The Reason Why Apple Can't Open A Store In India

It may be one of the world's largest and most iconic brands, but Apple has yet been unable to persuade the Indian government to allow the building of a single Apple Retail Store.

Photo: @tim_cook

Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook made a much-publicised visit to India, mingling with Bollywood stars, visiting a Hindu temple and generally experiencing what the second most populated country in the world has to offer. But this wasn't a holiday- following Apple's success in China, Cook has turned his sights to India, a country whose economy has boomed in a similar fashion over recent decades. No doubt, business was firmly in the Apple CEO's mind throughout the trip, as he met with key players in India's technology market as well as the nation's Prime Minister.

One of the issues believed widely to be at the forefront of discussions is that of Apple Stores in India. Looking at the massive boom in consumerism in India over recent decades, it seems unbelievable, but there remains no official Apple Store built in the country. Yes, there are 'premium resellers' located across India, local franchise-style businesses authorised to sell Apple products, but these lack typical features of Apple Stores, such as a Genius bar for technical support. There is no official, Jony Ive-designed Apple Store anywhere in India.

The situation is all due to the interesting government policies regarding the activities of foreign businesses in India. The headline policy preventing Apple here is the one requiring at least 30% of all products sold in foreign retail stores in India to be sourced locally. This is part of the 'Make in India' initiative designed to encourage foreign investment in Indian manufacturing, on top of input in the local goods market.

Currently, the large majority of Apple's products are made in China, the USA and Brazil, and even if Apple* does begin to manufacture products in India as recent talks were also rumoured to be about, it is highly unlikely that it could produce 30% of the ware it sells in its stores locally by 2017 as it hopes.

So Apple must either play the long game and ramp up production in India over the next 5-10 years to conform to the rule, or it must seek an exception. This will prove an interesting test of Modi's government's commitment to his 'Make in India' policy. Apple being such a massively influencial global company, the country could see a substantial, immediate economic boost if it lets Apple bypass the policy.

However, of course this is a sign that there is room for compromise, and it may provoke other multinational corporations to seek exceptions too. Furthermore, the government could make use of Apple's desperation to open stores in India to its advantage, if they demand that jobs and other sustainable sources of growth (such as factories) can be contributed by Apple in return.

From Apple's perspective, it is time to grab the Lurpak and begin to butter up the Indian government. Modi is highly unlikely to allow stores to be opened without any contributions made elsewhere at all, but if any company is to receive a little leeway in this matter, Apple is highly likely to be it.

* Apple does not technically manufacture its products, this is outsourced to dedicated manufacturing firms such as Foxconn.

Pros & Cons #5: Britain's Patent Box

In recent decades, Britain has quite significantly lagged behind other developed nations in its level of innovation and, partly as a consequence, productivity. An active 'Patent Box' has been one of the British government's headline measures taken to try to stimulate the country's level of Research and Development. 

So, what is the Patent Box, and what are its pros and cons?

This graph (left) tells you a lot about Britain's need for more research and development activities. Showing the proportion of national income spent on Research and Development projects, it highlights Britain's lack of investment in innovation compared to the rest of the developed world. Not only is the British average expenditure less than the OECD average, but it has also remained worryingly stagnant compared to almost every other country- in fact, it has decreased in the past decade.

The aim of the Patent box is to address this: "to provide an additional incentive for companies to retain and commercialise existing patents and to develop new innovative patented products", according to the Government itself. 

The Patent box does this by granting a lower level of corporation tax (10%, as opposed to the usual 20%) to profits earned as a result of patented innovations. 

PRO: Incentivising Innovation

This is the headline pro, the main aim of the whole project. Data presented on the right highlights the fact that very few patent applications emerge from the UK, and a major reason for this is the high cost of patenting, something that only hits smaller innovators hard. A properly drafted patent application in the UK can cost up to £6,000, with no guarantee that it will be accepted- it's common that multiple applications must be made before the patent is accepted. And even this does not ensure the international security of the intellectual property- there are even greater costs that come as a result of trying to win a patent abroad. 

In Japan, on the other hand, the cost of a patent applications (including attorney and translation fees) comes to around 210,000 yen, just over £1300. So it's very likely that patent costs are a major reason for the gap in application numbers between the UK and countries like Japan.

While the government wants to do little about patent costs, the proponents of the Patent box argue such smaller businesses will be helped out by the fact that their returns to innovation could be significantly increased by the new tax incentive. This higher profit possibility could give more encouragement to innovators to take greater risks with their inventions and commercialise them.

CON: Favours Larger Businesses?

However, there is an argument on the opposition side that the Patent box system is too 'complex' to be of great benefit to these small, independent innovators, and instead favours the larger firms with access to greater resources. While some financial barriers to entry may be lowered by the tax breaks granted by the box, it arguably also raises some more. 

In order to benefit from the Patent box, there are a number of compliance measures that have to be taken by businesses- most notably, they have to track and allocate R&D expenditures and subsequent patents through to their resulting income. This means that a company has to determine, document and prove how much of their profit is directly as a result of each of their patents. This is something that is far easier for massive businesses that will often have a whole department just for tax, than for small up and coming companies. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is a believer in this argument, arguing that "this [the Patent box] will lead to a significant increase in complexity and compliance burden... administratively burdensome and difficult in practice".

The iPhone 4 featured over 200 patents- the recipe for
a Patent box pickle indeed.

CON: Complexity

There is a further argument that while larger businesses may be in a better position to cope with the additional compliance costs brought by the Patent box, they will not be in an ideal position either. 

Larger businesses are more often than not holders of multiple patents, and in many cases these are commercialised in clusters, put into a single product. Take the iPhone, for example- the iPhone 4 from 2011 was crammed with over 200 patents, ranging from patents on the touchscreen technology, to the battery, to the then-new retina display. Now, Apple aren't beneficiaries of the patent box because their R&D does not take place in the UK- but if they could, how would they apportion their massive profits from the iPhone to each patent to present to the taxman? It would be impossible to objectively say that, for example, 10% of sales were purely down to the new battery patent they won for the phone.

And this issue is not just with phones, but essentially any product that requires more than a single patent- whether it is a car, a factory machine, the issue of apportioning responsibility for profits objectively to individual patents is a massive issue that is generated by the Patent box.

PRO: Attracting R&D to Britain
The Patent box phenomenon started in 2000, when it was introduced in Ireland. France followed in introducing the scheme in the next year, and since then, Belgium, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain all adopted this approach to stimulating innovation- making the UK a relative newcomer, with our patent box opening in 2013.

With so many European countries having such a tax incentive in place, it was very important that the UK compete effectively with its neighbours, so that it didn't lose out from R&D activities moving away or not coming to Britain at all because of preferential tax rates. Therefore the Patent box, even if it doesn't make Britain more competitive than the rest of Europe, prevents the UK from lagging behind.

However, it's important to note that this might not be such a strong pro as it seems, considering recent developments in the OECD, whose excitingly titled 'Base Erosion and Profit Sharing' (BEPS) scheme intends to tame the level of migration of businesses due to tax reasons. A consequence of BEPS has been that most European patent boxes have now introduced 'Nexus' clauses that require beneficiaries to have performed all of their R&D in the country whose box they are using. So, to benefit from Britain's patent box, a company will have to do all of its work developing a patent in Britain. This reduces the likelihood of companies moving in the middle of their research projects just to benefit from tax cuts, and ensures that the host country granting the tax cut benefits from all of the positive externalities (consequences) of the research.

Nevertheless, it is still important that the UK's Patent box remains competitive, especially when it is considered that some companies will take tax breaks into account when they are planning to set out on their research.

CON: Better alternatives?
The tax cuts granted by Britain's Patent box system loses the government an estimated £740 million in annual tax revenues, so it's incredibly important that this huge cost is allocated to the scheme that is most effective in increasing Britain's innovative competitiveness.

And many argue that there are far more efficient schemes, most notably the existing system of R&D credits. R&D credits reward businesses for research activity in general (as opposed to exclusively commercialised patents), by excluding as much as 150% of research costs from end of year profits. This may sound like a bad thing, but it just means that research expenditure (and a bit more) will be excluded from taxation- ultimately decreasing tax expenses and increasing profits of the company. According to the IFS, R&D credits are preferable to the Patent box as they are "given in proportion to the amount of investment activity undertaken", as opposed to the Patent box which rewards only the profits derived from the group of patented, commercialised research.

£740m is a massive amount of money to sacrifice every year, so there are further alternatives to the Patent box that could have real, long lasting and crucially sustainable effects on the UK's level of innovation. Investment in human capital is arguably the most important of these alternatives- investment in the people of Britain, through avenues such as education, healthcare and general infrastructure.

Investing in education would have massive effects on the level of innovation in Britain. A better educated population would increase the level of innovative activity going on, and the multiplying benefits of a well educated society would mean an initial short term investment could bring far reaching long term benefits. However, that is the issue for some politicians- human capital investment in general often incurs large short term costs, for mostly long term benefits.

Conclusion
One thing that is clear, in this debate over the UK's Patent box, is that this is not simply a case of weighing the number of pros against the number of cons. It's quite evident that the number of cons outweigh the number of pros- but what is most important to consider here is whether the positive impacts of the Patent box outweigh the negative ones.

From our perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives. The Patent box seems a good idea in principle, but in application its shortfalls are exposed. Notable is the burden its complexity places on both small and large businesses, and the scheme's targeting of commercialised patents rather than other forms of innovation (such as copyrights, trademarks, or non-commercial patents), but in our view its most significant downside is the opportunity cost. £740m is a massive sum of money, and it is highly likely that the British government could achieve its aims of increasing innovation in the country by distributing this cost between an improved R&D credits system and further focus on investing in human capital.

On digital piracy. (Part Two)

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjm6Hv4JBYw&feature=youtu.be

In our previous article we discussed the attractive nature of digital piracy, especially with consideration to the difference in our attitude between outright shoplifting and online illegal downloads.

Now to answer the question- does digital piracy really matter?

Glancing at some of the statistics, the effects do certainly seem alarming.  We mentioned them in the previous article- how in 2011 the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry claimed 95% of the music in the world was illegally downloaded, and how 42% of software running in the world was illegal. With digital piracy continuing to spread and diversify, these statistics are likely to be even higher right now.

But let's put the statistics aside for a while, and get a real life case study of digital piracy and its effect on content producers. Who better to choose than creator of the UK's most pirated music album of 2012, Ed Sheeran. In 2012, in the UK his debut album + had sold 1.2 million copies- while there were reportedly 8 million illegal downloads of the same album. This sounds a horrific imbalance, but Sheeran himself has shrug (honestly or not, only he knows) the statistic off- he instead lauds the fact that over 9 million have his music, but more importantly he claims that it does not have too much of a negative impact on the economic aspect of his career- he cites increasing ticket sales as something to balance the money 'lost' to piracy.

And there is valid reason to this- digital piracy is very effective in spreading the talent of new artists to the music scene. Clearly, many people were not prepared to pay full price for Ed Sheeran's debut album, and perhaps rightly so (not many people knew of him at the time)- but the spreading of his album via digital piracy opened it to a huge audience. Once people heard his full songs, those who liked them would then be more willing to pay the price of a concert ticket, or buy future songs (of course, the latter would not be reflective of all fans).

This opinion is part of a view that the music industry is changing- that the function of the music album is changing from an ends itself to more of a means- a means to attract people to pay for concert tickets, to buy merchandise, etc.

One could say that Ed Sheeran is not representative of the music industry as a whole- he is indeed one of the most popular and thus wealthiest artists in the world. Digital piracy may not damage him too badly, but what about the smaller artists trying to make their big break? Won't illegal downloads damage them and make their desire to make music financially unsustainable?

Well, no doubt this has happened to artists- however a simple response to this (as well as the aforementioned potential benefits of piracy) is that few small artists have their content available online to illegally download in the first place. Whereas you can easily find an illegal download of Ed Sheeran's latest album, finding one of a new, independent artist is definitely more of a task.

You wouldn't want to cross the Expendables cast by
illegally downloading their films....

It is possible to say that digital piracy has a positive, promotional effect on the movie or games industry too. Illegal viewings of 'The Expendables 2' may have encouraged many people to shell out for a cinema ticket to watch 'The Expendables 3' if they liked it. However in most cases where there is only mild interest in a film or a game, perhaps an illegal viewing may encourage someone to wait until they can illegally download the sequel.

However the effect of digital piracy on movie industry revenues has been almost invisible. A famous study by the London School of Economics stated “Despite the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) claim that online piracy is devastating the movie industry, Hollywood achieved record-breaking global box office revenues of $35 billion in 2012, a 6% increase over 2011,”. 

This growth in the face of rising internet piracy can be attributed to numerous reasons- perhaps better (and/or more) films, people recovering economically and spending more on entertainment, growth in more expensively-ticketed 3D films. It also suggests that piracy does not have a profound effect on the industry- not as many sales are 'lost' as believed.

I put 'lost' in quotation marks because it is another question we must consider- is a sale really 'lost' every single time an illegal download occurs? Globally speaking, the answer is no in many cases. A 16 year old boy illegally streaming the latest Fast and Furious film in an internet cafe in Botswana is not a 'lost' sale- it is likely that the film would not be showing in his locale anyway, or he would have more urgent things to spend money on than a ticket even if there was a showing. 

A Chinese university student illegally downloading Command and Conquer Generals wouldn't count either- because even if he wanted to purchase it legally, the game is banned in his country. 

We must be wary that such instances are included in the global statistics that we hear- and the globalised, developing nature of the world means that countries such as China do account for a large amount of the digital piracy we hear about, and in many of these cases legal sales are not possible, and thus not 'lost'. 

So we must consider all sides and dimensions of this debate. Yes, income is sometimes damaged by digital piracy, but then again income can be boosted by the positive promotional effects of pirated content. Piracy makes media widely available to all, and can be a launching pad for a music artist to become the favourite of millions, whereas perhaps if piracy was unavailable they may not have received the widespread reach that gave them their big break. 

The effects on the movie and game industries are arguably similar but of less strength- though statistics often exaggerate the cost of 'lost' sales due to piracy, and these industries are in fact flourishing (due to various reasons).

So, that's an overview of the economic effects of digital piracy- it is a matter that is certainly not as clear as it first seems.

What do you think? Comment below with your opinions and thoughts! 

SOURCES (and recommended reads):
LSE Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/172985274/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/digital-piracy-not-harming-entertainment-industries-study-1.1894729
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19599527