A billion in sales does not equal a billion in profit.

[link]

While Apple celebrates its first profit from its iTunes store, music labels seek pricing changes.

April 20, 2006

After two-and-a-half years of losses, Apple’s iTunes Music Store showed a profit in the most recently completed quarter, and while that buoys Apple’s fortunes, it is hardly good news for the struggling music industry.

Apple said Wednesday the world’s best known and busiest music download store went just past the breakeven point, perhaps based on the growing popularity of video downloads, which topped 15 million recently

“The fact that iTunes took this long to turn a profit shows that there is not a lot of money to be made out of $0.99 singles,” said Mark Mulligan, research director of JupiterResearch. “Apple is the market leader with the ability to offset its fixed costs through volume, and even with that, it took them this long to reach profitability.”

iTunes is a way to sell iPods. And if there wasn't a mass market way to get product from creator to consumer, think how many fewer would see it. Why be mad at the people who distribute DVDs, or stations thar broadcast TV shows?

And if there wasn't a mass market way to get product from creator to consumer, think how many fewer would see it.

I suddenly have this image of Joss doing puppet shows on street corners for spare change.

I am a DirectTV kinda guy, so I see a similarity between what Apple is doing and what DirectTV is doing. If DirectTV wanted to bonk me for $1.99 per-view, I would give them the quick Adi-Ous.

I see a similarity between what Apple is doing and what DirectTV is doing

What is the similarity? Why is it more similar than pay per view, or purchasing a cd single?

Yeah, I don't see the similariry, either. Apple isn't charging people a previous product that it had offered for a monthly fee. It's simply providing an alternate conduit for something from another media. Content previously unavailable through it's service.

Apple isn't trying to pull a fast one, it's offering an alternative to people who either didn't record the programs, or didn't want to do any ripping of dvds just to watch. In the process, it is charging an agreed upon fee for the service.

Right up front it is giving people a choice: Buy it or don't. TANSTAAFL.

Gawd help me. ita is is throwing down with me. My demise is on the horizon.

Why is it more similar than pay per view, or purchasing a cd single?

In no wise. How do either of these originate content?

How do either of these originate conten?

I seem to recall you having a problem with distributors. If the studio charged you the $1.99, would you feel better about it? Or if the producer charged, or the writer...

Apple is providing a service to the studios by distributing their content. They charge a margin, and both parties make some money, somewhere, or they wouldn't be doing it.

The writer could charge me.

both parties make some money, somewhere, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Really? Sure. Some portion is returned to the studio. What is returned to the creator? Zip-squeal, nada.

The writer could charge me.

Why not the director? Or the actors?

What is returned to the creator? Zip-squeal, nada.

How do you know this? Surely it is dependent on the contract in place, and that will vary from show to show.