Showing posts with label analysts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysts. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

This round goes to Shaw Wu at American Technology Research

In April, Mac Predictions ran a piece on analyst predictions for the release of the iPhone 3G. Doom mongers RBC Capital Markets, who claimed that technical problems would result in the iPhone 3G being delayed until September-December, were (fortunately) completely wrong.

Most of the other analysts were in the same territory - as Nassim Nicholas Taleb would point out, their predictions seem to correlate more closely with each other, than the actual data. Perhaps some of them were just taking a guess at a WWDC release, or maybe they were simply following the crowd. Nothing wrong with that for a blogger, but analysts actually get paid for their predictions!

One analyst who deserve congratulations is Shaw Wu of American Technology Research, whose “late June, or July” timeframe proved to be the most accurate. At the time, he cited checks with supply chain sources, which should lend more credence to such claims in future.


Too early:

  • Gartner
  • Citigroup
  • UBS
  • Bank of America
  • Current Analysis

Pretty close:
  • American Technology Research
  • Piper Jaffray

Too late:
  • RBC Capital Markets

Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Apple Analysts and the 3G iPhone

Company Analyst Reason to believe Time Frame Details
Gartner Ken Dulaney "he has heard from Asian sources" "As soon as possible" Apple has ordered 10 million 3G iPhone with OLED
displays
Citigroup Rich Gardner Overseas meetings with members of the Taiwanese PC and consumer electronics supply chain April - June "The enterprise smartphone market will, for the foreseeable future, be dominated by RIMM and Nokia."
UBS Nicolas Gaudois various checks, and particularly an HSDPA design win by Infineon April - June Apple may not intend to have EDGE-only options in
future iPhones
Piper Jaffray Gene Munster Supply problems in NYC, discounts in Germany May-July 3G model to be sold alongside 2G
Bank of America Scott Craig "Channel check" June 3 million will be built in May, to be followed by another 8 million in the third quarter of the year
Current Analysis Avi Greengart Electronista June Coincide with the iPhone 2.0 firmware
American Technology Research Shaw Wu Checks with supply chain sources Late June - Early July The current "2.5G" iPhone could remain on
the market, using a newer case
RBC Capital Markets Mike Abramsky Wall Street Journal September - December


In our ongoing mission to keep an eye on analysts, we’ve put together this chart of the prognosticators, for a considered view on when we can expect the new 3G iPhone to emerge.

The majority verdict seems to point to some time in June, perhaps alongside the 2.0 Firmware launch… perhaps at WWDC. We still have one pessimist – last we read, Mike Abamsky at RBC was citing technical problems pointing to a delay until after the summer. If this turns out to be true, RBC gets extra kudos for standing out from the pack.

Another popular view that is emerging is that Apple will sell the existing Edge model alongside the new 3G model, although UBS’s predictions seem to contradict this view.

We’ll keep you posted as the analysts tell us more about how we should “think about” Apple, and give us “additional color” on developments. Or alternatively, if you struggle to tell your Gartners from your Garders, please feel free to just skip these analyst posts ;)

Monday, 3 March 2008

Analyst predictions: UBS vs RBC Capital Markets [Updated]

MacPredictions loves to keep a close eye on analysts. It's always amusing to see what they're getting up to - especially when they go head-to-head on the Mac Prediction front. In the ring tonight - UBS versus RBC Capital Markets. What's at stake? The release date for the 3G iPhone.


AppleInsider reports that UBS are predicting that the 3G iPhone will be released this Summer, sporting a new chip solution from Infineon (nice touch with the extra detail there). Whilst MacNN reports that RBC Capital Markets are predicting a delay to the iPhone's launch, due to testing and fine-tuning on partner networks (another nice detail to add credibility). But who is right?

Admittedly, since Apple has not announced the 3G iPhone, it's uncertain what a "delay" may mean in practice. However, if the 3G iPhone does come out this summer, that's one point for UBS, if not, then the honours go to RBC. MacPredictions is keeping a score card - we'll let you know how things develop.

Update:
Look who's just leapt into the ring - it's Citigroup's Richard Gardner, who has apparently just returned from a trip to Taiwan (again with the convincing details) citing sources indicating the launch of a 3G iPhone in Q2 (as reported by Silicon Alley). Since we're already in Apple's 2008 Q2 (their year starts in October), we assume this means calendar quarter Q2 - an even earlier ETA. Who will win this battle of the banks? Mac Predictions can hardly wait. 

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Top 10 analyst misconceptions about Apple - Part 2

In January, Mac Predictions published the following "Top 10 analyst misconceptions about Apple"

  1. Apple is really a software company
  2. Apple should license the Mac OS to other PC manufacturers
  3. Apple formats are proprietary, whereas Microsoft formats are standards
  4. Apple is making the same mistake with the iPod that they did with the Mac
  5. Apple is now a monopolist
  6. Apple’s success is down to it’s “legendary ease of use”
  7. Apple should integrate Windows emulation into Mac OS X
  8. Apple’s notorious secrecy is harming it’s business
  9. Apple doesn’t make a profit on the iTunes store
  10. Apple is the BMW of the computer world

Numbers 1 to 3 were covered off in January's post. Here are numbers 4 to 6:

4. Apple is making the same mistake with the iPod that they made with the Mac

Analysts making this assertion miss the patently obvious fact that an iPod addresses a very different market to a Windows PC, and as such it requires a very different marketing approach.

Windows run on industry standard hardware, which results in a competitive market between numerous commoditised PC vendors. Competition drives down prices. Commoditisation minimises vendor lock-in. The result is a product that appeals to businesses, which rapidly adopted the platform in the late eighties and early nineties, accounting for the vast majority of Microsoft’s early sales lead, and still account for the majority of Microsoft’s revenue today.

By contrast, iPods are consumer electronics – purchased by individuals who are not particularly concerned by issues of vendor lock-in, and are not as price sensitive as business customers. Instead, they have different priorities. Firstly, unlike business customers, consumers do not have IT help desks – they need their gadgets to “just work”. A vertically integrated solution, such as Apple’s, where hardware, software and online services are provided by a single vendor, results in a product that is less likely to go wrong, plus there’s the reassurance that if something does go wrong, you know exactly who to talk to about it. Secondly, consumers do not seek out commoditised products, favouring instead products that differentiate, and express their individuality. A sensible, cheap, boring MP3 player from Dell, running similar software to your PC at work, was never going to cut it.

This may seem like a statement of the obvious now, considering that even Microsoft has given in and copied Apple’s vertically integrated solution with their Zune product. But it’s amazing to consider the number of supposedly respectable IT journalists and analysts who argued for so many years that Apple’s business plan was flawed, and that Microsoft’s Windows Media Plays For Sure “ecosystem” would inevitably win out in the end.

5. Apple is now a monopolist

Apple’s music business is increasingly being described by industry commentators, analysts and legislators as a vertical monopoly. Comparisons are even made between Apple’s monopolistic control of the music industry and Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. However, such analogies unravel under closer scrutiny.

Strictly speaking, a monopolist has complete control of the supply of a particular commodity or service. In this sense, neither Microsoft nor Apple are monopolists, since they both have competitors in their respective markets. Windows competes with Linux, Solaris and Mac OS X, whilst Apple’s music business competes with any number of music stores and music players. But in the IT industry, there’s a special kind of monopoly – where a proprietary platform becomes so dominant that customers become locked-in to such an extent that competitors’ products are no longer a viable option.

For many customers, Windows is just such as monopoly – since users expect their PC to interoperate with other PCs, which use proprietary Microsoft technologies such as Windows File Sharing and Windows Media. The only aspect of Apple’s music business that is comparable is “FairPlay,” Apple’s DRM solution. Since FairPlay tracks can only be purchased from Apple, and are supported only by Apple’s devices, FairPlay is undoubtedly a closed solution. For it to be a monopoly, however, this would require that Apple’s customers have no alternative but to purchase Apple’s products, and this is simply not the case. Music can be purchased on CDs, which do not contain DRM, or from an increasing number for digital services that provide DRM-free tracks.

The market is clearly moving towards DRM-free music, which will eliminate Apple’s lock-in advantage in DRM music. Whilst it’s possible that Apple may come to dominate movies in the same way that they currently dominate music, this is by no means assured, and many other competitors, such as Microsoft, plan to give Apple a run for their money in this area.

6. Apple’s success is down to it’s “legendary ease of use”

The concept of Apple’s “legendary ease of use” harks back to the late eighties and early nineties – specifically the period after the launch of the Mac, and prior to the introduction of Windows 95. During this period, there was no denying the fact that Apple’s computers were the easiest to use. But only analysts over the age of thirty, who still hanker after those halcyon days would reel off this tired old argument today.

Macs may still be easy to use, but in an era when most users are more familiar with Windows, adapting to the Mac is not always an easy transition. Furthermore, Mac OS X is a sophisticated (we may even say complex) product… Far more so than earlier incarnations of the Mac OS. As such, mastering its intricacies is not always an easy task.

Whilst it’s undoubtedly true that ease of use is important, we should take care not to overstate the argument. Reliability, stability, security, good design, aftersales support, bundled applications… the list of benefits for Apple’s products is so long that ease of use is these days a much smaller part of the overall picture.

Sunday, 6 January 2008

Top 10 analyst misconceptions about Apple

  1. Apple is really a software company
  2. Apple should license the Mac OS to other PC manufacturers
  3. Apple formats are proprietary, whereas Microsoft formats are standards
  4. Apple is making the same mistake with the iPod that they did with the Mac
  5. Apple is now a monopolist
  6. Apple’s success is down to its “legendary ease of use”
  7. Apple should integrate Windows emulation into Mac OS X
  8. Apple’s notorious secrecy is harming it’s business
  9. Apple doesn’t make a profit on the iTunes store
  10. Apple is the BMW of the computer world

If ever there was a company misunderstood by analysts, it’s Apple. The trouble is that Apple’s business defies classification, spanning a wide variety of sectors, and owing it’s continued existence to its relentless pace of innovation. As a result, all too frequently analysts crow that Apple should zig, when instead they zag.

Back in 1997, analysts the world over were writing Apple off, and yet the foundations for Apple’s success today were already in place back then – NeXTSTEP, Mac OS, QuickTime and hardware design expertise. What the analysts lacked, but Steve Job’s management team had in abundance, was imagination.

The following 10 misconceptions illustrate how poorly framed many analyst’s perspective on Apple truly is.

1. Apple is really a software company

Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple does two things: software and hardware. Their success is due to a synergy between these two businesses, best illustrated by the iPod. Companies like Sony lost market share to Apple by focusing solely on hardware in an age where electronics and the Internet were making a new range of devices possible that required tight hardware/software integration. The market had shifted in Apple’s favour, and Apple seized the opportunity with confidence.

Ironically, back in the late 90s, some analysts were arguing that Apple should get out of the hardware business altogether and focus on software. Imagine if Apple had taken that advice! There certainly wouldn’t have been an iPod, and Apple’s shareholders would have been much poorer as a result.

2. Apple should license their OS to other PC manufacturers

The argument goes that Apple could enjoy some of Microsoft’s success by licensing Mac OS X to PC manufacturers as an alternative to Windows. It’s a superficially appealing argument, but it fails to take into account some key facts. First and foremost, the Mac is not just a software product – it is a tight integration of software and hardware. This makes Apple’s life much easier, since they don’t have to support the endless variety of hardware configurations and legacy dependencies that slow down Microsoft’s development cycles. It makes their 3rd party developers’ lives easier too, because they can make many assumptions in terms of target systems. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it allows Apple to differentiate the Mac’s proposition from the Windows hegemony of its competitors.

On top of all this, there’s the salient fact that Apple did try licensing the Mac OS in the mid-90s and it proved to be a costly mistake, resulting in other manufacturers cannibalising Apple’s hardware sales.

3. Apple’s technology is proprietary, whereas Microsoft technologies are standards

At the crux of this argument is a confusion between de facto standards and real standards. A de facto standard works as if it was a real standard because it has become so dominant that the vast majority of users adopt it. Microsoft controls many de facto standards, such as Office, Active Directory, Exchange and Windows Media. In the IT industry, de facto standards tend to be proprietary, controlled by software vendors for their own commercial benefit. By contrast, open standards, such as TCP/IP and HTML, are controlled by non-profit organisations, for the benefit of all users. The Internet is built entirely from such open standards.

As its market share has increased, Apple’s technologies, such as the FairPlay DRM system, have become widely adopted. Calls have grown for Apple to support “standard” Microsoft technologies such as Windows Media. Ironically, Windows Media is no more a standard that Apple’s FairPlay. The former is an existing de facto standard, whilst the latter is an emerging one. Forcing Apple to support an established monopolist’s proprietary technologies is hardly in the interests of users – legislators should instead seek to promote industry-wide support for genuine open standards.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Apple has a far better track record of implementing standards than Microsoft. For example, Macs support Windows File Sharing, whereas Windows PCs do not support Mac file sharing. Apple’s Safari web browser has been fast to adopt standards, whereas Microsoft’s Internet Explorer has been very slow to do so.

Tune in next week for more…