The Network Garden - Mark Sigal's Blog

Apple Q3, 2014 Earnings Call: It's About Continuity and Gratification

"Friends say he has a gift for delaying gratification."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once attributed a chunk of his success to delaying gratification. Where he could have monetized Facebook sooner - at the cost of building a bigger audience - he resisted the temptation.

Where he could have sold the company, and cashed out, he kept pursuing the "BHAG" (big, hairy audacious goal) of building the next Google, Apple or Microsoft.

Such was the narrative playing in my head, listening to the Apple's Third Quarter Earnings Call.

While others may see a company that can't possibly keep selling more devices, quarter after quarter after quarter, I see a company that has continually avoided the gratification of going for market share and sales at all costs (i.e., at the price of margins, profits and cashflow).

This is no small task when one considers that investors, the media and virtually every pundit in the blogosphere is not so adept at delaying gratification.

Give them a beautiful suit, and they'll see only a loose thread. 

Failure to seize a market - margins be damned - and the company gets dinged.

Unwillingness to be all things to all people - Amazon, Google and Facebook all rolled into one - and the company gets dinged.

Apple CEO Tim Cook is simultaneously unwilling to be his own man, and guilty of doing things that Steve would never do ("This would have never happened if Steve Jobs was still around).

But Apple in the iOS Era has always been about playing the long game. How else do you create a massive ecosystem of 800M devices that fit the lifestyle, daily flows and physical spaces of people at home, work, school and on the go? 

How else to catalyze an explosion of Apps, Accessories and Services, that are not only immense in scale, not only deliver a superior user experience, not only drive unparalled loyalty, but unfathomable sales margins.

How many multi-billion dollar lines of business can one company create before they inevitably, unquestionably go out of business?

But, there must be an end-game, right?

Ultimately, all of this delaying of gratification, of withholding the child-like joy of chasing every market, usurping every partner, and competing with any and all who enter its universe - read: Amazon, Google, Facebook - has to come at a price, right?

Isn't it written in the Torah somewhere that Apple ALWAYS loses because they fail to be a commodity, as God, Jesus and Mohammed demand?

Well, the end is near, and it's called Continuity.

Continuity is the idea that from Mac to Mobile to Tablet to Home to Health to Car to the Enterprise, there is a unity of experience, that is contiguous; it flows. 

Driving in your car? CarPlay kicks in. Walk into your living room, and HomeKit kicks in. Going for a jog, or visiting the doctor, and HealthKit kicks in. Walk into a Costco, and WalletKit kicks in (or whatever eWallet strategy Apple will set loose soon).

My point is this. UIltimately, the payoff of Post PC is that the devices get embedded to the point of invisibility...wait for it...because they just WORK. All the time.

Some believe that that renders the device moot, so Apple must lose.

I hold to the belief that the devices must be terrific, and the edge must be smart, specifically so we don't have to blindly trust a cloud to watch over us; to surveil us; and separate us from our data when things go haywire.

That's not to say that the Cloud doesn't matter, or that there aren't multitudes of problems that can't be solved when you intelligently bridge smart devices with a smarter cloud.

That's the big idea behind Continuity after all. 

But, it's the not so subtle distinction between the notion - captured in every Apple Ad and Apple Store experience - that the INDIVIDUAL is at the center of the universe, that the consumer is the centerpiece; and an alternate vision that we are destined to all be PAWNS in some sentient, faceless borg that calculates, decides and dictates on our behalf.

It's no coincidence then that along with a runaway successful device business, that the App Store (and the iTunes Software and Services business line that underlies it), is the fastest growing segment of Apple's business, and the linchpin of a Continuity play that has been baking for seven years, since iOS was announced.

It's the notion that Ecosystems matter, that the Consumer, the Developer, the Accessory Partner, the Corporate Customer, the Book Publisher, the Car Maker and the Enterprise are all motivated by their own need to not only survive, but to individuate.

And that's a good thing.

Related

1. iPhone: The first 'personal' computer
2. Apple's segmentation strategy, and the folly of conventional wisdom
3. No good deed goes unpunished at the iPhone company

No good deed goes unpunished at the iPhone company

The moral of the story when it comes to the Apple investor is that no good deed goes unpunished. Expect Apple stock to get hammered on Tuesday for what is a very real shortfall in the projections of analysts. 

Of course, the moral of the story here is that Apple specifically told its investors a year ago that it was no longer going to "manage" earnings expectations with pre-ordained beats.

So what happened in the most recent quarter? Apple hit its own sales projections, which if you take the company's specific proclamations at face value, was the real, achievable goal.

Given Apple's unparalleled track record, you'd think that they've earned some benefit of the doubt. Namely, that they actually know what they are doing.

But, purely as a stock, Apple is seen as the iPhone company.

And the picture there is decidedly more complex. At a minimum, iPhone sales growth is flattening (for now). China Mobile could be anything from a moonshot to mediocre.

Footnote: China Mobile is the largest network in the world, with over 750 million customers.

From the tenor of the call, it seems clear that the company misread consumer sentiment (and demand) for the iPhone 5c. What does that say about the Apple innovation engine post Steve?

Domestic sales were very strong, but flat, and there were some rumblings of carriers stretching out the time periods on consumer refresh cycles.

A lot of the attention shifts to emerging markets and Asia driving growth. Very possible, but not guaranteed.

At the same time, you have to be pretty dense to diminish what 51M iPhones in a quarter means in terms of the depth of the iOS platform.

This completely discounts the potential for Apple to culitvate an ewallet (read this story on Starbucks $1.4 billion in quarterly gift cards).

I'm starting to feel pretty strongly that mobile payments will be a front seat item for Apple very soon.

Oh, and there's iPad, which did pretty well too. If there's a device that embodies post pc computing, it's the iPad.

I would love to see the company put more energy towards developing integrator channels.

That way it can penetrate more enterprise-scale verticals, like medical, pharma, field sales, retail and training, where it already has footholds. 

The other big variable is that the Apple retail stores are still humming along.

They host 144 million visitors at their stores each quarter, or about 21,000 visitors per store, per week. 

With ~420 stores open, average revenue per store was $16.7 million, compared to $16.3 million in the year ago quarter. 

By design, Apple's end-to-end-ness remains its biggest advantage.

The company with $158.8 billion in cash (or equivalents), after adding $12 billion in the quarter should get hammered on Tuesday.

It's small thanks for being transparent, disciplined, prolific and purpose-driven.

Speaking of which, let me end this post with this answer from Apple CEO Tim Cook on whether the company is actively pursuing the Mobile Payments space:

"Let me sort of avoid the last part of your question, but in general, we’re seeing that people love being able to buy content, whether it’s music or movies or books, from their iPhone, using Touch ID. It’s incredibly simple and easy and elegant, and it’s clear that there’s a lot of opportunity there.

The mobile payments area in general is one that we’ve been intrigued with, and that was one of the thoughts behind Touch ID. But we’re not limiting ourselves just to that. So I don’t have anything specific to announce today, but you can tell by looking at the demographics of our customers and the amount of commerce that goes through iOS devices versus the competition that it’s a big opportunity on the platform."

Seems near term.

UPDATE: With rumors heating up about Apple’s Mobile Payments plans, PayPal wants in as an Apple partner (highly unlikely to happy). 

Related

1. 9 logical applications for iBeacons
2. NIKEiD and the Uber-ization of Global Logistics
3. Cry Babies: The Strange, Confusing Path of the Apple Investor

9 logical applications for iBeacons

As much as anything, the Internet of Things is about the rise of smart, connected sensors. Apple's iBeacon harnesses smart phones and super-cheap Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) sensory 'beacons' to bring location-aware services into a bunch of new categories.

They include: 

1. Get a coupon for 10 percent off a TV because you stood in the TV department.
2. Your home will automatically react to you.
3. Your phone will give you a tour of museums.
4. Organize neighborhood pick-up games for kids.
5. Tickets that automatically load as you enter sporting events.
6. Win something for visiting a car dealership.
7. Toys that are aware of each other.
8. Get a free cup of coffee or snack while pumping your gas.
9. Be warned that your bike or car is no longer in the garage.

'How iBeacons could change the world forever' is an excellent article on this topic. Well worth a read. 

My Presentation at AppNation San Francisco on Product Lifecycle + Iteration

If you jump to 6:50 in this video, you will see the presentation that I did as part of a panel discussion on Mobile App Development at AppNation. The two salient points that I was trying to convey are:

1. The product lifecycle, especially on apps, is all about iteration, and having an agile, high-touch development model for supporting same;
2. How you launch and how you seed the market for an app is often as important as what you build.

In any event, check it out, and let me know your thoughts.

Two Thoughts on 'The Hardware Revolution Is Upon Us And Why It Matters'

Jon Callaghan of True Ventures has written an excellent article where he argues that a new hardware revolution is upon us, and that it is destined to be a game-changer. It's a great piece, and well worth a read. 

Here is an excerpt:

Almost exactly six years ago, Apple launched the first iPhone. It was a small device that many dismissed as a toy. In reality Steve put a supercomputer in our pocket — we just didn’t know it. And like super computers before, it came with immense capabilities and brought about an opportunity to rethink, reimagine and reinvent how we live, work, create and consume. Today, smartphones (and tablet devices) sell by the hundreds of millions.

Cheap processors, cheaper memory, and even cheaper sensors means it’s a great time for people who like to tinker with hardware to tinker. Platforms like Kickstarter and Quirky de-risk production, identify features and customers, and do so before the first tool is made. Wireless broadband is ubiquitous, and military grade technology is available at RadioShack. The manufacture and design of products and devices has changed forever. Building factories is no longer a prerequisite for building products. Add to the mix emergent technologies such as 3D printing and inexpensive laser cutters that put prototyping capabilities onto a kitchen table, and we suddenly are facing an extraordinary revolution in hardware-based innovation.

I wholeheartedly agree with his assertions, but I do want to put a bow around one of Jon's most salient points; namely, that building hardware is hard. Make that HARD with capital letters.

Specifically, there are two key 'gotchas' about the hardware business that most aspiring entrepreneurs get blindsided by.

Before I get into them, let me establish my "hardware chops." In my career, I have:

• Hand-built my own hardware systems (CafeNet: Internet access terminals)
• Worked in the network hardware business (Tribe Communications: Internet infrastructure)
• Invested in hardware startups (Whistle Communications: Internet appliances)
• Advised hardware startups (Square Connect: Universal remote control gateways)
• Founded a hardware device management software company (Rapid Logic: unified device management tools)
• Built a cross-platform system for creating native mobile apps (Unicorn Labs) 

In other words, my take is based upon a 360-degree perspective on the hardware business, and it's lifecycle from a make, bake and take to market perspective. 

So why hardware is so...HARD?

One is the simple truth that hardware guys speak a different language and come from a different planet than software guys, and vice versa.

This generally translates into each party trying to abstract out the other, which often leads to lowest common denominator solutions, or worse, products where the target user credulously wonders, "Were these things designed to work TOGETHER, or just to irritate the user?"

The next wave implies developers having a sense of there being one composite whole (hardware, software, service, tools, manageability), and the team, culture and ecosystem being oriented accordingly. One can see this dynamic at work in Apple's iOS vs. Google's Android.

Two is that specifically because you are dealing with physical devices (as opposed to the wholly digital 1s and 0s of software), the question of channels for discovery, selling, distribution and support are inordinately more complex, with many more points of failure, than with software alone.

This underscores an indelible truth about indirect channels (like retail, amazon, etc.) that many fail to grok; namely, that the channel can NOT solve your selling and support challenges until YOU figure them out first. It's like trying to tell the blind how to see when you can't see yourself.

Food for thought.

Related:

1. Three Takeaways from the WWDC Keynote: How Apple Got its Groove Back
2. Six Takeaways from the Google IO Keynote
3. Ruminations on The Mobile Native Cloud: An Extensible Computing Model for Post - PC
4. Innovation, Inevitability and Why R&D is So Hard

 

Meta-Thesis: How Google vs. Apple is like a great NBA playoff battle (GigaOM)

"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan

Watching Google announce Chromecast (their assault on Apple TV), Nexus 7, gen 2 (their assault on iPad) and Android 4.3 (their assault on iOS) literally the day after Apple announced their quarterly earnings, I was left with a sense of wonder.

What is the right metaphor for understanding the game that Google and Apple are playing to emerge as the kings of the Post PC era? Is it the “Shock and Awe” of war? Is it “Microsoft vs. Apple”? Is it “The Moat”? Is it “Vertical Integration”?

Sure, it’s all of these things, but after ruminating on this a bit, I have a meta-thesis on the game that Google and Apple are playing.

It's professional sports, specifically the NBA Playoffs. 

In the NBA Playoffs, each team has a style that they want to play, that leverages their unfair advantages, and exploits the competition's weaknesses, and there are a multitude of 'games within the game,' and adjustments over the course of the series.

So much of winning vs. losing is enforcing your desired style of play on the competition, thereby forcing them to forsake their competitive advantage.

We can argue whether "Open" is better than "Integrated Experience," or whether "Subsidized Pricing" (via Ads or Adjunct Business Models) is Preferred to "Direct Pricing" (i.e., Pricing is a Direct Reflection of the Product).

But, what is absolutely fascinating to watch is one team (Google) trying to **force** the other team (Apple) to abandon or water down their strategy, so as to play Google's game. 

Read the rest of the piece HERE.

Related:

1. Five reasons iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows
2. Apple vs. Google: Lessons from Bill Gates’ playbook
3. You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing

Ruminations on The Mobile Native Cloud: An Extensible Computing Model for Post - PC

 

The Mobile Native Cloud (via slideshare)

Each wave of computing changes not only how applications are MADE, and the economics behind them, but our very concept of what the medium can BE. 

Consider the Post - PC computing era. It is defined by the rise of 10B mobile devices, which are converging in a globally connected cloud that is social, service oriented and massively scalable.

It's every bit the sea change for computing that the Web was to the PC, and the PC was to the Mainframe and Minicomputer that came before it.

Simply put, Post - PC computing opens the door to new forms of native experiences that are dynamic, data-driven and media rich. 

This presentation above looks at the ramifications of this wave, including key industry trends and a real-world case study of a series of applications built upon this model.

I'd love your thoughts on whether you agree with the assertions in the presentation, if there are specific use cases particularly resonant for you, any 'gotchas' that you see, or areas where clarification is needed.

UPDATE: Paul Adams has written an excellent article called 'Why cards are the future of the web' that is highly complimentary to the concepts espoused in my SlideShare, and worth a read. The always-excellent Benedict Evans has also written on the topic.

Related:

1. You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing
2. The Middleband Project: Re-Thinking Mobile Native Content
3. 3 Takeaways from the WWDC Keynote: How Apple Got its Groove Back
4. 6 Takeaways from the Google IO Keynote

3 Takeaways from the WWDC Keynote: How Apple Got its Groove Back

“If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook.” – Mark Zuckerberg, The Social Network

Early in Apple’s WWDC Keynote, it began. Proving that fanboi-ism is not a uniquely Apple dynamic, the Android acolytes erupted on Twitter:

“Watched a little #WWDC on a break. Excited for iOS users to have some of the things we've had on Android for years,” chimed in one. “iOS 7 looks like Jelly Bean,” snarked another. “Feel like iOS 7 has taken many many design queues from what Google's apps have been doing over the past year," griped yet another.

Because we seem incapable of parsing nuance; and because paradoxical truths are apparently more blinding to the human eye than the sun itself, the Post-PC wars have always been presented as a zero-sum, winner-take-all narrative.

I mean, come on, remember Windows versus Mac?

It ALWAYS ends with one dominant winner, and a bunch of losers.

That is, unless of course, you have paid attention to the web, where Google’s stranglehold on search and ads has not bothered Amazon one bit; where Facebook remains uniquely different from Apple, Amazon and Google; where Twitter and LinkedIn just seem to be hitting stride.

Meanwhile, in smartphones and tablets, is Google’s Android really killing anyone, other than its own hardware partners?

And who's winning in the Android camp anyway, save for Samsung and ‘forkers,’ like Amazon?

Having now sat through both the Google IO and Apple WWDC Keynotes in the past few weeks, I am left with a sense. While we can argue about what winning **looks** like, in the battle for Post-PC dominance, the two bellwethers – Apple and Google – are rightfully judged as much by what they have in common as by where they diverge.

With that in mind, these three items stood out for me in today’s keynote:

1. Composition and Unity: Apple’s strength has always been about the power of making a choice, and how that instructs a myriad of other decisions, from design and workflow, to delight, and critically, what you don’t do. Heretofore there was a sense that within the body Apple, was a company fighting a low-simmering battle between its various selves across hardware, software and service layers. With Jony Ive taking charge of all design following the unceremonious putsch of Scott Forstall, that feels like its changed for the better. Beyond the not-so-subtle digs at Forstall's skeumorphic design sensibilities, the unveiling of iOS 7 is reflective of a company operating with a sense of their being one composite whole, trending towards system-wide symmetry and lightness. Sure, the obvious takeaways are on the flatness of the icons and how much simpler much of the user interface appears. But, design is less about how something looks, and far more about what it does. I expect that in the days and weeks ahead, the consensus will be that iOS 7 powered devices remain the most beloved, most deeply engaging and most perpetually used devices out there. In other words, while Android can legitimately tout market share numbers, Apple will continue to be able to tout their share of heart, mind, pocketbook and profits. The videos that Apple created around their vision of the experience of a product, how it makes users feel; the delight it inures; and why that instructs the company to embrace very few ideas, is great brand advertising. I hope to see the company attack this idea just as fervently as Google wraps itself in geekiness, choice and fearlessness -- both companies SHOULD play to their core strengths.
2. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Google boldly, and ridiculously, once proclaimed that open always wins, sidestepping the gray truth that even within Google, sometimes closed is the rule of the land. They railed against forcing users to choose, born of a fervent sense that breadth and diversity is better. That is, until it came time to anoint the Nexus device class; or create Glass, for that matter. Similarly, Apple has mocked and litigated against the Android ‘imitators,’ but there is legitimate truth that in iOS 7, Android’s influences can be seen far and wide. I reference this point to underscore the fact that both Apple and Google are winning in their own way, but not in completely different ways. Google can credibly tout the importance of 900 million Android devices, but how much better is that than the 600 million iOS devices, especially knowing that the iOS base is qualitatively and quantitatively ranked number one in areas like raw usage, web usage, mobile-based commerce, loyalty and overall satisfaction? Similarly, what is the power of a platform when only 33% of the devices are using the latest version (in the case of Android Jelly Bean) vs. 93% for Apple (in the case of iOS 6)? As a developer, I can tell you that dealing with a bunch of form-factors fragmented across a number of OS variants is the proverbial death by a thousand cuts. And don’t even get me started on the goodness of knowing that the vast majority of Apple’s 575 million iTunes account holders are backed by a credit card and one-click purchasing. In the case of Android?  Not so much. It’s one reason that Apple has paid $10 billion to developers -- $5 billion in the past year alone – a full 3X the amount of all of the other platforms combined. Then again, Google is not only betting on Android. They have a dominant play on the web, and an equally strong footing on iOS. 
3. Embrace, Integrate and Improve: The best line of the keynote was when Phil Schiller, in announcing the new Mac Pro quipped, “Can’t innovate anymore, my ass.” Indeed, Apple showed real innovative fervor in the new Mac OSX Mavericks, which was bolstered by both a new Mac Book Pro (super cool - targeted at designer and developers) and a revamped MacBook Air. But, of course, the main entree was a complete re-design of iOS -- the largest re-think of iOS since iPhone. In so many ways, big and small, iOS changes the way that an iOS device works and the way it looks, while managing the balancing act of not breaking familiarity for users. I was struck repeatedly with a sense of coherence and consistency of structure and flow. One simple example is the new Maps app in Mac OS X where in a click, you can push a map to your iOS device. This is a very holistic way of thinking about synchronized flows from desktop to mobile. Similarly, Apple’s new iTunes Radio service, is positioned first and foremost as a music discovery tool. Towards that end, it generates 'breadcrumbs' to full histories and song buying. It factors logical tie-ins with iTunes Match (the service is ad-free for iTunes Match customers; ad-supported for everyone else; and yes, Pandora just crapped themselves). An initiative called iOS in the Car extends the goodness of hands free integration of phone and music to messaging and directions. In the process, it usurps one of the primary use cases for Google’s Glass. A complete rethink of the camera embraces the goodness of Instagram while autonomously adding intelligent contexts. Plus, the ability to shift in natural touch flow from video to standard camera, square shot and pan view screams delight. Think of this as the "more than the sum of the parts" release.

Conclusion: This was the first post-Steve Jobs Apple event that felt unapologetically like the new, new Apple. One can imagine that somewhere out there, Steve is smiling proudly, knowing in his heart of hearts that his baby just got its groove back.

UPDATE 1: Daring Fireball's John Gruber has some excellent thoughts on iOS 7. Well worth a read.

UPDATE 2: Craig Hockenberry (Twitterrific) has written a perspective piece that is terrific, no pun intended.

Related:

1. 6 Takeaways from the Google IO Keynote
2. You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing
3. Apple's segmentation strategy, and the folly of conventional wisdom
4. Google Glass will soon be invisible – and the new normal

 

NIKEiD and the Uber-ization of Global Logistics

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"You mean, I simply push this button, and it just shows up?"

**It**, in this case, is the magical Uber Black Car; magical being relative to the pedestrian, unreliable yellow taxi.

What Uber did in re-thinking the gray space between taxis and private car services is instructive.

Logistically speaking, they rejiggered the following:

1. The Ordering Process (it's push-button simple via an app; no interminable waiting on hold for a dispatcher)
2. The Transparency of Availability (you can literally see how many cars are nearby, and how quickly your car will arrive)
3. The Nature of the Transaction (no money ever comes out of your pocket; you never have to think about the tip again)
4. The Reliability of Your Order (you are notified on your mobile when Uber arrives, the driver confirms that you are indeed the orderer; no more pickups that don't show up, or taxis 'stolen' by pedestrians on the street)
5. Your Relationship to the Driver (most drivers feel like entrepreneurs; Uber is a new revenue source for them; all drivers are identifiable, and subject to being rated and reviewed)

Part of the magic of Uber is that the company is able to create this transformative experience without owning any of the cars or hiring a fleet of drivers.

Given the above, is it any wonder then that "uber-ization" has become my go-to term for industry re-invention through new combinations of design, user experience, workflow and logistics -- as enabled by broadband, mobile and the cloud. 

NIKEiD: Re-Thinking What a Shoe Can Be

The power of great technological waves and re-invention in general is not merely that they change how things are made, or what they cost. 

Rather, it's that they change our concept of what is possible, and what a given medium can be.

In the realm of motion pictures, adding sound (and talking) to films, completely transormed the industry.

In the case of ecommerce, the boundarly-less and friction-free nature of Amazon, has completely disrupted retail.

In the realm of mobile, building a unifed platform around iPhones, iPads, iTunes and iOS, has catalyzed the post-PC era. 

I thought about this truth yesterday, as the pair of fully customized NIKEiD shoes showed up at my door.

Not only were they beautiful (okay, beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but what left me feeling awed was the fact that what had begun as a series of push-button simple clicks in San Francisco, had traveled across the globe, navigating an unimaginably intricate manufucturing and logistics process to find its way back to my front door.

The UPS route home alone (see above) shows stops in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, back to China, Alaska, Kentucky, Oakland, and finally, San Francisco. 

Simply magic, and I wonder how many other products, services and industries are ripe for such reinvention. 

If you are sitting in an industry where commoditization and/or disruption is your future (through de-localization, re-invention and digitization, you need to heed the words of Google CEO Larry Page.

His guidance? "I encourage more companies to do things that are outside their comfort zone. It gives you more scalability."

Food for thought.

Related:

1. Uber-ization: The art and science of reinventing an industry (GigaOM)
2. Retail needs a reboot to survive (GigaOM)
3. You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing (O'Reilly)

6 Takeaways from the Google IO Keynote

"I was frightened...I was excited."
- Bono (on the vibe in England + Dublin in the '70s)

We are at the end of a cycle, and approaching the beginning of a new one.

It's post-global, post-digital, and post-commoditization.

The new cycle is about making the inefficient more efficient, and creating differentiation where commodization exists. 

That we can stare at the rot that consumes so many industries, and simultaneously cheer a record stock market and wonder, "What replaces all of those jobs?" is BOTH terrifying and exciting (READ: 'The Jobs Engine' for thoughts on this topic).

Keep these dual truths in mind in reading this assessment of today's keynote. (Btw, a good capture of the transcript from the keynote is HERE.)

Six key truths stuck in my craw:

1. The Single Biggest 'Tell' of the Keynote: To date, there has been exactly one company that could stop the world when they held an event, and that company is Apple. While Jeff Bezos and Amazon has been pretty close in this regard, when it comes to Google, these events have been easy for the non-Google acolyte to skip. That has now changed, based upon the sheer number of NEW folks who followed the keynote today -- including a significant legion of Apple devotees...myself included.
2. Google is Stealing Apple's PR Mojo: One of the more interesting questions I take from the above is this. If you are Apple, how much do you care that Google is stealing your PR Mojo? What is that worth? Google is grabbing key PR inspiring narratives, be they Glass as the potential game-changing device, Android adoption numbers, self-driving cars, Google fiber, etc. It's translating into an inflated Google stock price, a deflated Apple stock price, and a fundamental shift in the number of stories being written about Google (relative to Apple). In terms of real business, these things are optics, but in the equation of 'perception has a way of becoming reality,' it's also not just pure noise to be ignored. Illustrative of this point is the fact that on StockTwits, the one-month change in message volume for Google is up 55%. For Apple, it's down 25%. It's a not-too-subtle reminder that the battle for all things post-pc is being played on a multi-dimensional chess board, and PR touches the perception domain. A side thought: Google's next thrust on the PR war front should be doing Brand Advertising around Google Maps, as it's illustrative of how Google thinks about and executes services that are great at web, great at mobile, deliver truly native experiences in either environment, and an exercise in composited logic, big data, the cloud, and great workflows. Plus it's the app everyone uses, and the best single example of what Apple does NOT do well. Food for thought.
3. Developer Mindshare: A primary focus of the keynote was on increasing the love and attention that Google is able to secure from software developers. While there was nothing earth shattering announced (although plenty of holes filled, to be sure), it is reflective of Google grokking the seminal truth that developers make or break a platform play. As one twitter commenter noted, "Google is basically shipping everything iOS devs have been asking for since the beginning." That stated, the event was also completely devoid of developer demos (save for Google's own demos), making this feel a bit like Google's passion is reserved for Google services alone. This truth is perhaps why Google really doesn't care what Amazon or Facebook is doing with Android. Nonetheless, it raises the question of how Apple will respond at WWDC? Same question when Amazon announces whatever they are up to next with Kindle Fire.
4. Get in My Belly: On twitter, I quipped, "Should we be concerned that Google's new slogan is, 'Come on, get in my belly!' or that this is the new spokesman?" I am only being slightly tongue-in-cheek, for the simple truth is that for all the platitudes about Google being so open, sometimes it seems that open is just another way of saying, 'onboarding.' After all, Google's openness is generally focused on the areas that they want to compete with and commoditize, whereas where they want to differentiate remains proprietary and protected. Where is the open sourcing of Google Search, Maps or AdWords, anyway? One observation here is that it feels like the big potential loser of all of these initiatives in Music, Play, Maps, Offers, Photos, and Conversations is...wait for it...Facebook! Why? Simply put, Google is getting better at the things Facebook does well quicker than Facebook is getting good at the things that Google does well. Similarly, for Google, social is just one job that you'll hire G+ for, whereas for Facebook, it's job one. Hence, the more Facebook feels compelled to fill your feed with suggested content (ads) or flood it with unrequested crap every time you 'like' something, the worse that Facebook's user experience becomes. Netting it out: Google is getting better at context, design, and compositing of user experience quicker than Facebook is figuring out discovery, dollars, and search. In the big picture, the bottom line is that if your product CAN be enhanced via an algorithm, Google will complete with you eventually. Daring Fireball's John Gruber deliciously picks apart this reality in assessing Larry Page's comment on the 'negativity' of everyone focusing on who Google is competing with.
5. A Unified Theory of Google: While there is a tendency to look at G+ as Google's lame attempt to compete with Facebook, I tend to view it differently. My take is that G+ is ground zero in Google's end-game to figure out: A) How its various services composite together; B) What those integration points look like on the inbound, outbound and metadata side; C) What the user wants to DO within those service containers; and D) How such services run natively in different user environments (iOS, Android, Chrome, Web, or Glass). Similarly, efforts like Play, Offers and Music are best seen as the company finally being ready to make a frontal assault on a billing relationship with consumers (ala Apple and Amazon). It's logical, and it speaks to the company's unlimited ambition, but for Google partners, it should be a clear reminder that the company aims to consume all. Having recently written my assessment of the prospects for Google Glass, it's also worth noting the symmetry between what I heard today and what I saw baked into the Glass user experience. Specifically, I am referring to three things. One, the company's growing arsenal of Knowledge Graphs on the backend. Two, how such graphs feed user Experiences in the form of Answering queries with richer context; Conversing with users via natural language (it's like Siri, but it's useful and it works really well); and Anticipating intent. Three, the use of a dynamic cards model in Google Now for things like reminders, public transit, music, TV, movies, books and recommendations. Everything with Google at this point is about context, meaning and flow.
6. Larry Page is Intense: Google CEO Larry Page closed out the keynote with a meandering sermon that encompassed a vision that was simultaneously frightening and exciting. The man is destined to either win a Nobel Peace Prize, or end up as the 'villain' in a future James Bond film -- maybe both in the same year. While it was a bit too Atlas Shrugged for my taste (it took on 'Who is John Galt?' proportions), I liked the spirit of what amounts to: A) Sensors, Sensors Everywhere; B) Want to run away and join my country? C) Optimism over Negativity and D) A killer quote: "I encourage more companies to do things that are outside their comfort zone. It gives you more scalability." Larry Page rocks, in a mondo, mega-billionaire sort of way, and I mean that as the highest compliment, I think.

Related:

1. Google Glass will soon be invisible – and the new normal (GigaOM)
2. The Jobs Engine: On Indivisibility and Integrated Systems (GigaOM)
3. Mobile Native Publishing: The Rise of Dynamic Content Services (O'Reilly)

 

Google Glass will soon be invisible – and the new normal (New Post @GigaOM)

“There are three sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying.” 
– Robert Evans (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”)

I recently met up with my friend and one-time business partner, Steve Lee, who is product director on the Google Glass project, and before that, ran product management on Google Maps for Mobile.

Other than a quick tour of the device, Steve basically let me dive in, so as to experience Glass with a beginner’s mind. I won’t bother reviewing the basic capabilities and specs, which have been covered exhaustively already.

Instead I want to focus on some of the points that are in debate, and whether I believe that Glass is destined to succeed.

Glass is translucent; designed to be invisible

In “Waves of Power,” David Moschella shows how new disruptive industries begin as verticals, since the complete product solution requires one provider to deliver the whole enchilada.

The new industry continues on this path until the solutions finally reach the “good enough” stage, when the larger trend becomes horizontal orientation, so as to achieve ubiquity, commoditization and the broadest possible ecosystem. (In passing, one can see the battle between Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android in this light.) The endgame, so to speak, is that the technology becomes persistent, embedded and ever-present to the point of being “invisible.”

It’s a paradoxical concept to be sure. On the one hand, the technology is everywhere; how can it be invisible? On the other, it’s because it’s everywhere that we no longer think about it as exceptional – and, equally, grand solutions can anticipate and incorporate its ever-presence.

Read the full post HERE.

UPDATE: This piece has obviously struck a chord with the rank and file at GigaOM, based upon the storm of comments. Check it out.

UPDATE 2: Google just announced a bunch of third-party apps coming to the platform, including Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, CNN, Elle and Evernote. 

Related:

1. You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing
2. Apple's segmentation strategy, and the folly of conventional wisdom
3. Horizontal, Vertical and the Google Path to Riches

 

Why Netflix is betting on Apps over Channels: It's All About Being 'Native'

"Look at the bigger picture." 
- Francis Underwood, House of Cards

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has written an 11-page essay that's embedded below. It's quite excellent, and lays out his vision for the future of Internet TV (Peter Kafka of AllThingsD has a crisp summary of the key bullet points HERE). 

In particular, it underscores why Hastings' Netflix deserves to be mentioned in the same reverential tones as Apple, Amazon and Google.

For one, there is the clear articulation of a 'North Star' that guides the company forward; namely, winning more of their members 'moments of truth' - i.e., those times when a consumer could play a game, read a book, chat on the phone or watch conventional TV, but chooses Netflix instead.

The virtue of having a North Star is that it instructs clear narrative-driven thinking, tightening focus, process and execution. It is one reason that we readily associate Apple, Amazon and Google as the gold standard companies of their industry, and so few others.

It's also one reason that it almost feels inevitable that at some point, Google (4.3% of their market cap), Apple (2.8% of their market cap) or Amazon (10.3% of their market cap) will **need** to acquire Netflix (I'd add Disney as a dark horse candidate).

After all, TV viewing captures a billion hours a day of consumers' time, and Netflix has created a model whereby 30 million of these consumers are paying a monthly subscription fee for access to the service.

In other words, despite all of the various activities that fight for consumers attention, Netflix is winning at: A) securing members; B) monetizing those members; and C) growing their base through differentiation. 

Talk about **earned attention.**

Netflix is Betting BIG on Apps

It is with that backdrop that I took particular interest in Hastings' assertion that Apps -- not streams -- but Apps --will replace Channels as the primary construct for delivering Internet TV. He mentioned the term 25 times in the document, no less.

I think that there are two things that one needs to keep in mind relative to the "apps" versus "channels" topic. 

One is that a channel is simply a payload, and an app is simply a wrapper for delivering that payload.

It's no different in that context from saying that Apple turned the phone into an app. We don't need to think about it in that context because the phone app does what a phone is supposed to do.

Quite the contrary. We now think of the iPhone as much more than a phone, right?

Two, is the unlike a simple envelope, the wrapper of an app can actually enable to DO stuff; namely, show you related content, extend the context with communications, enable you to share the content, rate it, excerpt it, roll it into a play list, etc.

The point is that an app can do things that a simple stream can not, and Hastings clearly groks that this is about delivering **native experiences.**

This is also why a show like 'House of Cards' launched with the entire Season 1. In Netflix, binge viewing is a native behavior, right?

Along these lines, Hastings specifically dispels the idea of Netflix even having a fixed notion of what constitutes a 'season' in their model.

It's all about being native, something that I have written extensively about, most recently HERE.

Related:

1. Apple’s North Star vs. Earth’s Gravity: Four Takeaways from Apple’s Earnings Call
2. Built-to-Thrive - The Standard Bearers: Apple, Google, Amazon
3. Mobile 'native' publishing: Why our concept of content must evolve in the post-PC era

Netflix Ir Letter

Reading the Tea Leaves of Apple's Q2, 2013 Earnings Call -- Four Takeaways

"It's not real, you know, the fame thing."- Anna Scott (Notting Hill)

The hardest thing for the beleaguered Apple investor to wrap their head around is the fact that Apple exists on a schizophrenic plane like no other.

On the one hand, there is 'THE STOCK' -- i.e., the broken stock price.

It rests in the same Bargain Bin as Dell Computer, a company selling undifferentiated offerings in a commoditized segment that quite literally shrinks by the day.

On the other, there is 'THE REAL COMPANY,' an innovating, selling, marketing, leverage and cash-generating machine that has now dropped almost $100 billion dollars in revenues and $22 billion dollars of profits in just the first two quarters of Apple's fiscal year.

That this engine has fattened the company's coffers to the tune of $145 billion dollars (another $12.5 billion added this quarter) does not satisfy.

That this harvest comes from six different multi-billion dollar product lines (iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPad, iTunes & Services, Accessories) manages little more than an acknowledging shrug.

That the company has repeatedly proven its ability to create massive new markets in a quasi-predictable, highly-levered fashion (now known simply as the iOS platform), yields but a yawn.

"Where's my divvy," bitch the disappointed investors, seemingly ignorant to the fact that not only have spirtual peers, Google and Amazon, never offered up a dividend, but they've never even let the topic so much as brush the top of the table. 

"Apple has an identity crisis," utter the dumbest of the dumb media, blind to the power of Apple's unique position in the market as an integrated hardware, software, services, media, tools and marketplace solution provider.

Ever clear on their North Star - i.e., delivering great consumer experiences that change people's lives - Apple has neither changed their identity, nor lost their focus, as evidenced by the best customer satisfaction and customer loyalty ratings, and consistently, the industry's highest profit margins.

Know this. If it was even remotely easy to approximate the 'Apple Way,' we'd be talking about the multiple multi-billion dollar product lines that Apple's competitors have created; we'd be talking about the breakout success of the Apple Retail Store copycats; and we'd be talking about the multitudes of developer success stories that have dropped out of the Google, RIM or Microsoft mobile ecosystems.

We aren't, and it's not (easy).

It's with this fundamental schism between THE REAL COMPANY and The STOCK that I attempted to make sense of the takeaways from Apple's earnings call.

There are four conclusions that stood out to me:

1. Tim Cook wants Apple to be Liked by Investors in a way that Steve Jobs never did: In the call, Cook had an almost apologetic tone with respect to how Apple has failed to beat the guidance, growth and margins expected by analysts and media. In increasing the dividend and upping buybacks, the tone was more akin to "we're trying harder" than "get on the bus or get left in the dust." By contrast, even when Apple's stock was cratering into the $80's following the crush of the 2008 financial crisis, Jobs embodied a healthy irritation for the capriciousness of investors, and the ignorance of many analysts and the media. The truth here is that no good deed goes unpunished, and far from appreciating Apple's olive branch to investors, the narrative is likely to be spun as Cook's Apple is trying to buy time, and is in defensive mode. Me personally, I wanted a bit more "F-U," and a bit less, "we're sorry."
2. Margins will Remain Contracted for the Foreseeable Future: If there are two product-related narratives that stood out for me, they are: 1) iPad mini unleashed an absolute torrent of first-time tablet device buyers (personally, it's their best tablet device), and if the sacrifice is lower margins (relative to the larger iPad), it's worth the trade-off. If the tablet is the replacement device for many a 'job' that users previously hired PCs for -- as I believe it is -- then any way that Apple can capture this market share is a zero-sum type of win that they must secure. Here, Cook and Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer were quite clear that Apple executed a similar strategy in winning the media player market with iPod, so what's past is prologue; and 2) iPhone 4/4S is the smartphone device that Apple is counting on to capture market share outside of the US with first-time smartphone buyers. Unsurprisingly, these devices may be where the highest volume comes from on iPhone (especially, until the next iPhone comes out), eroding margins in the process. The alternative is to give that ground to Android based devices, a calculus between market share, revenue, user experience and the bottom line that the company has repeatedly shown the acumen to manage through. Honestly, I am not even remotely concerned that they will find the right balance here.
3. The New Product Pipeline will Likely Remain Dry until Fall at the earliest: Given the extreme secrecy by which the company launches new products, and manages expectations around same, Cook spoke with a metaphorical bull-horn in flatly stating that new product **categories** and new services are not expected until this Fall and throughout 2014. Needless to say, the absence of new products combined with the absence of seasonal catalysts, explains why Apple's outlook for Q3 was a flat quarter, and why the quarter behind that may not be much better.
4. iOS Usage Rates are Staggering in their Differential relative to Competing Platforms: If the downside of the current Apple story is absence of true catalysts to carry it aloft to new heights, the upside is that iOS stands alone in generating 75 cents of every dollar of ecosystem commerce in the mobile universe. Simply put, Apple is paying developers $1 billion dollars in revenue share every quarter, iTunes is on a $16 billion dollar run rate, and the actual usage of these devices in terms of web traffic is of a different degree than the competition. Keep that in mind next time Google touts generic Android unit count numbers. Again, that's not to say that there aren't clear scenarios where Apple gets attacked on the margins, but their core differentators, and the depth of engagement and loyalty with users is unlikely to be threatened any time soon. That's the bottom line.

So, netting it out, should you Buy, Sell, or Do Nothing? And what will Apple stock do in the intervening months ahead?

This, unfortunately is a riddle without a clear answer, a stark reminder of the famous quote that the market can stay irrational far longer than most investors can remain solvent.

Related Posts:

1. Cry Babies: The Strange, Confusing Path of the Apple 
2. Apple's North Star: Four Takeaways from Apple's Q4 Earnings Call
3. OMG, WTF is going on with Apple Stock
4. What is Apple Worth: The 'Gold Standard' Thesis
5. Get ready for the Apple + iPhone backlash

PCs, Media Devices and Mobile Devices: Before and After Apple

If there is a truism about Apple's approach to innovation, it is this.

They find segments for which the existing solution is complex and kludgy, and make it simple and unified.

In doing so, they bring it to the mainstream.

There is nothing elitist in this approach. Quite the opposite.

Most would concur that after Apple, access to computers, music, and mobile computing was more broadly accessible, not less. 

For every door they close in the open vs. closed debate, they open ten others. Most would concur that both the mobile web is better for the platform that Apple created, and the native app ecosystem is richer for it.

Haters are gonna hate, and it's in our nature to tire of winners winning all of the time.

But let's not confuse the essential truth of what Apple has built and continues to build.

We need more companies like Apple, not less, and we should celebrate their success, not pillory it.

Related:

1. Cry Babies: The Strange, Confusing Path of the Apple Investor
2. OMG, WTF is going on with Apple Stock
3. What is Apple Worth: The 'Gold Standard' Thesis

Cry Babies: The Strange, Confusing Path of the Apple Investor

"GODDAMNIT, APPLE IS DOOMED!! Wait… that’s profit? Carry on." - Jim Dalrymple

Let me preface my comments by saying that I am LONG Apple, so I am not real happy at the moment.

Consider, a company that:

• Routinely beats its own projections, generating more revenue ($54B) in a quarter than Google generates in a year. (Side note: fuck the analysts' projections - if they knew shit, they would have anticipated the collapse of DotCom, the 2008 financial crisis, etc.)
• Is consistently, mind-numbingly profitable, yielding outsized profits that have fattened their cash hoard to $137 billion dollars. You'd have to look to the gas & oil industry to find another company that is comparably profitable.
• Has not one multi-billion dollar line of business, but six of them (iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPod, iTunes, Accessories), and all of these lines of businesses feed off of a common ecosystem, creating leverage, lock-in, loyalty and all sorts of halo effects. In fact, the company sold over 75 million iOS devices in this most recent quarter.
• Is unequaled in terms of having an R&D engine for creating new products that generate massive new revenue sources -- not just defensive moats.
• Has cracked the code to selling in China ($7B in most recent quarter; 60% year-over-year growth), something few other American companies have done.
• Despite a reputation for secrecy (with new product launches - duh), sets the bar for transparency with investors, breaking out minutiae on product lines, growth rates, ASPs, sales channels, same store numbers, etc. Contrast this with comparable growth companies, like Amazon, Google and Netflix, where the details are much more surface level.

Apple Revenue by Product and Operating Segments

Thus, it is with little surprise that Apple is:

• Getting tarred and feathered after hours, down $52, or 10%. As someone put so eloquently on twitter, "I never thought I would see "$54 Billion" and "light on revenues" in the same headline. 
• Trading at a P/E of 10.4, and excluding cash, a P/E of 7.1. By contrast, Amazon is up over 20% following a report of a LOSS in their most recent quarter, and investors loved Google's most recent revenue miss (the stock shot up 5%). Oh by the way, neither Google nor Amazon pay dividends, something to keep in mind when you hear an investor lamenting that Apple should increase their dividend.

Stock Performance: Apple vs. Amazon vs. Google

 

Let me net it out for you

To say that investors are idiots, really is an unfair dig at idiots.

The more nuanced truth is that we tire of winners and root for their demise. We trust so-called experts, even when all of the data suggests that not only are they clueless but hopelessly conflicted as well. 

And most disappointingly, we don't reward transparency and being treated like adults when it comes to investing.

We respond best when we are teased, ignored or treated like children. 

For Apple, the hard truth on this one is to:

A) Be comfortable with the bottom line that rumors and outright lies nothwithstanding (I am talking about you, iPhone 5 rumor-mongers), there is only Apple when it comes to products, customers and profits. Everyone else is in the "not exactly" bucket;

B) Give up the game of sandbagging and then beating earnings, and focus investors on a real earnings range (as they did in this call) so clueless analysts and the media that lap up their dog vomit, can't harm them;

C) Embrace the Jeff Bezos ethos about being willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time, and wear that as a badge of honor with investors.

If you are Tim Cook, and company, you sleep well knowing that your North Star is as bright as ever.

But, at the same time, knowing how many investors are hysterically blind to the potent lights emitted by that star, must sting a little, no?

UPDATE:

1. Jim Dalrymple, who I quoted in the entry to this piece, writes today, "How the hell does this happen? Amazon misses its earnings, income fell, sales missed Wall Street consensus and… the stock price goes up 6 percent.Apple sells a gazillion of everything, reports record revenue and profit, and its stock falls."

Related:

1. OMG, WTF is going on with Apple Stock
2. What is Apple Worth: The 'Gold Standard' Thesis
3. Get ready for the Apple + iPhone backlash
4. Apple's North Star: Four Takeaways from Apple's Q4 Earnings Call