All Things Digital

Apple (AAPL) is expanding its iPhone empire with near Alexandrian initiative.

Today, the company struck an extensive deal with France Telecom’s (FTE.PA) Orange wireless carrier to distribute the device in more than 10 markets in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.

Orange, which became Apple’s exclusive carrier partner in France last year, will soon sell the iPhone in Austria, Belgium, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, as well as the company’s African markets.

Interestingly, a few of these countries already have carriers with iPhone distribution agreements. It would seem then that Apple is indeed moving away from the exclusive iPhone distribution arrangements it’s been inking, as many suggested last week when Vodafone (VOD) and Telecom Italia (TI-A) both announced plans to bring the iPhone to Italy.

In any event, Apple’s deal with Orange will expand the iPhone’s reach to about 40 countries and will effectively quadruple its total addressable market. “Currently Apple’s total addressable market includes 153 million subscribers in six countries with AT&T (T), T-Mobile Germany and Austria, O2, and Orange,” Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster observed in a research note today. “These announcements increase those numbers to 575 million subscribers in 42 countries, including recent agreements with Vodafone, SingTel, America Movil (AMX), Swisscom and Orange. … To give some context to these numbers, Apple sold 3.7 million iPhones in 2007 into a total addressable market of 148 million subscribers (or 3% penetration). Taking the recent carrier announcements into consideration, we are modeling for Apple’s penetration rate to remain at 3% in 2008 and double to 6% in 2009.”

Google calls its latest data portability effort Friend Connect, but a better name might have been AdWords Connect. Because, like most Google (GOOG) initiatives, that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? Connecting people to ads? And there’s a lot more opportunity for that when the Web itself becomes a social network. Which is exactly the sort of thing you hope for when those unobtrusive little contextual ads you sell are as ubiquitous as street signs on the Web.

Designed to help Web publishers easily add social-networking features to their sites, Friend Connect requires just a snippet of code to bring social features to a site along with a means of coordinating them with other social networks like Facebook, Plaxo and Google’s Orkut. It’s another in a recent string of data-portability efforts that hope to apply the distributed model to social networking and put an end to its so-called “walled gardens.”

“The distributed model has worked well for the Web,” David Glazer, Google director of engineering, told Outside the Lines’ Dan Farber. “That is what the Web does–many points of light loosely coupled and massively distributed, allowing users to connect to pages of information. Now it is working to connect people to other people.”

And all of them to Google AdWords, of course. More Internet usage. More ad revenue.

As the anniversary of the iPhone’s market debut approaches, the Mac faithful are quickly succumbing to Apple (AAPL) Rumor Seasonal Affective Disorder, an ailment most often associated with the lead-up to Macworld.

Fueling that trend today is a memo, purportedly leaked from inside AT&T (T), instructing employees not to schedule any vacation between June 15 and July 12 to ensure sufficient staffing for “an exciting Summer Promotional Launch.” This, of course, is being taken as proof positive that the 3G iPhone will arrive at market sometime during that timeframe. And for good reason, AT&T issued a similar mandate last year prior to the iPhone’s official debut.

Meanwhile, Vodafone (VOD) and Telecom Italia (TI-A) said today that they’d both won contracts to bring the iPhone to Italy this year, the first time Apple has allowed two mobile carriers to distribute the device in a single country.

An interesting bit of news and one that lends some validity to recent reports that Apple is stepping back from the exclusive iPhone distribution arrangements it’s been inking to spur iPhone growth abroad. “Apple’s either turned a corner that they’ve had to turn, or that they’ve chosen to,” Technology Business Research’s Ezra Gottheil said of the Vodafone and Telecom Italia deals. “I don’t know if they prefer the exclusivity, and the revenue sharing that goes along with it, or just prefer to sell iPhones and grow their share of the [handset] market.”

Hollywood is finally embracing day-and-date film releases.

Yesterday, Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeffrey Bewkes said that Warner Bros. plans to experiment with VOD releases day-and-date with DVD later this year. And now this morning, Apple (AAPL) announced that a number of major and independent movie studios have agreed to make their films available on iTunes day-and-date with DVD–$9.99 for library title purchases and $14.99 for new release purchases. Among the studios participating in the deal: 20th Century Fox (NWS), Walt Disney Studios (DIS), Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures (VIA), Universal Studios Home Entertainment (GE), Sony Pictures Entertainment (SNE), Lionsgate (LGF), Image Entertainment (DISK) and First Look Studios (FRST.PK).

An impressive lineup and one that clearly heralds a shift in the movie industry’s view of digital distribution. A shift in iTunes movie purchases as well–upward. The removal of Hollywood’s typical 30-day lead time on DVD releases will no doubt boost new-release sales on iTunes, assuming customers don’t mind paying $14.99 for films that lack the extra features and picture quality of their DVD counterparts. It will boost movie studio revenues as well. With no manufacturing and reproduction costs to speak of, margins from day-and-date download releases are presumably quite high.

So much for that hard-fought DVD format war …

Wow. Blockbuster is completely out of ideas, isn’t it? This morning the foundering movie rental chain went public with its bid to acquire ailing retail consumer-electronics chain Circuit City.

In a Feb. 17 letter to Circuit City CEO Philip Schoonover, Blockbuster (BBI) offered to pay more than $1 billion for the chain. But, to date, Circuit City (CC) hasn’t fulfilled a request for due diligence necessary to make the bid definitive.

Why? In a conference call today, Blockbuster chief exec Jim Keyes described the offer as “simply too attractive to ignore.” But it seems Circuit City also thinks the offer might be too attractive for Blockbuster to finance. “… To date Blockbuster has been unable to satisfy Circuit City and its advisers that Blockbuster’s proposal could be financed,” the electronics retailer said in a statement. “In particular, Blockbuster’s proposal appears to contemplate a rights offering of unprecedented size relative to the issuing company’s market capitalization and at a price that is at a significant premium to Blockbuster’s current market price.”

Well, yes, there is that. And, of course, there are other issues as well. Like what, exactly, are the synergies between a foundering movie rental chain and a foundering electronics retailer–aside from the fact that they’re both, you know, foundering? If it’s Blockbuster rental kiosks in Circuit City stores, the alliance would seem doomed to failure. Wait. It is Blockbuster rental kiosks in Circuit City stores?

To be fair, Keyes says digital content is important too, and he seems convinced that Circuit City will provide Blockbuster with the infrastructure it needs to distribute video to TVs and mobile devices. “What this combination provides is the ultimate distribution channel for [digital] content,” he said this morning. “It’s not necessarily downloading content to the PC that will ultimately capture the consumer’s imagination. It’s the opportunity to get that content on your TV and your mobile device that is a game-changing opportunity.”

A game-changing opportunity for Apple (AAPL), maybe. But for a foundering, outdated video-rental outfit?

Back in 2005, word on the street had it that the Mozilla Foundation was making as much as $30 million annually from the Google search box in its open-source Firefox Web browser.

Turns out, that number probably wasn’t too far off. According to an independent auditor’s report, Mozilla made $66.8 million in revenue in 2006, quite a bit of it from Google (GOOG). As former Mozilla Corp. CEO Mitchell Baker explained in a post to MozillaZine:

As in 2005 the vast majority of this revenue is associated with the search functionality in Mozilla Firefox, and the majority of that is from Google. The Firefox user base and search revenue have both increased from 2005. Search revenue increased at a lesser rate than Firefox usage growth as the rate of payment declines with volume. Other revenue sources were the Mozilla Store, public support and interest and other income on our assets.”

But those “other revenue sources” are piddling in comparison to Google’s contribution, which apparently accounts for a full 85% ($56 million or so) of Mozilla’s revenues.

So it’s supremely ironic then to hear Mozilla CEO John Lilly criticize Apple (AAPL) for distributing its Safari browser for Windows and OS X through its Software Update utility. “What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong,” Lilly said in a blog post on Friday. “It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad–not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web. … Apple has made it incredibly easy– he default, even–for users to install ride-along software that they didn’t ask for, and maybe didn’t want. This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices. It’s wrong because it undermines the trust that we’re all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn’t just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the Web by eroding that relationship. It’s a bad practice and should stop.”

Now, Lilly may have a point. But he’s hardly the best guy to be making it. As ZDnet’s Larry Dignan notes, Safari–like Firefox–features a Google search box, for which the search giant also presumably pays a placement fee. A sudden gain in market share for Safari at Firefox’s expense could have financial implications for Mozilla. “Let’s say Safari grabs 10% market share and Firefox falls to about 25%,” Dignan writes. “That’s fewer searches and less revenue for Mozilla. Sure, you can argue about whether Apple’s Safari move is above the board. You can also question the security implications and a bevy of other issues. But in the end, Apple’s Safari update and Mozilla’s reaction is like any other story. To truly understand it you have to follow the money.”

UPDATE: John Lilly wrote to me earlier today with a few comments about this post. Here’s what he had to say:

Hi John –

Wanted to follow up on your post just now about us and Apple and Google.

Take this for whatever it’s worth, but revenue and market share didn’t enter my mind when I posted. At Mozilla we obviously care about having enough resources to keep the lights on and pay people, and we care about having enough market share–because it means that we’ve built products that people really care about.

But competition is good and healthy, and essential. Without competition we’d all be in a pretty bad world–sort of like AT&T in the bad old days.

I’ve got zero issues with Apple using their channel to distribute other products–I think that’s a perfectly fine thing for them to do. What I worry about is that users need to trust the security updates they get from their vendors–because if they don’t–if they think there’s an ulterior motive other than keeping software up-to-date–that’s a problem for everyone.

Anyway, I respect your right to write what you think and to be skeptical of the motives of folks like me, but I do say sincerely that in this case, revenue has nothing to do with it.”

The next-generation DVD format war was a costly one–for Sony (SNE). In addition to the untold funds the company spent on pro-Blu-ray propaganda, it also reportedly spent quite a bit to buy the allegiances of Hollywood.

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that Sony paid Warner Bros. as much as $400 million to throw its support behind Blu-ray and abandon HD-DVD. An interesting little footnote to the DVD format war, since Warner’s decision all but sealed HD DVD’s fate.

So it was a reported $400 million well spent, then. For the time being, anyway. “People are saying Blu-ray won the war but who cares,” Seagate CEO Bill Watkins said last year. “The war is over physical distribution versus electrical distribution, and Blu-ray and HD lost that. In this, flash memory and hard drives are on the same side. The war is over and the physical guys lost.”

Every time I start the computer it says: Configurating updates: stage 3 of 3 - 0% complete. And then reboots, and reboots, and reboots. … I had it rebooting for over an hour before I stopped the madness.”

–A Vista user encounters Windows Vista Endless Reboot Pack 1

Microsoft has “isolated” another problem with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Responding to complaints of endlessly rebooting PCs, the software giant has temporarily suspended the automatic distribution of a Windows Vista Service Pack 1 prerequisite.

“Immediately after receiving reports of this error, we made the decision to temporarily suspend automatic distribution of the update to avoid further customer impact while we investigate possible causes,” Nick White, a Vista program manager, wrote in a post to the company’s blog. “So far, we’ve been able to determine that this problem only affects a small number of customers in unique circumstances. We are working to identify possible solutions and will make the update available again shortly after we address the issue.”

If the recording industry had its head any further in the sand, they’d have to insert a breathing tube.

Consider the British Phonographic Industry’s latest stroke of brilliance for combating illegal file-sharing: kick casual file-sharers off the Internet. Seems the BPI would like the British government to pass “three strikes” legislation that would require Internet service providers to take action against users who access pirated materials. A first offense would draw a warning, a second the suspension of Internet access, and a third the termination of that access. ISPs that refuse to comply could be prosecuted and might be forced to make the details of suspected offenders available to the courts.

“For years, ISPs have built a business on other people’s music,” said Geoff Taylor of the BPI. “Yet they have paid nothing to the creators of that music, and done little or nothing to address illegal downloading via their networks. … We simply want ISPs to advise customers if their account is being used to distribute music illegally, and then, if the advice is ignored, enforce their own terms and conditions about abuse of the account. But despite some agreements in principle, the ISPs refuse to do this on any meaningful scale.”

An astonishing demand, but one that the British government has taken seriously enough to include in a Green Paper its Department of Culture Media and Sport plans to release next week. Which, as some observers note, is really too bad. “Beyond shoving ISPs into the role of the entertainment industry’s police, judge, jury and jailer, it also is a legal solution to a business-model problem,” Mike Masnick writes over at TechDirt. “The entertainment industry is still unwilling to adapt its business model to the new distribution mechanisms of the Internet. That should be a reason to change the business models–not change the rules of the Internet. Only in the shortsighted minds of entertainment industry execs (and the politicians they support) would it make sense to change the platform to support a more limited business model, rather than embracing the new (more efficient) distribution platform and adjusting the business model.”

The Recording Industry Association of America demands damages of $150,000 per song for file-sharing infringements, yet it pays the artists who create those songs pennies for their work. And now it wants to pay them even less.

The RIAA and its online counterpart, the Digital Media Association, have petitioned the Copyright Royalty Board to slash the so-called mechanical royalties paid to musicians and music publishers for digital downloads, subscription music services and ringtones. Seems the RIAA and DiMA feel they’ve suffered unfairly during the transition to digital distribution and they’d like artists to share in their misery.

The National Music Publishers’ Association, noting the favorable economies of digital distribution, asks for a royalty of 15 cents per track for permanent digital downloads. The RIAA argues that a royalty of approximately 5 cents to 5.5 cents per track is more reasonable. The DiMA–which represents Apple, Amazon and RealNetworks, among others–suggests cutting that royalty further still.

Find that astonishing? Just wait; it gets worse. For streaming music services, the NMPA proposes a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA finds 0.58% of revenue more reasonable. And the DiMA says there really shouldn’t be any royalty at all. “Fundamentally, this fragile marketplace is showing signs of promise, but it cannot be saddled with additional, excessive costs,” the DiMA argues. “The board should be careful not to impose a royalty that kills the proverbial goose and deprives songwriters and publishers of their golden egg.”

An interesting choice of metaphor and one in which the DiMA and RIAA might easily figure as the giant at the top of the beanstalk:

Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum!??
I smell the blood of a musician.
Be he ‘live, or be he dead,
I’ll grind his bones to make my bread.”

Grind his bones to make my bread, indeed.

Said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America: “Our opponents have to recognize that this rate-setting is not a matter of gamesmanship for songwriters, but rather one of survival. As I stated in my testimony, in response to a question from those seeking to cut the mechanical royalty rate in half and to denigrate the importance and contribution of professional songwriters to the music industry, ‘Yes, songs are plentiful, just as rocks are plentiful. But if you want diamonds, you are going to have to pay the miners a living wage.’ ”

Good thing Viacom and CBS Corp. Chairman Sumner Redstone plans to live at least another 50 years; he may actually be around long enough to see the realization of Viacom’s grand Internet strategy and its bet on the marriage of old-line media assets with new distribution technologies. Assuming, of course, the sanctity of copyright is preserved.

Speaking at the Dow Jones and Nielsen Media and Money conference this week, Redstone, whose company is suing YouTube seeking $1 billion in damages for what it terms “massive intentional copyright infringement,” said content still rules the digital domain. “Copyright compels creativity,” he said. “It furnishes the incentive to innovate. If you limit the protection of copyrights, you stifle the expression of new ideas. Think about it. You cannot pay the rent posting videos on YouTube. And most aspiring novelists do not aspire to self-publish. You cannot make it as a musician or filmmaker or writer without the shelter of effective and enforced copyright legislation.

“… If content is king,” Redstone concluded, “then copyright–the legal and moral position that the fruits of intellectual labor should be protected in order to encourage creative expression–is its castle.”

And YouTube is, clearly, the Trojan rabbit that’s already made it past the gates …

The Writers Guild of America has got it all wrong. The architect of its financial mistreatment in the entertainment industry isn’t the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers. Nor is it that lousy DVD deal it agreed to 20 years ago, which gives writers, directors and actors a combined 20 cents for each DVD sale–30 cents less than the sum given to manufacturers of DVD packaging material. It’s that damned Steve Jobs who, with his iTunes and economies of digital distribution, has mucked up a perfectly good end-of-life business model.

At least according to former Disney CEO Michael Eisner who, in his keynote conversation at the Media and Money conference today, suggested that Apple is eating up the digital media profits the Writers Guild wants a larger share of. The studios “make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners,” Eisner said. “They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”