Activation problems don't stop iPhone from being largest CE launch in history

[This post also appears on blogs.yankeegroup.com]

Josh Martin beat me to the punch with his post on the Apple press release this morning (curse you!), but I thought I'd add a bit more context to the story.

Those one million iPhone 3Gs sold this weekend provide a pretty good clue for why Apple and AT&T's activation servers are slammed and barely able to keep up. This was a big deal. Why? Because not only was it about 4 times more phones than Apple had to deal with last year at this time, but because it is probably the largest consumer electronics launch in history.

I noted when I was analyzing Apple at my prior company, the original 2007 iPhone launch was the largest first weekend consumer electronics launch in history as measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, garnering somewhere around $150 million in its first weekend on sale. That eclipsed the Microsoft XBox 360 ($128 million in the first weekend), Microsoft Windows 95 ($122 million in the first four days), and the Sony Betamax (not even close at $58 million in the first 7 months). But Apple just broke its own record. Assuming an average price after carrier subsidy of $433 (2/3 8 GByte models, 1/3 16 GByte models), Apple just posted approximately $433 million in first weekend iPhone sales. Said another way, if this had been a movie, it would have broken all box office records for a first weekend opening -- by a factor of nearly 3.

And the AppStore? That's harder to get a handle on. My estimate is that most of those downloads were free programs, and that Apple pulled in somewhere around $3.5 million in AppStore revenue, of which it got to keep just about $1 million (the other $2.5 million went to the pay application developers). But again, for a first weekend launch, that isn't too shabby -- it took the original iTunes store a week to reach the $1 million mark in revenue in 2003.

Now some will ask why we're gushing about the iPhone -- after all, it's just a phone. But from my personal point of view, it's important for a very specific reason: it's an Anywhere phone. What's an Anywhere phone? One that provides first-class, two-way, broadband access to both the world-wide voice and Internet networks. Most phones have been first class phones and second-class Internet devices; the iPhone has changed that, and done it in such a way that even my technology-phobic mother could use one. We shouldn't be surprised when good technology gets a good reception.

Yes, there were a lot of server and activation problems this weekend, and both Apple and its carrier partners should get their acts together. But making history is never easy or smooth. And Apple's competitors should be happy about the problems they had. Imagine how many iPhone 3Gs Apple would have sold if the launch had been problem-free.

Big Data as Competitive Advantage

Today's New York Times nominates Google as the Zen Master of the Anywhere Internet era because it is using network effects like Microsoft did during the PC revolution. Personally, I like Google's chief economist's reason better: the company focuses on learning from experience:

Google, it seems, is the emerging dominant company in the Internet era, much as Microsoft was in the PC era. The study of networked businesses, market competition and antitrust law is being reconsidered in a new context, shaped by Google. Google’s explanation for its large share of the Internet search market — more than 60 percent — is simply that it is a finely honed learning machine. Its scientists constantly improve the relevance of search results for users and the efficiency of its advertising system for advertisers and publishers. “The source of Google’s competitive advantage is learning by doing,” said Hal R. Varian, Google’s chief economist.

But this isn't your father's learning by a few trials and errors. Google learns from what is rapidly becoming a new and powerful trend: organizing and learning from the petabytes of data it collects.

Call the Centers for Disease Control! iPhone epidemic expected!

sn't it amazing that some people can tell a week in advance when they are going to be sick? If you're one of those people who senses that the 24-hour iPhone flu is going to wrack your body starting next Thursday, you should be sure to read these iPhone 3G Sick Day Tips. Oh, and remember that if you call in sick and stand in line at the Boylston St. Apple store, we can see you. Meanwhile, Happy Fourth of July America; happy weekend to everyone else. And by the way, if you think the above is crazy, note that people are already camping out in line at the New York 5th Avenue Apple Store.

Apple's three considerations for iPhone location apps: liability, liability, and liability

[This post also appears at http://blogs.yankeegroup.com]

The Wall Street Journal yesterday raised a few Anywhere eyebrows with this paragraph at the end of an article titled Firms Hitch Wagons to iPhone. The paragraph that caused this fuss was as follows:

And those that have been sanctioned by Apple are finding out too late that they have guessed wrong about the depth to which Apple is willing to help them. Makers of location-based software expected to benefit from the new iPhone's global-positioning system. Yet they are finding out that Apple won't support "applications designed or marketed for real-time route guidance." The clause in the iPhone developer tool-kit agreement essentially voids months of work by TomTom NV and other navigation providers.

Could this be? Could Apple be an Anywhere spoilsport and refuse to allow location-based applications?

Now, being a registered developer, I have the software development kits (SDK) for both the Apple iPhone and Google Android [shameless research plug: Yankee Group clients should look for a Decision Note comparison of the two SDKs and how developers should choose between them to be published soon]. Unfortunately, the Apple SDK license terms are confidental so I can't quote chapter and verse here (software license restrictions and end user license agreements are a rant for another post). However, I can provide my personal interpretation of Apple's legaleze, which luckily isn't too tricky. Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer, and this opinion should not be construed as legal advice. Always consult your own attorney on legal matters.

Yes, the restriction noted by the Wall Street Journal exists, but the restriction isn't as severe as the WSJ implies. It's really all about the legal liability of location-based services, something too few companies or developers actually stop and think about.

The major points of the restrictions in clauses 3.3.7 through 3.3.9 of the license agreement are to prevent applications from:

• violating consumer privacy with location data (big privacy liability there)
• enabling stalkers (both bad karma and possible criminal accessory liability)
• routing people or vehicles incorrectly (encouraging people to pay attention to their iPhone distracts them when they should be looking out the windshield; ask anyone who has into a bridge or river based on GPS directions), or
• doing illegal things with location info (all the bad things that Apple legal didn't think of)

Personally, I find Apple's unwillingness to sign off on these types of applications without further scrutiny rather comforting. But does this leave GPS makers like TomTom out in the cold? Of course not, because any serious GPS manufacturer:

1. already has assessed and protected itself against this type of liability with liability insurance and other legal protections, and
2. could negotiate a different licensing agreement from Apple for its products provided it accepted legal liability for its application.

So rest easy: you'll see location-based applications on the 3G iPhone. But expect those to come from companies like TomTom and Garmin that actually know their Anywhere liabilities instead of from Joe's Homebrew GPS and Beer Company.

Apple's iPhone 3G: who needs carrier subsidies?

[This post also appears on the Yankee Group Blog at http://blogs.yankeegroup.com] With Apple's iPhone launching on July 11 for $199 in the US with a 2-year AT&T contract, everyone (including me) is assuming that there's a roughly $200 AT&T subsidy baked into that price. That assumption seems especially reasonable since AT&T is raising its unlimited data service subscription price by $10 per month and will no longer share subscription revenue with Apple. Those two factors means that AT&T is accruing about $480 more ($240 from the higher data service price and $240 from not sharing subscription revenue with Apple) per 3G subscriber over the two-year contract, leaving them plenty of room to pay Apple roughly $399 up front for 3G iPhones and still sell them to consumers for $199. But there's an intriguing twist to this story that may surprise people. According to Porteligent and as reported by EETimes, the parts cost of the 3G iPhone may be as low as $100. That means that even at $199, Apple's price includes a roughly 50% gross margin over its parts cost, which is in the ballpark of the gross margins on traditional iPods. If AT&T is adding in a $200 subsidy, then the iPhone 3G is anything but a a phone requiring a carrier subsidy. In fact, if these numbers are true and the carriers are subsidizing the phone, the iPhone 3G could end up being the most profitable product Apple makes. But more likely, this means that Apple has a lot more pricing flexibility than analysts have given them credit for. Now as one of those analysts, I have to apply a caveat here. It's highly unlikely that Portelligent actually has an iPhone 3G to tear down, so their parts cost analysis is probably just an educated guess informed by current cost data from parts suppliers. But that said, Apple has a history of aggressively buying parts to achieve a market advantage. For example, Apple paid $1.25 billion in 2005 to guarantee flash memory for iPods through 2008; that purchase made it nearly impossible for other flash music players to have competitive supplies and profit margins. Apple reportedly negotiated another similar deal in 2007. In my opinion, the Portelligent's cost is probably closer to right than wrong, simply because Apple never sells loss-leader products. And given Apple's intent to sell this phone in more than 70 countries this year, it undoubtedly worked hard to ensure low parts costs regardless of significant currency fluctuations too. So what's the takeaway here? It's simple: Apple's 3G phone isn't a loss-leader product needing subsidies to survivie. It's designed to be an Anywhere phone that puts your online life, media, and connections in your pocket, yet be simple enough for your grandma to use. But for Apple, it's a business platform designed to make money -- and the details of that business design may surprise more analysts than the product itself.