Categories

Can Android change the distribution of profit among phone vendors?

A quick update on the analysis of mobile phone profits. If the available profit[1] (i.e. excluding losses) were summed and each vendor’s profit were measured as a percent of this total, this chart would tell the story of the last three years:

Note that profit share has mostly shifted from Nokia to Apple, though Sony Ericsson and LG were also casualties and Motorola has not had anything to lose.

Some assume that the future belongs to the Koreans but we see that the relatively small amount of profit that Samsung has (less than RIM actually) has not changed much. HTC is also shown to be a steady performer but not having displaced much from competitors.

Will Android change this picture? As I’ve argued before, Android is most attractive to the unprofitable and the strategically constrained. Can having undifferentiated new products change this? As Nokia is unlikely to license Android, and RIM seems very unlikely and Apple is out of the picture, the only possible contenders are Samsung, LG, HTC, Motorola and Sony Ericsson.

Motorola and Sony Ericsson have both returned to profitability but with a very small volume Android strategy. However the incumbents fielding Android are really facing a far more sinister threat: the smaller local brands in China (e.g. ZTE) and emerging markets.

On profitability, the smaller challengers are unlikely to make a large impact, but they will constrain the profits of other licensees. The distribution of phones on a global scale is challenging without a brand, and brands are very expensive to build. It’s still possible over a longer timer frame that a small brand like HTC can emerge on a global stage. But in terms of profit capture, challengers will mostly “steal” from the already constrained big brands running with Android.

[1] Profit is not the only measure of success and can sometimes be a deceptive indicator. For this reason I look at a longer time frame so that anomalies, seasonality and business cycles are smoothed over. As flawed as it is as a measure, the most important reason to pay attention to profit is that it’s the only fuel for growth in the long term. Companies that are consistently unprofitable (e.g. Motorola) face diminishing degrees of strategic freedom further lubricating a downward slope toward financial distress.

  • parv

    Cannot android developers differentiate via their UI. Would that be sufficient? Or is a combination of hardware and software differentiation?

    • Tom

      It's not just hardware and software that is used to differ ones products. How good is the apps experience for users? How easy is the sdk for developers? How integrated is the device with other devices and services?
      Probably the least focused on aspect of apple products( desktop, laptop, mobile, services) is this: "Apple products work great; but they work even better with OTHER Apple products." Apple mobile devices work great! But add in MobileMe, iWork, iDisk, oh, yes, and iTunes music, app, and book stores and syncing, and one sees a triangulation between not only mobile, services, and traditional computer, but also between hardware, services, and software.
      None of the losers Horace has detailed can match this. None of the telcos can match this. None of the ZTEs of Asia can match this. All they collectively will be able to do is bash up each other.
      Rimm makes some progress lately, and it seems that nokia will too. Samsung has good DNA to get past android soon, maybe with their own BADA, but they still don't have Apple's triangulation.
      Feng Shui means defensible space. It was originally a military term to promote victory in war. It's a great idea in design because it creates ease and relaxation. But it's even better in the war for profits. Ones enemies simply can't touch you!

      • tom

        complete nonsense

      • kibbles

        actually i think that makes sense. by being an OS maker, an app maker, and a living-room-hardware maker, Apple products can synergize in ways that HTC or Samsung products cant…or dont, whichever the case may be.

    • Jim

      1. Apple controls the whole experience minus the manufacturing and a few components.
      3. How much wold HTC or Moto have to sell their smartphone to make the same amount of profit/phone that Apple does. I don't know, but I will bet Apple purposefully priced the iPhone with that thought in mind forcing other handset makers to offer the same price.
      2. I think this article says it all: http://stagetwo.com/2010/09/the-real-secret-of-ap
      3. Android is a race to the bottom and feels half-baked
      4. The only reason Nokia is on that chart is out of shear volume, like 400M units per year. And that is not just smart phones, that is all phones.

      • Vertti

        "1. Apple controls the whole experience minus the manufacturing and a few components."

        Actually Apple has a very tight grip on that too. $45 billion helps with that. They can shop around and their contracts are air tight.

  • RobDK

    One could also group the vendors after current OS.

    That would give 4 groupings; Apple, Nokia, RIM and Android/WM.

    This would underline Horace's previous posts that Android is the choice for losers. Falling profit from growing sales – it must be great to be an Android vendor – its the race to the bottom!

    • http://truvoipbuzz.com Alok Saboo

      I am not sure what to make out of this chart. It seems to be comparing apples and oranges. It is not clear from the article that you are counting segment profits (i.e., are these profits from smart phones). If that is not the case, it is meaningless to compare Apple and several others in your chart. I am sure if we look at only the smart phone profits, the picture will be much different. Apple may be making higher per unit profits (right now), but as an absolute number that may be dwindling down.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        The chart compares profits from all mobile phones. You can read more in the linked article.

        If we compared profits from smartphones only the share Apple has would be vastly higher. This because Samsung and LG have almost no smartphone volumes, RIM is less profitable on a unit basis yet has similar units to iPhone and Nokia makes the bulk of its profits from mid-range products.

  • http://PendingMotorolaSpin-Off Johhny Ives

    Motorola Mobile Devices is set to be spun off late Q4 as a well capitalized independent entity. I would not count them out yet, at least vs. the Koreans

    • Steven Noyes

      I thought Motorola's mobile infrastructure devision was being sold to Nokia/Siemens. If they spin off the mobile devices devision (Ala Freescale), what is left? Two way radio????

      • http://PendingMotorolaSpin-Off Johhny Ives

        Motorola sold the mobile networks infrastructure business to Nokia. GSM, LTE tower equipment and such. The split will create two companies, a Motorola Mobility for mobile phones and inclusive of existing Home broadband HW and supporting SW (DSL, Cable modems, EDGE mgmt), and a Motorola Solutions business inclusive of the radios, Government and Public Saftey, and some enterprise devices like POS and wireless inventory mgmt. Motorola Mobility will be led by Sanjay Jah, Solutions by Greg Brown (currently co-CEOs) Mobility is a bet on convergence of Home and Mobile experiences and leveraging existing inroads with global broadband and wireless carriers. Mobility will be the high risk entity, Solutions lower risk upside but relatively stable businesses. Mobility will own the brand and licence it to Solutions. Mobility will be well capitalized and Solutions will inheret the existing debt. All is public knowledge available in revent 10Q filings.

  • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

    At last Anssi Vanjoki and I agree on something:
    "FT notes some analysts agree with Anssi that relying on Android as the universal OS may lead to "permanently low profitability" with users failing to distinguish between different brands if they all offer the same experience"

    http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/21/ce-oh-no-he-di

    • Rob Scott

      I thought this was spot on:

      "Anssi was even graceful enough to illustrate this point with a vivid example, saying that mobile manufacturers who go the Android route are doing no better than Finnish boys who "pee in their pants" for warmth in the winter. "

    • http://truvoipbuzz.com Alok Saboo

      I am not sure about that analogy. The analogy is very compelling but appears baseless to me. Given that Nokia is clearly bleeding, I am not sure if they will be better off with their own OS, which according to your charts haven't done well in the past.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        Nokia is not bleeding, if by bleeding you mean losing money. Nokia is making less than it did but more than competitors which don't have their own OS. Profitability in the industry is directly correlated to ownership of software intellectual property.

  • rd

    This just the cost of the phone.
    Why not look at the profit margins of Carriers.
    or try looking at Samsung's profits from
    Flash, A4, display, etc.

    Carrier's profit margin would dwarf anything on that chart.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      I am comparing eight companies in a single industry. What would be gained by comparing them to non-competitors in disparate industries?

      • Steven Noyes

        I think it would be interesting to show where the real grip of power remains. Not with the platforms but the transport. It would really drive your point that no single platform will become dominant soon.

    • Jon

      I agree it would be interesting to also consider carriers, not to compare them to handset companies, but to understand their impact on some of the assertions. For instance, the Samsung Fascinate sold by Verizon does not mention Android in their TV ads. Also, carriers tend to make additional changes on top of the handset makers to the user experience of the OS. The same Samsung phone is sold under different names, with different apps, etc. by different U.S. carriers. Palm Pre Plus sold by Verizon has GPS crippled (compared to Sprint and AT&T), and Verizon is continuing to expand their own app store and application APIs.

  • Dainius Blynas

    What's the size of profits of these mobile phone vendors over this period? Maybe apple just grew the size of the pie very strongly without taking so much from nokia and others?

  • airmanchairman

    "However the incumbents fielding Android are really facing a far more sinister threat: the smaller local brands in China (e.g. ZTE) and emerging markets."

    This outlook is grim, because it is only a matter of time that these "incumbents", warily circling one another, finally relinquish the high end to its natural inhabitant, Apple, and make a mad dash in the headlong "race to the bottom", where the "white box" brands wait to embrace them in a death grip.

    Game over?

    • Rob Scott

      Cannot agree more. 2011 will be the beginning.

      If you are responsibly for range building/selection for a carrier, why would you skip a sub $100 Android device for a $ 550 one, when they have exactly the same OS, same form factor, similar design and hardware features.

      That is what going to kill the whole Android initiative. Sure they will move hundreds of millions of these things but they will be collecting cents. Android is not a long term solution for OEMs. The worst part is that their partner, Google want them there at commodity level, with no money to make except maybe Google.

    • Joe Rico

      I don't think it's quite a "death grip," but it won't be pretty. Android wins huge market share, but Apple makes all the money. It's the same as in PCs – what's the difference between HP, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, Acer, etc.? They are all offering slightly customized versions of the exact same product. The case may be slightly different, but not the user experience. However, they have all found a way to eek out profits and keep doing what they do.

      The cost of manufacturing these phones will come down to offset the drop in sales price. The smaller Asian manufacturers won't crack the US or European markets, and the smartphone market in developing countries of Asia is still small enough that losing share won't affect the bottom line of the leading handset makers. I think the same players will all be pumping out phones in a few years.

      What is interesting about the PC/phone comparison is that the platform maker has very different interests. Windows is a cash cow. The computer makers are commoditized, but Microsoft rakes in the cash on each PC sold. Meanwhile, Android has likely effectively killed Windows Phone before it even launches. It has done so because the product was first to market, but also because there is ZERO PROFIT. As an advertising company, Google only cares how many eyeballs are looking in on their products. As the mobile web expands, they are huge winners without charging a penny to the manufacturers.

      In both cases (computer and mobile), Apple market share is not insignificant, but also not in a leadership position. In both markets, Apple has millions of fans and millions of detractors, but it also has BILLIONS in highly profitable revenue. As Android takes over the world, Apple will be crying all the way to the bank.

      • Shaun

        "As an advertising company, Google only cares how many eyeballs are looking in on their products."

        If that were true then I'm not sure why they're bothering with Android. Surely they just need to convince developers to include GoogleAds in their applications and release their apps on all existing mobile platforms, which they've largely done already.

        In the advertising stakes, Android is losing badly to Nokia and Apple.

        "In terms of advert impressions, Nokia had almost 10 billion ad impressions in July. Apple had 1.6 billion impressions while Android had over 711 million."

        Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE68J1LA201009

      • Joe Rico

        Android isn't losing badly to anyone in advertising. Nokia is winning because of their massive head start in installed base. Android has 17% of current sales, but not the 17% market share that the Reuters article indicates. This will level out over time as Android continues to sell like crazy.

        As far as why Google bothers with Android, consider my earlier point; Windows Phone is DOA with the device makers. How can Windows charge a licensing fee and expect anyone to adapt their software at any serious scale? They are late to the game, and market share is largely self-reinforcing if the app/software/brand awareness are all well manicured. Apple, Google, and RIMM have all built walls around their existing users, and Microsoft needs to differentiate to give a real value proposition to new users. Without sales, the apps won't get built. Without apps, no sales. Maybe Microsoft has something really unique up their sleeve, but if not, Google is the big winner.

        The phones themselves will be more and more commoditized, but Google doesn't care. The handset makers can fight over share, but they won't be chasing Windows to get it. At a certain point, cameras will be good enough, processors fast enough, memory sufficient, apps unimaginably available. When this happens, brand perception and cost of manufacturing and distribution will determine the fate of the phonemakers.

        Google is battling with Microsoft over search, productivity software, and soon PC operating systems. If they have the ecosystem on mobile that hundreds of millions of users like, they can make some serious $$. Again, they just need the eyeballs. If it transitions successfully onto PCs, look out.

        I still think AAPL is the obvious choice for investors, as they are making money on all sides of the transaction. But Google is in it for more than the thrill of a technical challenge.

      • airmanchairman

        Shaun said on September 22:
        “'As an advertising company, Google only cares how many eyeballs are looking in on their products.'

        If that were true then I’m not sure why they’re bothering with Android. Surely they just need to convince developers to include GoogleAds in their applications and release their apps on all existing mobile platforms, which they’ve largely done already."

        I couldn't agree more. In hindsight, Google might want to consider the wisdom of their headlong rush into the mobile market, when they could easily have been the common denominator on all platforms, disrupting established markets like GPS and Wi-Fi location / navigational services as well as emerging ones like Augmented Reality and Voice-activated services. All this while dominating Search and Advertising as a matter of course.

        They forked from this path when their erstwhile partner, Apple, on whose board of Directors Google's CEO sat, discovered through the press their plans for not only a mobile OS, but a handset, a music store, a TV-streaming service and several other overlapping strategies.

        As Apple's CEO said in an interview back in 2007 in the wake of some angry exchanges with (Google CEO) Eric Schmidt: “I actually think Google has achieved their goal without Android, and I now think Android hurts them more than it helps them. It’s just going to divide them and people who want to be their partners.”

        The current atmosphere of antagonism beyond the boundaries of competition, adding Apple to their traditional foe Microsoft, with the internal platform fragmentation and UI-forking that their participating handset vendors and Telcos/Carriers are applying to their pure code would suggest that Android may well have been a strategic and tactical blunder that is pretty much irreversible now.

  • Magnus Karlsson

    Dear Horace,
    I have been lurking your blog for months, and I think it is excellent. The plot you show in this post will be spread around the internet like wildfire. It is awesome. In fact one could make it a game: "Which vendor belongs to which color?" I think most people will be shocked by the result, as most people discuss market share rather than profits.

    I would love (no, urge) you to make the same comparison (EBIT or percent of profit over time) among PC vendors. I am sure Apple would emerge much better than the eternal debate over market share which lends the Mac to some measly 3-4 %.

    Thanks for a nice blog,
    Magnus

  • http://www.opineapple.com Mark Newton

    To my mind, the clear question raised by this article is how long can SE and LG justify remaining in the mobile phone business? They are making nothing now. How can they rationalise investing further when they could only expect a marginal improvement in return from such a massively competitive market?

    What impact would exit of these two (and potentiallly Motorola) have on the profitability of HTC and Samsung? Are the latter two actively sacrificing profits in order to drive the former two(/three) to extinction? What happens if and when they succeed?

    It's a fascinating study. Thanks for the deep commentary Horace.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      There are many precedents of companies giving up in this market. Siemens, Alcatel, Ericsson (independently), Palm, and many Taiwanese entrants gave up, were acquired or merged. In Japan there are mergers going on as we speak. If Motorola Mobility division was an independent company, it would have certainly had to exit. Same with Sony Ericsson who relied on the largesse of their corporate sponsors.

      Many analysts agree that the business model for hardware only players is unsustainable. Unlike the PC business where marginal players can be sustained, the phone business requires scale and massive distribution. You can't make 50k phones a year and sell them in a single market profitably whereas you can carve such a nice with PCs. Microsoft and to a lesser degree Google are still thinking that this industry can support a PC "horizontal" model. It can't. Not only because integrated competitors climb the performance trajectory faster but also because there is no elasticity in scale. You can't assume that a small production run or a low capital investment can yield as well as a large run.

      As to what will happen if one or two incumbents drop out, I don't know. By the time they exit, they usually hold tiny share so there is no huge vacuum to fill. The case of Motorola's collapse is worth noting. The RAZR was a huge part of the market and it just withered away. I suppose Samsung was the single biggest beneficiary.

  • Stewie

    The numbers appear to be skewed. Apple report their revenues including services and carrier contracts, they do not publish the details of phone sales, then services separately. Apple as far as I am aware is the only handset provider who has the additional services and carrier agreements in place. If we could see just handset volumes/profit then the picture would be a little different. It will be interesting to see if the handset providers start to get a cut from the android market over time. I know that there has been talk of the individual handset providers starting up their own market but then that's a stupid idea from a users perspective because you may get fragmentation, its also stupid from a developers perspective because managing several different markets is more difficult for small time operators. The reality is that the value proposition that apple provides is good but its not as good (in terms of stark difference from the competitors) as it was 6, 12 or 18 months ago. With Android 2.2 Google has started pushing in a different direction where apple will start playing catchup in many areas. It will be interesting to see where iPhone OS (sorry i refuse to use the new 'brand' because it dilutes how good the real ios is from Cisco) goes with the 4->5 change where we know that google is working hard on 3.0. I think that we will start to see a bigger differentiation between platforms as the baseline has been met and exceeded on both sides of the fence.

  • Pingback: Daily Digest for September 22nd ‹ SmediaC - Social Media Community Strategy – New Media And Community Strategy

  • Pingback: Market share v. profits « Bits & Pieces

  • Shaun

    @Joe Rico, Point still stands – if Google are interested in advertising revenue, then Android isn't the cash cow yet or for a long time or ever. I'd bet most of those 10 million for Nokia are S40 even, ie. not even their smartphone OS.

    It's also naive to think that Android is free. It's far from free if you want to include Google's services with your phone and an Android phone without Google's services is barely an Android phone.

    Not that alters the point that Windows is DOA as you suggest. Outside the USA it was non-existent even as a business phone OS and as a consumer OS they've just no chance. It'll be a niche US-carrier hobbled thing if anything and nobody outside the US will touch it except maybe HTC if MS pay them.

    • Shaun

      Sorry – 10 Billion, not 10 Million obviously.

  • Tom

    @Stewie

    Yes, variety is the spice of life. That is what appeals to so many people about android. The thought of an OS that is wide open, with an app set up that is wide open: this is intoxicating to many.
    But it is the very openness of android and its apps that leaves it open to manipulation. It is the very laissez-faire approach google takes with manufacturers and carriers that will increasingly bring frustration to customers. Already, stats on user satisfaction with apple and android describes the first with almost three times more users who are very satisfied than android. This is before the carriers have become heavy handed with android. Now that verizon has shown the way in the us, this can only accelerate.

    The variety left behind won't be very spicy, I'm afraid.

    • mbaDad

      Wide open to the carriers to install crapware that you can't install, lock out google for search, add terrible OS "enhancements" (software is NOT their forte), etc. For all but the .001% of users that want to root their phone it is totally locked down. This is better how?

  • kevin

    @stewie:
    1. Maybe you better explain the "slice of the pie" because if it's anything other than subsidies, Apple and the carriers have been making misleading financial statements in legal documents and conference calls.
    2. Fragmentation is not a red herring because the carriers are releasing new Android phones with very old software with little chance of upgrades. It's one thing if a 15-to-24-month old phone differs from the latest baseline, but completely another if a brand new phone differs from the latest baseline.
    3. I can read very well, and I'd say the difference today could be just as stark. We know some stuff about Android 3, but what do you know about iPhone 5? If you don't know about iPhone 5, then how can you talk about the difference? BTW, you seem to have already completely discounted Facetime and AirPlay, both of which have little to do with apps, and deceptively look like nothing important, but that's because you ignore the importance of the rest of the ecosystem in the days to come. Looking backwards, Android still has nothing like iTunes – yeah, it's coming… And most phones are no better integrated with Android software today than the G1 was in 2008 or Droid in 2009.
    4. Now you bring up variety (not mentioned in your first post) – and there Android has a potential advantage. But be careful, variety without quality is really no choice at all.

  • kevin

    @Stewie: By the way, Apple does report its iTunes services (music, video, apps, etc) separately from its iPhone handset sales. Nokia does not separate Ovi from its devices.

  • Pingback: Mobile handset profitshare shifts strongly over 3-year span, mainly because of iPhone - TiPb iPhone, iPad, iPod Forums

  • http://james.gameover.com/ James John Malcolm

    Interesting graph — but, what % of profit consists of accruals and what % is actual cash flow?

    Also, you do realise quarterly data is unaudited?

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      All profit is EBIT and is post-restatement (in the case of Apple) which means none of it is not deferred accounting (which is what I suppose you mean by accruals).

      I do realize that quarterly data is unaudited, but re-statements are rare and I hope are immaterial. There was a more detailed debate on the subject here:
      http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/androids-pursuit

  • Andre Friedmann

    "Profit is not the only measure of success and can sometimes be a deceptive indicator."
    This is a tough statement for me to work my pea brain around. I'll be optimistic, and imagine you're saying that establishing a strong market share before turning any profits *could* be a measure of success, if only in anticipation of future profits. Elsewise, I'm totally at sea: the electronics industry, for years, has engaged in the deceptive spin that market share trumps all.

    • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

      If a company is lured toward higher profitability while exceeding the expectations of most of its customers it is in danger of being disrupted. If a company is climbing a new trajectory of performance and its products are not yet good enough then a hunger for profit and patience for growth is the best strategy.

      In a classic example, Digital Equipment Corporation could not be bothered to make PCs because it chased higher margins and profitability in mini-computers. DEC profitability was the envy of the world until they went off a cliff.

      What you must always keep an eye on is whether your product *exceeds* the needs of mainstream consumers and thus appeals to a smaller niche of the most demanding users or whether every new version of your product expands demand in all sectors of the market.

      • ericgen

        Ah, I miss DEC. I wish Ken Olsen, while a visionary in his time, had had the depth and scope of vision that someone like Steve Jobs has.

        In the 87-88 timeframe DEC had what the business world wanted: a $2K computer that was binary compatible with the entire DEC line. But, since it was binary compatible, they decided to maintain the prices of all of their software at the prices they sold for on the larger machines. At the time, a $4K C compiler wasn't that expensive on a $100K machine, but nobody wanted to pay $4K to get a C compiler on a $2K machine.

        At that point in time, Microsoft sold a DOS C compiler for $99. I remember hearing a manager at the time state that Microsoft had figured out the price that people were willing to pay for software. This is kind of like Steve Jobs having figured out that $0.99 was what people were willing to pay for music.

        Microsoft seems to have forgotten this lesson and the record companies seem to have never learned it.

      • http://www.asymco.com Horace Dediu

        DEC, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola and Apple all made their fortunes by disrupting and all lost by being disrupted. I'm patiently waiting to see if lessons are being learned or not.

      • ericgen

        I still have some hopes for Apple these days. They seem to understand that however unpleasant it is to disrupt and cannibalize yourself, it's far more unpleasant to have someone else do it to you.

        I know Steve Jobs understands this. I also suspect that he, more than most, understands that he's not permanent. The issue over time will be how well he's instilled this philosophy into Apple and his successors. Hopefully it'll be a long time before we find out.

  • Pingback: Lifestream Digest for September 23rd « Graham J

  • Pingback: How Apple is sucking the profit out of the mobile phone business | All in one Articles | Submit free articles

  • Pingback: How Apple is sucking the profit out of the mobile phone business | O-I Newswire

  • http://pyatki.com.ua pyatki

    tnx for info

  • Pingback: A figure to strike fear in the hearts of non-Apple mobile phone makers « A Man With A Ph.D.

  • Pingback: A Graphical Look at Apple’s Share of Mobile Phone Industry Profits | Ipad & Iphone Tech | Ipad & Iphone Technology Blog | Ipad & Iphone Tech

  • Pingback: How Apple is sucking the profit out of the mobile phone business | Mobile Press

  • Pingback: How Apple is sucking the profit out of the mobile phone business | All in one Articles | Submit free articles

  • Manny Talavera

    I believed that Apple has nothing to do with the drop of others companies
    profit,,am not a businessman nor an marketing expert…i understand that the profit is the money gained after the product is sold minus the cost of production and etc. Nokia and the other players has sold more units than what
    Apple has sold( all the phone ). so number sold should transform the amount
    of profit per unit sold. isn't it? The most important for me is how profitable the
    product is,, the more you sell is just the bonus made,,,if the product appeals to the customers need and wants, an Apple just hit the right Formula,,,

  • Pingback: Marktentwicklung 2007-2010 | _mobile tourism

  • Pingback: Is Android winning? « More Scary Robots

  • Pingback: asymco | The symmetry of share shifts in mobile phones

  • Pingback: asymco | What really matters? Market Share vs Profit Share

  • http://clickbankmaximizer.com/mass-profit-formula/mass-profit-formula-review Mass Profit Formula

    Very interesting graph, you do realise quarterly data is unaudited? thanks for sharing.