apple

Apple Maps: Damned If You Do, Googled If You Don’t

While still a teenager, my youngest daughter was determined to take on the role of used car salesperson when we sold our old Chevy Tahoe. Her approach was impeccable: Before letting the prospective buyer so much as touch the car, she gave him a tour of its defects, the dent in the rear left fender, the slight tear in the passenger seat, the fussy rear window control. Only then did she lift the hood to reveal the pristine engine bay. She knew the old rule: Don’t let the customer discover the defects.

Pointing out the limitations of your product is a sign of strength, not weakness. I can’t fathom why Apple execs keep ignoring this simple prescription for a healthy relationship with their customers. Instead, we get tiresome boasting: …Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the worldwe [make] the best products on earth. This self-promotion violates another rule: Don’t go around telling everyone how good you are in the, uhm…kitchen; let those who have experienced your cookmanship do the bragging for you.

The ridicule that Apple has suffered following the introduction of the Maps application in iOS 6 is largely self-inflicted. The demo was flawless, 2D and 3D maps, turn-by-turn navigation, spectacular flyovers…but not a word from the stage about the app’s limitations, no self-deprecating wink, no admission that iOS Maps is an infant that needs to learn to crawl before walking, running, and ultimately lapping the frontrunner, Google Maps. Instead, we’re told that Apple’s Maps may be  “the most beautiful, powerful mapping service ever.

After the polished demo, the released product gets a good drubbing: the Falkland Islands are stripped of roads and towns, bridges and façades are bizarrely rendered, an imaginary airport is discovered in a field near Dublin.

Pageview-driven commenters do the expected. After having slammed the “boring” iPhone 5, they reversed course when preorders exceed previous records, and now they reverse course again when Maps shows a few warts.

Even Joe Nocera, an illustrious NYT writer, joins the chorus with a piece titled Has Apple Peaked? Note the question mark, a tired churnalistic device, the author hedging his bet in case the peak is higher still, lost in the clouds. The piece is worth reading for its clichés, hyperbole, and statements of the obvious: “unmitigated disaster”, “the canary in the coal mine”, and “Jobs isn’t there anymore”, tropes that appear in many Maps reviews.

(The implication that Jobs would have squelched Maps is misguided. I greatly miss Dear Leader but my admiration for his unsurpassed successes doesn’t obscure my recollection of his mistakes. The Cube, antennagate, Exchange For The Rest of Us [a.k.a MobileMe], the capricious skeuomorphic shelves and leather stitches… Both Siri — still far from reliable — and Maps were decisions Jobs made or endorsed.)

The hue and cry moved me to give iOS 6 Maps a try. Mercifully, my iPad updated by itself (or very nearly so) while I was busy untangling family affairs in Palma de Mallorca. A break in the action, I opened the Maps app and found old searches already in memory. The area around my Palma hotel was clean and detailed:

Similarly for my old Paris haunts:

The directions for my trip from the D10 Conference to my home in Palo Alto were accurate, and offered a choice of routes:

Yes, there are flaws. Deep inside rural France, iOS Maps is clearly lacking. Here’s Apple’s impression of the countryside:

…and Google’s:

Still, the problems didn’t seem that bad. Of course, the old YMMV saying applies: Your experience might be much worse than mine.

Re-reading Joe Nocera’s piece, I get the impression that he hasn’t actually tried Maps himself. Nor does he point out that you can still use Google Maps on an iPhone or iPad:

The process is dead-simple: Add maps.google.com as a Web App on your Home Screen and voilà, Google Maps without waiting for Google to come up with a native iOS app, or for Apple to approve it. Or you can try other mapping apps such as Navigon. Actually, I’m surprised to see so few people rejoice at the prospect of a challenger to Google’s de facto maps monopoly.

Not all bloggers have fallen for the “disaster” hysteria. In this Counternotions blog post,”Kontra”, who is also a learned and sardonic Twitterer, sees a measure of common sense and strategy on Apple’s part:

Q: Then why did Apple kick Google Maps off the iOS platform? Wouldn’t Apple have been better off offering Google Maps even while it was building its own map app? Shouldn’t Apple have waited?

A: Waited for what? For Google to strengthen its chokehold on a key iOS service? Apple has recognized the significance of mobile mapping and acquired several mapping companies, IP assets and talent in the last few years. Mapping is indeed one of the hardest of mobile services, involving physical terrestrial and aerial surveying, data acquisition, correction, tile making and layer upon layer of contextual info married to underlying data, all optimized to serve often under trying network conditions. Unfortunately, like dialect recognition or speech synthesis (think Siri), mapping is one of those technologies that can’t be fully incubated in a lab for a few years and unleashed on several hundred million users in more than a 100 countries in a “mature” state. Thousands of reports from individuals around the world, for example, have helped Google correct countless mapping failures over the last half decade. Without this public exposure and help in the field, a mobile mapping solution like Apple’s stands no chance.

And he makes a swipe at the handwringers:

Q: Does Apple have nothing but contempt for its users?

A: Yes, Apple’s evil. When Apple barred Flash from iOS, Flash was the best and only way to play .swf files. Apple’s video alternative, H.264, wasn’t nearly as widely used. Thus Apple’s solution was “inferior” and appeared to be against its own users’ interests. Sheer corporate greed! Trillion words have been written about just how misguided Apple was in denying its users the glory of Flash on iOS. Well, Flash is now dead on mobile. And yet the Earth’s obliquity of the ecliptic is still about 23.4°. We seemed to have survived that one.

For Apple, Maps is a strategic move. The Cupertino company doesn’t want to depend on a competitor for something as important as maps. The road (pardon the pun) will be long and tortuous, and it’s unfortunate that Apple has made the chase that much harder by failing to modulate its self-praise. but think of the number of times the company has been told You Have No Right To Do This…think smartphones, stores, processors, refusing to depend on Adobe’s Flash…

(As I finished writing this note, I found out Philip Ellmer-DeWitt also takes issue with Joe Nocera’s position and bromides in his Apple 2.0 post. And Brian Hall, in his trademark colorful style, also strongly disagrees with the NYT writer.)

Let’s just hope a fully mature Maps won’t take as long as it took to transform MobileMe into iCloud.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

Apple Ads Only Samsung Could Love

Over the years, Apple has produced a number of memorable TV commercials. The “1984” Super Bowl spot, with its dystopian noir and portrayal of Big Blue as Big Brother, is arguably the most celebrated commercial ever made. This bit of sixty-second cinema by Ridley Scott (now Sir Ridley) — director of epoch-making films such as The Duellists, Alien, and, my favorite, Blade Runner — was, and still is, mesmerizing. After the ad was screened for the first time at Apple’s Fall 1983 Sales Meeting in Honolulu the crowd sat in stunned silence… for about three seconds.

When Steve Jobs rebooted Apple in 1997, he needed a rallying cry…and he found one that still resonates: Think Different. Richard Dreyfuss narrated the campaign’s “The Crazy Ones” commercial, but there’s another, never-aired version voiced by Jobs that still moves me to tears. (Last year, on the occasion of Jobs’ demise, AdWeek edited the famous commercial and spliced in a smiling picture of the young Steve at the ending, right after the image of the child opening her eyes… )

Then there’s the long and well-loved “I’m A Mac, You’re a PC” series, featuring John Hodgman and Justin Long (the link gives you access to all 66 TV spots of this historic campaign). It’s more than good fun, it’s a great, lasting example of a classic (a polite way of saying apparently “unoriginal”) strategy: Us vs. Them. The ads are brilliant, consistent, cleanly executed with simple, unencumbered visuals and a sly, understated humor. A joy.

Occasionally, Apple’s sense-of-commercial misses the mark, such as in this PowerMac G4 dud that features tanks and a US Army sergeant voice-over. But the missteps have been few; Apple advertising is typically well thought out and well done. Good ideas, near flawless execution.

That brings us to today. Over the past few months, Apple has put out a series of commercials that fall into two categories: a good idea poorly executed, and the great execution of a troubling concept.

First, we have the “Genius” ads. The Apple Store Geniuses provide, undoubtedly, the best tech support in the industry, leading the company’s products to top scores in customer satisfaction surveys. An ad campaign that promotes this advantage while poking subtle fun at the immodesty of the “Genius” designation should have been a straight shot. The idea lends itself to a series of humorous vignettes that end with a relieved customer, a show back on the road, a CEO in distress saved from embarrassment, and so on.

But in practice, as you can see for yourself here, here, and here, the ads fail. The worthy idea is ruined by stories that feel forced and overly cute, the message falls far short of the clarity we expect from Apple’s marketing campaigns… and they’re just not funny. Even the production seems cheap and hurried, right down to continuity problems: A sleeping Genius, garbed in his official blue t-shirt, is roused by a panicked knock on the door and appears a split-second later… with his badge-cum-business card holder now draped around his neck.

The ads were widely panned and, soon, mercifully yanked.

In the more troublesome category, we have the Siri commercials featuring celebrities Zooey Deschanel, Samuel L. Jackson, John Malkovich, and Martin Scorsese. They’re smart and well-produced, they’re flatteringly imitable — and Samsung must love them.

Why?

Because they’re pernicious: They dilute the focus, they detract from Apple products’ own well-deserved and well-earned celebrity.

As a comparison and a template, regard the series of Louis Vuitton ads produced by the great photographer Annie Leibovitz. What, or rather, who do you see? Sean Connery, Catherine Deneuve, Michael Gorbachev, Roger Federer, Keith Richards, Muhammad Ali…

… with a Louis Vuitton bag.

The message is cynical but clear: Our bag is no better than a Gucci or an Hermès, but if you sport our logo, you’ll have something in common with iconic athletes, artists, intellectuals… You, too, can be like Mikhail Gorbachev or Michael Phelps… if only in our accoutrements. (The Annie Leibovitz campaign is pompously called “Core Values” — or, given the roster of subjects, is this unconscious honesty?).

This is an exceedingly well-thought out and executed plan; Louis Vuitton is an astute, superbly managed company, at the top of its game. But what does it say about the iPhone if Apple feels it has to use Louis Vuitton-like tactics to entice consumers?

Until the Siri celebrity campaign, Apple products had always been the focus of Apple marketing. The product is the hero, the ad extolls what it does and how it does it. The recourse to celebrity endorsement sends a new message: The product isn’t strong enough, it needs the propinquity of the famous. And that message becomes even more dangerous because the ads are so slick, so well executed. (The Scorsese ad even includes a sweet visual joke that refers to the director’s 1976 Taxi Driver movie. A nice touch…but it has nothing to do with Apple.)

That’s why Samsung must have an extra reason to smile when they see Ms. Deschanel dance in her pajamas, and that’s why these ads should be yanked and why the celebrity strategy — a first for Apple if memory serves — should be reconsidered.

And, then, at the risk of piling on, there is the product being promoted: Siri.

Doubtless, it works for some people, but how many?

How many give up after a few tries?

I recently asked an Apple insider that very question. The individual thought a moment but couldn’t recall seeing a Siri-using colleague.

There is a difference between a beta product such as a spreadsheet exhibiting annoying but reasonably well-defined bugs — and a beta like Siri that “kind of works” and discourages some users while pleasing others.

I have no doubt Apple has thought out ambitious long term plans for Siri, plans that might unfold in time and make Siri as universally and reliably usable as a other iPhone functions and apps. But, for the time being, besides their feeble Vuitton-like recourse to celebrities, the slick Siri ads could be perceived as misleading. Another reason to shelve them.

As for the Genius campaign: Fire the ad agency, but keep the concept. Press the reset button, keep the message, rewrite the ads. The idea has potential for a series of effective and fun ads.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Apple Never Invented Anything

Monsieur Voiture, you hopeless [redacted French slur], you still can’t prepare a proper mayonnaise! I’ll show you one last time while standing on one foot…”

[Bear with me, the connection with today's title will become apparent in a moment.]

The year is 1965, I’m midway through a series of strange jobs that I take between dropping out of college and joining HP in 1968 — my “psychosocial moratorium”, in California-speak. This one approaches normal: I’m a waiter in a Paris restaurant on rue Galande, not far from Notre-Dame.

Every day, before service starts, it’s my job to make vinaigrette, remoulade, and mayonnaise, condiments for the hors d’oeuvres (French for appetizers) I’ll wheel around on a little cart — hence the Monsieur Voiture snicker from the chef.

The vinaigrette and remoulade are no problem, but the mayonnaise is not my friend: Day after day, my concoction “splits” and the chef berates me.

So now, pushed beyond limit, he grabs a cul-de-poule (a steel bowl with a round bottom), throws in the mustard, vinegar, and a bit of oil, cracks an egg on the bowl’s edge, separates and drops the yolk into the mixture — all with one hand. I see an opportunity to ingratiate myself: Obligingly, I reach for a whisk.

“No, all I need is a fork.”

Up on one foot, as promised, he gives the mixture a single, masterful stroke — and the mayonnaise begins to emulsify, I see the first filaments. The chef sniffs and walks away. I had been trying too hard…the rest was obvious: a thin trickle of oil, whisk calmly.

Clearly, the episode left its mark, and it came back to mind when I first saw the iPad.

For thirty years, the industry had tried to create a tablet, and it had tried too hard. The devices kept clotting, one after the other. Alan Kay’s Dynabook, Go, Eo, GridPad, various Microsoft-powered Tablet PCs, even Apple’s Newton in the early nineties….they didn’t congeal, nothing took.

Then, in January 2010, Chef Jobs walks on stage with the iPad and it all becomes obvious, easy. Three decades of failures are forgotten.

This brings us to last week’s animated debate about Apple’s talent for invention in the Comments section of the “Apple Tax” Monday Note:

“…moving from stylus to touch (finger) was a change in enabling technology, not some invention by Apple – even gesture existed way back before the iPhone. Have an IPAQ on my desk as a reminder – a product ahead of the implementing technology!
Unfortunately Apple have run out of real innovation…”

In other words: “Nothing new, no innovation, the ingredients were already lying around somewhere…”. The comment drew this retort from another reader:

“iPaq as a precursor to iPad?
Are you on drugs? Right now?”

Drugged or sober, the proud iPaq owner falls into the following point: The basic ingredients are the same. Software is all zeroes and ones, after all. The quantity and order may vary, but that’s about it. Hardware is just protons, neutrons, electrons and photons buzzing around, nothing original. Apple didn’t “invent” anything, the iPad is simply their variation, their interpretation of the well-known tablet recipe.

By this myopic logic, Einstein didn’t invent the theory of relativity, Henri Poincaré had similar ideas before him, as did Hendrik Lorentz earlier still. And, come to think of it, Maxwell’s equations contain all of the basic ingredients of relativity; Einstein “merely” found a way to combine them with another set of parts, Newtonian mechanics.

Back to the kitchen: Where does talent reside? Having access to commonly available ingredients or in the subtlety, the creativity — if not the magic — of their artful combination? Why are the great chefs so richly compensated and, yes, imitated? Alain Ducasse, Alain Senderens, and Joel Robuchon might be out of our price range, but Pierre Herme’s macarons are both affordable and out of this world — try the Ispahan, or the salted caramel, or… (We’ll note that he opened his first boutique in Tokyo, where customers pay attention to details.)

In cars, Brand X (I don’t want to offend) and BMW (I don’t drive one) get their steel, aluminum, plastics, rubber, and electronics from similar — and often the same — suppliers. But their respective chefs coax the ingredients differently, with markedly different aesthetic and financial outcomes.

Did IBM invent the PC? Did HP invent the pocket calculators or desktop computers that once put them at the top of the high tech world? Did Henry Ford invent the automobile.

So, yes, if we stick to the basic ingredients list, Apple didn’t invent anything…not the Apple ][, nor the Macintosh, not the iPod, the iPhone, or the iPad…to say nothing of Apple Stores and App Stores. We’d seen them all before, in one fashion or another.

And yet, we can’t escape a key fact: The same chef was involved in all these creations. He didn’t write the code or design the hardware, but he was there in the kitchen — the “executive chef” in trade parlance — with a unique gift for picking ingredients and whipping up unique products.

JLG@mondaynote.com

As a postscript, two links:

– Steve Wildstrom valiantly attempts to clear up the tech media’s distortions of the patents that were — and weren’t — part of the Apple-Samsung trial:

Whatever happens on appeal, I think the jury did an admirable job making sense of the case they were given. They certainly did better than much of the tech media, which have made a complete mess of the verdict.

– This August 2009 Counternotions post provides a well-reasoned perspective on the iPhone’s risks and contributions, as opposed to being a mere packaging job. (The entire Counternotions site is worth reading for its spirited dissection of fashionable “truths”.)

.

The Apple Tax, Part II

Once upon a time, Steve Ballmer blasted Apple for asking its customers to pay $500 for an Apple logo. This was the “Apple Tax“, the price difference between the solid, professional workmanship of a laptop running on Windows, and Apple’s needlessly elegant MacBooks.

Following last week’s verdict against Samsung, the kommentariat have raised the specter of an egregious new Apple Tax, one that Apple will levy on other smartphone makers who will have no choice but to pass the burden on to you. The idea is this: Samsung’s loss means it will now have to compete against Apple with its dominant hand — a lower price tag — tied behind its back. This will allow Apple to exact higher prices for its iPhones (and iPads) and thus inflict even more pain and suffering on consumers.

There seems to be a moral aspect, here, as if Apple should be held to a higher standard. Last year, Apple and Nokia settled an IP “misunderstanding” that also resulted in a “Tax”…but it was Nokia that played the T-Man role: Apple paid Nokia more than $600M plus an estimated $11.50 per iPhone sold. Where were the handwringers who now accuse Apple of abusing the patent system when the Nokia settlement took place? Where was the outrage against the “evil”, if hapless, Finnish company? (Amusingly, observers speculate that Nokia has made more money from these IP arrangements than from selling its own Lumia smartphones.)

Even where the moral tone is muted, the significance of the verdict (which you can read in full here) is over-dramatized. For instance, see this August 24th Wall Street Journal story sensationally titled After Verdict, Prepare for the ‘Apple Tax’:

After its stunning victory against rival device-maker Samsung Electronics Co., experts say consumers should expect smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices that license various Apple Inc., design and software innovations to be more expensive to produce.

“There may be a big Apple tax,” said IDC analyst Al Hilwa. “Phones will be more expensive.”

The reason is that rival device makers will likely have to pay to license the various Apple technologies the company sought to protect in court. The jury found that Samsung infringed as many as seven Apple patents, awarding $1.05 billion in damages.

The $1B sum awarded to Apple sounds impressive, but to the giants involved, it doesn’t really change much. Samsung’s annual marketing budget is about $2.75B (it covers washer-dryers and TVs, but it’s mostly smartphones), and, of course, Apple is sitting on a $100B+ cash hoard.

Then there’s the horror over the open-ended nature of the decision: Apple can continue to seek injunctions against products that infringe on their patents. From the NYT article:

…the decision could essentially force [Samsung] and other smartphone makers to redesign their products to be less Apple-like, or risk further legal defeats.

Certainly, injunctions could pose a real threat. They could remove competitors, make Apple more dominant, give it more pricing power to the consumer’s detriment…but none of this is a certainty. Last week’s verdict and any follow-up injunctions are sure to be appealed and appealed again until all avenues are exhausted. The Apple Tax won’t be enforced for several years, if ever.

And even if the “Tax” is assessed, will it have a deleterious impact on device manufacturers and consumers? Last year, about half of all Android handset makers — including ZTE, HTC, Sharp — were handed a Microsoft Tax bill ($27 per phone in ZTE’s case), one that isn’t impeded by an obstacle course of appeals. Count Samsung in this group: The Korean giant reportedly agreed to pay Microsoftbetween $10 and $15 – for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells.” Sell 100M devices and the tax bill owed to Ballmer and Co. exceeds $1B. Despite this onerous surcharge, Android devices thrive, and Samsung has quickly jumped to the lead in the Android handset race (from Informa, Telecoms & Media):

Amusingly, the Samsung verdict prompted this gloating tweet from Microsoft exec Bill Cox:

Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.

(Or, as AllThingsD interpreted it: Microsoft to Samsung. Mind if I Revel in Your Misfortune for a Moment?)

The subtext is clear: Android handset makers should worry about threats to the platform and seek safe harbor with the “Apple-safe” Windows Phone 8. This will be a “goooood” thing all around: If more handset makers offer Windows Phone devices, there will be more choices, fewer opportunities for Apple to get “unfairly high” prices for its iDevices. The detrimental effects, to consumers, of the “Apple Tax” might not be so bad, after all.

The Samsung trial recalls the interesting peace agreement that Apple and Microsoft forged in 1997, when Microsoft “invested” $150M in Apple as a fig-leaf for an IP settlement (see the end of the Quora article). The interesting part of the accord is the provision in which the companies agree that they won’t “clone” each other’s products. If Microsoft could arrange a cross-license agreement with Apple that includes an anti-cloning provision and eventually come up with its own original work (everyone agrees that Microsoft’s Modern UI is elegant, interesting, not just a knock-off), how come Samsung didn’t reach a similar arrangement and produce its own distinctive look and feel?

Microsoft and Apple saw that an armed peace was a better solution than constant IP conflicts. Can Samsung and Apple decide to do something similar and feed engineers rather than platoons of high-priced lawyers (the real winners in these battles)?

It’s a nice thought but I doubt it’ll happen. Gates and Jobs had known one another for a long time; there was animosity, but also familiarity. There is no such comfort between Apple and Samsung execs. There is, instead, a wide cultural divide.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Fantasy Apple TV

On August 15th, The Wall Street Journal published yet another story about Apple’s imminent invasion of the TV business. According to people who are “familiar with the matter”, the Cupertino company is…

in talks with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators about letting consumers use an Apple device as a set-top box for live television and other content…

The article has triggered an explosion of comments, speculation, purported leaks, and ”channel checks”. After the enormous success of the iPhone and the iPad, is TV going to be Apple’s Next Big Thing?

(If you Google “Apple iTV”, you get about 32M hits; “Apple TV” yields 700M. Curiously, Microsoft’s Bing gives you only 11M and 250M. I don’t know what to make of the disparity between the Google and Bing numbers, but a cursory look shows more useful results on Bing. As we know, this now depends on who’s asking and when.)

The topic excites writers and readers alike for good reason: We’re all frustrated with TV as it is, and we have a vague, hopeful sense that a disruptor such as Apple (or Google) could break through the obstacles that have been constructed by operators (cable/satellite) and content owners (studios).

Wouldn’t it be nice to get What we want, When we want it, Where we want it, on the device we like without having to deal with brain-dead set-top box program guides and channel bundle rip-offs?

The precedent has been set: CBS Interactive offers the excellent $4.99 60 Minutes iPad app. NBC, ABC, and other networks have an array of separate apps for news, sports, and entertainment. But this is sliced and diced content, carefully picked and edited, not the real What When Where thing.

For example, where can I get the Olympics opening ceremony? I missed it, I hear it was TV Worth Watching. NBC’s site? No. I even checked the NBC Olympics Live Extra app… no joy. YouTube has a few snippets here and there, but I want the whole thing, beginning to end, the excess and the embarrassment. I’ll sit through an ad or two, if need be, or, better yet, offer me a one-click payment so I can skip the ads.

Why is this so difficult?

First, there’s the fear factor: Having seen how Steve Jobs dominated the music distribution industry, TV studios and operators aren’t eager to let Apple hop into the driver’s seat. The major players foresee a significant drop in ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) if viewers are allowed to unbundle channels, if we can go ”à la carte”, if we can point, click, and pay our way into the TV universe. The impression that Apple “destroyed” the music industry conveniently omits what pirates were doing when iTunes came onto the scene and provided a clean, well-lighted distribution channel, but the fear remains.

Then there’s the complexity: Today’s TV revenue stream, the money sucked out of our pockets, divides into a maze of rivulets that flow to operators, distributors, content owners, and producers. Music is relatively simple compared to TV…but even so,  remember how long it took for the Beatles to become available on iTunes? Nine years.

And is it even worth it to Apple? Although Apple TV sales keep growing — +170% year-to-year for the last quarter — the numbers are still relatively small, only 4 million units for FY 2012 so far. At $100 apiece, such volume doesn’t “move the needle”, it’s immaterial when compared to iPhone and iPad revenue and profit.

Still, are these persistent Apple TV rumors totally unfounded?

The answer lies in Apple’s one and only business model: hardware revenue.

Everything else Apple does — software, iTunes, Genius Bars — only exists to push up hardware sales and profits.

With this in mind, today’s Apple TV does more than just deliver Netflix and iTunes movies: It’s a neat part of the ecosystem, it makes Macs (now with AirPlay), iPhones, and iPads more valuable. Your iPhone vacation pictures will show quite nicely on the family TV. Go to a conference room equipped with Apple TV and make your Keynote presentation from your iPhone, iPad, or Mac, no cable required. (PowerPoint doesn’t run on iPads, but a PDF output works just as well.) With the latest 10.8 rev (Mountain Lion) of OS X, all content available on the Web can now appear on your TV.

There’s another, longer term strategy at work: At some point, the growing Apple TV installed base will gain enough mass to become a viable distribution channel. (The same would apply to a successful Google TV effort.) When this happens, someone will crack. ESPN will offer its fare as apps — some free with ads, some paid-for without intrusions — and the others will follow.

It’s a nice theory, it plays into Apple’s ability to deploy the iOS platform more fully on Apple TV, to offer a UI miles ahead of today’s set-top boxes. But in order to matter, the product line will eventually have to reach revenue in the $100B range. What sort of numbers can an Apple TV bring in?

Let’s start with a modest $100/month cable bill. What portion does Apple want? We see the 30% number bandied around, I’m skeptical such a percentage would fly but let’s go with that for the order of magnintude experiment. If we look into a distant future, a time when Apple has 100 million TV subscribers (today, in the US, we have about 50M cable and 35M satellite TV customers), that’s $3B/month, about $40B per year in recurring revenue. If we assume that the new-fangled Apple TV hardware fetches $300 per box, we get an additional yield of $30B — stretched over the number of years needed to reach 100M customers.

This leaves us with difficult questions: How fast can Apple get to 100 million Apple TV-equipped homes? Will operators and content owners/distributors “give” Apple a $30 ARPU? How often will customers be willing to upgrade their TVs (certainly not as often as the iPhone/iPad)? Can Apple broaden its business model to include content and services?

I hope so, I’d love to throw away my ugly set-top box, but I have trouble seeing a path to that happy event. Apple might just continue to improve the black puck, open it to iOS app developers and, in Tim Cook’s words, see where it leads the company.

As for  a full-fledged 50″ TV set…I don’t think so. The computer inside would be obsolete well before the display goes dim. This seems to favor a separate Apple TV box.

Who knows, all this agitation might scare TV providers into providing us with better hardware and services…

(See previous Monday Notes on the subject here, here, here, and here.)

Summer Fun: The HR-Less Performance Review

The idea for today’s off-topic note came to me when I read “Microsoft’s Lost Decade“, an aptly titled Vanity Fair story. In the piece, Kurt Eichenwald tracks Microsoft’s decline as he revisits a decade of technical missteps and bad business decisions. Predictably, the piece has generated strong retorts from Microsoft’s Ministry of Truth and from Ballmer himself (“It’s not been a lost decade for me!” he barked from the tumbrel).

But I don’t come to bury Caesar — not, yet, I’ll wait until actual numbers for Windows 8 and the Surface tablets emerge. Instead, let’s consider the centerpiece of Eichenwald’s article, his depiction of the cultural degeneracy and intramural paranoia that comes of a badly implemented performance review system.

Performance assessments are, of course, an important aspect of a healthy company. In order to maintain fighting weight, an organization must honestly assay its employees’ contributions and cull the dead wood. This is tournament play, after all, and the coach must “release” players who can’t help get the team to the finals.

But Microsoft’s implementation — “stack ranking”, a bell curve that pits employees and groups against one another like rats in a cage — plunged the company into internecine fights, horse trading, and backstabbing.

…every unit was forced to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor…For that reason, executives said, a lot of Microsoft superstars did everything they could to avoid working alongside other top-notch developers, out of fear that they would be hurt in the rankings.

Employees quickly realized that it was more important to focus on organization politics than actual performance:

Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees.

This brought back bad memories of my corpocrat days working for a noted Valley company. When I landed here in 1985, I was dismayed by the pervasive presence of Human Resources, an éminence grise that cast a shadow across the entire organization. Humor being the courtesy of despair, engineers referred to HR as the KGB or, for a more literary reference, the Bene Gesserit, monikers that knowingly imputed an efficiency to a department that offered anything but. Granted, there was no bell curve grading, no obligation to sacrifice the bottom 5%, but the politics were stifling nonetheless, the review process a painful charade.

In memory of those shenanigans, I’ve come up with a possible antidote to manipulative reviews, an attempt to deal honestly and pleasantly with the imperfections of life at work. (Someday I’ll write a Note about an equally important task: How to let go of people with decency — and without lawyers.)

A review must start with three key ingredients, in this order:

  • First: Because your performance meets/exceeds requirements, we’ll renew our vows, our work relationship will continue.
  • Second: Here are your new numbers: salary, bonus, stock.
  • Third: We’re sufficiently happy with your performance as it stands today, so feel free to disregard the observations and suggestions for improvement I’m about to make. Now let’s talk…

This might sound a little too “different” (that’s Californian for “batty”), but there’s a serious purpose, here. We’ve all been reviewed, we all know the anxiety — and sometimes the resentment — that precedes the event. Mealy-mouthed comments about team-spirit, loyalty, how the company cares for its people and other insufferable HR pablum only makes things worse. You tune out, you can only hear the noises in your own head: Am I being led to the exit? Am I being shafted out of a raise/bonus/stock? Am I supposed to think that loyalty is its own — and only — reward?

To be heard, the reviewer must silence these questions. Hence the preamble: Your job is safe; here are the $$; we like what you do enough that you can safely continue to behave in the manner we have come to expect, no need to course-correct.

There follows a pause to let the news sink in. Anxiety quelled, the reviewee is now prepared — and willing — to listen.

On to the observations and suggestions. It’s probably a good idea to start with the minus side of the ledger — this isn’t much different from a sales pitch: Get the product’s negatives out of the way first. Stick to specific comments about goals missed, undesirable habits, and the like. “When you arrive 20 minutes late at our staff meetings, you’re being disrespectful to your colleagues, including me.” Defensive reactions to the negative part of a review are unavoidable, so you sing the refrain: The objectionable behavior, while imperfect, doesn’t jeopardize your job.

(As an aside, and seriously: Objecting to a behavior that you insist will be tolerated because of the overall goodness of the relationship…this approach works wonders outside of work. It’s a lot more constructive than the comminatory “You must stop doing this”, which invites the sarcastic and unhelpful response: “And if I don’t? What? You’ll divorce me?”)

The review can now proceed to the positive, to praising the individual’s performance and giving thanks. Saccharine is to be avoided, examples are a must, and exaggeration is only welcome in moderate doses.

Finally, ask for feedback… but don’t kid yourself: Hierarchy trumps honesty, so you may have to ask twice. Explain that you understand the challenge in giving feedback to the reviewer. You might get some useful tidbits, especially if they sting a bit.

Back in the real world, this simple, direct approach might not fit a large organization where you need to protect the rest of the team from the demoralization of a metastasized employee. The habitual backstabber, the knee-jerk naysayer, the self-appointed “Fellow” must be excised before too much harm is done. It’s a difficult task that requires a degree of human judgment and courage that’s not afforded by a mechanical ranking system.

Next week, we might return to topics such as Apple’s uneasy relationship with file systems, Android tablets and phablets, or some such tech disquisition.

Apple: Three Intriguing Numbers

No Monday Note last week: I was in The Country of Sin, enjoying pleasures such as TGV trips across a landscape of old villages, Romanesque churches, Rhône vineyards — and a couple of nuclear power plants. All this without our friendly TSA.

Back in the Valley, Apple just released their latest quarterly numbers. They weren’t as good as expected, a fact that launched a broadside of comments ranging from shameless pageview whoring (I’m looking at you, Henry) to calm but worried (see Richard Gaywood’s analysis).

As I’ll attempt to explain below, Apple’s latest quarterly performance is unusual. But, stepping back a bit, the company’s numbers are nonetheless phenomenal.

Net sales, growing 23%, are more than three times larger than Amazon’s — and Apple’s net income is more than 1,000 times larger, $8.8B vs. a tiny $7M for the Seattle giant, whose shares went up after disclosing its earnings release anyway.

Turning to Google, Apple sales of $35B are more than three times Google’s $11.3B (including Motorola, for the first time), with net income numbers in a similar ratio at $8.8B and $2.8B respectively.

Ending comparisons with Microsoft, its revenue grew 4% to $18B, about half of Apple’s and, for the first time, the company posted a net loss of $492M, due to the huge $6.2B aQuantive write off, a one time event. Excluding that number, Microsoft net income would have been about $5.5B, two thirds of Apple’s. iPhone revenue at $16B for the quarter, approaches Microsoft’s number for the entire company, iPad, at $9B is about half.

For in-depth coverage of Apple’s Q3 FY 2012, you can turn to Philip Ellmer-DeWitt’s Apple 2.0 or Horace Dediu’s Asymco — possibly the best source of fine-grained industry analysis. I can also recommend Daring Fireball for John Gruber’s lapidary comments and carefully chosen links, and Brian Hall’s Smartphone Wars — vigorous commentary and insights, occasionally couched in NSFW language. Of course, you can always wade through Apple’s 10-Q SEC filing, if you have the time and inclination. Of particular interest is Section 2 MD&A, Management Discussion and Analysis, starting on page 21.

Out of this torrent of information and argument, I suggest we look at three numbers.

First, the 3% “Miss”, Wall Street’s term for failing to hit the revenue bull’s eye. I’m not referring to the guessing games played by Wall Street analysts, both the pros and the so-called amateurs. In the past, the amateurs have done a consistently better job of forecasting revenue, gross margin, profit, unit volumes, but this time, the pros won. Although almost everyone substantially overestimated Apple’s numbers, the pros weren’t nearly as optimistic as the amateurs.”

Instead of measuring Apple’s performance against the predictions of the traders and observers, we can recall what the company itself told us to expect. About a month into each quarter, management provides an official but non-committal estimate of the quarter’s revenue. This guidance is a delicate dance: You want to be cautious, you want to sandbag a little, but not so much that your numbers aren’t taken seriously. Unavoidably, a lot of second-guessing ensues.

Apple has consistently beaten its own guidance, by 19% on average over the past three years, and as much as 35% in Q1 2010. But in this past quarter, Apple “achieved” a historic low: Actual revenue came in at only 3% above the guidance number. Richard Gaywood provides a helpful graphic in his TUAW piece:

Apple management offered explanations during the conference call following the earnings release: The economy in Europe isn’t doing so well, “rumors” about the iPhone 5 have slowed sales of iPhone 4s… These might very well be the causes of the lackluster performance, but one has to wonder: Weren’t these issues known two months ago when the guidance number was announced? Apple is praised for its superbly managed supply chain, its global distribution network, its attention to detail. How is it possible that it didn’t see that the European economy was already cooling? How could management not have heard the steady murmur about an upcoming iPhone?

Put another way: What did you know and when did you know it? And, if you didn’t know, why didn’t you?

There is a possible alternative explanation: Samsung is making more substantial inroads than expected, as their impressive quarterly numbers just released would attest: 50.5M smartphones shipped, almost twice as many as Apple’s 26M.

Sharp-eyed readers may protest the comparison: Samsung reports the number of devices “shipped” while Apple reports units “sold”. But even if we allow for unsold inventory, Samsung’s performance is impressive.  (And, as circumstantial evidence, I noticed an unusually heavy amount of advertising for the Galaxy S III during my recent overseas trip.)

Samsung’s strong showing will almost certainly continue — so how will Apple react? A new product? Price moves? Both? In the conference call, Tim Cook assured his audience that Apple won’t create a “price umbrella” for competitors, that it won’t insist on premium price tags and thus leave small-margin money on the table.

Which leads us to the second number: Gross Margin guidance for the current quarter, ending September 30th, is 38.5%, down from 42.8% for the quarter that just ended. In consultant-speak, that’s an evaporation of 430 basis points (hundredths of percent) in just one quarter — and we’re already one month into it with no visible change in the product lineup other than the full availability of newer MacBooks (Air, Pro, Retina), and no evidence of heavy-handed discounting.

During the conference call, a Morgan Stanley analyst noted that Apple hadn’t shown Gross Margin numbers below 40% for the past two years. Would Apple care to comment?

We expect most of this decline to be primarily driven by a fall transition and to a much lesser extent, the impact of the stronger U.S. dollar.

The entire Gross Margin drop of about $34B of sales (the latest guidance) amounts to $1.5B, a sum that will shift in less than two months, and probably less than one as any momentous announcement is unlikely before Labor Day (the first Monday of September for our overseas readers). This could portend a strong price move in the “fall transition”. To put the $1.5B shift in perspective, imagine Apple dropping its “usual” Gross Margin by $100 per device (new or existing); this means 15M lower-margins devices in the three weeks of September after Labor Day. Or perhaps Apple’s CFO is sandbagging the guidance once again.

The third curious number is the most perplexing: While the entire company grew by 23% compared to the same quarter last year, Apple Store revenue grew by only 17% — and this in spite of adding 47 stores over the year, for a total of 372. Why would Apple’s much vaunted retail channel grow more slowly than the company? The weak Euro economy can’t be the explanation, there are relatively less Apple Stores there. The same can be said for “rumors” of newer devices, they impact all channels and not just company stores.

We’ll see if this last quarter was simply a manifestation of a natural “granularity” of its business (as opposed to the unnatural smoothing of quarter after quarter numbers favored by Wall Street), or if the company is entering a new chapter of the smartphone wars and, if this is the case, how it will change tactics.

JLG@mondaynote.com

iPad Mini: Wishful Thinking?

Or another killer product? Or, on the pessimistic side, a loser defensive move showing Apple’s fear of competitors such as Amazon, with its Kindle Fire, and Google’s 7″ Nexus tablet?

Recent leaks from purported sources inside Apple’s traditional suppliers have ignited a new frenzy of speculation. And not just from the usual blogging suspects — often better informed and more insightful than the official kommentariat. BusinessWeek and the Wall Street Journal both stuck their august necks out: The so-called iPad Mini will be launched this coming September.

On this matter, my own biases are on the record.

In an August 2009 Note titled “Apple’s Jesus Tablet: What For?“, I went as far as measuring the pocket on men’s pockets. As a result, I posited a 10″ (diagonal) tablet might not provide the same desirable ubiquity as a 7″ one that men could carry in a coat or jacket pocket, and women in a purse.
(Apple once came to a similar conclusion: the original Newton project started by Steve Sakoman in 1987 was a letter-size tablet. After he and I left, the screen size was cut in half and the actual Newton came out as a pocketable product.)
Five months later, on January 27th, 2010, Steve Jobs stood up and changed the personal computing world for the third time with the 9.7″ (diagonal screen size) iPad. The take-no-prisoners price ($499 for the entry model) was a big surprise. Another one, much less obvious, was Dear Leader’s unusually tentative positioning statement: ‘We’ll see how the iPad finds its place between the iPhone and a MacBook’. (I’m paraphrasing a bit but the tone was there.)
The iPad surprised many, Apple included and, at the beginning, was often misunderstood. I recall my initial disappointment at not being able to perform the same tasks as on my laptop. A huge number of normal humans of all ages thought differently. As we know now, the iPad grew even faster than the iPhone. Notwithstanding Microsoft’s clinging to its ossified PC-centric rhetoric, this turned out to be the true beginning of the Post-PC era.

This excited competitors around the world: You’ll find here a list of 76 tablets announced at CES. By the end of 2011, few had accomplished anything. One exception was Amazon’s Kindle Fire, its Xmas season numbers were rumored to reach more than 4M units, even 6M by some rumored estimates. This rekindled, sorry, rumors of a smaller iPad.
In October 2010, Jobs famously dismissed the idea: “7-inch tablets should come with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers.” None of the journalists present at the time had the presence of mind to ask him about the iPhone screen…
Tim Cook, Steve’s disciple put it well at the D10 conference last June when he affectionately (and accurately) called Jobs a great flip-flopper, citing examples of products features his then boss ended up endorsing after repeatedly nixing them.
In an April 2012 Monday Note, I discussed the possible end of Apple’s One Size Fits All for  iPhones and, in particular, iPads. There, I linked to an A. T. Faust III post lucidly explaining how the original 1024 x 768 resolution could easily scale down to a 7.85″ tablet and achieve a nice 163 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution, the same as pre-Retina iPhones. This leads one to believe there is abundant (and inexpensive) manufacturing capacity for such pre-Retina displays.

A few questions.

First, developers. As we saw with iOS apps for iPhone and iPad, size matters, apps don’t scale. That hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of developers for investing in app versions that take advantage of each device unique characteristics, as opposed to committing the cardinal sin of “It’s like the other one, only smaller/bigger”.
So, if developers believe a 7″ iPad would sell in large numbers, they’ll happily fire up Xcode, adapt their existing app, or write a new one. As for the belief in large unit volume for a 7″ device, the initial reception accorded to Google’s Nexus tablet shows there is potentially a lot of life in a smaller iPad.

(I ordered a Nexus tablet and will dutifully report. Last April, I bought a Samsung Note phablet and promised a report. Here it is: I’ll sell you mine for $50. A respectable product, I could definitely live with it. But, IMO, too big for a phone, too small for a tablet.)

Second, Apple was on offense. Now, competition succeeded in putting it on the defensive. While initial Kindle Fire sales were rumored to be huge, the same “sources”, checking on display supplier suppliers, now claim sales of Amazon’s tablet dropped precipitously after the Holidays. Amazon keeps mum, but is also rumored to prepare a slew of not one but several tablets for this year’s Xmas quarter.
As for the Nexus tablet, it isn’t shipping yet.
Instead of a defensive move, I think a 7″ iPad might be another take-no-prisoners move:

From the very beginning of the iPad and its surprising low $499 entry price, it’s been clear that Apple wants to conquer the tablet market and maintain an iPod-like share for the iPad. Now that Apple has become The Man, the company might have to adopt the Not A Single Crack In The Wall strategy used by the previous occupant of the hightech throne.

If this cannibalizes 10″ iPad sales, no problem, better do it yourself than let Google, Amazon or Samsung do it.

Lastly, the price/cost question. As you’ll see on this video, Todd Schoenberger, a Wall Street haruspex visibly off his meds, contends an iPad Mini is a terrible move for Apple, it would be a break with its single product version focus. Like, for the example, the one and only Macintosh, the one and only iPod. Also, he continues, an iPad Mini wouldn’t allow Apple achieve the 37% gross margin it gets from the bigger sibling.
No. If we’re to believe iSuppli, a saner authority on cost matters, the latest 32 GB 4G iPad carries a Bill Of Materials of about $364, for a retail price of $729. Even with a bit of manufacturing overhead, we’re far from 37% today. And, tomorrow, a smaller iPad, with a smaller display, a smaller battery, a correspondingly smaller processor would nicely scale down in cost from the “new” iPad and its expensive display/battery/processor combo.
To where? I won’t speculate, but Apple has shown an ability to be very cost competitive when using previous generation parts and processes. See today’s iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 prices for an example.

I have no inside knowledge and quite a few inclinations: I’d love a pocketable iPad as much as I like small computers such as the defunct Toshiba Libretto and the lively 11″ MacBook Air.

If Apple comes up with a smaller iPad later this year, I think it’ll be a killer product.

–JLG@mondaynote.com

Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook

There are many religions when it comes to calculating the “right” price for the shares of a publicly traded company. At a basic level, buying a share is an act of faith in the company’s future earnings. The strength of this belief manifests itself in the company’s P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio. The stronger the faith, the higher the P/E, an expectation of increased profit.

Sometimes, an extreme P/E number beggars belief, it invites a deeper look into the thoughts and emotions that drive prices.

One such example is Amazon. On the Nasdaq stock market, AMZN trades at more than 174 times its most recent earnings. By comparison, Google’s P/E hovers around 17, Apple and Walmart are a mere 14, Microsoft is a measly 11.

This is so spectacular that many think it doesn’t make sense, especially when looking at Amazon’s falling profit margin (from this Seeking Alpha post):

Why do traders bid AMZN so high in the face of a declining .5% profit margin?

In his May 5th PandoDaily piece, “Nobody Seems to Understand What Jeff Bezos is Doing. Does He?”, Farhad Manjoo questions Jeff Bezos’s strategy and Amazon’s taste for obfuscating statements:

“Amazon is not merely “willing” to be misunderstood, it often tries to actively sow widespread misunderstanding. This works [to] its advantage; if competitors don’t know what Amazon is up to, if they can’t even figure out where and how it aims to make money, they’ll have a harder time beating it.”

…and he concludes:

“Is Bezos crazy like a fox? Or is he just plain crazy? We have no idea.”

He’s not alone: Year after year, critics have challenged Bezos’ business acumen, criticizing his grandiose views and worrying about the company’s bottom line. But the top line, revenue, keeps rising. See this chart from a Seeking Alpha article by Richard Bloch:

The answer to Farhad’s question, the cold logic behind the seemingly irrational share price is clear: Amazon sacrifices profits in order to gain size and, in the process, kill competitors.

That’s step one.

Step two: After having cleared the field, Amazon will take advantage of what is delicately called “pricing power”. As the Last Man Standing, they will raise prices at will and regain profitability. This isn’t Amazon’s only game. The breadth of their offering, their superior customer service and awesome logistics, make life difficult for poorly managed competitors such as Best Buy, or the undead Circuit City, to name but a few companies whose weaknesses where exposed by Amazon’s superbly efficient machine.

But traders recognize the wink and the nod behind today’s numbers, they are willing to pay a high price for a share of Amazon’s future dominant position.

Apple’s share price sits at the other end of the P/E spectrum. Revenue and profits grow rapidly: + 58% profit year-to-year, + 94% net income. “Normal” companies in their league are supposed to fall to the Law of Large Numbers: High percentage growth becomes well-nigh impossible when a company achieves Apple’s gigantic size. A $100B business needs to dig up $25B in new business to grow 25%. $25B is roughly half the size of Dell. When Apple’s revenue grows 58%, that’s more than one Dell on top of last year’s business.

Apple is the nonpareil of fast-growing, prosperous companies. They’re in a young market: smartphones and tablets. They can easily break the Law. With only 8% of the mobile phone market, the iPhone enjoys considerable headroom. And the iPad’s +151% year/year unit growth shows even greater potential.

So why isn’t Wall Street buying? Why do they think Apple has so much less room to grow than Amazon?

First, a big difference: Apple’s founder is no longer with us while Bezos is very much in command. This is no criticism of Tim Cook, Apple’s new CEO. A long-time Jobs lieutenant, the architect of Apple’s supremely effective Supply Chain, a soberly determined man, well liked, respected and healthily feared inside the company, Tim Cook is eminently credible. But traders are cautious; they want to see if the Cook regime will be as innovative, as uncompromisingly focused on style and substance as before.

Second, the much talked-about iPhone subsidy “problem”. The accepted notion is that Apple has strong-armed carriers into paying “excessive” subsidies for the iPhone, some say as much as $200 more than carriers pay other handset makers. (See “Carriers Whine: We Wuz Robbed!” of March 11, 2012.) Carriers rattle their sabers, they let everyone know they’re looking forward to the day when they will no longer be fleeced by the Cupertino boys.

The numbers are impressive. Take about 150 million iPhones this calendar year (37M units in the last quarter of 2011); assume that 80% of these iPhones are subsidized by carriers…that’s $24B in subsidies. For people who are betting on Apple’s future profits, these are big numbers that could go either way: Straight to Apple’s bottom line as they do today, or back to the carriers’ coffers “where they belong”. For Apple, with today’s P/E of 14, a swing of $24B in profits would result in a change of $336B in market cap. (Today Wall Street pegs AAPL at $525B.)

I’m not saying such a shift is likely, or that it would happen in one fell swoop. I use this admittedly caricatural computation to make a point: Carrier subsidies have a huge impact on Apple’s bottom line, and the perceived uncertainty over their future gives traders pause.

I’ll now take the opposite tack with this Horace Dediu tweet:

In my venture investing experience, it sometimes happens that the top salesperson makes more money than the CEO. In most instances the exec is happy to see big revenue come in and doesn’t begrudge the correspondingly large commissions. But, in the rare case of the CEO turning purple because a lowly peddler makes more money than him (it’s a male problem), we take the gent aside and gently let him know what will happen to him if he does it again.

Carriers sound like the bad CEO complaining about excessive sales commissions racked up by their star revenue maker. Carriers are contractually obligated to keep iPhone figures confidential so we can’t make a direct ARPU comparison — but we have anonymous leaks and research-for-hire firms, they’re curiously silent on the question of actual ARPU by handset. In the absence of a clear case made to the contrary, we’ll have to assume that the iPhone is the carriers’ top revenue generator, and that the subsidies will continue.

This said, if Apple comes out with a mediocre iPhone, or if Samsung produces a distinctly more attractive handset, the salesman’s commission will disappear, Apple’s revenue per iPhone (about $650 in Q1 2012) will drop precipitously, and so will profits.

That’s the scenario that makes traders cautious: Large amounts of profit are at risk, tied to carrier subsidies. They wonder if Apple’s lofty premium is sustainable and, as a result, they assign AAPL a lower P/E.

But “caution” may be too weak a word. In a May 7th 2012 Asymco post, Horace Dediu plots Apple’s share price as a function of cash:

This is troubling. It implies that cash is the only determinant of Apple’s share price.

Put another way, and recalling that share prices are supposed to reflect earnings expectations, it appears Wall Street puts little faith in the future of Apple’s earnings [emphasis mine]:

“Given this disconnect from the income statement, the pricing by balance sheet multiple seems to be a symptom of something deeper. Reasons vary with the seasons, but the company is not perceived to have sustainable growth.

Fascinating. The collective wisdom of Wall Street is that one of the most successful high-tech companies of all times, with three healthy product lines, strong management, generally happy customers and employees is not perceived to have sustainable growth.

We’ll see.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll repeat something I’ve stated here before: I don’t own publicly-traded stocks, Google, Microsoft, Apple or any other. I consider the stock market a dangerous place where, across the table, I see people with bigger brains, bigger computers, and bigger wallets than mine. I can’t win. The casino always does…unless you don’t trade but, instead, invest–that is buy shares and keep them for years, the way Warren Buffet does.)

And Facebook?

I’ll wait for the dust of this botched IPO to settle before I try to figure out what Facebook’s share price reflects. I agree with Ronal Barusch in his WSJ blog piece: I’m not convinced that Facebook or its bankers will suffer irreparable damage.

Still, rumors and accusations are flying. Following Nasdaq’s disastrous handling of Facebook’s opening trades, we hear that the New York Stock Exchange is discreetly suggesting that the company move to a more sophisticated trading platform. This is a great opportunity for Facebook to change its FB stock trading symbol and adopt one that more accurately reflects its opinion of Wall Street.

I have a suggestion: FU.

JLG@mondaynote.com

The Apple-Intel-Samsung Ménage à Trois

Fascinating doesn’t do justice to the spectacle, nor to the stakes. Taken in pairs, these giants exchange fluids – products and billion$ – while fiercely fighting with their other half. Each company is the World’s Number One in their domain: Intel in microprocessors, Samsung in electronics, Apple in failure to fail as ordained by the sages.

The ARM-based chips in iDevices come from a foundry owned by Samsung, Apple’s mortal smartphone enemy. Intel supplies x86 chips to Apple and its PC competitors, Samsung included, and would like nothing more than to raid Samsung’s ARM business and make a triumphant Intel Inside claim for Post-PC devices. And Apple would love to get rid of Samsung, its enemy supplier, but not at the cost of losing the four advantages it derives from using the ARM architecture: cost, power consumption, customization and ownership of the design.

At its annual investor day last week, Intel CEO Paul Otellini sounded a bit like a spurned suitor as he made yet another bid for Apple’s iDevices business [emphasis mine]:

“Our job is to insure our silicon is so compelling, in terms off running the Mac better or being a better iPad device, that […] they can’t ignore us.”

This is a bit odd. Intel is Apple’s only supplier of x86 microprocessors; AMD, Intel’s main competitor, isn’t in the picture. How could Apple ‘‘ignore’’ Intel? Au contraire, many, yours truly included, have wondered: Why has Intel ignored Apple’s huge iDevices business?

Perhaps Intel simply didn’t see the wave coming. Steeped in its domination of the PC business — and perhaps listening too much to the dismissive comments of Messrs. Ballmer and Shaw — Intel got stuck knitting one x86 generation after another. The formula wasn’t broken.

Another, and perhaps more believable, explanation is the business model problem. These new ARM chips are great, but where’s the money? They’re too inexpensive, they bring less than a third, sometimes even just a fifth of the price, of a tried and true x86 PC microprocessor. This might explain why Intel sold their ARM business, XScale chips, to Marvell in 2006.

Then there’s the power consumption factor: x86 chips use more watts than an ARM chip. Regardless of price, this is why ARM chips have proliferated in battery-limited mobile devices. Year after year, Intel has promised, and failed, to nullify ARM’s power consumption advantage through their technical and manufacturing might.

2012 might be different. Intel claims ‘‘the x86 power myth is finally busted.” Android phones powered by the latest x86 iteration have been demonstrated. One such device will be made and sold in India, in partnership with a company called Lava International. Orange, the France-based international carrier, also intends to sell an Intel-based smartphone.

With all this, what stops Apple from doing what worked so well for their Macintosh line: Drop ARM (and thus Samsung), join the Intel camp yet again, and be happy forever after in a relationship with fewer participants?

There appear to be a number of reasons to do so.

First, there would be no border war. Unlike Samsung, Intel doesn’t make smartphones and tablets. Intel sells to manufacturers and Apple sells to humans.

Second, the patent front is equally quiet. The two companies have suitable Intellectual Property arrangements and, of late, Intel is helping Apple in its patent fights with Samsung.

Third, if the newer generation of x86 chips are as sober as claimed, the power consumption obstacle will be gone. (But let’s be cautious, here. Not only have we heard these claims before, nothing says that ARM foundries won’t also make progress.)

Finally, Otellini’s ‘‘they can’t ignore us’’ could be decoded as ‘‘they won’t be able to ignore our prices’’. Once concerned about what ARM-like prices would do to its business model, Intel appears to have seen the Post-PC light: Traditional PCs will continue to make technical progress, but the go-go days of ever-increasing volumes are gone. It now sounds like Intel has decided to cannibalize parts of its PC business in order to gain a seat at the smartphone and tablet table.

Just like Apple must have gotten a very friendly agreement when switching the Mac to Intel, one can easily see a (still very hypothetical) sweet deal for low-power x86 chips for iDevices. Winning the iDevices account would put Intel “on the Post-PC map.” That should be worth a suitable price concession.

Is this enough for Apple to ditch Samsung?

Not so fast, there’s one big obstacle left.

Let’s not forget who Samsung is and how they operate. This is a family-controlled chaebol, a gang of extremely determined people whose daring tactics make Microsoft, Oracle, Google, and Apple itself blush. Chairman Lee Kun-hee has been embroiled in various “misunderstandings.” He was convicted (and then pardoned) in a slush fund scandal. The company was caught in cartel arrangements and paid a fine of more than $200M in one case. As part of the multi-lawsuit fight with Apple, the company has been accused of willfully withholding and destroying evidence — and this isn’t their first offense. Samsung look like a determined repeat obstructor of justice. My own observations of Samsung in previous industry posts are not inconsistent with the above. Samsung plays hardball and then some.

This doesn’t diminish Samsung’s achievements. The Korean conglomerate’s success on so many fronts is a testament to the vision, skill, and energy of its leaders and workers. But there has been so much bad blood between Samsung and Apple that one has a hard time seeing even an armed peace between the two companies.

And this doesn’t mean Apple will abandon ARM processors. The company keeps investing in silicon design teams, it has plenty of money, some of which could go into financing parts or the entirety of a foundry for one of Samsung’s competitors in Taiwan (TSMC) or elsewhere in the US, Europe, or Israel. If it’s a strategic move and not just an empty boast on PowerPoint slides, $10B for a foundry is within Apple’s budget.

To its adopters, ARM’s big advantage is customization. Once you have an ARM license, you’ve entered an ecosystem of CAD software and module libraries. You alter the processor design as you wish, remove the parts you don’t need, and add components licensed from third parties. The finished product is a SOC (System On a Chip) that is uniquely yours and more suited to your needs than an off-the-shelf processor from a vendor such as Intel. Customization, licensing chip designs to customers — such moves are not in the Intel playbook, they’re not part of the culture.

I don’t see Apple losing its appetite for customization and ownership, for making its products more competitive by incorporating new functions, such as voice processing and advanced graphics on their SOCs. For this reason alone, I don’t see Apple joining the x86 camp for iDevices. (Nor do I see competitive smartphone makers dropping their SOCs in favor of an Intel chip or chipset.)

Intel isn’t completely out of the game, but to truly play they would need to join the ARM camp, either as a full licensee designing SOCs or as a founder for SOCs engineered by Apple and its competitors.

These are risky times: A false move by any one vertex of the love triangle and tens of billions of dollars will flow in the wrong direction.

JLG@mondaynote.com