| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | Jun » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Operating profits for the eight vendors I track increased at a compounded 25% over three years. As with revenues, the growth is concentrated. The following chart shows operating profit growth across three time frames: three year compounded, year/year and sequential. Loss-making vendors are excluded from this chart.
Looking at individual performance, the following chart shows how each vendor performed over time:
When a company is acquired, the price paid is usually higher than what the company is worth. This is because there is a “control premium” that needs to be paid so that the acquiring company can control the destiny of the acquired company (while the seller loses that right). So the question has to be what does the premium (or excess cost) buy? What is the value of that control? What will be the new destiny? Whose destiny is changed?
Clayton Christensen succinctly defined the value in any company as the sum of three constituent parts: resources, processes and business models. Market value can be nothing more and nothing less than these three things.
An acquisition has to be positioned on one of these targets just like a product is positioned on a specific market. The problem with being deliberate about where the value lies is that once positioned a certain way, the integration team will begin to execute on that plan. This means that the thing you decided was worth most (e.g. resources) gets all the attention and the other potential sources of value (processes or profit models) are discarded.
The 200 most popular words used to describe the Asymco audience. The data is obtained from 4.3k twitter bios (approximately 55k total words). Generated using Wordle and a bit of Automator, grep, and BBEdit. Click/tap on image for more resolution.
A summary of the attributes of the best audience on the web.
Revenues for the eight phone vendors I track increased overall during the last three years. The compounded annual growth was about 13%. However the growth was not evenly distributed. The following chart shows revenue growth across three time frames: Three year compounded, year/year quarterly and sequential quarterly.
I separated the incumbent companies from the “entrant” smartphone vendors for contrast.
Looking at individual performance, the following chart shows how each vendor performed over time:
It’s time to review the mobile phone market at the end of the first quarter of 2011. Before I begin, I’d like to remind that this analysis will span multiple posts and that many details will be published separately due to time and space constraints. Data about platforms, sales, profitability and pricing will be posted separately.
All data sets and chart data will be available for interaction and download through Asymco Interactive when complete. You can purchase a license to Asymco Interactive anytime and you will have access to any new data sets for next 90 days so don’t hesitate to pre-order the report.
The overall phone market grew at a compound rate of 9% over three years. The pattern of entrants focused on smartphones and mobile computing growing faster than the incumbents continues. The compound three year unit growth for the tracked vendors in descending order is:
To give an idea of the split between smart and non smart, Nokia’s smart business grew at 18% compounded while its non-smart units contracted at -6% rate.
In terms of y/y growth the market grew at 26% and the vendor ranking is:
