Distribution hasn't been a barrier to entry for music in nearly 20yrs. Recording and marketing costs though are a different story and someone that already has money (typically the labels) pays those upfront costs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music Pays Industry Standard Subscription Revenue Fees to Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Distribution hasn't been a barrier to entry for music in nearly 20yrs. Recording and marketing costs though are a different story and someone that already has money (typically the labels) pays those upfront costs.
Yes, yes and yes. And if I want to listen to radio I just pull up my TuneIn app and I have access to 40K radio stations, including all the BBC Radio stations that Beats 1 is mimicking.
I would argue it has been a issue. Distribution costs significant amounts of money.
I would completely agree with that, except I couldn't give a rat's arse.
Last edited:
Think it comes down to just how many people have their hand in the cookie jar. The prices that end up being consistent across platforms are that way because they are all but the bare minimum anyone could accept to make the whole process even worth it.
You know, I am just the opposite. If I am out on the boat, working in the garage, or puttering around in the yard I _like_ hearing a voice on the other end of the line conversing between tracks. It reminds me that there is a world out there or living people doing things rather than one giant disk drive of tracks on infinite repeat. YMMV.
Hello mate,
6:04 in Sydney. Construction delays on all major highways.
The weather is warm, so dress accordingly. SFP 60 advised.
Drink lots of liquid and stay out of the sun.
Coming up in 20 minutes the world premiere of the newest Michael Jackson song.......
oh wait...........
Match will probably go on for $25 per year. If you cancel, all your tracks remain yours and you are back to syncing play lists to get them on your devices.
Radio was Apple's initial foray into streaming. It was free, had limited channels based on genre, (not live broadcasing), allowed limited skips, and you could flag tracks you wanted to buy. I _think_ it is going away, but don't know.
Apple music has a free and paid level. Free includes the new Apple Radio, which is like a live broadcasting radio station from London, NY, and LA. The paid tier includes streaming. However, unlike match, if you cancel you do NOT get to keep the tracks you listened to unless you buy them (like with the old Apple Radio).
A current article, from just two days ago, says they're net profit is $7.7M thus far this year - which means that they're not operating at a loss:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spoti...on-valuation-war-with-apple-music-2015-6?op=1
Am I missing something, or are you wrong?
To those commenting on record labels: This has nothing to do with record labels. This is about the split between Apple and whoever delivers the music, be it a label, or a middleman like TuneCore, or an artist flying solo with a direct deal (rare). And as it turns out, that's not 58%. In fact it's the same 30/70 split that has been working for the iTunes Music Store since 2003 -- hence the title of this article. If it's a label receiving the 70% portion, they take that and divvy it out to the artist, the writer, the publisher, probably the producer, and anyone else with points or rights. The percentages those folks get is between them and the label, except for the writers (rate set by federal law in the US).
Lefsetz is a joke. He was the one who believed Taylor Swift would never make it. Look at where she is now.
That man is still bitter and living in the past because his career flopped.
Just curious for anyone that has a clear answer on this. For all the people here who are backing up the artists and are very concerned about them being paid, are they talking about major recording artists such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce, John Legend or Eminem.....or are they referring to unknowns?
I'm not a Taylor swift fan in the slightest, I actually can't stand her music and her
But she's 100% right about the fact the free tier version of spotify devalues music. Why is that movies aren't free but music should? They both cost time and hundreds of man hours to make
In 2015 no one wants to buy individual songs and albums but Netflix has shown that people don't mind paying monthly for all the content at once
But she's 100% right about the fact the free tier version of spotify devalues music. Why is that movies aren't free but music should? They both cost time and hundreds of man hours to make
In 2015 no one wants to buy individual songs and albums but Netflix has shown that people don't mind paying monthly for all the content at once
No, that figure is the money it paid out to a "global superstar" apparently. That article states again that Spotify is operating at a loss.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spoti...ar-with-apple-music-2015-6?op=1#ixzz3cmqqi4zL
Recording costs have plummeted. Someone who is dedicated can produce, mix and master studio quality in their bedroom with a laptop and logic X. This isn't the 90's anymore where you need million dollar equipment and sound boards
when you can record your own professional sounding record better than a studio and license any music your music might be too similar to
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
First, why do we want so passionately to wish away a free streaming option available to us as consumers? Apple doesn't need Music to be maximum profitable; they're making tons of profit and already have a mountain of cash. So why- as consumers- do we want so passionately to rid the world of a free* option for streaming music? If you don't want to stream for free, Apple and others are happy to take your money. Your fellow consumers though might prefer the free* option.
Second, do you get any free* TV? Think antenna. If so, shouldn't that be eliminated too per your logic?
Third, both free* TV and free* Spotify is ad-supported. Revenues are made from ads instead of users needing to open their wallets. Do you like Apple free* iTunes radio option? It's ad supported too. Shouldn't you rail against that since you are taking this issue with an Apple competitors free* option?
I get that we have to rally together and now hate Spotify because Apple decided to move into their market. Naturally, they are the enemy now. But com'on... why do we spin up such stuff against a competitor while ignoring that Apple has a free* streaming option too (Radio) while probably having access to free* TV that is free* because the ads support it... just like Spotify?
Why don't we let Apple's cut of streaming music succeed on it's own merits and leave well enough alone with how the competitor's run their businesses? If there's is garbage or whatever, all consumers will run with Apple's option and the other players will fail. On the other hand, if some can find value in those other guy's offerings, that doesn't affect us one bit if we would prefer to subscribe to Apple's offerings. They get what they want. We get what we want. Everybody wins with options!
I think a quote from Steve Jobs may fit pretty well here: "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft needs to lose." He said that almost 20 years ago now and "we" still don't seem to understand what he meant. Sub in a few other names for Microsoft and it's just as applicable HERE.
Last edited:
Well, maybe Apple Music won't be the one to break their dominance, but it will be among the first to start this process.
This timeframe was mentioned in the context of Beats Radio by one of the DJs, not Apple Music. You can quite easily crosscheck when visiting the Apple Homepage from Germany or UK. Here it says available soon instead of the 30th of June.
But I still hope they were just unprecise on that.
Last edited:
I like how Taylor Swift refers to lyrics and music that other people wrote for her to perform as hers. They're the ones that deserve the credit, not her.
The criticism I think stems mostly from this:
It's because "free TV" isn't on demand. People can't watch Episode 100 of Friends for free by typing it on a search bar in a cable box. You watch whatever is on at that time on that channel, or pay to rent/download it.
Spotify, at least the PC version, isn't a broadcast mechanism. One can search a specific song and listen to it as many times as they like, with an ad interruption every 15~30 minutes. I agree, for the consumer this may be a good thing, but for the producers of the content you can sympathize with their frustration.
This shows a complete lack of understanding about the music industry.
Even the best musicians and bands still use Major Labels (IE: Nine Inch Nails).
Major labels have their pros as well as their cons.
The deal they make with the artist is where the problem is. NIN is going to get a great deal and have a great relationship with the label where as a new artist probably isn't going to get the best deal. If you think some new artist can just crank out a CD and be the next Mega band you're in for a big surprise.
Also remember that an artist doesn't make money off certain items until they pay the Label back for any money upfront they gave them. Just a like a bank. Just like it should be. You don't get loans for free.