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.
It strikes me that this is a rare version of the hardware/software business model.
Normally, companies will take a loss on the hardware (i.e. x-box, nintendo, etc) and make up the loss on software..
Oh well, whatever works for them.
More Caffeine. NOW
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.
Even better, once the iTunes store becomes a major source of music for millions of folks then Apple can either
The reason that the RIAA is so powerful is that for years they were the only way for artists to get their music into the hands of customers. Even now it is almost impossible to get yourself heard without signing a contract with a major label.
If iTunes becomes a major outlet for music then Apple could very easily begin to finance and promote their own artists, and that's where the money is. Even better, instead of having to deal with Clear Channel to access thousands of separate geographic markets Apple will be able market directly to a large portion of the world.
In short, turning a profit is not necessary at this point, hovering near profitability is perfectly acceptable. The fact that iTunes drives iPod sales is just gravy.
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
Once they are established, Visa will have no choice but to lower their charges. Once they get comfortable with that steady revenue, they'll bend over backwards to keep it.
:)
I don't know who is processing on behalf of Apple for Visa/MC/etc, but I'm pretty it isn't them directly. Whoever is processing will have a few fees, negotiable with Apple. Other fee's won't be so negotiable.
Apple is going to pay:
1) Per transaction fee - the cost to send out the tx for authorization/settlement. Visa/MC's rates for doing this are anywhere from $0.015 to $0.03/per tx. Expect Apple's processor to add on an additional 1-5 cents.
2) Discount Rate (or the magical mystical world known as interchange) - This is the ~2-5% merchants pay on the value of the settled transaction. If Joe User buys $100 in songs, Apple will get net settled minus the ~2-5% discount rate, minus transaction and processor fees. Depending upon how Apple deals with the transactions, such as using Verified by Visa (ala 3D Secure) or other anti-fraud devices can reduce the discount rate to about 150 basis points (or 1.5%).
3) Chargebacks - This can be the real killer. If Joe User sees a charge for the iTMS he sez ain't his, he'll dispute the transaction with his issuing bank. Even if the transaction is valid, Apple is going to receive a "chargeback" or retriaval request. The fees charged to Apple for doing this can range anywhere from $0-25/per tx (that's dollars, not cents).
How is Apple reducing these fees? I know in my experience that they group up a bunch of charges for settlement. This reduces the per transaction fee and still gives the cardholder an excellent invoice to reconcile against. This is probably the biggest in that if a user buys a single song per day at 0.99, Apple is probably paying the following:
Authorization fee: 0.02 - 0.05
Discount Rate: 0.02 - 0.04 (% based)
So even in a best-case scenario for this transaction, Apple's looking at 0.08 out of the 0.30 "profit" after paying the RIAA members.
In the grand scheme of things, today there is little incentive for Visa/MC to come up with a new business model for transaction fees. The good news is that things such as PIN-based debit cards, 3D Secure, and smaller transaction size (in dollars) will give them, or their competition, the push to come up with alternatives.
Things such as mobile commerce, where the telco does the billing (and is good at "micro-payments" and monthly consolidation), digital cash, and chip-based stored value cards are some of the major avenues.
For Apple, if they can get the buyers to buy more than 2-3 songs at a time, will significantly reduce their processing rates.
IMO, obviously.