rent vs. buy: why rent a product instead of selling it?

Adobe (ADBE) used to sell physical copies of a given edition of its Creative Suite of products to individuals or small businesses for $2600 apiece.  Now it rents the same thing as Creative Cloud for $50 a month.  In 2012, selling physical copies (let’s ignore the other cloud-based tools ADBE sells–the big change is in its media tools), ADBE made $1.66 a share in profit and had $2.24 in cash flow.  This year, having gone totally digital the company says it will have earnings of around $.30 a share and will generate, I think, $1 or so in cash flow.

How can this be a good deal?  It takes over four years of rental income to generate the same revenue that a sale would do all at once.  In addition, in a world where interest rates were back to normal, present value considerations make the rental stream worth less than cash in hand today.

So why switch?

I can think of four reasons:

pricing umbrella   $2600 for Creative Suite, or $700 for Photoshop alone, leaves the door wide open for a competitor to enter the market with a lower-priced product–even a shareware entry–that does more or less the same thing as an ADBE product.

piracy  I’ve seen bootleg copies of Creative Suite on Craigslist for $100.  Yes, they’re illegal and, yes, maybe they won’t all work forever, but still the price difference is enormous!  Back when I was following Microsoft carefully–which is over a decade ago–that company thought that almost half of the copies of its Office suite being used by small- or mid-sized companies were stolen.  Because the rental model matches the cost of the software more closely with the potential buyer’s cash flow, stealing the software becomes much harder to justify.  If it’s all on the cloud, it’s impossible for most people to do.

upgrades (or lack thereof)  Before I signed up for the cloud version of Photoshop, I was using a version (CS5) that was several years old.  I’m sure there are individuals and businesses using much older versions.  Same general argument as for piracy–using outdated tools become much less worthwhile.

selling direct  Delivering Creative Cloud products through downloads eliminates the commissions paid to distributors of physical copies.  It also eliminates the expense of making the physical copies, but I think that’s a minor expense (the box and shrink-wrap are probably the largest cost elements).


ADBE thinks it will make $2 a share in 2015 and $3 a share in 2016 because of switching to the cloud for its media tools.  I’m not sure these number make the stock cheap at today’s price (I have a small position and would be a buyer at lower levels), assuming they come in as ADBE anticipates.  But I’m convinced that the piracy thing is real and that the incremental cost of selling an extra copy is as close to zero as you can get.  Also, once you start using the better tools it’s highly unlikely you’re going to go back.  You’ve probably thrown out the disks anyway.

Therefore, there’s at least a shot that number s are better than that.

But in this post, my main point is that the rental model is an extremely powerful one.

Examples tomorrow–Anixter, Olympus and EA.

the tablet war: dispatches from the front lines

In the past week or so, there have been two significant developments in the story of the development of the PC tablet:

–one is the outpouring of reports, both from the blogosphere and in newspapers, that the iPad is cannibalizing the notebook.

–the other is that AAPL has made up with ADBE, sort of.


the iPad

The many blogger stories about cannibalization seem to have been generated as the result of a well-marketed brokerage research reports by analysts covering AAPL at UBS and Barclays Capital.  The Financial Times recently had a more comprehensive comment in its Lex column.

Clearly, something is happening.  But I’m not sure the cannibalization numbers add up or that the overall story makes any sense.

We know from INTC that the back to school season has been weaker than had been expected as late as early July.  Last minute processor order cancellations/deferrals were big enough for INTC to make a downward revision to revenues on August 27th, pointing to “weaker than expected demand for consumer PCs in mature markets.”  This quantified the weakness that Taiwanese IT firms and US laptop makers like DELL had been talking about in the prior weeks.

In its press release, INTC revises its September quarter sales down by about $600 million, or 5%.  If we assume 5% is a good proxy for the unit demand shortfall (since the sectors showing weakness are less expensive computers, the 5% probably understates the unit decline), then the reduction in units to be sold in the Us and Europe (mature markets) is about 5 million.  That figure probably exceeds AAPL’s production, and worldwide sales, of the iPad during July-September.

Also, the laptop sales shortfall is reported to be predominantly in the netbook end of the market.  I suspect this is because low-end “regular” laptops have come down in price and now mimicked the features of netbooks.  As a result, for several quarters the latter’s unit sales have been flattish in a rising market.  Besides, I can’t imagine anyone who has used a netbook or an iPad would think they were close substitutes for one another.  You might just as easily argue that smartphones are cannibalizing PCs.

F or what it’s worth, my guess is that the slowdown in consumer PC sales in the US and Europe is a slowdown-in-the-economy phenomenon, not a cannibalization one.

Nevertheless, there is extremely high interest in tablets, even though most of those intending to buy one don’t really know what they are or where they fit in among their digital devices.  According to a Forrester blog post from last Friday 2.5 million US online consumers already own an iPad and 7.4 million more intend to buy one.  An additional 20 million say they’re going to buy a tablet of some sort–not necessarily an iPad–over the next 12 months.  (This 27 million total surpasses the number of Americans intending to buy an e-reader, the next most desired device, by about a third).

The one characteristic of tablets that should jump out for investors is that none will have INTC microprocessors and most will likely have linux-based software, not MSFT’s.

This explosion of interest, and the resulting scramble by AAPL to increase production capacity and by other manufacturers to get their tablet devices into the market, may explain the apparent urgency behind INTC’s moves to acquire McAfee and Infineon’s cellphone chip business.


Last Thursday, AAPL posted a release on its website about “App Store Review Guidelines.”   It seems innocuous…but it isn’t.  Back when the iPad was being introduced, AAPL said the device wouldn’t support Adobe Flash.  Why?  Steve Jobs eventually wrote his thoughts in an open letter.  Although AAPL and ADBE have a long relationship, he wrote, but Flash is unreliable, poor performing, and not secure.  The world has passed ADBE by, as well.  Ouch!

Two other problems.  Flash is designed for PCs and uses a lot of processing power and battery life.  Also, if you could download Flash onto your iPad you could use services like Hulu and bypass the AAPL apps store.

AAPL went a step further, too.  ADBE had developed a cross-platform compiler, that is, a software program that’s something like a translation device.  It converts a Flash-created app into one in a programming language that AAPL found acceptable.  But AAPL said developers couldn’t use the ADBE compiler, either.  The result was that many app developers had to hire two staffs, one to develop specifically for AAPL, another to develop for the rest of the world.

Last week’s press release is AAPL’s capitulation on app development.  AAPL still won’t allow any Flash code to be downloaded into the iPad, but it will accept programs that have been cross compiled from Flash in to an Apple-approved language.

Why did AAPL give in?  Some people say it was ADBE’s appeal to the government anti-trust authorities.  Maybe.  But I think the real issue is the stunningly fast development of the tablet market.  After all, the iPad is a limited device.  It’s been crafted to avoid any cannibalization of the iPhone (remember–if we look at profits, AAPL is a cellphone maker with a couple of lucrative sidelines, like MP3 players and computers).  Users are funneled to its app store to get  content to use.  If AAPL could get developers to write code that would be very expensive to adapt for most other tablet devices, its first-to-market advantage would be that much more overwhelming.

It’s this last thing that the bland note linked above is raising the white flag to.  To me, it’s a signal that AAPL sees competition coming for the iPad faster than it had thought.  This isn’t 100% bad for the company.  Its dominance of the tablet market will likely be less complete, but the market will likely be very much larger than it had dreamed.  It wasn’t that long ago (March or April) that analysts laughed at AAPL for arranging for production capacity of 1 million units a month.  It’s now churning out twice that and still scrambling to expand fast enough to keep up with demand.

AAPL vs. ADBE: the latest move

AAPL and ADBE used to be friends…not so much anymore, though.

Flash and the iPad

When AAPL was outlining the features of the iPad, it said it would not support ADBE’s Flash application. (It doesn’t for the iPhone, either.)  Steve Jobs called Flash “buggy.”   AAPL strongly implied, if it didn’t state outright, that Flash was too antiquated to be permitted on a “magical” machine like the iPad.

This may well be true.  But I can’t help but notice that the ban on Flash forces iPad users to depend on AAPL for delivery of video content.  That, in turn, means that AAPL gets the chance to collect a transmission fees–either from the content provider or the user.  (Note, also, that there are no ports on the iPad to let you plug in a peripheral and import content that way.  Hmm.)

That’s the past, however.

the iPhone and Creative Suite 5

ADBE is just about to release a new version of its important product, Creative Suite.  One of its interesting new features is a kind of translation or porting gizmo that takes output created using Flash and reconfigures it so it works on other devices, including the iPhone and iPad.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that last week AAPL changed its rules for what can appear on the iPhone or iPad to ban content, like that coming from Creative Suite’s new gizmo, that isn’t originally written using AAPL-approved software–whether it works on AAPL devices or not.

Why would AAPL do this?  According to the WSJ, when it asked, AAPL replied that “Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” whereas AAPL (only) supports standard technologies.  Huh?

This is what I think

Let’s take it for granted that the standard that AAPL wants used, HTML5, is more advanced and produces a better image–and not just that the ATT mobile network and the AAPL device microprocessors/batteries aren’t big enough to handle Flash.  This is not at all clear to me, but let’s just say.

If I’m a smartphone app designer, the ADBE gizmo gives me a way to develop my product in Flash and port it over to the AAPL standard for free.  Three consequences:

–I’m going to develop in Flash and port over my product to any other platform I can,

–therefore, I’m not going to use any great new features of HTML5, and

–all smartphones are going to have identical products from me.

This would be a pro-GOOG result, since an Android phone would have access to any new app at the same time as the iPhone does.  It would also orient competition in smartphones away from unique features and toward price.

By refusing to allow this procedure, and in the absence of a gizmo to port content from HTML5 to Flash, the app developer has to choose–between AAPL, which has a ton of phones already in use, and Android, which doesn’t.  Not a hard decision.  The result?–the iPhone retains unique content and Android has that much farther to go to catch up.

The situation is the opposite for the iPad, since that device has just been launched.  Technical limitations of the iPad aside, you’d think AAPL should be encouraging developers to provide content.  Yes, but the iPhone represents half of AAPL’s profits, so any help to making the iPad more desirable is far outweighed by potential harm to the iPhone.

the outcome?

It’s not clear year.  Watch for a response from GOOG.