Microsoft’s “Can’t Lose” Mobile Strategy

 

Microsoft has been trying to recapture momentum in mobile after ceding the early market leadership it had 5-6 years ago due to its lack of adequate investment and resultant inability to stay competitive. And its renewed focus and execution over the past 1-2 years is indeed enabling it to make progress. But behind the scenes Microsoft has a strategy to become a driving force in the market and will likely produce more profits than many of the handset manufactures. And this is regardless of whether Windows Phone is successful.

Microsoft makes no mobile hardware, and licenses its OS software to several handset manufacturers (e.g., HTC, HP, Samsung). Its latest version of Windows Phone 7 (Mango) is refreshingly competitive and shows a lot of promise. And its distribution partnership with Nokia could propel it into a leadership position (although we remain skeptical that it will happen as quickly as some predict). Many observers focus on Microsoft’s attempt to gain ground on the competition by increasing its anemic smartphone OS market share. But the number of smartphones now being sold with windows mobile or the newer Windows Phone 7 is pretty small (various estimates are less than 5% of the market). Even at an estimated $10-$15 license fee per phone, the stakes are pretty small for a company the size of Microsoft.

But licensing the OS should actually be Microsoft’s back-up position. Frankly, there is far more money to be made other places. First, Microsoft is now putting a squeeze on all of the Android handset makers by enforcing its patent portfolio and claiming all such manufactures must license Microsoft IP to prevent infringement. And the handset makers are coming on board. Deals have been struck with HTC to start, and negotiations continue with others (e.g., Samsung). It is quite likely that Microsoft will be able to extract licensing fees (eventually) from all the manufacturers. And at $5 per handset produced, that is a staggering sum.

Adding to this revenue stream is yet another lucrative deal for Microsoft. Virtually every smartphone made (including Apple and Google Android, but with the exception of BlackBerry) licenses ActiveSync as the way to both connect to email (via Exchange) and to control the device (e.g., kill, provision). Microsoft controls 80%-85% of the enterprise email market. Without ActiveSync capability, the devices are unable to work in the business world, and what high end smartphone maker wants to be excluded from the corporate world? So licensing fees of $3-$5 per smartphone device for ActiveSync licenses has huge potential.

So what does this mean for Microsoft’s revenue streams?
Currently, all versions of Microsoft powered phones sell about 12M units per year (based on smartphone sales of approximately 400M worldwide estimated in 2011*, and 3% market share for Microsoft). That amounts to $180M best case (at $15 per device). There will be an estimated 140M Android phones (based on 35% market share) and 80M iPhones (based on 20% market share) sold this year worldwide. That amounts to $660M – $1.1B for ActiveSync licensing. And it’s likely that Microsoft will get many (if not all) of the Android vendors to pay royalties, so that’s another potential $700M (at $5 per device). This is not guaranteed, given it has not yet signed licenses with many of the vendors and some vendors in emerging markets may not care if they are infringing. But even if Microsoft only generates half of this amount, it’s a substantial sum. The OS revenues look paltry by comparison to potential IP revenues. And IP doesn’t require the substantial investment in updates and improvements that the OS does, making it even more lucrative.

Further, the smartphone market is likely to at least double over the next 3 years when we expect Microsoft to capture 15% of the smartphone market (primarily with Nokia). So 15% of an 800M device smartphone market = 120M devices and at $15 per device for licensing the OS = $1.8B in revenue. But the number of devices to be sold on Android = 45% of the total or 360M and on Apple = 15% or 120M. And at $8-$10 license fee per Android device and $3-$5 per Apple device, that’s $3.2B – $4.2B in revenue.

And moreover, even though Bing is currently way behind Google search in market share, it is now the favored platform for phone manufacturers distancing themselves from Google’s dominance. We expect Bing to capture 25% of mobile search in 3 years. This represents a huge revenue opportunity for Microsoft, although it’s hard to quantify at this point.

Bottom Line:
Microsoft can generate a lot of revenue from its deal with Nokia. But even if it doesn’t, the number of licensees of its IP will guarantee Microsoft a sizeable chunk of the mobile revenue stream. And that doesn’t even include the potential for revenues generated by cloud-based and Bing centered services. So Microsoft stands to gain handsomely from mobile, whether it succeeds with its own OS or not. It really can’t lose.

*Market Statistics and Projections (compiled and adapted from various estimates):

  • Current Smartphones shipped worldwide 1Q 11 = 100M units. Estimated 400M total units in 2011.
    Approx Shares: Android = 35%, Apple = 20%, RIM = 15%, Symbian (Primarily Nokia) = 25%, Windows Mobile = 3%, Other = 2%
  • Future Smartphone estimates for 2014 = 800M units
    Shares: Android = 45%, Apple = 15%, RIM = 15%, Windows Phone (Primarily Nokia) = 15%, Other = 10%
  • Week In Review: Tech.pinions on the Key News of the Week

    This week news came out revealing a clearer picture of how Microsoft is profiting from Android. Many large handset manufacturers are not having to pay Microsoft technology licenses due to patents owned by Microsoft Android infringes upon. This is important because it is only the beginning of the types of fees makes of Android devices could pay to not only Microsoft but also potentially Oracle. We are watching this closely because if the technology license cost surrounding Android becomes to high, it will likely impact the decision to go with Android on new devices.

    Why Microsoft’s Android Ransom Matters

    Facebook also announced this week that they have added video chatting as a communication option within the Facebook platform. They announcement also detailed that Skype (now owned by Microsoft) was the underlying technology making video chat within Facebook possible. It will be interesting to see where Facebook takes this and if and how they deploy it to mobile devices, thus enabling video chatting on mobile devices through Facebook. On that point, given that Microsoft and Facebook are so close, I would not be surprised if we see this technology first available on Windows Phone.

    Should the Facebook-Microsoft Alliance Worry Google?

    Apple also announced this week that their app store has crossed the 15 billion download mark. They also announced that in total they have paid out $2.5 billion dollars to developers who have distributed apps through Apple iTunes App Store. The significance of the volume of apps downloaded and the monetary benefits to developers, demonstrate Apple’s lead in both categories.

    Apple’s App Store Tops 15 Billion Downloads: Eat Your Heart Out Google!

    Netflix also made a significant announcement this week. They announced they are bringing instant streaming to Latin America and that their plans for later this year to add 43 countries in Central and South America, and the Caribbean to its list of supported locales is still on track. Netflix’s global streaming strategy is the key to them becoming the largest global streaming video service.

    Netflix bringing instant streaming to Latin America, global domination plan on track

    Should the Facebook-Microsoft Alliance Worry Google?

    The Facebook announcement of Skype integration was also an announcement in the next stage of the relationship between Microsoft and Facebook.

    Austin Carr wrote an interesting article this morning over at Fast Company titled: “Why The Facebook-Microsoft Alliance Should Worry Google.” The article is worth reading and I agree with several conclusions.

    What I think many people overlook or perhaps don’t realize is that Facebook and Google really are competitors. Google wants to monopolize consumers Internet time in their services walled garden and Facebook wants to do the same.

    Both of them entered their strategies differently with Google focusing on search and Facebook focusing on social relationships.

    There is a heated debate, which we will cover in more detail here at Tech.pinions in the coming month’s, over the closed vs. the open web. I’ve spoken publicly about this at several industry summits and I will share more thoughts in an upcoming column.

    There was one quote in particular in Carr’s article from Zuckerberg I wanted to point out.

    “We have a really good relationship with Microsoft,” Zuckerberg said. “Now that you [Skype] are owned by Microsoft, that gives us the sense of stability that it’s going to be with a company we can trust–that we know we have a longstanding relationship with.”

    Mark Zuckerberg used an interesting word toward the end of that quote “a company we can TRUST.” I’ve commented frequently on the industry mumblings we hear about a lack of trust in Google and it was interesting that Zuckerberg hinted that Facebook trusts Microsoft more than Google.

    What’s more concerning -if true- are the comments from Eric Schmidt who seems to be dismissing Facebook as a viable Google competitor. Any time a technology gets engrained into our social fabric, as Facebook and Google have, the more lasting power they have. It is unwise for anyone executives or leaders at Google to underestimate the many business models still to be implemented by Facebook.

    Facebook’s alliance with Microsoft is a strong one and one that we will be watching very closely as an analyst firm, especially given its strategic nature.

    Good Advice to Tech Leaders

    My Friend Louis Gray posted a great article a few weeks ago called “Tech Leaders Don’t Win By Saying They’ll Crush Somebody.” I have to say I can’t agree more and I encourage all tech leaders to read the article.

    All though I understand that some of these executives logic may be PR related, at the same time more often than not those types of statements accomplish the exact opposite goals of their original intention.

    Louis states in his article:

    Look at who is on top today in whatever category makes sense for you. Social networking. Search. Mobile OS. Tablets. Storage systems. Operating systems. Printers. You name it. You would be hard-pressed to see those companies having talked big about taking down number one when they were on their pathway to success. They probably didn’t do it at all.

    The primary point being that the best posture to take is to talk more about your own products than the products of competitors.

    Do Consumers Want Tablets or iPads?

    John Paczkowski, over at the All Things D blog, wrote an interesting article titled “Consumers Don’t Want Tablets, They Want iPads.” I encourage you to read it, it was a good read with some good statistics from Bernstein Research on tablet brand awareness and form factor preference. In terms of where the market is today i’d have to agree that mainstream consumers are highly in favor of the iPad over other tablets. The question is will this always be the case or will the market even out, and if so when?

    Paczkowski’s theory, as stated in the opening, is that the tablet market is currently similar to the original MP3 market. All though Apple didn’t invent the MP3 market they re-invented it and controlled much of its growth. Consumers preferred the iPod to all other MP3 players, mainly due to Apple’s ecosystem. Apple is in the driver’s seat with tablets currently because again, all though they didn’t invent it, they re-invented it. The Apple ecosystem is uniquely positioned to continue to keep them dominant in the tablet category.

    There is however a fundamental difference between the iPad and the MP3 player. The MP3 player was for the most part of its maturity cycle a feature centric device. Meaning it generally did only one thing well, play music. The iPad and tablets at large are computers, which are general purpose not specific function devices, meaning they do many things well.

    This difference creates the market opportunity for fragmentation once it matures. I liken what will happen in this market to the current automobile market. There are many choices that cater to a wide variety of consumer choices. This is what happens when a market reaches maturity.

    The tablet market is a maturing market, not a mature one. Therefore in the beginning there will be fewer market leaders and less choices until the market matures. Consumers will choose the market leader to get their feet wet with the new product and use it to help them decide their own preferences and desires.

    The real trick will be for Apple and others to create “sticky” experiences with their ecosystem. This will keep consumers vested and committed to a specific hardware, software and services solution. Vendors who don’t do this well will likely face the chance of consumers switching or at least considering to switch with each buying cycle. If a vendor creates enough depth with their offering, getting consumers committed to their ecosystem, then there will be less of a chance they will switch with each buying cycle.

    To say that people (mainstream consumers, not early adopters as there is a difference) want iPads not tablets is correct for the time being. We could have easily said the same thing 3 or 4 years ago that consumers want an iPhone not a smart phone. However the market has developed and is quickly maturing making fragmentation a given.

    I’ll bet 3 years from now the tablet market will look different, with more choices and more mature products from iPad competitors. The question will remain whether consumers will buy.

    Microsoft Has A Chance to Compete With Windows 8

    It’s way to early to count Microsoft out. Just look at history. Microsoft has a fighting chance with Windows 8 because they are Microsoft. We can argue and debate whether they understand the consumer. Or whether the market has passed them or not but the simple truth is they are still a force in the computing landscape.
    Continue reading Microsoft Has A Chance to Compete With Windows 8