1. A mission and Ethics statement. As described in the Trust Project:

One simple first step is a posted mission statement and ethics policy that convey the mission of a news organization and the tenets underlying its journalistic craft. Only 50% of the top ten US newspapers have ethics policies available on the web and only 30% of ten prominent digital sites have done so.

The gap between legacy and digital native news media is an interesting one. While the former have built their audience on the (highly debatable) notion of objective reporting, balanced point of views, digital natives come with a credibility deficit. Many of the latter are seen as too close to the industry they cover; some prominent ones did not even bother to conceal their ties to the venture capital ecosystem, others count among their backers visible tech industry figures. Others are built around clever click-bait mechanisms that are supplemented — marginally — by solid journalism. (I’ll let our readers put names on each kind.)
In short, a clear statement on what a media is about and what are the potential conflicts of interests is a mandatory building block for trust.

#2. Expertise and Disclosure. Here is the main idea:

Far too often the journalist responsible for the work is not known to us. Just a byline. Yet expertise is an important element of trust. Where has their work appeared? How long have they worked with this outlet? Can audiences access their body of work? 

Nothing much to add. Each time I spot an unknown and worth reading writer, my first reaction is to Google him/er to understand who I’m dealing with. Encapsulating background information in an accessible way (and standardized enough to be retrievable by a search engine) makes plain sense. 

#3. Editing Disclosure, i.e. details on the whole vetting process a story had gone through before hitting the pixels. Fine, but it’s a legacy media approach. Stories by Benedict Evans, Horace Dediu, or Jeff Jarvis (see his view on the Trust Project), just to name a few respected analysts, are not likely to be reviewed by editors, but their views deserve to be surfaced as original contents. Therefore, Editing Disclosure should not carry a large weight in the equation.

#4. Citation and Corrections. The idea is to have Wikipedia-like standards that give access to citations and references behind the author’s assertions. This is certainly an efficient way to prevent plagiarism, or even “unattributed inspiration”. The same goes for corrections and amplifications, as the digital medium encourages article versioning.

#5. Methodology. What’s behind a story, how many first-hand interviews, reporting made on location as opposed to the soft reprocessing of somebody else’s work. Let’s be honest, the vast majority of news shoveled on the internet won’t pass that test.

Google’s idea to implement all of the above is to create a set of standardized “signals” that will yield objective ways to extract quality stuff from the vast background noise on the Web. Not an easy task.

First, Google news already works that way. In a Monday Note based on Google News’ official patent filing (see: Google news: The Secret Sauce), I looked at the signals isolated by Google to improve its news algorithm. There are 13 of them, ranging from the size of the organization’s staff to the writing style. It certainly worked fine (otherwise, Google News won’t be such a success). But it no longer is enough. Legacy media are now in constant race to produce more in order to satisfy Google’s (News + Search) insatiable appetite for fresh fodder. In the meantime, news staffs keep shrinking and “digital serfs”, hired for their productivity rather than their journalistic acumen, become legions. Also, criteria such as the size of a news staff no longer apply as much, this because independent writers and analysts — as those mentioned above — have become powerful and credible voices.

In addition, any system aimed at promoting quality — and value — is prone to guessing, to cheating. Search algorithm has become a moving target for all the smart people the industry has bred, forcing Google to make several thousands adjustments in its search formulae every year.

The News Profile and Semantic Footprint approach. If the list stated by the creators of The Trust Project is a great start, it has to be supplemented by other systems. Weirdly enough, profiling techniques used in digital advertising can be used as a blueprint.

Companies specialized in audience profiling are accumulating anonymous profiles in staggering numbers: to name just one, in Europe, Paris-based Weborama has collected 210m profiles (40% of the European internet population), each containing detailed demographics, consumer tastes for clothing, gadgets, furniture, transportation, navigation habits, etc. Such data are sold to advertisers that can then pinpoint who is in the process of acquiring a car, or of looking for a specific travel destination. No one ever opted-in to give such information, but we all did by allowing massive cookies injections in our browsers.

Then, why not build a “News Profile”? It could have all the components of my news diet: The publications I subscribed or registered to, the media I visit on a frequent basis, the authors I searched for, my average length of preferred stories, my propensity to read large documented profiles of business persons, the documentaries I watched on You Tube, the decks I downloaded from SlideShare… Why not adding the books I ordered on Amazon and the people I follow on Twitter, etc. All of the above already exists inside my computer, in the form of hundreds, if not thousands, of cookies I collected in my navigations.

It could work this way: I connect — this time knowingly — to a system able to reconcile my “News Profile” to the “Semantic Footprint” of publications, but also of authors (regardless of their affiliation, from NYT’s John Markoff to A16z’ Ben Horowitz), type of production, etc. Such profiling would be fed by criteria described in The Project Trust and by Google News algorithm signals. Today, only Google is in the position to perform such daunting task: It has done part of the job since the first beta of Google News in 2002, it collects thousands of sources, and it has a holistic view of the Internet. I personally have no problem with allowing Google to create my News Profile based on data… it already has on me.

I can hear the choir of whiners from here. But, again, it could be done on a voluntary basis. And think about the benefits: A skimmed version of Google News, tailored to my preferences, that could include a dose of serendipity for good measure… Isn’t it better than a painstakingly assembled RSS feed that needs constant manual updates? To me it’s a no-brainer.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com