Slashdot Mirror
Apple Makes no Profit from iTunes
Some Beech writes: "The Register has an article about the lack of profit from iTunes. Also mentioned in a Seattle Times article dated 27th October, it seems Apple is relying on iTunes to drive iPod sales rather then being a profit centre on its own." Another reader pointed us to Apple's details from the Analyst Meeting.
I don't mean to sound rude, but wasn't this the business model all along.
1. Create Cool player
2. Distribute Content for cheap
3. Become Standard by which everyone else judges you by.
4. Establism market dominance
5. Profit on Player!
6. Raise price on Content or lower cost of distribution.
7. Profit on Content!
I don't seen anything new or mysterious there... And for the rest of you, you now have a couple more steps on that profit model you've been working on!
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
The original article should be modded -1 flamebait -- too bad it's not on Slashdot. It's a rather impressive collection of loaded terms and inflammatory phrases.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
They have created a brand that goes beyond Mac. Now they have Windows users using a Mac program! And Microsoft can't stop them! Even if they do break even they will see the profits when people see that they can actual program and switch.
Paint.NET, a Free Image Editor, with Source Code Available!
I am surprised that no one yet has pointed out the ramifications of Jobs' revelation: a loss leader is an anti-competitive practice --it's actually illegal in a few countries, although nowhere in the US AFAIK. The fact that Apple can afford to sell songs for 99c/song because they make up their operating profits on iPod sales means two things:
1. No company that does not sell hardware can afford to compete with those that do in the online music store business (i.e. Apple, Dell, Samsung kinda).
2. The prices of the aforementioned units that subsidize the stores are artificially inflated by the amortized costs of the online music store operations, or expected growth. I.e. the iPods are indeed too expensive.
Either way, this does suck. And it sucks because the magic price-point.
Remember the .com bubble?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Apple has always lost money software as a driver for hardware sales. Do you really think they make money on Panther? they sell it for less than MS sells their OS and to a lot fewer people. Yet it (OBVIOUSLY) contains a lot more research and effort so their costs are much higher and profits not much on software.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What an absurd article.
Apple has a product (the iPod), upon which it makes a lot of money. Apple creates a system (iTunes and the iTunes store), whereby it can drive more sales of its product.
Now, I am supposed to be upset with Apple because it doesn't make money providing the media service, and it cooperates with the RIAA's licensing demands to do so.
Furthermore, I am supposed to prefer the idea of a 1-cent tax on my blank CD, or an addition to the income tax.
The mind boggles. Who should administer the income tax disbursements? How should the money be allocated? By volume? To promote a social musical agenda? Why should my CD carry a surcharge if I only want to burn a Linux distro, or back up my stuff onto it?
DRM is a big problem, sure, but this offers no answers. Apple is trying to build a dominant brand in the digital media distribution business, and doing well at it. For now, to offer the digital media that people want, Apple must deal with the gatekeeper to those media. That gatekeeper is the RIAA. Perhaps that will change someday and Apple or somebody else will be able to make money. For now, it seems reasonable enough to me that Apple is providing a service in the only manner in which the service can be realistically provided, and positioning the traffic and customer base to equate digital media with iTunes for the future.
The difference between other industries is that software by nature seems too easily distributed illegally, and therefore without revenue. It's not like physical consumables which aren't duplicated/shared by the consumer.
--------------------- Eddie Liu.
Reading the article at the Register... it sounds like they're blowing things out of proportion. The quote from Jobs that they focus on is: "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker."
While this could mean they are taking a permanent loss, it could also mean it is a slow profit that hasn't quite surpassed the initial one time investment portions of setting up iTunes... Or, it could even mean that they do break even or make a very small profit, but the profit is so small that in the large picture of the companies profits it comparatively makes no money...
I'd want to see some actual numbers and the real math before coming to any conclusions... The article simply jumps from the quote that iTunes isn't "a money maker" and enters areas of rampant speculation, leaning a little in the tinfoil hat direction.
But there are serious problems that will prevent this from happening, however wonderful it might seem:
1) Different people listen to different quantities of music. Someone who downloads 500 songs per year will therefore make the government pay 500 times as much money to the artists than the guy who only downloads one song. If I were that guy downloading one song, I'd not be too pleased about paying for some guy I don't know to listen to some artist I might not even like.
2) If there is no cost incurred to the user for downloading a song, many people will download huge numbers of songs, many of which will simply get thrown away. A song with an attractive name might get many downloads, even if no onne likes it. A corollary problem is that of bots being used to increase an artist's download quantity, and therefore unfairly make him money. There is, of course, no 100% reliable way to distinguish between a bot and a human.
3) There would be no way to track exchange of songs. If the songs have no DRM-like restrictions, than I can give a copy to my friend, an no one will no about it, so the ratings won't increase correspondingly. Even with the most advanced statistical methods, it is not possible to know just how many copies of a song have been made unless one actually does a study for each song (different songs that appeal to different demographic sectors will be copied more or less, etc). The only solution to this would be to somehow institute a mandatory reporting system, by which the federal government would know each time a song changes hands... but I'm sure such a system would not appeal to all you anti-DRM folks, as it could concentrate a frightening amount of personal information in the hands of the government.
4) What about international downloads? Would this just be the US government funding this with US taxpayer dollars? Or a consortium of countries? But what if one country downloads more music than another, and how do we farily assess which countries download what? Frankly, it'd be hard enough to get the US government to implement such a scheme without making it suck incorrigibly; I certainly can't imagine UNESCO, the WTO, or another international body doing it.
5) Even though distribution costs are small on the internet someone still needs to supply the servers from which songs are downloaded before they are shared. As it would be impossible to do this profitably when one could just get the songs from a P2P service, this too would have to be run with taxpayer dollars.
6) Most people of the free world--especially Americans--are mistrustful of the government interfering in markets, especially when it come to effectively monopolizing information markets as public goods. This belief is certainly not just superstitious, and it prevails regardless of how noble the intent of such schemes. Therefore, it would be damn hard to drum up popular support for such an initiative.
Conclusion:
The arguments above are just one example of how totally free exchange of intellectual property simply can not provide the producer with fair compensation. The idea is almost a contradiction itself. In economists' language, the Internet provides us with the power to treat what is still a scarce economic good as if it were a free good--ie, common property. Yet the Tragedy of the Commons remains painfully relevant: in the end, someone has to pay.
--AC
I wish I had mod points for the parent post. Microsoft is making money by trying to control something that can't really be controlled perfectly, namely software. I remember Apple being described in derisive terms not too long ago as a hardware company. It seems to me that hardware is the only thing you can realistically manage. Regular software will be pirated and heavily DRMed software is a headache, but shiny new, cool hardware with accompanying software that works well is a good bet. It can't be copied too easily and people like buying tangible things that they can show off to friends.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Listen to what Jobs said - at $0.99 per song, you can only breakeven at this business. He is talking to analysts, analysts who are also gonna talkto DELL, Wal-Mart, MTV, Napster, et al. Jobs didn't say it's a loss leader, he just said it isn't very profitable and basically breaks even.
... iPod. They do all work with a myriad of competitors and they themselves all compete with a comodity product - the WMA music file.
(Now, add volume on the order of magnitude of 80% of all music sales, not just on-line...and you have a position of strength to negotiate all your direct costs, an economies of scale for your indirect ones - but that's another econ lesson)
So he is casting FUD onto the longevity of those competitors. What is also important to note is that NONE of those services work with the worlds #1
Now listen up - this is important - the WMA music file is a comodity because if it costs $0.99 from Wal-mart or MTV or Napster or DELL, then why should I buy it from any of them? They will either have to add value to it by making the shopping experience easier, or lower the price. Assuming it can't get easier than 1-click shopping (Apple and Amazon exclusives) or rich browsing/searching content of which most services have, then that leaves price.
Which brings us full circle - if WMA music files are comodity items that can only compete on price, and if at $0.99/song, a music store isn't significantly profitable, than prices will drop until the competition goes out of business.
That is what Jobs said.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.