Category Archives: Windows Phone

Laptops, Microsoft, Surface, Tablets, Windows Phone

Every device is a compromise, part 2

4 Comments

In May last year, when Microsoft unveiled the Surface Pro 3, I wrote a piece about the new device but also about the way it was unveiled, titled, “Surface Pro 3, like every other device, is a compromise.” In that piece, I wrote about Microsoft’s insistence that the Surface Pro 3 was a no-compromise device, when in fact all devices represent compromises of one sort or another. I went on to say:

The biggest change in Microsoft’s Surface strategy over the last several years has been the locus of the compromise it’s still inevitably making. The first Surfaces were intended to be good tablets first and good laptops second (and ended up being neither). But with the Surface Pro 3, Microsoft has created a competitive laptop first, and a compromised tablet second. But it’s still pretending that there’s no compromise, and that is why the Surface line will continue to perform poorly. At some point, Microsoft has to stop pretending that a single device can meet all needs and start optimizing for different use cases with different devices, just like every other manufacturer.

Fast-forward to today, and we got the next version of the Surface Pro, the Surface Pro 4. And we saw two of the same phrases from that first event repeated: “no compromise” and “the tablet that can replace your laptop. So far, so predictable.

But then, immediately after the SP4 was introduced, we were shown the Surface Book. Which is a laptop. And Panos Panay, the presenter, started out by talking about all the things a laptop does that the Surface Pro does poorly – a better typing experience, a bigger screen, and so on. This was one of the most bizarre juxtapositions I’ve ever seen at a tech event. After 30 minutes of talking about how the Surface Pro 4 could replace your laptop with no compromises, the very same presenter offered up a laptop which was clearly better, because it didn’t make certain of those compromises.

Taking a step back for a minute, both products look really promising. I’ll withhold final judgment until I get to use these devices (or at least until others I trust have done so and shared their opinions). But this “no compromise” nonsense continues to do a massive disservice to Microsoft and to its customers. As I said in that earlier piece, every device involves a compromise. That compromise might involve features, functionality, look and feel, size, weight, price, or any number of other elements. But every device does involve compromises. And instead of pretending that it doesn’t, Microsoft needs to embrace what’s distinctive and best about each of the devices it offers. However, when you look at the Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book side by side, you start to realize that the Surface Book is really just the concept of the Surface Pro taken to its logical conclusion – thin, light, with a detachable keyboard and pen.

Is there anything that the SP4 does better than the Surface Book? Yes, it’s slightly smaller, and quite a bit lighter than the Surface Book if the keyboard is attached. To my mind, the only benefit to the SP4 is that it’s cheaper – in other words, it’s an inferior but more affordable version of the Surface Book. By the end of the Surface Book demos, I saw people asking on Twitter, “why does Microsoft even need the Surface Pro 4?” and as far as I can tell, the answer is “because the Surface Book starts at $1499”.

One quick comment on OEMs. Unlike the Surface, with which Microsoft said it was creating a new category, and therefore has somewhat been able to skirt around the fact that Microsoft is now competing with its partners, the Surface Book was not burdened with any qualifiers. It was simply positioned as the best, the thinnest, the most powerful Windows 10 laptop. Period. If I’m one of Microsoft’s OEM partners, I’m betting I’m not very happy about that at all. However, those OEMs have only themselves to blame if Microsoft, which has zero experience in making laptops, is able to produce a more compelling computer than the OEMs that have had decades of experience. What does it say about Microsoft’s OEM partners that Microsoft has been able to do this to them, and that it’s willing to do so? The one saving grace is that the vast majority of Windows PCs are sold at well under $1500, and so this really isn’t targeted at the core of the Windows PC market. But it’s still a finger in the eye of the Windows OEMs.

Lastly, this parting thought. Satya Nadella took the stage at the end of the event and gave the kind of speech he’s given at almost every event Microsoft has had since he took over as CEO – big picture themes, Microsoft’s mission statement, and so on. I’m a fan of Nadella, but this speech felt like so much waffle after what was a really compelling set of device introductions. All the energy seemed to go out of the event when he took the stage. The other thing that happened was that, as he mentioned them, I suddenly remembered that Microsoft had introduced a new Band and the Lumia 950 devices earlier in the event. I had almost completely forgotten those by the time the Surface stuff was over with. They were so completely overshadowed by what came after, and for all Panos Panay’s attempts at enthusiasm about the Lumias, it was very clear that he had inherited those products and his true loves were the Surface products. I might still write about the Lumias separately at some point, but for now I see little in them that’s going to transform the fortunes of Windows Phone or Microsoft’s phone hardware business.

Cloud, Earnings, Microsoft, Office, Q2 2015, Surface, Windows, Windows Phone

A deep dive on Microsoft’s Q2 2015 numbers

Following Microsoft’s earnings is always interesting, because like any other company it releases many of the key data points in its press release, but to a greater extent than others it releases lots more little details in its regular quarterly SEC filings. And once a year, the 10-K provides an additional set of very interesting data. As such, I often hold off on writing analysis of Microsoft’s earnings until all these details are out. This piece builds on past pieces on Microsoft’s earnings, in some of which I’ve laid out the methodology I use for calculating some of the revenue numbers for individual businesses. Last year’s deep dive following the release of the 10-K is here.

Note: here as elsewhere on this blog, I use calendar quarters rather than companies’ fiscal quarters in my commentary and in charts. The only exceptions in this piece are specific references to Microsoft’s fiscal years (denoted as FY 2015 etc.)

Because this is a longer post, I’ve provided some links to specific sections below:

Employee numbers paint a stark picture of the Nokia acquisition

I’ll start with some of the stuff that Microsoft only reveals once a year in the 10-K, and that’s employee numbers and a product-level breakdown of external revenues.

From an employee perspective, the overall number is always interesting by itself, but this time around I found the categorization of the workforce particularly interesting. The three charts below show this split both by job function and by geography.

This first chart gives you some sense of the overall numbers as well as how they break down. As you can see, the workforce two years ago was just under 100k, but a year later it was almost 130k. What happened? The acquisition of Nokia’s devices business (NDS) is the main answer. But of course, since the acquisition Microsoft has pared back that workforce quite a bit. As I wrote in my piece on the Nokia impairment a few weeks ago:

By the time it’s done with the layoffs announced today, Microsoft will also have jettisoned around 80% of the employees associated with the Nokia acquisition. It took on around 25,000 (down from the 32,000 originally anticipated) when the acquisition closed, but laid of around half three months later, in July last year. Now, a year later, it’s losing another 7-8,000, taking the remainder down to just 5,000, or 20% of those originally brought on board.

Some 25,000 of that 29,000 bump from June 2013 to June 2014 was Nokia-related, but by June 2015 the number was back down to 118,000, or 10k lower, but that’s the net impact after hiring in other areas. The most dramatic impact from a job function perspective was manufacturing and distribution, which is shown in light blue at the top of the columns below, and is broken out separately in the second chart below. It’s also worth noting the strong growth in the Product Support and Consulting category during the last two years – this is organic hiring to support some of Microsoft’s newer businesses, and it’s accelerating rapidly. The third chart shows a geographic breakdown, and there too you can see the dramatic impact of the Nokia acquisition on overseas employees (up 25,000 exactly from 2013 to 2014) and subsequent loss of 8,000 of those employees a year later.

Stacked employees by functionEmployees by function Employees by geographyProduct revenue breakdowns

I always do quite a bit of reading between the lines every quarter to establish estimated figures for various product lines, but once a year Microsoft gives us a breakdown of “external revenues” from major product lines. This is about the only way to build a complete picture of products like Windows and Office, which are otherwise spread through Microsoft’s various reported segments. The chart below shows this breakdown on a stacked basis:External revs by productAs you can see, reported revenues have grown strongly for each of the last few years. However, these aren’t pro forma figures: the acquisition of NDS isn’t factored into past years’ revenues, so both in FY 2014 and in FY 2015 Microsoft got an artificial bump from NDS (in 2014 only for a very short period since the acquisition closed late in the year, and in 2015 for a full year’s worth of revenues). If you compare 2015 to 2014, you can see that Surface and Phone by themselves accounted for essentially all the growth in that period. Strip out the Phone business alone and revenue would have been roughly flat. But underneath that, there’s actually a lot going on too, as the year on year growth rates below show:
Year on year growthXbox is easily the spikiest of these revenue sources, rising and falling with new product releases as you can see in 2011 and 2014. Windows has seen the most dramatic fall, from strong growth in 2010 to flat growth the next few years and now negative growth (in part, but not entirely, due to currency effects). Office, too, has seen a steady decline and shrank this past year. Server Tools and Products and Consulting and Support services are the most consistent growth drivers for Microsoft at this point, while Advertising has also contributed strong growth most quarters (and the rate of growth will increase with the disposition of the display advertising business). What’s interesting to me, though, is the paucity of information about the sale of the display ad business to AOL – the only references to it label it as outsourcing of the business to AOL and AppNexus, but there’s no discussion of the impact on revenues going forward or anything else. My past calculations – shared in that earlier post linked to above – suggest that this business was worth just under a billion dollars a year, so it’s not nothing. The omission of any discussion of this impact in the 10-K feels odd.

As a result of all this, the two historical mainstays of Microsoft’s business – Office and Windows – make up an ever smaller proportion of the company’s revenues. If you take the PC version of Windows alone, that and Office now account for just 41% of Microsoft’s revenues, while adding in Server Products and Tools brings the total up to 61%. Obviously, the addition of NDS is a big reason for the drop off the last two quarters, but as we saw above Windows and Office are also shrinking in their own right.

Windows and OfficeLastly, it’s interesting to note that Microsoft did indeed hit a milestone I had predicted they would this time last year: international revenues have now eclipsed domestic revenues for the first time in Microsoft’s history, at least on an annual basis, though the transition probably happened sometime in the second half of FY 2014.
US vs international rev

Cloud revenue, AWS, and growing margins

Last quarter, when Amazon first broke out AWS revenue separately, I wrote a piece comparing Microsoft and Amazon’s respective cloud revenue buckets, and provided all kinds of caveats about the limits to the comparability of these two businesses. Here, then, is an update based on information in the 10-K:MS cloud and AWSEssentially, the pattern from last quarter continued – AWS remained just a little ahead of Microsoft’s “Cloud Services” reporting line this quarter, and for the last four quarters was just ahead at a hair under $6 billion, compared to just under $5.8 billion for Microsoft. Interestingly, though cloud services are not one of the product lines Microsoft breaks out in the numbers I analyzed above, they are broken out just below that, rounded to $5.8 billion, and Microsoft says they’re reported in several of those segments that are reported.

Unfortunately, unlike Amazon, Microsoft provides no good sense of how profitable this business is. The only small hints are references to data center spending sprinkled throughout the 10-K. They include this interesting snippet in a description of Microsoft’s main drivers of expenses:

Our most significant expenses are related to compensating employees, designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling our products and services, datacenter costs in support of our cloud-based services, and income taxes. (emphasis added)

Further along in the 10-K, we get another mention of data center costs, which apparently rose by $396 million in FY 2015. Given that cloud services revenues rose by $3 billion in the same period, that’s almost nothing. Obviously, data center costs aren’t the only expenses associated with cloud revenue, but they have to be one of the largest. In FY 2014, by contrast, data center costs rose by $575 million, while revenue rose by $1.5 billion, so the return on that investment is increasing significantly. Gross margin in the bigger segment that commercial cloud services are part of (Commercial Other) rose significantly – by $2.3 billion or 126% – in FY 2015, much of which was due to Office 365 growth at enterprises, as well as growth in Azure. Total cost of revenue in this same broader segment only grew $946 million, or 17%, so it’s clear that Microsoft is hitting its stride in terms of achieving economies of scale and higher margins, though it’s still elusive exactly what level those margins have now reached.

A broader look at margins

If we take a step back and look at that larger segment, Commercial Other, we can see that gross margins are rising steadily, and are now above all the other non-software categories at this point:

MS gross margins by segmentLicensing continues to have the highest gross margin – cost of sales are tiny compared to revenues in that business since the incremental cost of an additional sale is close to zero. But Commercial Other, composed primarily of cloud services and enterprise services, is becoming increasingly profitable, and with its growth is also becoming an increasingly important contributor to overall margins. It’s at around 9% of gross margins now, up from under 2% at the beginning of 2013, and growing fast. Commercial licensing continues to account for the lion’s share of gross margins, at 64.5%, while consumer licensing accounts for 20% or so. Note, however, the margins in the phone hardware business, which were never great to begin with, but have fallen steeply the last two quarters and are now negative. Remember, too, that these are gross margins, so operating margins in this business are likely substantially lower still. Computer and gaming hardware (Xbox, Surface, and a few other things) is becoming increasingly profitable at a gross margin level, however, helping to justify the continued investment in two products many people consider non-core to Microsoft’s business.

Consumer Office 365 revenue growth is slowing

For the last several quarters, Microsoft’s additions of consumer Office 365 subscribers have been pretty strong:Consumer Office 365 subsHowever, the worrying thing is that the revenue from these subscribers seems to be stagnating. This isn’t a number Microsoft reports directly, but it does provide enough data points to allow us to estimate it with reasonable accuracy, and the trend isn’t good:Consumer Office 365 revenuesWhat’s interesting is that the lines in these two charts track quite closely in their shape for the fist five or six quarters, but they then begin to diverge. So what changed? Well, two main things, I think: Microsoft introduced the Personal (single user) version of Office 365, at $70 versus $100 per year for the multi-device standard version; and secondly, Microsoft has been doing lots of free trials and other deals which either heavily discount or entirely remove the fees for some subscribers for a certain period (often as much as a year). I suspect that both have had an impact, but the rate at which growth has dropped off suggests that the free trials in particular are eating into growth substantially. What I’d really like to see from Microsoft is a paid subscriber number (much as Netflix reports in its financials), which would give a much truer picture of both real subscribers and revenue per paid subscriber. The big problem here, of course, is that Office 365 consumer revenues need to grow to offset the rapid decline in legacy Office sales to consumers, but with no growth, the overall consumer Office revenue line is now declining rapidly too – it dropped 17% in FY 2015. Some of this is because of the way revenue is recognized on Office 365, but that’s certainly not the entire impact, as revenue per subscriber appears to have dropped from around $100 per year to closer to $50 over the past year or so.

Surface, Lumia and other phone sales

Lastly, I just wanted to cover quickly sales of Microsoft’s three main first-party hardware categories – Surface, Lumia phones, and non-Lumia phones. The first two are actually going fairly well, posting year on year increases in sales several quarters running:Surface revenuesLumia unit salesHowever, non-Lumia phone sales (feature phones) have fallen off a cliff these last few quarters, and as I wrote previously, I suspect the impairment and restructuring of the phone business was at least as much about this business as the smartphone side:Non-Lumia phonesI continue to believe that the launch of Windows 10 on phones, and the flagship(s) Microsoft will launch later this year, will be the last big test for Windows on phones, and whether Microsoft can indeed make a go of this business.

Earnings, Microsoft, Smartphones, Windows, Windows 10, Windows Phone

Microsoft’s devices restructuring

Microsoft today announced a restructuring of its devices business which I think most of us have been expecting to land any day since CEO Satya Nadella’s memo to employees a couple of weeks ago indicating tough choices were ahead (and indeed, which the company strongly hinted might be coming back in April). However, even though this was widely anticipated, the exact meaning of it is less obvious. I see many taking it as a capitulation, but Microsoft clearly isn’t getting out of the phone business at this point. Below are my thoughts on what this move means, and what might still come later.

Not a concession of defeat – yet

Though clearly a concession that things haven’t been going well for its devices business, this isn’t a concession of total defeat just yet, and there are two reasons why I say that:

  • Microsoft accounts for almost all Windows Phone device sales itself, with over 95% of the market according to AdDuplex. As such, killing its own devices business would simultaneously kill Windows Phone as a platform
  • Microsoft’s positioning around Windows 10 has had a heavy mobile component, with universal apps and various tools for porting apps from other mobile platforms major focus areas in the announcements over the last several months.  As such, it seems extremely unlikely that Microsoft would be ready to kill off Windows Phone.

In short, the timing just doesn’t seem right for abandoning either Microsoft’s first party phone business or Windows Phone as a whole. That’s not what’s happening today, though that doesn’t mean it’s not coming somewhere down the line, as I discuss below.

Windows 10 and focus

It’s clear that at least some within the business believe that Windows 10 and some of the related efforts targeted at developers will help to turn the fortunes of Windows Phone around. I’ve shared my skepticism about that hope in several pieces here over the last few months (including the two linked to in that second bullet above), and wrote an in-depth report about Windows Phone and its prospects too (available here). I continue to believe that Windows Phone suffers from several more or less insurmountable challenges, and don’t see any clear way out of this situation even with Windows 10.

At least part of the problem with Windows Phone has been that it was losing money at its current scale and that scale wasn’t growing rapidly enough to make a difference. By scaling down the business still further, Microsoft likely shifts the equation slightly in favor of profitability, though at the rate the feature phone business has been declining, that may not be enough. But the focus Microsoft is planning to bring to its portfolio is a good thing – for such a small devices business, Microsoft (and Nokia before it) has had a bewildering array of devices on sale, and could likely get by with a much smaller number, say one or two in each of its series (500, 600, 700 etc). But amid this “focus” comes this statement reported by Mary-Jo Foley at ZDNet:

Microsoft will focus its phone efforts on three segments: Businesses, value-phone buyers and flagship phone customers, moving forward.

This is a funny kind of focus! As far as the smartphone market is concerned, flagship and value phones are basically all there is at this point in many markets, so that’s no focus at all. And the mention of business users reflects a basic misunderstanding of the phone market which Nokia seemed to have overcome way back, when it abandoned its E-Series devices. The fact is that business users are just the same as anyone else – they want phones they like to use, that allow them to do not just work but personal stuff too. I’m also curious what this all means about the feature phone business and whether Microsoft will now abandon that entirely. There was a theory that being in feature phones would allow Microsoft to provide a migration path to smartphones over time, but I’ve always been skeptical about that, and at the rate of decline this business is seeing, it’s more of a liability than an asset at this point.

Microsoft shrugged

Meanwhile, the impairment charge is so large that it’s hard to imagine that it’s for anything other than the whole value of the business acquired from Nokia. Remember that though the total price paid to Nokia was 5.44 billion euros (reported as $7.2 billion at the time it was announced), only 3.79 billion (or $5 billion) was for the devices business, while the other $2 billion or so was for patents. The $7.6 billion impairment charge is therefore not just more than the original purchase price, but significantly more than the price paid for the devices business specifically. That either means that Microsoft is also writing down some of the value of the patents or accounting for a significant additional investment in the business since the acquisition (or both). However, at the end of the day, the key point is that Microsoft has at this point basically unburdened itself of the value of the acquisition, such that if it does have to wind the business down it likely won’t have to take another significant impairment charge.

By the time it’s done with the layoffs announced today, Microsoft will also have jettisoned around 80% of the employees associated with the Nokia acquisition. It took on around 25,000 (down from the 32,000 originally anticipated) when the acquisition closed, but laid of around half three months later, in July last year. Now, a year later, it’s losing another 7-8,000, taking the remainder down to just 5,000, or 20% of those originally brought on board.

As such, if Microsoft does have to abandon Windows Phone and its own devices business (I simply don’t see how it’s going to get more OEMs on board for Windows Phone, so the two are inextricably linked), at least it’s now written down much of the value of the acquisition, and will have eliminated most of the employees by the end of this year. That will make it much easier financially and operationally (if not emotionally) to pull the plug when the time comes. But it will be a huge sea change for Microsoft to concede defeat in operating systems for mobile devices after 15 years of trying.

Postponing the inevitable

I suspect today’s move is just another step along the road that eventually leads to an abandonment of this business, even if Microsoft isn’t ready to concede defeat today. The good news is that Microsoft has a strong alternative strategy in place with its third party mobile apps business, which has produced some good results recently, so that it’s not putting all its mobile eggs in the Windows Phone basket as in the past. I continue to worry that a third-party apps business may struggle as both Apple and Google increasingly tie their first party services tightly into their operating systems and virtual assistants, but it certainly seems to have a better shot at gaining users than Windows Phone for now.

However, the other big challenge is monetizing that usage, which continues to be my biggest concern for Microsoft. Its traditional software licensing model simply isn’t going to cut it in consumer markets, and I suspect the SaaS model will be equally challenging. As such, as I outlined in my “Thesis on Microsoft” piece a while back, Microsoft is going to have to make its money more or less exclusively through enterprise cloud services while using the consumer market to drive continued scale.

Build, Developer events, Developers, Microsoft, Windows, Windows 10, Windows Phone

Microsoft’s Build announcements: breaking the vicious circle

1 Comment

Microsoft’s first-day keynote at its Build developer conference today focused first on Azure and Office platform advancements, but finally moved on to Windows, where the real meat of the day was in my mind. When it comes to Windows, and Windows Phone in particular, one of the key challenges continues to be what I refer to as the user/app vicious circle. Simply put, in our post-iPhone world, when there are no users on a platform it’s tough to attract developers, and when there are few developers and hence few apps, it’s tough to attract users. Windows Phone suffers from a number of issues (see my free in-depth report on the platform), but one of the biggest continues to be the app gap and the app lag.

Attempts to break the vicious circle

The challenge for Microsoft is that’s really tough to break this vicious circle unless you can somehow goose either user numbers or the number of apps. What I saw in today’s keynote was an articulation of Microsoft’s strategy to do both, as shown below:
Screenshot 2015-04-29 13.37.38 Continue reading →

App stores, Apps, Microsoft, Windows, Windows 10, Windows Phone

Why Windows 10 can’t fix Windows Phone

28 Comments

Ahead of Microsoft’s next reveal of Windows 10 later this week, lots of blogs and news outlets are talking up the promise of the new operating system to unify the PC and mobile versions and in the process “solve the app gap”. Most of what I’ve read, though, seems to look straight past a huge flaw in this whole concept, one that I’ve talked about several times in other places (notably in my in-depth Windows Phone report from a few weeks back – available here for free).  As such, I wanted to just quickly lay it out here for simplicity and clarity.

First, the theory: in Windows 10, Microsoft is creating a single operating system which will run across different form factors, with much of the underlying code shared and the rest tweaked by device type and size. This will allow developers to create apps which run 90% of the same code, with just some customizations for different device types and sizes. This, in turn, will allow Microsoft to tap into the vast number of Windows PC developers, who will now be able to port their apps to Windows Phone will very little additional work, which will drive a large number of new apps to the mobile platform, reducing the app gap relative to iOS and Android.

However, there’s a fundamental flaw in this argument, which is that the apps Windows Phone is missing simply don’t exist as desktop apps on Windows. Just think about it for a moment, and you’ll realize it’s empirically obvious: almost all the apps which are most popular on mobile are in one of these categories:

  • Games, which dominate the app stores, and tend to be mobile-only in many cases
  • Properties which exist as websites on the desktop and only exist as apps on the mobile side
  • Properties which are mobile-first and/or mobile-only, such as Instagram, Vine, Viber and so on.

But we don’t need to rely on gut feel here – it’s very easy to do the analysis. I’ve pasted below two small thumbnails which you can click on to expand to full size. They show tables for the top free iOS and Android apps as of today, according to App Annie. Against each of the apps I’ve completed several more columns to reflect the following data:

  • Is the app already in the Windows Phone store?
  • Is there a desktop app on Windows (any version, not just Windows 8)?
  • Is this an app which is actually a website rather than an app on the desktop?

I’ve then done some filters in the following columns to answer each of the following questions:

  • Of those apps which are not on Windows Phone today, are these available for Windows PCs today?
  • Of those apps which are not on Windows Phone today, are these available as a website on desktop?
  • Of those apps for which there is a desktop app on Windows today, are these also available on Windows Phone?

You can go ahead and have a look at the tables to see the results for yourself (they should open in a new window or tab by default):

Screenshot 2015-01-19 09.54.42Screenshot 2015-01-19 09.54.57

But here’s the summary:

  • Among the top 50 free iOS and Android apps, there is not one which is not on Windows Phone but exists as a desktop app on Windows
  • Among the top 50 free iOS and Android apps, there are a handful which exist as websites but not as desktop apps (almost all owned by either Google or Apple)
  • All of the top 50 free iOS and Android apps for which there is a Windows desktop app already exist as Windows Phone apps today.

In other words, if the theory is that sharing a code base across desktop and mobile will lead to desktop apps being ported to the mobile environment in greater numbers, within this sample at least this has no applicability at all. All the apps available on Windows PCs are already available on Windows Phone. A handful of the rest exist as websites on the desktop, but the vast majority simply don’t exist today on any flavor of Windows.

There are two important caveats here. Firstly, this analysis only looks at the top 50 apps, and a different pattern could theoretically emerge if one were to examine a longer list of apps. However, from what I’ve seen the patterns are broadly similar, and the same conclusions would apply. Secondly, this analysis focuses on the most popular apps, which are naturally dominated by consumer-facing applications and not those used in the enterprise. I do believe that there are cases where desktop apps exist for enterprises but not yet for Windows Phone, and in this case the theory behind Windows 10 may well have at least some applicability. But that’s a far cry from saying that Windows 10 will help to solve the app gap, which is fundamentally a consumer problem, not an enterprise one.

Having said all this, I’m very curious to see what Microsoft has to say this week with regard to the mobile flavor of Windows 10 in particular. I think it’s getting a lot right in Windows 10 more generally, but the real solution to fixing Windows Phone lies in making the platform more compelling to consumers, and not just at the low end where it’s currently so focused.

For further reading on Windows and Windows Phone:

An archive of all my previous posts from this site on Microsoft is here.

Developers, Devices & Services, Microsoft, Nokia, Platforms, Smartphones, Windows, Windows Phone

The Windows Phone app gap

Much has been written in the past about Windows Phone’s lack of apps compared with iOS and Android. Both Nokia and Microsoft have responded in the past with claims that quality and not quantity is what matters in an app store. Both arguments represent over-simplifications, and neither accurately captures the reality of what’s going on with the Windows Phone app store and its competitiveness with Android and iOS. This post is a summary of one of the major sections of a new report on the state of Windows Phone published by Jackdaw Research this week, which examines this question among others in depth. The report is available for free here, and I encourage interested readers to download it and read the whole thing.

The quantity gap

Windows Phone does suffer from a quantity gap versus both Android and iOS, which are essentially neck and neck in the app store stakes. On the one hand, Microsoft has done well to get out of the gate quickly and get a good number of apps on the platform in a short space of time – the chart below shows the number of apps on each of the three major platforms within the first 15 quarters following launch:

Major platforms first 15 quartersThe problem, of course, is that Windows Phone isn’t competing against those platforms 15 quarters from their launch – they launched considerably earlier, and the current situation is much less favorable:

Apps available in major storesWindows Phone continues to lag the other two major app stores (and even Apple’s iPad-specific list of apps) considerably, and the gap is widening rather than narrowing.

The quality gap

The frequent response from Nokia (before its acquisition by Microsoft) and from Microsoft itself has been that Android and iOS have thousands of apps no-one needs or uses, and that the real question is one of quality rather than quantity. But the problem is that Windows Phone suffers from a lack of quality as well as a quantity problem. There are several ways to look at that, so I’ll run through a few of them. Continue reading →

Firefox OS, Sailfish OS, Smartphones, Ubuntu Mobile, Windows Phone

The challenge for new mobile operating systems

2 Comments

Comscore’s latest numbers for the US smartphone market came out yesterday. The key thing that stuck out to me as I crunched the numbers and looked back over historical trends is the number of people who own smartphones not running iOS or Android. The chart below shows the share of smartphones in US which are running Android and iOS (black circles) and the number of users (in millions) running something other than Android or iOS:Comscore December 13 numbersTwo things are clear from this chart. First, the share of smartphones running either Android or iOS has skyrocketed over the last few years, and has now reached passed 93%. But secondly, the actual number of users with smartphones not running one of these two operating systems has dropped, not just the share. There were around 30 million users of other OSs at the peak in 2010, but there are now just over 10 million, a number which has stayed fairly stable in the last three months. As BlackBerry has dwindled, Windows Phone has barely offset the declines in recent months, so that the total number has stayed roughly the same.

The challenge for any new operating system is to answer the fundamental question Windows Phone has struggled to answer: why does anyone need a third option? Over 90% of smartphone users seem to be happy with the two main operating systems, and of the remainder, just over 3% is on BlackBerry, which is both dwindling and at this point largely limited to people with specific needs. Just 3% is on Windows Phone, which is a platform with massive backing from both Microsoft and AT&T, even several years after launch. Given their substantially smaller resources, how can Firefox OS, Sailfish, Ubuntu for Mobile and so on ever hope to succeed in the US?

Android, Licensing, Microsoft, Microsoft Earnings, Nokia, Patents, Windows Phone

Calculating Microsoft’s Windows Phone revenue

11 Comments

I was going through Microsoft’s 10-Q for the quarter ended December 2013 when I discovered that, for the first time as far as I can tell, there’s enough information in the discussion of the results to derive a figure for its Windows Phone bucket for the quarter. In fact, there’s enough information to derive the number for three other quarters as well. Armed with this information, it may be possible to have a pretty good attempt to estimate revenues for other quarters and therefore the run-rate for this business. Let me walk through those numbers first. The key sentence in the 10-Q is this:

Windows Phone revenue increased $340 million or 50%, reflecting higher sales of Windows Phone licenses and an increase in mobile phone patent licensing revenue.

There are two things to note here:

  • First, the company gives both a percentage and a number for the first time (it’s previously only ever given numbers without percentages), which are enough to calculate last year’s and this year’s number. If $340 million is 50% of the number for Q4 calendar 2012, then the number for that quarter was $680 million, and the number for Q4 calendar 2013 is $1.02 billion 1.
  • Secondly, Microsoft makes clear (as it has in previous quarters) that what it describes as Windows Phone revenue actually includes its patent licensing revenue too, e.g. from Android devices. So this isn’t just license fees from Windows Phone OEMs, but that’s one chunk of it and patent licensing makes up for the rest.

A couple of paragraphs down we get this additional information for the six months ended December 2013, i.e. the third and fourth calendar quarters combined:

Windows Phone revenue increased $440 million or 46%

With the information previously given, we can now deduce revenue figures for two additional quarters with reasonable accuracy: $277 million for calendar Q3 2012, and $377 million for calendar Q3 2013. In the 10-Q for calendar Q3 2013 Microsoft said that Windows Phone revenue increased by $102 million, which more or less matches up with the $100 million difference in my numbers, suggesting we’re on the right track here. Digging back through other previous filings, there are quite a few instances where Microsoft gave a growth figure for Windows Phone in dollar terms, which helps get a sense of overall growth rates and allows us to fill in some gaps in between these numbers. I’ve had to play around with the numbers quite a bit here, but at this point my numbers fit exactly with the growth numbers provided, so I feel pretty good about them. Here are my estimates for the last ten quarters: Continue reading →

Notes:

  1. When using percentages to make these calculations, your results might be a couple of million dollars off, but they’ll be very close. ↩