Tag: business

  • A tale of two business models

    A tale of two business models

    The stunning quarterly results of Apple announced yesterday compared to Microsoft’s indifferent performance illustrate how the fortunes of two different business cultures have changed.

    Apple yesterday announced a spectacular result for its quarter finishing at the end of last year with  revenues up 30%, profits by 38% and Earnings Per Share just short of fifty percent.

    The announcement was an emphatic vindication for Tim Cook and his management team who made some big bets on the larger form factor iPhone 6 which paid off spectacularly with shipments growing 46% to 74.5 million and revenue reaching $51.2 billion, over two thirds of the company’s total sales.

    One notable aspect of Apple’s success is the difference with Microsoft’s and this shows how different business cultures come in and out of fashion.

    The Triumph of the MBA

    For two decades Microsoft’s licensing business model was dominant and this confirmed the MBA view that companies should do everything they can to move design, research, manufacturing and distribution out of their operations – the virtual corporation where there was no inventory, few costs and even fewer risks was the ultimate aim of the modern manager at the turn of the century.

    Microsoft encapsulated this philosophy with its licensing model, while the company made massive sales with huge margins – as it still does – all the business risks in the computer market were carried by resellers and equipment manufacturers. For many years the markets loved this.

    Apple tinkered with the licensing model under John Sculley in the mid 1990s during Steve Jobs’ exile but was never really serious about giving away its hardware capabilities and in 2001 moved into retail with the opening of the first Apple Store.

    Coupled with the App Store, Apple have come to control the entire customer journey from marketing, design, purchase and ongoing revenue after the product is bought.

    King of the new Millennium

    While the 1980s and 90s were the time of triumph for the Microsoft model, the 2000s have been good to Apple as shown by the revenue and profit figures.

    Apple and Microsoft Revenues 2000-2014
    Apple and Microsoft Revenues 2000-2014
    Apple and Microsoft Profits 2000-2014
    Apple and Microsoft Profits 2000-2014

    The key inflection point in these charts is, of course, the iPhone’s release in 2007. Apple caught the wave of change as computer use switched from personal computers to smartphones and is now the dominant vendor.

    For Microsoft the success of Apple is bittersweet; the company had a smartphone operating system in Windows CE but it was too early to the market and the devices vendors went to market with were, at best, substandard.

    Microsoft’s failure with the smartphone was also echoed with tablet computers and exposed the licensing model’s reliance on vendors to supply and support decent products, even today Microsoft’s hardware partners struggle to release decent tablet systems.

    Cloudy on the web

    Another problem that exposed Microsoft’s weaknesses was the rise of the web where hardware and operating systems really did matter so much any more. Along with pushing out personal computer lifecycles it also had the consequence of allowing other systems into the marketplace, notably Linux and Google Android.

    With OS X, Android and Linux systems no longer hampered with the compatibility issues that irritated non-Windows users in the 1990s the market was open to adopting those systems. While the PC market has remained quite loyal to Windows, although the Apple Macs are showing serious growth as well, Microsoft’s system has barely any marketshare in other device segments except servers which are also declining as business increasingly move to cloud services.

    Apple have shown in the computing and smartphone business that controlling the hardware products is as important as supplying the software, a lesson that Microsoft now acknowledges with its restructure into a ‘Devices and Services’ company under former CEO Steve Ballmer.

    The problem for Microsoft is its margins for hardware are a fraction of its own licensing operations and weak compared to Apple’s returns. Microsoft makes 14% profit on its phone operations while the iPhone is estimated to deliver over 60%.

    Under current CEO Satya Nadella Microsoft is focusing on cloud services which also aren’t as profitable as its legacy operations but see it competing with companies like Amazon and Google who don’t boast the profits from their online operations that Apple makes from its hardware.

    Microsoft aside, the lesson Apple gives the technology is pertinent for its competitors in the smartphone space as well; companies like Samsung, LG and the army of Chinese handset vendors are going to find their markets tough unless they can take control of their software development and distribution channels – relying on Google for Android and telcos to get their phones to customers leaves them exposed in similar ways to Microsoft’s partners in the last decade.

    In the battle between business models, Apple is the current winner and shows throwing all of your business operations over the fence to partners and licensees is a risky strategy. How those lessons are applied in other sectors will test the limits of both management philosophies.

    Photo of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates by Joi Ito through Flickr

    Similar posts:

  • You can’t wait for government to lead digital change

    You can’t wait for government to lead digital change

    Last week’s events in Canberra shows business can’t wait for the government to lead industry change. If you want to keep up with technology, you’re going to have to do it yourself.

    In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis many of my business clients were in trouble as banks tightened their lines of credit and consumers slammed their wallets shut. After a decade of running businesses, it was time to get a job.

    The job I found was with the small business division of the New South Wales Government’s then Department of State and Regional Development where I quickly discovered how many companies and ‘entrepreneurs’ came looking to the government for money and leadership.

    While there were some state government support programs available for exporting, high-tech and biotech businesses almost all of those approaching the Department were hopelessly unqualified for the assistance that was at best only involved marginal amounts of money.

    The toughest part of my job was gently turning those people away without upsetting them too much. Often I failed and part of the reason for that was that many of those believed the government would take leadership in a changing digital world and fund ideas that would help the state’s and nation’s competitiveness.

    I was reminded of my brief period as a public servant and the futile attempt for  with last week’s disasters for the Australian tech sector; the Prime Minister’s claim that social media is little more than digital graffiti and the still born announcement of a Chief Transformation Officer.

    Last week’s announcement of Chief Transformation Officer who happens to have no budget – the UK office the local initiative is based upon received more than a hundred million dollars in the Brits’ last budget –  is probably the best indication of how far behind the ball Australian governments, particularly the Federal level, are in dealing with a changing economy.

    A Chief Transformation, or Digital, Officer can be an important catalyst for change but to achieve that they have to have the support of the organisation’s leadership; if the CEO or minister isn’t on board then the CTO or CDO is doomed to irrelevance.

    The Prime Minister’s blithe dismissal of social media as being digital graffiti over the weekend shows just how little support an office charged with managing the Australian government’s transition to digital services will get from the executive. The sad thing is none of the likely alternatives – on either side of politics – to the current Prime Minister seem to be any more across the changes facing governments in a connected century.

    One good example of the profound changes we’re seeing is in agriculture; this feature on farming robots shows just how technology and automation is changing life on the land. These applications of robotics are going to affect every industry, including government.

    As we’ve discussed before, if you want digital leadership then you’re going to have to provide it yourself . If you’re going to wait for the government, then times are going to overtake you. How are you facing the changes to your business and marketplace?

    Similar posts:

  • Microsoft’s cloudy future

    Microsoft’s cloudy future

    This morning Microsoft announced its quarterly results and, once again, they confirmed the company’s move into the cloud, a transition that means the company has to deal with reduced margins in once immensely profitable markets.

    While Microsoft’s earnings beat analyst estimates, the stock still dropped on out of hours trading on the US markets. The reason being margins showed a slight decline and the impending release of Windows 10, which will be free for customers upgrading, portends a further fall in income.

    The fading of Windows is best shown in the results for the company’s Devices and Consumer licensing division which covers licensing of the operating system and is the second biggest contributor to Microsoft’s revenues and profits. The segment’s takings are slowly declining although surprisingly the division’s margins are standing up.

    Microsoft division performance 2014-15
    Microsoft division performance 2014-15

    Windows’ decline shows the post XP recovery Microsoft was hoping for the division has failed to materialise beyond a bump last quarter, as the company explained in its media release;

    Windows OEM Pro revenue declined 13%; revenue was impacted by the business PC market and Pro mix returning to pre-Windows XP end of support levels and by new lower-priced licenses for devices sold to academic customers

    With company making various versions of Windows 8 and 10 free, it’s hard to see the division doing anything but accelerating its decline as fewer people actually pay for the operating system.

    Fading margins

    Also illustrating Windows’ falling fortunes is how the Computer and Gaming Hardware division’s revenue threatens to overtake the Devices and Consumer Licensing group’s contribution. The problem for Microsoft with this that the manufacture of Xboxes and Surface tablets only boasts a profit margin of 12% against consumer licensing’s 93%.

    Last week at its preview of Windows 10 Microsoft showcased its HoloLens virtual reality technology, while impressive it’s unlikely to boast margins any better than Xbox consoles or Surface tablets. At best it will be a trivial contribution to the company’s bottom line.

    Microsoft Margins by operating segment

    Percentage margins Q1-14 Q2-14 Q3-14 Q4-14 Q1-15 Q2-15
    Devices and Consumer Licensing 87% 90% 87% 92% 93% 93%
    Computing and Gaming Hardware 15% 9% 14% 1% 20% 12%
    Phone Hardware n/a n/a n/a 3% 18% 14%
    Devices and Consumer Other 21% 21% 21% 17% 17% 23%
    Commercial Licensing 92% 92% 91% 92% 92% 93%
    Commercial Other 17% 23% 25% 31% 33% 35%

    Dwarfing both divisions in both revenue and profit is the Commercial Licensing segment which also boasts fat margins of 93% and accounts for nearly half the money coming into the organisation. Commercial Licensing remains static and provides the bedrock for the company’s cashflow.

    The big growth area remains the cloud with the Other Commercial division, which includes most of the online and professional services growing steadily. While showing growth, this part of the business boasts a relatively low margin of 33% so any market moves from Enterprise licensing to the cloud will have a sharp effect on the company’s bottom line.

    Mobile black holes

    Of all Microsoft’s divisions, the problem remains the Phone Hardware segment with low margins, declining sales and a shrinking market share. Reports released overnight indicate that over a third of Lumia devices sold are not being activated which may indicate distribution channels are having to deal with unsold stock.

    Compounding Microsoft’s poor position in the phone marketplace is the resurgence of Apple’s iPhone, particularly in the Chinese market where Microsoft is failing dismally. Global market share figures are indicating Apple may soon overtake Samsung as the world’s largest smartphone vendor while Android systems are coming to dominate the global marketplace.

    Tomorrow Apple will announce their results and we’ll see how the two companies are travelling, the contrasts will almost certainly be striking. For Microsoft, even if they do manage a shift to mobility and the cloud, they are unlikely to repeat Apple’s success in reinventing themselves.

    Similar posts:

  • Can the tech industry’s unicorns escape extinction?

    Can the tech industry’s unicorns escape extinction?

    “Today we have herds of unicorns,” Fortune Magazine quotes Jason Green, a partner at venture capital firm Emergence Capital Partners, in its story about startups that have achieved billion dollar capitalisations.

    When the ‘unicorn’ label was coined by Aileen Lee in November 2013 it was to highlight the rarity of the beasts – on 39 existed at the time.

    Today, just on a year later, there are eighty unicorns and the growth doesn’t seem to be slowing as more companies are raising funds or looking at trade sales or IPOs that will value their business at over a billion dollars.

    Betting on the unicorns

    Some of the business on the Fortune 80 unicorns list – like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and medical testing venture Theranos – are big, brave bets on future technologies which could prove incredibly profitable if successful. These are to today’s market was Google was at the turn of the Century.

    Others, such as Xiaomi, Meituan and Flipkart, are betting on massive growth in emerging markets which China’s AliBaba has shown to be huge opportunity.

    Some are already profitable and showing great potential to deliver the multibillion dollar valuations; companies like data analytics firm Palantir, developer tools vendor Atlassian and Uber are in this camp.

    Many though are platform based, transaction plays that hope to clip the tickets on fields such as rental accommodation, payment systems and e-commerce. Some will be insanely successful but most have a distinct whiff of irrational exuberance about them.

    Frothy exuberance

    Driving that irrational exuberance is the money tsunami which has overwhelmed the financial sector since the Global Financial Crisis. As Quantitive Easing has fattened the banks’ and corporate America’s coffers, managers have sought to get their lazy dollars doing some work and the startup sector is an attractive, and sexy, place.

    That influx of money has in turn has driven a spiral; as companies like Facebook have found themselves cashed up, they’ve bought more companies – Instagram and WhatsApp are the best examples of this – which in turn has increased valuations and expectations across the board.

    Some of the risks in this current mania are obvious, but the question of survival when your business is valued so high becomes a pressing issue as Twitter have found with the company flailing around looking for a revenue stream to justify its fifty billion dollar valuation.

    Probably the best, or worst example, of struggling to justify massive valuations is found in one of the original unicorns; Google and its YouTube division.

    Monetizing YouTube

    Right now YouTube is trying to screw musicians with onerous terms in return for, in the case of most artists, will be a pittance. It’s necessary for YouTube to do this so the service can capture as much value as possible to justify the rates of return demanded from its management, particularly as it’s appearing the online display advertising market is beginning to plateau.

    That dash to generate revenue may become more common when investor finance starts to dry up; faced with the need to generate cashflow and satisfy the needs of impatient investors who’ve been denied a profitable exit, many of today’s unicorns could find themselves in a difficult position in a tighter VC climate.

    Unicorns were once mythical creatures; now they’re real, at least in Silicon Valley, they’re going to have to learn how to fight for survival.

    Similar posts:

  • We’re crazy, not stupid

    We’re crazy, not stupid

    “We’re crazy, not stupid” is how Jack Ma describes his Alibaba team in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, yesterday.

    Much has been written about Jack Ma and the spectacular success of Alibaba and the WEF session with Charlie Rose is an opportunity for Ma to flesh out the story and destroy some of the myths.

    One of the fascinating anecdotes Ma tells is how US cherry growers are preselling their harvests to Chinese customers through Alibaba and cites various other primary producers doing similar campaigns as how American small businesses can sell into the PRC market.

    Ma’s interview is a fascinating snapshot of how global trade is going through a radical period of change, the shifting of China’s economy and where the future lies for many industries.

    Similar posts: