I had an interesting Twitter Discussion last week with cloud guru Simon
Wardley and “cloud entrepreneur” Kate Craig-Wood about Apple, iCloud, and
Android. It started in response to this tweet from Kate:
The post, which was published about a week before Steve Jobs’s resignation as
CEO of Apple, is worth a read. A number of points came up in the Twitter
discussion, but 140 characters prevented me, at least, from being as thoughtful
as I’d like. So I’m trying again here.
Take this sentence from the first paragraph of Kate’s post:
The recent launch of Apple’s iCloud service has done much to bring mainstream
attention and acceptance to the concept of cloud storage and syncing. But
unless [Apple] adapt an open cloud standard they are facing an uphill
struggle to attract business users. Here’s why.
That’s the setup, but reflects a complete misunderstanding of Apple’s business
model. The truth is that Apple does not care about the enterprise. Apple is in
the consumer electronics business. Not the enterprise computing business.
Certainly not the cloud computing business. Apple is in the business of creating
hardware products to sell to consumers. Everything else is secondary to that.
In fairness, Kate does write, toward the end of the piece:
Essentially Apple sees iCloud as a consumer rather than a business service –
and Apple have never really been interested in enterprises or business,
despite the work they done to support policies and enterprise standards like
Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync on the iPhone.
Of course, if Apple is not interested in selling to enterprises or businesses,
it stands to reason that they won’t have an uphill struggle attracting those
The Android Hurdle
I think the real point of the piece is this:
However most businesses are unlikely to use iCloud until Apple adopt an open
cloud standard. The fact that iCloud won’t deliver on other platforms like
Android smartphones and tablets are going to be a major hurdle for Apple to
Again, Apple is not really entering the cloud business. Rather, they’re creating
a cloud service to bolster their existing business. Another way to say it is
that Apple is not selling cloud services. Apple sells devices that use cloud
services. And as a consequence of that, they don’t care about other devices. The
point is not the cloud, it’s the devices.
In that vein, via Twitter Simon said:
@theory : Modern devices are a combo of activities, some innovative, most
commodity. Android & its ecosystem is commoditising the space.
Yes, that’s just it. Google thinks that they can commoditize the smartphone
business, and that the truly valuable business is their cloud services. Apple,
on the other hand, believes that cloud services will be the commodities, and
that the truly valuable business is selling handheld computers.
Time will tell who’s right. As “cloud entrepreneurs,” Simon and Kate well
understand the Google model. Google wants as many devices as possible to be able
to access the cloud services they provide. Apple is not interested in that,
because they’re not in the cloud business. (I know this is getting redundant;
sorry about that).
And, frankly, Google’s not in the cloud business, either. They’re in the
advertising business. And how do you show as many ads to as many people as
possible? Well, you provide an easy-to-use utility service like search or email
and sell ads to appear on those services.
In short, Google is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers. Apple is
in the business of selling devices to consumers. Both are valid business models,
but given existing revenues, I think it’s difficult to argue which seems to be
the more successful model.
@swardley but my point stands; in consumer space too they are losing ground,
fast. Shiny toys are easy to duplicate – Nokia’s doom.
I don’t follow this reasoning at all, frankly. There were lots of mobile phone
manufacturers that were trying to duplicate Nokia’s devices. They failed. Apple
succeeded not through duplication, but by creating a completely new device that
simply made all preceding devices instantly archaic. And now, yes, Android
devices are attempting to duplicate the iPhone, but their sales seem to be
mainly at the expense of feature phones. Note that Android’s share of the mobile
browser market is about 16%, wheres iOS accounts for 53%, according to an
August 2011 MarketShare report. Yes, there are a lot of Android phones,
especially in the US, where only one carrier sold iPhones until earlier this
year. But it sure seems like most folks use them more like feature phones than
handheld computers. In other words, all those users are not being converted into
consumers of cloud services.
And other than on phones, Android’s market penetration is effectively zero. iOS
completely dominates the tablet (no, iPad) and music player markets. Android
tablets currently pose no hurdle for iOS at all, and there is no sign that they
will for some time to come. The only other tablet computer likely to succeed is
the Kindle. And guess what? It will mainly use Amazon’s walled garden of
cloud-based products and services.
Which then leads to the issue of cloud commoditization. From [Kate’s post]The
From a standing start 5 years ago Amazon Web Services has grown to an
eye-watering $1.4bn in revenue. Rackspace, their leading competitor in the
cloud space, is thought to have about one tenth that figure in revenue from
cloud. So, Rackspace and the other out-paced cloud providers have clubbed
together to create an open, interoperable cloud system.
I think this is absolutely right. And OpenStack just might, in fact,
commoditize the the cloud provider market. If it’s successful, each of the cloud
utility companies that emerge will end up competing for that $1.4b in revenue
(or, since it’s a growth space, let’s call it $5b in revenue in two years, just
for the hell of it). With cloud computing standardized, this will trigger a race
to the bottom, and may the cheapest cloud provider win. Already Kate says that
her new company’s offering will be “the cheapest on the market.”
This has nothing to do with Apple, however. Apple has zero interest in being in
a commodity market. Why? Because long-term there’s no money in it. This is why
HP is leaving the PC business. There used to be money in it, but for the last
ten years, there is little innovation, just a race to the bottom, just razor
thin margins and cost-cutting measures. In the PC business, only one company
continues to make large profits from its devices: Apple.
Yes, Apple has a cloud offering, but as with iTunes and the App store, it exists
to enhance the experience of using Apple’s devices. The devices don’t exist to
bring customers to iCloud; iCloud exists to bring customers to iOS. And note
that in the second quarter of this year, iOS devices accounted for 75% of
Apple’s profits. That’s $7.34b in profits, not revenue. For a single quarter
ending last May. That’s a far larger, more lucrative business to be in than
Amazon’s $1.4b in revenue over, what? A year? I think Apple will be happy to
leave that substantially smaller business to others.
In fact, given the revelation last week that Apple’s using Azure and AWS as
the foundation for iCloud, the commoditization of cloud services will only help
Apple’s bottom line: they can always switch to less-expensive providers
(assuming everything else is equal, of course). So yeah, cloud commiditization
just might happen. And Apple, not being in the cloud business, won’t care,
except to the extent that it might reduce its expenses and thus contribute to
its bottom line.
Following up on his tweet about commoditization, Simon wrote:
Combine this with ability of ecosystems to innovate, then Android is likely to
be fairly lethal over time.
As to the second point, I don’t know how lethal Android will be if it a) doesn’t
make much money for anyone; b) isn’t used as a handheld computer often enough;
and c) cannot compete in the iPad market. But the first point I have a hard time
following. How does an “ecosystem” innovate? It needs agents to do that, no?
Fortunately, a couple days ago Simon published a piece entitled “The abuse of
innovation.” His overall argument there is that the term “innovation” has been
overused to mean all kinds of things. No question in my mind. But to which part
of his taxonomy might he be referring in his tweet? I suspect it’s this one:
5. Enablement and acceleration of the innovation of higher order systems through
commoditisation of lower order subsystems (i.e. creative destruction and
So perhaps for the example of cloud computing, “ecosystem innovation” is the
creation of applications that run on the cloud? That is, a cloud app is a
“higher order system” running on the cloud, and the cloud is the commoditized
“lower order subsystem.” I think that makes a lot of sense. I expect people will
do all kinds of things building on clouds, and the commoditiazation means they
can run such systems on any standardized, inexpensive cloud utility. Cool.
But what has this to do with Apple? Well, they’re one of those innovators
building services on cloud infrastructures. Furthermore, Apple has created its
own ecosystem, and there is a ton of innovation going on there. (And, yeah,
a lot of duplication: but that’s a sign of the huge success of the ecosystem.)
iOS provides a commoditized platform for the development of innovative
applications. The fact that iOS 5 is adding a cloud API is just another piece of
that ecosystem. It’s one detail among many, and possibly key to the ongoing
success of the platform. But the cloud is not the foundation of the ecosystem.
And that last paragraph of Kate’s post? Let’s take it a apart:
I firmly believe that adoption of open cloud standards is one of the keys to
unlock the full and global potential of cloud computing and to breaking down
the duopoly of Amazon’s IaaS and Google’s consumer SaaS.
I think that may well be right, but there’s unlikely to be much long-term profit
in it. Unless you do something like sell ads to display on the apps running on
your cloud utility service. If so, Apple won’t be a customer, ever.
Jobs & co may be making astonishing profits, and will likely continue to do so
for some time, but unless they either out-landgrab Android in the smartphone
and tablet market or open their doors to cross-platform services their success
may be short-lived.
This assumes that Apple wants success in the cloud business. It doesn’t. It
wants success in the sale of devices. Sure, if Apple stopped innovating it might
eventually lose sales and have to start depending more on its cloud services
like iTunes and the App Store for profits. But if Apple has shown anything in
the last 14 years, it’s that it doesn’t stand still. Building a business to try
to cash in on one or two products for as long a possible is not in its DNA.
Apple thinks far further ahead than that. While Android focuses on
commoditizing the handheld computer market to the benefit of Google’s existing
services over the next year, rest assured that Apple is already focused on the
next great product that five years from now will change the way we look at
But maybe that is not a concern. Maybe, with Jobs’ rumoured ill health, he has
decided that there are few more golden apples to lay and that he should cash
in while the going is good.
Mixed metaphors aside, it should be noted Steve Jobs has never been interested
in profit. In 1987 he told Playboy:
You know, my main reaction to this money thing is that it’s humorous, all the
attention to it, because it’s hardly the most insightful or valuable thing
that’s happened to me in the past ten years.
Apple has been modeled on this point of view. It is a product-driven company far
more interested in the next great thing than in cashing in.
Apple is not in the cloud business. It’s not in the enterprise computing
business. It’s not interested providing utility services. And it’s unlikely ever
to be. Apple’s actual business is far more successful, interesting, and
profitable to them. So the question of whether or not iCloud should be “open” is
unlikely to even be on Apple’s radar. What’s on their radar is not “being open,”
but selling great products.
Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.