

60 percent of Apple’s sales are from products that did not exist three years ago - jsm386
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/19/60-percent-of-apples-sales-are-from-products-that-did-not-exist-three-years-ago/

======
redstripe
What's also interesting about that chart is that software makes up such a
small part of revenue. A bad CEO would see that and devote a similarly tiny
amount of resources to software development because, you know, it doesn't make
the company much money.

Not to say that Apple software is all awesome, but at least they don't treat
it as a cost center that has to be trimmed.

~~~
wheels
Steve's mantra is all about vertical integration. I don't think he sees a line
between "iOS, the software" and "iPad, the product". That'd be a bit like
looking at the chart and saying, "Hmm, they don't sell many CPUs, maybe
they're not important." I think if there's one thing that Apple does get, it's
that they're all a piece of the puzzle. For what it's worth, that's not new;
pre-Microsoft, it was always understood that the OS was part of selling
hardware.

Now, what they conceivably _could_ do is to look at their aftermarket software
and devote less resources to that -- especially in places where Apple's
presence in the aftermarket doesn't make or break the platform (e.g. music
sequencing -- there are half a dozen mature competitors to Logic that run on
OS X). Also, I suspect some of those places Apple is in strategically because
it funnels money away from companies they don't like -- Aperture cuts away
from Adobe and iWorks pulls away from Microsoft, despite Photoshop and MS
Office for Mac being platform-completing tools. Also their offerings there are
important as leverage; Apple doesn't want to be back in the position of
_needing_ Microsoft or Adobe since they've been burned in the past.

~~~
brisance
You're absolutely right. Refer to his comments on Apple's Q3 quarterly
earnings conference yesterday.

>>You’re looking at it wrong. You’re looking at it as a hardware person in a
fragmented world. You’re looking at it as a hardware manufacturer that doesn’t
really know much about software, who doesn’t think about an integrated product
but assumes the software will somehow take care of itself. And you’re sitting
around saying, well, how can we make this cheaper? Well, we can put a smaller
screen on it, and a slower processor, and less memory, and you assume that the
software will somehow just come alive on this product that you’re dreaming up,
but it won’t. Because these app developers have taken advantage of the
products that came before, with faster processors, with larger screens, with
more capabilities that they can take advantage of to make better apps for
customers. And they’re not… it’s a hard one, because it throws you right back
into the beginning of that chicken-and-egg problem again, to change all the
assumptions on these developers. Most of them will not follow you. Most of
them will say, “I’m sorry, but I’m not going to write down a watered-down
version of my app just because you’ve got this phone that you can sell for $50
less, and you’re begging me to write software for it.”<<

[http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcri...](http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcript.html)

------
petenixey
3M institutionalised innovation by enforcing a ratio like this. I can't
remember the exact figures but something like 30% of every division's revenues
had to be from products released in the previous 5 years.

An "aged revenue" ratio might make a good performance predictor for a company:
the proportion of revenues that comes from products designed in the last 5
years.

GOOG:MSFT:FBK:AMZN - you could get some powerful performance indicators from
that simple stat.

~~~
eru
But does it have any predictive power?

------
aaronblohowiak
This is called the Freshness index, and is vital for any company that wants to
stay relevant and assure continued revenue.

------
metamemetics
Seems to confirm the subthesis of Carl Schramm's The Entrepreneurial
Imperative. That is, established firms are having to become _increasingly_
entrepreneurial in order to compete.

This is largely good news for those doing startups. Since the lifespan of
profitability for any one business model is decreasing in the future, existing
firms are going to be offering a lot of money to buy new ones or get pushed
out of the marketplace.

------
queensnake
What could they do next to keep it up? Dick Tracey watches? Augmented reality
contact lenses? Brain implants? A flying robot personal assistant? None of
these seems as plausible as a smart phone or a 'Dyna Pad'.

Oh wait, there's Mistry's "Sixth Sense" setup still to go. Where is that
thing, anyway? He promised to open source it, by around this last January.
Someone's bought him, for sure. It'd be more interesting if it was someone
other than Apple. I'm just amazed that it hasn't been on the radar, one way or
the other.

------
erikstarck
This is cool and all but the company has obviously gone through a significant
shift the last three years, with the iPhone and iPad. Comparing 2008 with 2005
does not give the same ratio.

------
johnglasgow
Apple is one of the best companies at cannibalizing it's own products, which
is mandatory to stay ahead of the competition. Example: Apple crushed iPod
sales by releasing the iPhone.

------
known
And it has also cost Ray Ozzie his job at Microsoft.

------
mkr-hn
Do you mean didn't exist at all, or just hadn't been made by Apple?

edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. The answer affects the whole tone and
meaning of the article.

~~~
brianpan
60% of current sales are from iPhone and iPad which were launched in the past
3 years.

~~~
mkr-hn
The question was what is meant by "didn't exist."

~~~
jfarmer
Nobody is jumping on your because you're being "anti-Apple." They're down-
voting you because you're being pedantic, whether intentional or not.

~~~
mkr-hn
One interpretation makes this a post about the success of an innovator.

One interpretation makes this post one giving false credit for the creation of
entire industries. It is something I've seen from a minority of Apple users.

It's a valid question.

~~~
photon_off
That _is_ a very good point. But with your original question, you brought it
up in the form of a instigating, snarky question.

There is some inherent value of the iPhone and iPad in them being phones and
tablets, respectively. A portion of their sales has nothing to do with
innovation. I would agree.

~~~
mkr-hn
That wasn't the intent. Amazing how easy it is to write a sentence that can
come off in a number of unintended ways, isn't it? :)

