How Profitable are the iPad and Kindle?

by Idris Mootee

How much money are Apple and Amazon making from selling the iPad and the Kindle?

Get ready for the iPad to come to an Apple store near you, and for iTunes TV show downloads. Apple will be offering US TV shows for $1 each, as reported by the Financial Times. This coincides with the scheduled release of the iPad sometime in April in an attempt to boost adoption and pull sales through the channel. TV episodes are normally $1.99 for standard-definition and $2.99 for high-definition through iTunes. There was talk before the iPad launch that Apple might at last introduce an iTunes TV show subscription service, but it never happened. I am sure that is still on the table, but there are no further details about when this could come together.

Some wonder how much money Apple can make with the iPad. Obviously the higher end models are usually more profitable for Apple, and the iPad is no exception. I've done some quick and dirty research with OEM suppliers and whipped up some estimates. The high-end iPad model with 3G and 64 GB of storage will retail at $829 and produce a profit of $455 for Apple (and retailers), while the low-end iPad model with 16GB of storage (and no 3G) will retail at $499 and bring a profit of $213. My assumptions for marketing and customer support costs total $15. I have not included in the calculations any volume discounts that Apple might grant to corporate or educational buyers.



I have yet to confirm the components configuration but am using industry's current suppliers' prices. These costs will come down when volume increases, and memory prices fluctuate. The display is the most expensive component, followed by the NAND flash memory. If you drop your iPad, I am guessing the replacement cost would be $250-$270, although the net cost is $76 excluding labor. I've also included a quick comparison with the Kindle DX, which is not an apple-to-apple comparison, and is just there for reference. Kindle doesn't have many of the expensive components that the iPad has, but is an elegantly designed book reader. Remember the basic rule of design? Make sure you do at least one thing really, really good. Kindle makes the downloading experience so easy. Anywhere in the world, your 3G can work to download books in the background.

All cost calculations here are based on our estimates only, not sources from Apple or Amazon and no one has confirmed if these numbers are close or off. I think they are close.

Considering the Kindle DX selling for $489 produces a profit of $297. There are costs for some free content not included in the Kindle DX costs. There will likely be many iPad clones in the market selling in the $180-$250 range. The margin for iPad clones will be as thin as $30-$40, but you can't really compare the iPad with those poor cousins. Let's see what the iPad's net contribution to Apple will be by the end of the year.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Apple's Hidden Disruptive Innovation

by Braden Kelley

People often think that disruptive innovation happens overnight, but often it happens one step at a time. Before the iPod was an innovation, Apple had to not only launch the device, but also the iTunes Store for music, and the Microsft Windows version of iTunes. Apple also expanded the iTunes Store to include audiobooks, movies, and television, but by then it had already become a mass-adopted disruptive innovation that has changed the music industry forever.

Apple then launched the iPhone and changed the power paradigm in the mobile industry around mobile applications publishing - resulting in the App Store.

Apple is about to do it again, but nobody is writing about it.

In retrospect I believe we will look back and point to January 27, 2010 as the day that Apple changed the power paradigm of mobile data plans and subsidies in the mobile industry.

Up until now, the mobile postpaid market has been defined by mobile phones subsidized in exchange for two-year contracts (at least in the United States), and mobile data plans that also often require a two-year contract. Even when Google announced the Nexus One as an unlocked device, T-Mobile (or any other carrier) is still going to charge you the same monthly cost as someone who bought the subsidized phone. Meanwhile, The carrier partner announced for the iPad, AT&T, has two regular 3G data plans:

1. $35 per month (200MB limit)
   
2. $60 per month (5GB monthly limit)

AT&T sells two 3G data cards - free or $49 - both requiring a two-year contract. But Apple yesterday announced that AT&T will provide 3G service to iPad users WITHOUT a two-year contract (or any contract for that matter). Pay as you go data access that is actually CHEAPER than their regular 3G data plans:

1. $15 per month (250MB limit)
   
2. $30 per month (unlimited)

To my knowledge, this is the first time (at least in the United States) where a carrier has given a cheaper price for service to a customer bringing an unlocked, unsubsidized device onto their network. This is of course how it should be, but still this is a watershed moment. If other carriers adopt this model with the iPad, then eventually some carrier may start to do this with other devices, and it may open the door for a different subsidy to emerge.

If carriers finally start to acknowledge that people who bring unsubsidized devices onto their network should pay less, then it opens the door for someone like Google to start paying people to use their device. Google could leverage their ad-serving platform and Google Checkout to launch a phone that effectively gets cheaper the more and longer you use it, regardless of which carrier you use and whether you're using pre-pay or postpaid (standard monthly service).

This is the innovation that I thought Google would launch with the Nexus One, but they didn't. Can Google now lean on T-Mobile and others more now to offer differentiated pricing for owners of unsubsidized devices?

The data plans offered by AT&T for the Apple iPad may have not seemed very interesting on January 27, 2010. But, I think looking backwards we may very well see this as a defining moment for the mobile industry.

Thank you Apple.


To see what I think of the Apple iPad, please go here.

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Will Apple Introduce the Innovation Expected from Google?

by Braden Kelley

Some great conversations have sprung up around my previous articles on the rumored Apple Tablet (iSlate). In the past I focused on what innovation Apple's potential tablet device might offer and whether or not Apple is likely to make the rumored first year sales projection of 10 million units.

A recent comment from "Marketing Department" brought up the topic of subsidies and whether or not Apple might be on the verge of introducing another business model innovation. So, in this article we'll dig a little deeper into that possibility.

When Apple launched the iPod, they introduced the iTunes business model innovation which turned the music industry on ear, quickly followed by the television and movie industries. Then Apple launched the iPhone and introduced the App Store business model innovation and introduced a new way for people to purchase software that the competition quickly rushed to copy. Now, what could Apple create with a Tablet device?

Well, obviously the App Store and iTunes will be present on this new device, and the iTunes Store will likely be extended to cover books, newspapers, and magazines. An extension of the iTunes Store is more of an incremental innovation. So what disruptive business model innovation could Apple do that would catch the competition off-balance?

Well, in my mind, Apple could very well launch the business model innovation that I expected to come with Google's Nexus One smartphone (but didn't) - shifting the subsidy model.

Currently, when a customer buys the Google Nexus One or the Apple iPhone, the mobile service provider subsidizes the cost of the device by about $325 in exchange for a 2-year contract from the customer. This ties the customer to the carrier for two years (and usually longer). I was expecting the Nexus One launch to include an unlocked phone that Google themselves subsidized in one way or another. One way could have been to pay the customer to use the phone on whatever carrier they wished by depositing money every month in a Google Checkout account based on ad views. This did not happen.

But Apple could take this idea one step further. Not only are they moving into the advertising game with some of their recent acquisitions, but they already have the incredible reach and product offerings provided by the iTunes Store and the App Store. While several people expect any Apple Tablet (iSlate) to have a retail price of $800-$1,000, a mobile carrier subsidy might bring it down into the $500-700 range. Might not Apple then be willing to subsidize it even further based on expected future media and content sales to push the price down into the $300-500 range and make it cost competitive with netbooks and the Amazon Kindle?

After all, Apple makes money (or could make money) in a number of different ways after the device purchase:

1. Applications (Downloads, In-App Advertising, In-App Purchases)
2. Media (Music, Movies, Television)
3. Books and Textbooks
4. Subscriptions (Music Streaming, Movie Downloads, Newspapers, Magazines, TV)
5. Advertising (TBD)
6. MobileMe

You could look at this very much like HP and their ink cartridge business. But how much of a subsidy could Apple offer?

Well, some limited data I found indicates that from this particular data set that the average iTunes transaction is $7 and an average of three transactions per month are made. That would equate to about $21 per month or $250 per year. So, what if you add in games, applications, and other content?

To keep the calculations easy let's say that the $250 becomes $500 when other kinds of content are added in, and using Apple's 30% revenue share, that would give an estimate of $150 per year per user. Yes, I know this is highly simplified, and from a small dataset, but we're just imagining possibilities not doing financial forecasts.

From this point, you could go two ways, look at this as a customer lock-in possibility for Apple and a potential perpetuity, or look at a fixed device life. Again, because this is only illustrative let's simplify and say that over four years Apple might expect (using this data) to earn $600 in revenue per device (excluding advertising revenue) and if Apple decided to dedicate 25% of this revenue to a subsidy, they could allocate $150 to bring down the cost of the device and the rest to go towards costs and profits. Throw in some advertising revenue for good measure, and maybe it makes sense for Apple to subsidize this new device by the $200 that might be necessary to bring the price to customer down into the $300-$500 sweet spot.

But how much of this revenue is incremental revenue? Will the device be an incremental purchase (an additional device people buy), or will it replace a Macbook, iMac, iPhone, or iPod purchase? Would it really make sense to do this?

Hopefully these quick and crude calculations have helped you to see why Apple might consider launching their own subsidy with their rumored tablet device (iSlate, iPad, iCanvas, iTablet, Macbook Slate, etc.) and why they might not. It will be rather interesting to see what they do...


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Content is No Longer King (Part 2)

by Stephen Shapiro

In an earlier blog entry on content, readers provided a number of interesting comments. If you haven't already read that article (and the comments), you may want to do so in order to understand this new article.

Many did not agree with my point of view. And that is great. I only wanted to stimulate some conversation.

Let me first address some of the comments (and I appreciate the time that everyone took in writing comments). The comment is in italics with my response following.


"I wonder if the Kindle model requires a subsidy to offset the upfront cost of technology development and/or design manufacturing." Two thoughts come to mind. 1) No one has an issue paying $150 for an iPod even though the cost of the music is pretty much the same. 2) As new generations of eBook readers hit the market, prices will drop. Several are now on the market for under $200.


"The reason distribution appears to be the source of value isn't distribution itself but the monopolistic nature of new distribution channels." Indeed. And that's my point. Those who aggregate are the ones who create positions of power. The content creators are not the power players. And the individual publishers certainly aren't.


"If content was truly losing its ability to create value, Comcast would not try to purchase NBC - they might instead bid for Netflix or for a content delivery device company like Roku." Great point. The reason why I mentioned Comcast's acquisition of NBC was not to say that it was a good or bad move. I was only trying to point out that a few years ago, the networks were the ones doing the acquiring. Now the distributors are in a position to buy the content creators. It will be interesting to see what this Comcast deal does to Hulu.


"It's the publisher that is not essential anymore - the content creators are also becoming content publishers due to technology." Indeed, the publisher is now playing the role of middleman and is going away in many respects - or needs to play a very different role. As you suggest, content creators do have the option to go straight to the consumer now. And we are seeing a democratization of content. Having said that, content creators will still want to push their content to content aggregators - the source of the eyeballs. The reason why Google is so successful is that they are currently a significant player in how content is found.


Some interesting things have evolved in the past week since I wrote the first article. It appears that the big innovations are being developed by the content aggregators (not that that is surprising).

Google Digital Books: Google is offering eBooks on out of print books that are no longer subject to copyright restrictions. They scanned nearly 2 million books and will be offering them in digital form for about $8.

HP/Amazon paperback books: Soon after Google's announcement, HP and Amazon.com indicated that they will offer print on demand paperback books for these out of print books. A 250 page book from their library of 500,000 can be purchased for about $15. A single copy can be printed in a few minutes.

Book Pricing War: Wal-mart, in an effort to crush Amazon.com, is offering 10 new release books for $10. Well, that was until Amazon said they would offer those same books for $10, at which point Wal-Mart dropped the price to $9. Target joined the price-war, dropping the price to $8.99. This caused Wal-Mart to drop the price to $8.98. According to the WSJ, "The publishing industry is also watching warily to see if the price war will have lasting impact on book pricing and the contracts that publishers sign with authors."

BN Nook eBook Reader: Barnes and Noble, announced the release of their 'Nook' eBook, intended to take on Amazon.com's Kindle. One account says that the Nook is "closer to a printed book than its precursors in some respects, (in that it) allows users to lend their copies of electronic books to any friend who has installed Barnes & Noble's e-reader application on a mobile device or personal computer."

Comcast Premium Channel Streaming: Comcast announced that by end of the year, you will be able to watch popular cable television series such as HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Mad Men" on your computer without paying extra. They are reported to be the first cable TV operator to "unlock online access to a slate of valuable cable shows and movies, aiming to replicate what's available on television through video on demand."


Please don't get me wrong. Content is necessary. As an author, I sure hope there is value in what I do. Amazon.com, iTunes, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, and Comcast would not exist without content. So yes, content is important. I just wonder if it is still king.


P.S. As an aside, Andrew Odlyzko published an article entitled "Content is Not King" where he contends (according to Wikipedia) that "1) the entertainment industry is a small industry compared with other industries, notably the telecommunications industry; 2) people are more interested in communication than entertainment; and 3) therefore that entertainment content is not the killer app for the Internet." I realize it is a different topic altogether, but it is interesting nonetheless.

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Content is No Longer King

by Stephen Shapiro

We often hear that content is king. But I wonder if this is still true.

Let's take some very simple examples.

I am sure most of you know that the iPod was not a revolutionary invention. It was merely a new spin on the already existing MP3 player. The real innovation was the integration of the iPod with iTunes. This changed the game. Using this model, the distribution of content became as important as the creators (the musicians) and the publishers (the record labels). Apple is now one of the most powerful and profitable players in the music industry.

I now own an Amazon Kindle. I have to admit, I love it (I'll blog about that another time). But what strikes me is that we are seeing the same 'content distributor as king' dynamics unfold again. In the book business, the author's royalty is a pretty small slice of the pie. I should know because I just signed a two book deal with Penguin's Portfolio imprint.

Here are some illustrative figures for a printed book (kept very simple using made up, yet not far fetched numbers):

• An author can expect about 10% +/- of the retail price of the book. So if the book retails for $25, the author gets $2.50.


• The retailer expects roughly a 50% discount and then they sell it for whatever they can get. If they sell it for a 20% discount, they gross approximately 30% of the price of the book (about $7.50). Their profit is quite a bit less due to overhead costs.


• Finally the publisher gets the remaining 40% or so - about $10 a book. By the time the publisher has covered all of their costs, books that sell poorly can lose them money because they need to pay the editorial staff, the various designers, the printers, and the shipping companies.

As you can see, the creator of the content (the author) gets a small slice. The publisher of the content gets a small slice. And the distributor gets a small slice. The rest of the money is eaten up in various costs.

Enter in the digital age.

Book on Kindle sell for $9.99 as a rule (we'll make it $10 to keep it simple). Let's look at an illustrative breakdown now.

• The author gets 5% of the retail (eBooks typically get a lower royalty) - $0.50. As you can see, an author can make 80% less with a Kindle book.


• The publisher and Amazon split the rest in a way I am not privy to.


• The publisher's costs are lower because they don't need to pay for shipping and printing. They still incur the upfront design and editorial costs.


• Amazon's costs are close to zero. They only need to pay a small amount to Sprint to provide mobile services. No overhead (except maybe some computer servers). No distribution. No warehouses.

In this model, I want to be Amazon. Everything sold is nearly pure profit. The content creator (me) is definitely not the financial king in this model. The publisher does fine. But the distributor appears to be the one in charge.

This concept of distribution as king appears in all areas. I was speaking with a seasoned consultant from the retailing industry. He indicated that a few years ago, the power shifted from the manufacturers to the retailers. Wal-Mart has the lion's share of power in the industry and they now call the shots.

You could argue that Google has a similar position, although their financial model is a bit different (AdWords accounts for most of their profit). But like other distributors, they don't create content. Instead they aggregate content from a variety of sources into one distribution system.

I just read on Friday that Comcast may be buying a 51% stake in NBC from GE. This shows how the power is moving from the creators of the content (the writers) and the publishers of the content (NBC and their production staff) to the distributors of the content - Comcast.

Are you a content creator or you a content publisher? Does someone else control distribution? Or, are there new entrants who might control distribution? Beware. The current and future distributors/aggregators of your content could be one of the most serious threats to your business.

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Following the Line to Innovation - Mobile Applications

I came across a queue reduction application for the iPhone and iPod Touch yesterday that was intriguing. The application isn't quite finished or certified for use yet by Apple and Starbucks, but from what I gather it works something like this:

1. User comes in range of a Starbucks WiFi Hotspot
2. Application recognizes the Starbucks WiFi Hotspot or user initiates application
3. Application engages the user interface portion of the application
4. Application makes a connection
5. Application prompts user to order a Starbucks beverage
6. Application user interface facilitates the selection and transmission of the drink order (including a list of saved favorites to speed the process)
7. Application connects to the user's iTunes account
8. Application deducts funds from the user's iTunes account
9. Application creates a visual barcode with the information necessary to register payment
10. User places iPhone or iPod Touch with visual barcode under a reader at the pickup counter
11. User collects their beverage
    

The visual barcode (semacode) and scanner portion of the system could be made unnecessary (or relegated to backup system status), by instead transmitting a payment confirmation to Starbuck's on-site systems directly via the WiFi connection. In the backup scenario, the visual barcode would serve as an electronic receipt to show proof of payment in case the systems in the store doesn't receive the systematic payment immediately.

Imagine the convenience of getting a block or two from your favorite Starbucks, connecting, clicking 'The Usual' and proceeding directly to the drink pickup counter instead of waiting in line to order and pay.

Of course there is no reason why companies like McDonald's or Cinemark couldn't create similar applications to eliminate some of the queueing from our lives. If people could order this easily with their phones then businesses could reduce staffing or reallocate resources from order taking and payment processing to more value-added activities like preparing food or beverage orders.

Apps like this could be extended to the Web through the introduction of a store number field or store locator mini-application or pulldown at the beginning of the application sequence. This would allow you to order out of range of the in-store WiFi over your cellular network or from your home or office internet connection.

Less time spent waiting in lines?

Oh what a beautiful world.

Followup - The Future of Broadcast Television

I finally got my password to the beta program for hulu.com and I must say it is what I thought it would be, a site where you can watch advertising-supported Fox and NBC programming for free. This article is a followup on innovation article #75 of November 11, 2007. ABC.com has been doing this for some time, but this marks the first time that two competing networks have gotten together to share development costs on such a venture. The real question is not whether it will be successful or not, but how successful it might be.


The site sounds a near-certain death knell on iTunes future capacity to offer television content profitably. ABC already has their content for free online, and now NBC and Fox do as well. While some people may want to be able to watch content without commercials, I surely doubt that the size of that market segment are going to be large enough to make it worth the investment in servers and development cost, not to mention marketing and other costs. People that are that adamant about not having commercials, and are willing to pay for that privilege, will surely spring for the DVD instead.

From the networks perspective, surely they get more than a dollar or two in advertising revenue per view, so then it becomes a question of the number of views they get and whether that covers the operational costs. The great thing is that the development costs have already been covered by the broadcast division, so the content is ostensibly free to the online division (with the exception of any royalties they must pay).

This calls into question whether iTunes will really be able to ever succeed in video of any kind, including movies. It is in the networks best interests to host their own content or to host it via a platform that they control. By doing so they not only have the opportunity to increase their revenue, but also to cross-promote - to push people from show to show, or sell DVDs and other merchandise.

Finally, if people consume the content on a platform that they control, the networks have a better opportunity to loyalize consumers and even to elevate their interest to involved fan. If they can elevate their interest from casual viewer to involved fan, they may buy merchandise, but more importantly they are likely to then be worth more in terms of advertising revenue (repeat visits, links out to community sites, etc.).

Hulu.com isn't a revolutionary innovation, but it does bring a few new things to the party when it comes to advertising-supported premium content:

1. Ability to embed a program in any other site on the web
   
• Surprisingly without commercials
• Also allows you to resize the timebar to create a custom clip
2. First site to offer movies for free (advertising supported)
3. At the end of the video clip, it gives you either
   
• A link to the show's web site telling you when the show airs
• A link to Amazon Unbox where you can purchase an episode for $1.99
  
• Three formats (computer, TiVo, or portable device)
• Text saying that people can download or purchase a season (but no link)

Hulu does have the ability to revolutionize the industry in a way that YouTube never will, if they have the vision and the organizational capabilities...

Starting with two major networks' content available gives Hulu the chance to at least try to establish itself as a destination for more than Fox and NBC content, potentially stripping YouTube of its best user-generated and premium content at the same time. Hulu has the chance to establish itself as the platform for introducing all kinds of other advertising-supported premium content:

1. Television and Movie Back-catalogs
2. Foreign and independent content (movies, television and shorts)
3. Public television content
4. Music videos
5. Video podcasts
6. Audio podcasts
7. Audiobooks
8. Temporary promotional content (i.e. concert or other live entertainment teasers)
9. The opportunity to create a new style of infomercial

It will be interesting to see if Hulu seizes the opportunity to create an industry platform instead of just a nice little joint venture. It will also be interesting to see what the effect of Hulu and other premium content sites are on shared networks. I guess we will see.

Do you think Hulu will maintain a closed or open network?