Apple and Nike

What kind of company is Apple, anyway?

They certainly have great technology, but to call them a technology company doesn’t seem quite right. They have great marketing, but to call them a marketing company isn’t true either. They have an incredible retail chain, but to call them a retailer is clearly off base as well.

You could ask a similar question about Nike.

They started with shoes, but their product line has extended far beyond that. Certainly they are a marketing company, one of the best in the world, but they also make many genuinely innovative products. Over the last few years they’ve been expanding their push into software and wearables, yet no one thinks of them as a technology company. And, despite self-owned and franchised stores in almost every neighborhood in the world,1 no one thinks of them as a retailer either.

Interestingly, both Apple and Nike have markedly similar business models: as various pundits never tire of telling us, Apple is selling a commodity and is doomed to inevitable margin pressure and/or massive loss of share in the face of good-enough cheap Android. For better or worse we in tech are stuck with these folks, because who knows what they would make of a company like Nike, selling pieces of leather and bits of fabric. Talk about a commodity! And yet, there is Nike, sporting a ~45% gross margin in an industry that averages 33%. Clearly they are more than just an apparel maker.

My wife just registered for the Nike Women’s Half Marathon here in Taipei; in order to register, you had to have logged at least 50km using the Nike+ Running App over the last month; immediately after registering you were presented with specially made products featuring the race logo. Typing that out sounds, well, rather annoying, but the reality was quite the opposite. My wife downloaded the app, clocked up the miles, counted down to the deadline, and joyfully bought a new pair of running pants (I was impressed at her restraint). It was fun.

What Nike is selling is the experience of being a runner (or a basketball player or a tennis player or a golfer, etc.) It’s not just the athletes in their advertisements, or the quality of their shoes, the sportiness of the clothes, or the sophistication of the apps. It’s the whole, and it’s greater than the sum of its parts. Nike is an experience company. They sell a commodity product, and make their profit off of the differentiation provided by the Nike experience. And they’re better at it than just about any company in the world, except maybe Apple.

After all, Apple too is an experience company. They are not selling you a computer, or a phone, or a tablet; they are selling an experience that encapsulates everything from their ads to their stores to their packaging to the actual user experience of their devices. They sell a commodity product, and make their profit off of the differentiation provided by the Apple experience.

Serving on corporate boards is fairly common for C-level executives, but not at Apple under Steve Jobs. To my knowledge the only exception was Tim Cook, who joined Nike’s board in 2005.2 A year later Nike and Apple released the Nike+iPod, a hugely successful collaboration that made an iPod Nano about as omnipresent as a water bottle for a great many runners, and a pair of Nikes the default choice for anyone with an iPod.

Since then the collaboration has continued, especially with the FuelBand, which has an app only for the iPhone, along with significant shelf space in Apple Retail stores. Of course the FuelBand also always seemed a potential stumbling block: would Tim Cook really release a competing product (the alleged iWatch) to the company on whose Board he sat?

Well, now that stumbling block is gone: CNET reported over the weekend that Nike fired a majority of the FuelBand team and will stop making wearable hardware:

The company informed members of the 70-person hardware team — part of its larger, technology-focused Digital Sport division comprised of about 200 people — of the job cuts Thursday. About 30 employees reside at Nike’s Hong Kong offices, with the remainder of the team at Nike’s Beaverton, Ore., headquarters.

Nike’s Digital Sport hardware team focused on areas like industrial design; manufacturing operations; electrical and mechanical hardware engineering; and software interface design. Products included not only the FuelBand but also the Nike+ sportwatch and other, more peripheral sport-specific initiatives.

First off, I highly doubt this was directly connected to Apple. By all accounts the FuelBand was a money pit and the Secret thread that first revealed the firings suggested the same. Secondly, the FuelBand was interesting in a product sense but didn’t make much business sense for Nike. It didn’t lead to the direct sale of any of their products, since it was meant for wearing around the home and office; relatedly, while there may have been some brand utility in people sporting a Nike+ wearable, a product meant to make you take the stairs doesn’t exactly remind you of an athletic lifestyle.

All that said, Nike can read the rumor sites just as well as we can, and do happen to have particularly special access to Tim Cook and a history of partnering with Apple. And Apple is certainly better at “industrial design; manufacturing operations; electrical and mechanical hardware engineering; and software interface design.” I would not at all be surprised if Nike were happy to cast aside the FuelBand in favor of recreating the Nike+iPod with the (alleged) iWatch.

The question, then, is were such a partnership to come about, what might Apple gain from Nike? Obviously we are well into the realm of speculation, but certainly the biggest question about a potential iWatch is what job it might do. And, perhaps, it really is there right in front of us.

Think about the iPhone: before it could make a call or go on the Internet, there was the iPod, which did nothing more than play music. But the foundation built by the iPod, iTunes, and the iTunes Music Store helped the iPhone tremendously, leading not only to software innovations like the App Store, but also hardware breakthroughs in miniaturization and battery life. You have to start somewhere.

So it is with a wearable. It’s not too difficult to imagine a future where your wrist is the center of your digital life, projecting a contextually appropriate user interface to the nearest dumb screen, but it’s even easier to see how that’s just not possible now – just like the iPhone wasn’t possible when the iPod launched in 2001. But you have to start somewhere.

So then, if you want a beachhead, is there a population that is already in the habit of wearing electronic accessories and loves measuring themselves? And, if you wanted the absolute best chance of winning that market, might you not want to partner with the company that sells the experience you want to provide?

Truthfully, the only reason to think Apple might not want to partner with Nike in this way is, well, because they’re Apple. But remember, Apple was quite pleased to launch the iPhone with Google services,3 and has cooperated with Microsoft for years; they’ve also long had by far the best and most comprehensive content deals. Apple’s business development acumen is one of its least appreciated competitive advantages, and their products are better when it is utilized. I bet that’s exactly the case with the iWatch.

  1. There are five Nike-branded locations I can think of off the top of my head within a kilometer of my house, none owned directly by Nike
  2. Eddy Cue joined the Ferrari Board of Directors in 2012
  3. Yes, I’m quite aware of how that turned out

34 thoughts on “Apple and Nike

  1. Already a member of The Information, thanks Ben. I love it and find it to be well worth the $$$. I’m a big believer in paying for quality, hence my joining of Stratechery “Community” last week as well. Keep up the great work!

  2. Thanks Anthony, I’m a fan as well. It’s interesting to think about these new business models selling what is not only a commodity (words), but one with a marginal cost of zero. It’s hard to pull that credit card out, and the experience has to be a part of that. Something I probably haven’t done a good enough job with, but that I think The Information has really honed over the last few months.

  3. Pingback: Bookmarks for April 21st from 03:44 to 21:02 : Extenuating Circumstances

  4. Pingback: Nike Failed. Now Only Apple Can Save Wearables | Techbait Tech News

  5. Pingback: Nike Failed. Now Only Apple Can Save Wearables | TechNewsDB

  6. Hi Ben, first I’d like to say that in regards to my issue with keeping signed in, it turns out it didn’t work because I was using your site thru the twitter link and not thru the browser itself. Sorry if it caused you a headache or something. I should have been more discreet about where I talked about bugs and whatnot. Apologies. Certainly there are some birthing pains for Stratechery 2.0, but I have no doubt the quality of your work will stand the tests of time.

    This is an interesting parallel you draw between these two companies, Ben. Steve often talked about his admiration for Nike during the early days of his return to Apple, and he also drew a parallel between Nike’s return from gloomy days and how a powerful brand could overcome a lot. It’s interesting what might be ahead for these two companies in the wearable-computing space.

    I’ve heard the question of who will come to own the wearable-technology market as a battle between sporting brands vs fashion brands vs technology companies. I believe Apple intends to make their attack from all three of these perspectives, with maybe the additional angle of biotechnology breakthroughs. Any one of those angles is simply too simpleminded for a company as expansive and ambitious as Apple. I believe their positioning will be multifaceted, powerful, and I think they will set the financial parameters for success in wearables thru uniquely Apple virtues — this is going to make competition with Apple in these new territories especially problematic from the usual suspects. They’re either going to evolve quickly or be stuck in the “crap” segment of the market, competing for volume and attention with little financial reward, ala tablet market.

    My one contention with your piece is the idea of the iWatch precluding some kind of all-in-one hub that projects an appropriate UI to whatever dumb hardware is at hand. I believe there are too many abstract assumptions in that idea to presume that such a device would really one day be a solution to a major problem, or even that Apple is thinking along those lines. I think recent leaks of Apple’s internal documents show that Apple is far more opportunistic and present-minded than many people previously thought.

    I think there is something profound in this phase of computing where we view them not only as powerful tools we use, but also as intimate objects we wear to express our individualism. I think it’s a uniquely Apple-ish proposition to show us all what “wearing a computer” means in terms of fashion and of capability. It seems as though the technology industry has been thinking rigidly along the proscenium arch in regards to wearable tech, they’re trying to apply the use-cases of other, very different pieces of technology to our wrists. I somehow don’t believe Apple thinks of our bodies as potential targets for extracting text messages and notifications.

  7. Pingback: Swift News | Nike Failed. Now Only Apple Can Save Wearables

  8. Pingback: Tuesday links: bullish on hedge funds | Abnormal Returns

  9. Pingback: It is a thermometer, a pules rate monitor and a sphygmomanometer. This is one device – iWatch. | Andre's blog

  10. Pingback: Apple en Nike werken aan smartband - waarom er geen iWatch komt -

  11. Pingback: Wednesday Morning News

  12. Pingback: Daily Email: Microsoft, Cloud Services, and Amazon | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  13. Pingback: Daily Email (2014-04-22): Microsoft, Cloud Services, and Amazon | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  14. Pingback: Nike Failed. Now Only Apple Can Save Wearables – Wired | E-book Readers Mart

  15. Pingback: Episode 002: Fat as a Service (FaaS) | Stratechery

  16. Pingback: 10 Sunday Reads | The Big Picture

  17. Pingback: What’s worth reading: weekend edition | Shreyasp's Weblog

  18. Pingback: What’s Worth Reading | Shreyas Recommends (Week 5 : April 20 to April 27) «

  19. Pingback: The Dirt: Nike Abandons Wearables, Picturefill 2, the FCC Betrays Us, and Opera Introduces Coast | Fresh Tilled Soil

  20. Pingback: Morning Reads for Tuesday, April, 29th, 2014 — Peach Pundit

  21. Pingback: Experiences vs Commodities | An Idle Mind is the Devil's Workshop

  22. Pingback: Apple Retail and the Innovator's Dilemma | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  23. Pingback: The Week in Daily Updates (Week 3) | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  24. Pingback: Why Apple Is Buying Beats | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  25. Pingback: “体验公司”的崛起:为何苹果、耐克、星巴克和Beats是同一种公司? | 剑客|关注科技互联网

  26. Pingback: 聚焦体验公司:苹果、耐克、星巴克和Beats是同类公司? | 聚合资讯

  27. Pingback: What I Got Wrong About Apple Watch | stratechery by Ben Thompson

Join the Conversation