Another significant milestone in the evolution of Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) is being marked this week. Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT), the long-term nemesis of the consumer electronics company, announced its first-quarter results, and the numbers showed the software vendor's revenue had fallen behind Apple's for the first time in about 20 years.
It's a triumph of sort, not just for Apple but also for the electronics hardware market. Until Apple's sales eclipsed Microsoft's, I had begun to think that being in the electronics hardware business might be the kiss of death. It still could be, but Apple, by marrying software with great hardware design and one of the best marketing outreach programs in the electronics industry, is demonstrating what OEMs must do to fight the wave of commoditization that has devastated sales and eroded profit margins over the last decade.
Microsoft is growing, just not as fast as Apple, and this must be bittersweet for the folks in Redmond, Wash. Despite having a strong March quarter, Microsoft is trailing Apple on two major financial metrics:
The software giant's revenues in the March quarter -- its fiscal 2011 third quarter -- rose to $16.4 billion from $14.5 billion, up 13 percent, while Apple in the same quarter reported revenues of $24.7 billion, up 83 percent from the comparable 2010 quarter. During the same quarter, profits at Microsoft were $5.2 billion but $6 billion at Apple. Analysts, meanwhile, forecast Apple's June-quarter revenues will be approximately $24.5 billion compared with $16.2 billion for Microsoft.
Little wonder, therefore, that Apple's market value ($319.5 billion) is almost $100 billion more than Microsoft's ($224.4 billion) at the end of trading on Thursday, April 28.
It's easy to draw the wrong conclusions from these numbers. Yes, Apple is focused on hardware, including wireless products such as the iPhone and the iPad, while Microsoft is mainly a software vendor, generating a huge portion of its sales from the weakening personal computer market. Apple, which also sells PCs, is growing faster in the segment than the market average by leveraging its brand name to maintain a fanatical support base in the Macintosh community; buyers of Apple's Macs typically pay a premium over comparable Windows PCs.
But it would be naïve to simply describe Apple as a hardware vendor. The company is better seen as a community developer and enabler, offering equipment and services that enhance consumer and corporate usage of electronics products. Just as Apple refused to open-source the software interface with its Mac computers, it did the same with its wireless handsets and tablet PCs to become the biggest and most valuable technology company in the world. In other words, electronics OEMs can maintain market share and generate both huge sales and profits if they play in the "right" equipment market and couple this with a great software interface that allows them to develop a unique ecosystem for the products.
I think many companies are either missing this bigger picture or failing to make the transition as smoothly and effectively as Apple has. Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) is one of those companies that have not yet connected the dots among great hardware, the community of users, and a fantastic ecosystem. The company is reorganizing operations and has ordered the closure of its Flip camera division. The Flip is a great product -- I own one -- but beyond point-and-shoot, my relationship with the product is as fascinating as the one I have with my garden shovel.
I don't know that all OEM products can lend themselves to the Apple magic, but not finding a way to build a vibrant ecosystem around your product will accelerate the price erosion we fancily call "commoditization" today.
And as for Apple, perhaps the gloaters should hold off. Apple may have passed Microsoft in revenue, profits, and market value, but its competitiveness comes with some caveats. In the March quarter, for instance, the sales gap between Microsoft and Apple was more than $8 billion, but the profit gap was less than $1 billion. The implication is that Apple is sweating more to generate comparable profits. I like Apple, but Microsoft isn't looking so bad, either.
'Mac' computers/products are just as prone to viruses trojans and malware as other computer systems, just there are less of these programs being developed for OS X.
Specifically we need to recognize that a 'MAC' is actually two distinct elements (3 if you count design)
1. The electronic hardware of the platform is very similar in design to a standard P.C, so much so that it can run most software a standard PC can run, this includes loading windows or linux directly onto the underlying storage device.
2. OS X: a derivative of the Unix/Linux operating systems, as a result it is quite feasible to take OS X and load it onto any compatible Intel computer that is NOT manufactured by Apple, and the system will still operate, albeit slower or less reliable, but that is depending on the hardware.
It is possible to build a 3rd system out of available sub-components that out performs a top line 'MAC' computer, that includes RELIABILITY.
Returning to viri,Trojans & Malware
An Apple computer loaded with a non-Apple OS, has the same probability of acquiring a Virus/Trojan/Malware as any other intel based computer.
A 3rd party Intel computer loaded with OS X, has the SAME probability of acquiring Virus/Trojan/Malware as standard Apple built hardware running OS X
For the larger part it is the OS that imbues the defenses against Virus/Trojan/Malware to the hardware of the system. BUT that does not in any sense of the concept imbue total immunity against Virus/Trojan/Malware under OS X, just there is a decreased opportunity for such Virus/Trojan/Malware to gain a foothold inside the OS X system.
This is one of the major reasons that Apple will not allow a 3rd party to run the OS X operating system, specifically because they understand that they could never compete against these other 3rd parties as regards price and hardware functionality/ performance.
Asus (Taiwan motherboard manufacturer), generally turns a complete mother board design round in less than 3 months, this is from inception to final product shipment, there would be no way Apple could compete against such a market, such a scenario would make Apples complete stock redundant every 3-6 months.
To truly compare such systems, it has little to do with hardware, but rather the operating systems.
Apple's distinctive innovation in the world of technologies has often set the company apart from others as well as being ahead in sales of Computer, Smartphone and tablet computers.
Apple's software is very unique this has always complementing its brand of hardware rollouts - Mac PC, iPhone and iPad. Apple's shrewdness in artistry of software apps shall continue for a while. In actual fact, all the hardware designs today are being push upward by excellent software development. Meanwhile, Cisco and Microsoft, i believe all in the same class.
Well may be Microsoft recent partnership with Nokia will increase Microsoft market value. Who knows?
Hi Dave, about Nokia Ovi I can report feeling quite shared at large; Apple has had a strategy and step - by - step has made exactly that path. Nokia has made several changes: Symbian at the beninning, then tried to adopt a light platform, then the moving on Microsoft and in parellel they have launched 10M$ call for innovators developers on QT platform. Where is QT now? At the end, it not easy to map Nokia Ovi current position then associated market will suffer also in the near future.
I do wonder if Apple can keep up the revenue stream as well as the profit margin. Apple's results reflect products that are leading the market right now. The iPad is just starting to experience competition, although demand for it seems to be quite high. The demand of the iPad coupled with the iPhone announcement with Verizon is contributing a great deal to Apple's current numbers. Can Apple sustain that type of on-going growth?
Just wondering if APPLE has peaked ? With inflation on rise and people spending capability dwindling fast, not sure if people will still buy iPhone for $638 as against Nokia's $ 87 in future. Not to forget Android phones are catching up fast with iPhone features. Steve Jobs stepping down as CEO of APPLE is one more big concern for APPLE.
Yes, and it keep coming out new products as well. Why do you need to by an Apple product now when you know that 6 months ahead there will be another release?
A) If you're actually comparing WIN PC specs to Apple Mac specs "apples to apples," the actual price difference might be $100 - and Apple will still wins on bootup, battery life, resolution and weight (comparing laptops as you did), things WIN PC makers gloss over ... or the fact you can run Mac OSX on 2 GB of RAm with no issues (unless you;re doing video editing) while 2 Gb of RAm on a WIN PC means it might just start up.
B) But it all depends on your audience. If you're a call center - of course, the bottom line is the bottom line since the PC is just really a terminal so a buck saved is a buck saved but if you are handing out a laptop to bring in sales - going bottom line is not the best answer if you believe in technology and time is money - do you hand your sales team bus ticket for out of town trips because it's cheaper? For a lot of companies, hardware coes out of a difference budget and IT is another budget so what does the hardware capital line buyer care if the system is riddled with security holes or every component is the cheapest possible one? It's not their budget a year later, it's maintance or IT.
C) Macs are build better with no software security issues. I know that sounds like a talking unicorn but it's simply the truth. ZERO viruses, ZERO trojans, ZERO malware, etc ... etc ... so spending $100 more upfront means less hardware downtime and a tiny fraction of software & resources needed to monitor for WIN PC intrusions. This is why gov't market share of Macs are up nearly 200% and why most security agencies have switched to Macs. But again, it depends on who you are buying a laptop for - employees who need one as a tool or are your employees just use it like a desk lamp? Macs also hold their value. Most used Macs sell for 50-75% of retail after 2-3 years. Why? Because they are built better. (and software upgrades don't bork machines).
D) Just because Macs also look better, don't confuse that as somehow diminisging the other factor that make Macs a better computer experience - OS, UI & components. IT might cost a few more bucks upfront but they cost less to run, have the highest satisfaction rating, the best reliability and no software security issues. In other words, lower TCO - Is fewer downtime worth more to you? To a CFO, of course but to IT or the maintance contract holder - why switch to something that requires fewer workers and a smaller budget? They have a vested interest in not switching because it affects the size of their budget ... but that is the difference between Apple (innovation) and MS (bureaucracy).
MS shareholders might wonder why MS still bothers throwing money down the consumer money pit when clearly consumers want nothing to do with Microsoft. Even XBox will NEVER climb out of the $15 BILLION dollar pit. MS has spent $50 billion to make $35 BILLION - nice math) Or the BILLIONS spent chasing Zune, Webtv, watches, MSN and now a billion dollars to buy Nokia's friendship - shreholders have watched MS throw $100 BILLION? into the toilet the past ten years - what's the shareholder value? zero gains in the past ten years?
If you compare technical spec side by side for those computers you will see superior technical performance and architecture used in the Apple computer. If you compare identically build computers to Apple you will find out that style and Apple name is less than 10% above the other computer price. I call it Apple sales tax, but I am willing to pay it to get the best industrial design there is. Yes, it feels to me like a sculpture where many artists expressed their talents, and they did. Just like people buy paintings, sculptures and other artistic items paying thousands of dollars only for the artistic expression. In this case it is only 10% of the useful value.
By moving to the core of the industry and offerings services that keep the system humming, a group within the electronics market has rendered irrelevant the question of ownership and control of the supply chain.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This