-
Final Cut Pro in Ads – Everything Changed
-
[Chris Harlan] “That may have been true at one point. But iTunes?”
iTunes isn’t that profitable. It’s relatively small. iTunes sells iPods and now iPhones and iPads. It’s actually key when you consider some of the top Android phones otherwise beat iOS and specs.
-
[Craig Seeman] “iTunes isn’t that profitable. It’s relatively small.”
What? The sale of music on iTunes isn’t that profitable? That was the case, once… But that has changed, at least it had as of Spring 2011 according the article at the link below.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
I heard the costs were steep relative to income given server, bandwidth, contracts for artists, payouts, etc. The article mentions they’re not privy to costs.
“brink of . . . decent” They seem to be caution in their language. I heard the cost are very high.
While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.
Also I’d consider this more of a service than Apple as software company. It’s not like FCPX, Logic, Aperture are cash cows. They aren’t from what I’ve heard.
-
Incidentally, I’d like to point out that It’s been six months already and that ad is still there at X’s webpage.
One might argue that a sports car ad helps to convey an emotion that connects to speed and luxury. Fine…
But another could also argue that its boring voice-over and poorly executed scripting are just a little off.
I mean, where are the testimonials and the soundtrack? Or MBPs running a TB RAID and a few men-at-work?
They could’ve pulled this off, couldn’t they? They cannot afford to hire someone to do that? Strange…
OK, they may be in different phases, one is in its maturity and the other is in its introduction. (as Tony also said)
But it still is very strange, nonetheless. Even for an overview promo. They are Apple for Gawd’s sake!Speaking of that, I think Apple got caught in a “Product Life Cycle” classic misunderstanding. Let me explain.
Every product (as per theory) should have 4 phases; Introduction, Growth, Maturity and Decline. I think everybody here will agree that Pro Apps and their CPUPro line were into Maturity. So, what happened was; At theirs slightest drop in sales some MKT geniuses may have signaled that -We’re into Decline! Let’s kill it and re-invent it all together! That’s a classic problem of misinterpretation of the Maturity phase, in which by simply saying that a product reached its EOL time, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the company must comply with. -
[Craig Seeman] ” I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers.””
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Apple’s intent with FCPX, was to gain PC users? they built a souped up iMovie to attract PC users? As opposed to the goal of monetising the iMovie users they have?”
I’ve come to think that neither of these are true — that’s why I asked about target markets.
If you haven’t already, read Tim Wilson’s recent editorial, Steve Jobs – A Personal Calendar Entry [link].
I think that FCPX follows Apple’s product strategy: ignore existing users and markets, build what you think is the best app or product in a given category, and if you’re right, the money will follow.
We struggle to put FCPX in a “consumer” or “professional” box because it wasn’t explicitly designed for any particular market; it’s what Randy Ubillos et al. think an editing app should be, and anyone who would like to buy a license for $299 at the app store is welcome to.
If, on the other hand, you want FCPX to be anything other than what it is — well, then they don’t really care, because FCPX was never about you anyway; you are welcome to use one of the competing products.
I don’t think that Apple really cares at all if they’re a market leader, as long as they are making what they believe are good products that sell reasonably well.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Craig Seeman] “iTunes isn’t that profitable. It’s relatively small. iTunes sells iPods and now iPhones and iPads. It’s actually key when you consider some of the top Android phones otherwise beat iOS and specs.
“1.5 billion in revenue for 2011. 6% of Apple’s total revenue in 2011. Only 1% less than iPod sales. Mac sales are only 20% of this year’s revenue. Desktop Macs make up less than 30% of the Mac sales total, so iTunes sales revenue is in the general neighborhood of desktop sales as well.
From my POV, you have a strange notion of profitable.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/18/apple-records-q4-2011-earnings-of-6-6b-on-28-3b-in-revenue-tops-100-billion-in-sales-for-fiscal-2011/
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/31/apple-questioning-the-future-of-its-mac-pro-line/ -
That revenue is before costs and payouts as I understand it. Gross Revenue, not Net.
-
[Craig Seeman] “That revenue is before costs and payouts as I understand it. Gross Revenue, not Net.
“No. If you look at the 2011 summery I sent you, you will find the following line:
– iTunes Store generated 1.5 billion in revenue, new record. 16 billion songs, 650 million tv shows downloaded. Pleased with 180 million sales on iBookstore.
Clearly, with these numbers, it is not gross. That number would be around 17.5/18 billion, not including books, which I can’t easily figure. Notice also that Apps are not part of these numbers.
-
While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.
-
[Craig Seeman] “https://www.edibleapple.com/2011/04/21/itunes-delivers-record-breaking-14-bi…
While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.
“
I guess if the blogger had looked a little more closely at the report summery he might have felt a bit more “privy.”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up