Apple: Q2 Thoughts

There was a time when clever individuals could sustain themselves by exploiting people’s ignorance and anxiety. Augurs studied the flight of birds to explain the will of the gods; haruspices practiced divination by inspecting the entrails of sacrificed animals. For fear of bursting into uncontrollable laughter, so the joke goes, the fortune tellers studiously avoided making eye contact with one another in chance street encounters.

Not much has changed.

Our modern-day haruspices, the Wall Street anal-ists, must struggle mightily to keep a straight face (although perhaps not so mightily–they’ve had a lot of practice).

Before Apple’s April 24th earnings release, Wall Street observer Karl Denninger put on his poker face in a Seeking Alpha post:

Profit margins on hardware are very difficult to sustain over 10% for long periods of time. Someone always comes after you and this is not going to be an exception to that rule. But that in turn means that you either must cut your own prices (and margins) to compete or watch your market share get diced up into little tiny pieces by a bunch of guys wielding machetes.

Colorful. And with a disclosure of his own AAPL posture:

Lightly short and more likely to add to that position over time than cover it, eyeing major support in the $400 area.

The entire longish post is enlightening, in a “special” way, as is his September 2010 Seeking Alpha post where he predicted serious trouble for Apple’s new tablet (for which he uses a nickname that, we’ll assume, elicited schoolyard snickers from his cohort in the Tea Party, a group he helped found. New age male sensitivity be damned.) And what was the trouble he saw when he fondled the sheep’s liver? RIMM was “coming after” Apple; they had just announced the QNX-based BlackBerry PlayBook. Don’t laugh.

The idea, here, is that Everything Becomes a Commodity. It’s a common fallacy among the Street watchers, a meme, “a unit for carrying cultural ideas”, in Wikipedia’s words. It’s built on the idea that market forces—competition—will erase all advantages at a “molecular” level. Yesterday, customers were paying more for product A because of some unique feature or service. Tomorrow, a competitor will provide the same (more or less) at a lower price. Commoditization always wins, say the sages. QNX is better than iOS so the PlayBook will, clearly, murder the iPad.

Fun aside, Mr. Denninger is but a member, if that’s the right word, of a class of ideologists who seem to be curiously unaware of their surroundings. Where is the ineluctable commoditization they predict?

It isn’t a new idea. When I landed in Cupertino in 1985, the Pepsi and Playtex marketeers that tagged along with the new CEO insisted that the tech game was over, personal computers are now commodities, marketing would have to do for Apple what the Leo Burnett ad agency had done for Philip Morris with its Marlboro Man campaign.

True, the Marlboro Man was an exemplary marketing success that made a huge monetary difference for an otherwise commodity product. Marlboro didn’t make a “superior” product–blonde non-mentholated 100mm filtered cigarettes are all the same. The only pieces tobacco companies could move across the chess board were imaginary and romanticized.

But high tech isn’t a commodity market. In very French words I told the young commoditizing Turks how wrong they were: Moore’s Law and good software would create the opportunities that make a difference. Commoditization isn’t ineluctable.

Are clothes all the same? Tube socks at Costco, perhaps. But for the rest of our wardrobe, material and cut (and brand) matters.

Food? Do we buy commoditized calories, or do we care for the difference that the quality of ingredients and preparation make? Fresh string beans and asparagus, lightly fried in butter and properly salted—you can’t get that from canned vegetables packed in a margarine sludge, ready to pop into the microwave.

Do we buy cars because they go fast and the wheels are (most of the time) round? I can hear the young Turks claiming that people don’t buy cars, they buy transportation (all while jumping into their BMWs). But when Detroit began putting accountants at the head of car companies, they rode the steep downhill slope of commoditization. That Audi is now one of the most profitable car companies on the planet tells us something about the importance of technology, design, manufacturing, and quality.

I used to refer to BMW as a good example for Apple: Don’t worry too much about market share. A well-made, well-marketed product will see its difference rewarded by the marketplace. And, indeed, BMW became larger than Mercedes Benz. And now we have Audi.

Quality shows, and Apple continues to show quality. Last quarter they enjoyed an incredible 47.4% Gross Margin. Higher than expected and very unusual for a hardware company.

As an ex-entrepreneur and a venture investor, I’m a fan of Gross Margin—it’s what you can spend. Revenue is nice, but it doesn’t tell you when and how much you can eat. Because Apple’s Operating Expenses have become such a small percentage (8.1%) of revenue, Apple’s Operating Margin approaches 40%. As Horace Dediu notes in his Which is best: hardware, software or services? comparison of Apple to Microsoft and Google, this is unusual for a hardware company:

Can this growth continue unabated? Probably not, both Microsoft and Google have shown that there’s a plateau, a margin level that can’t be exceeded. But their examples also show sustainability.

Of course, Apple execs are cautious forecasters. Their much second-guessed guidance for the next quarter calls for “only” 41% Gross Margin, significantly less than last quarter’s. But the commoditization predicted 27 years ago isn’t about to happen.

I’ll quote Horace Dediu’s May 1st post once again:

Apple is the most valuable company in technology (and indeed in the world) because it integrates hardware, software and services. It’s the first, and only, company to do all these three well in service of jobs that the vast majority of consumers want done.

A mere matter of execution…

JLG@mondaynote.com

Be Sociable, Share!

Related columns:

  1. Apple Post-Quartum Thoughts TweetAs if you haven’t heard, Apple posted its Q4 earnings last week. I’ll spare you my own encomium and refer you to these links: Despite its title, Business Insider’s list of Facts About Apple’s Business That Will Blow Your Mind contains little or no hype. TechCrunch provides context for Apple’s “massive numbers”. Brian Hall offers [...]...
  2. iPad Thoughts TweetLet me start with an important caveat. For this I’ll refer you to a post from my favorite high-tech blogger, David Pogue. “Don’t pass judgment until you’ve tried it!” Wise counsel: three years ago, industry sages “knew” Apple had no business making a phone. Normal humans voted with their wallet. Customers come in two categories: [...]...
  3. Catching The iPad Wave: Seven Thoughts Tweet1. Design The iPad is all about design, and interface expectations. From a graphic design standpoint, with the iPad, the quantum leap is its ability to render layouts, typefaces, page structure. No more web HTML lowest common denominator, here. What comes out from an art director gets WYSIWYGed on the iPad — if the implementation [...]...
  4. Apple Is Doomed: The Phony Sony Parallel TweetIn the weeks preceding the April 24th release of Apple’s quarterly earnings, a number of old canards sent the stock down by about 12%: Carriers are going to kill the iPhone Golden Goose by cutting back “exorbitant” subsidies; iPhone sales are down from the previous quarter in the US; inexorable commoditization will soon bring down [...]...
  5. Apple Phlebotomy TweetThe treatment for the blood disease called Polycythemia Vera (the name means “too many red cells”) goes back to the Dark Ages: Lance a vein and relieve the patient of a pint of blood. Phlebotomy treats the symptom but not the condition. There is no known cure; the blood-letting must be repeated indefinitely. This is [...]...

17 Comments

  1. RobDK
    Posted May 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Great post, JLG! It is incredible that these analysts can be sooooo wrong on Apple. Its like they have never seen an iPhone. Rumour has it that Karl Denninger has never used an Apple product; he is too busy defragging the registry on his up-to-date version of Windows 95…

  2. Justin
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    Otis elevators, Emerson electric motors and Trane furnaces (part of Ingersoll Rand) are interesting examples of hardware firms who have strong margins, in very competitive spaces. Many have exceptional service organizations, not unlike Apples retail chain.

  3. Michael
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    The ironic follow-up is that in a recent interview of Clay Christensen (aka Mr. Disruption) by Horace Deidu (http://5by5.tv/s/16k 40 min mark), Christensen himself said that he “worried about Apple” because (i) it has never seld-disrupted and (ii) it’s products are sure to be commoditized. Fortunately Horace set him straight right away (very politely), but it was shocking to hear such nonsense from such a highly respective leader in business education.
    Just goes to show that although Apple’s strategy is not that complicated, many people just don’t understand it.

    Clearly their 40+ % margin and amazing economies of scale gives them plenty of room to maintain preeminence in the tablet market which is going to continue to explode.

  4. WaltFrench
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Dedieu’s teacher Christenson similarly worries about modularization (which, in this context, is a three-dollar explanation for how Apple’s unitary model can be broken down into interchangeable pieces. E.g, Android users can choose from a range of keyboards, while I, as an iPhone user, can only opt for Apple’s standard ones plus Emoji

  5. WaltFrench
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 3:56 am | Permalink

    Apple makes the case that most users don’t want to be systems integrators (although clearly, a subset of Android users *really* do), and for something as complex as “a widescreen iPod…a phone…and a breakthrough Internet communicator” in your pocket, that makes a lot of sense to me.
    .
    People who claim otherwise ought to explain why the huge financial incentives to compete with Apple have resulted in the collapse of the Android OHA manufacturers’ profitability and the financial ruin of Palm, RIM and Nokia. Samsung seems to have an idea of how to pull it together, but it’s still rather amateurish. Maybe Microsoft, which can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. But as MacNamee also seemingly fails to grok, mobile is very different than desktop and very dynamic. So far only Apple has stumbled onto the balance that incents developers and enthuses users looking for something personal.

  6. WaltFrench
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:18 am | Permalink

    Heh, seems that actually using an Emoji is a capital offense for your comment system—it chopped my post off but luckily it was still in my Safari cache. 大吉大利

  7. Jean-Louis Gassée
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    @ all: First, let me repair an omission. I failed to give credit to John Gruber for pointing me to the colorful Karl Denninger http://j.mp/KGKYXi.

  8. Jean-Louis Gassée
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    @ Michael and @ WlatFrench: We think alike. I listened to the Clay Christensen conversation with our friend Horace. I’m afraid Clay is wrong on Sony and wrong on open source components being a threat. That’s why I added the Dediu quote at the end of today’s piece.
    On Sony, see last week’s MN.

  9. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    There is no reasons to worry about APPL’s fate 10-20 years from now provided it keeps innovating with the right products that make our lives easier.
    I look forward to the next disruptive APPL device, which I hope will be a simple TV set plugged to both the cable box and the internet, with an ipod-like touch screen remote control that does it all (channel switch, touchpad, keyboard, video game controller…).

  10. Patrick Taylor
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    What I find odd about the analyst position is that they see the high margin as a weakness as opposed to a position of strength.

    When Apple has such industry-leading control of their supply chain costs, their gross margin gives them so much room to manoeuvre when their competitors who have small gross margins can only make small adjustments without facing losses.

    Apple can reduce their prices and still profit nicely, most of their competitors can’t.

  11. chano
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    This was a fine post, thank you.
    I especially enjoyed the references to augurs and haruspices.
    I interrupted my reading of a bull’s fresh dudu (please understand that this was only to help me anticipate when Apple might climb from its lows of today), to express my appreciation of your post.

    But lo, and behold, I then returned to my charts only to see AAPL climb from $563 to $571. Imagine the power of these seer methods!

    We live in hope.

  12. KenC
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 2:52 am | Permalink

    Having read a few of Denninger’s posts, he doesn’t deserve the attention.

  13. Jean-Louis Gassée
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    @ KenC: You’re right. I only used KD as a “member” (I couldn’t resist) of a class of commenters who think McDonalds is the standard for food.

  14. Jean-Louis Gassée
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    @ Patrick Taylor: Speaking of prices, let’s recall the breath intake in the room when Jobs said $499 for the iPad. Everyone expected $899 or more. Same thing later in 201o when the 11″ MacBook Air was prices at a “low” $999, and the newer Apple TV at $99. Apple’s command of its Supply Chain + Distribution gives it cost hard to beat cost advantages.

  15. Hamranhansenhansen
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    There were The Beatles and then later there were The Monkees. Same with iOS and Android.

  16. Cyan
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    When do you know that a bubble will go bust ?

    When all normal people are finally convinced that, unlike before, this time, we have indeed reached a world of infinite growth, and all these old common rules do no longer apply.

  17. Posted May 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Authentic LV Outlet Paypal Genuine Louis Vuitton Online Outlet http://louisvuittonoutletq3.blogspot.com/2013/05/genuine-louis-vuitton-online-outlet.html

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*