Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

skitidetdu

macrumors 6502a
Mar 7, 2013
878
879
Sweden
If the artists aren't making enough money than they should goto school and get a new job like the rest of us do. Why are they any different than us? Besides the $.06 they are talking about is from Apple alone. They willl get paid from other avenues of distribution also, and lets not forget when you are streaming a song and you decide you want to hear more of that "unknown" artist, one click, sign in and you just bought the album from itunes and more money goes to the artist. I would jump on this deal if I were them.

Many times it is not even the artist themselves that write the music, but hard working songwriter(s). Writing good songs that "make it" is a craftsmanship and a little luck, but far from only being luck. You don't think that these people should be payed enough to spend their life continuing to write music?
 

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Oct 17, 2011
1,943
364
On the face of it, 6 cents per hundred songs seems absurdly low compared to the other services. But I assume Apple is banking on its massive user base, as if they're buying in bulk. I can't imagine the recording industry going along with that price. I could see that as a low-ball offer, with the actual amount ending up higher.

Apple owns the entire recording industry because of iTunes already. Of course they can low-ball them again.

Can anyone explain why so many people here are obsessed with how much profits Apple makes?
 

Freeks

macrumors regular
Jul 2, 2009
176
89
Who is surprised that rich company wants to make more money by ripping off someone?

I doubt that major labels will make deal with apple as it would eat their profits. In Europe Spotify is 500% more popular than iTunes. I don't know one person who still buys anything from iTunes as you get the same content from Spotify.

Spotify should get grammy for saving music business.
 

polbit

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2002
528
650
South Carolina
Having to pay ANY performance royalties for streaming, when regular broadcast radio has none, is BS in my book. Broadcast radio and internet radio are in a nutshell the same. I don't blame the recording industry going after it as a profit channel - they are as greedy as they come, but no artist will ever see much money from this, and it only hurts us, the customer, when companies like Pandora simply can't afford to go on.
 

Breaking Good

macrumors 65816
Sep 28, 2012
1,449
1,225
Having to pay ANY performance royalties for streaming, when regular broadcast radio has none, is BS in my book. Broadcast radio and internet radio are in a nutshell the same. I don't blame the recording industry going after it as a profit channel - they are as greedy as they come, but no artist will ever see much money from this, and it only hurts us, the customer, when companies like Pandora simply can't afford to go on.

I believe broadcast radio does in fact pay royalties in a similar way.

With that said, I am against streaming just like I am against cable TV. I want as few people as possible in between me and whoever is creating the content. I don't care about the 1,000,000 song titles available or the 1,000 TV channels available. I only care about the several hundred songs I want to listen to and the ten TV shows I want to watch. Just let me pay for what I want and let the advertisers keep their money.
 

cgc

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2003
718
23
Utah
Oy vey, :rolleyes:. Are you serious with what you wrote? Uh, sir, here's the definition of "hate". Double check the meaning of words before you post.

You really want to tag me as "a hater" but I don't have "intense or passionate dislike" so according to your own post I don't hate Bieber. How about you not only read what you wrote but try to comprehend its meaning.
 

thehustleman

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2013
1,123
1
Having to pay ANY performance royalties for streaming, when regular broadcast radio has none, is BS in my book. Broadcast radio and internet radio are in a nutshell the same. I don't blame the recording industry going after it as a profit channel - they are as greedy as they come, but no artist will ever see much money from this, and it only hurts us, the customer, when companies like Pandora simply can't afford to go on.

Radio does in fact pay rotalties.

It's a lot higher than f few cents per hundred songs too.
 

SatManager

macrumors 6502
Feb 20, 2012
277
12
Las Vegas
If you want the service for free then Apple has to pay low rates for access to the songs. If you wish to pay for the service, then Apple can pay more. If Apple is really smart about this they would have their own record label and sign the indie bands directly so the indie bands can get a larger percentage of the played songs.
 

HenryDJP

Suspended
Nov 25, 2012
5,084
843
United States
Just because we DISLIKE his music, his attitude, his personality, etc. doesn't mean we HATE him, it means we dislike his music, his attitude, his personality, etc.

The amount of money he has means nothing either not sure why you had to bring that up.

You really want to tag me as "a hater" but I don't have "intense or passionate dislike" so according to your own post I don't hate Bieber. How about you not only read what you wrote but try to comprehend its meaning.

Oh yeah, you're right. People that have a laundry list...etc of what they dislike about a person hardly constitutes them as having an intense dislike. :rolleyes:
 

cgc

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2003
718
23
Utah
Oh yeah, you're right. People that have a laundry list...etc of what they dislike about a person hardly constitutes them as having an intense dislike. :rolleyes:

Glad we agree on something. Nothing intense about my dislike for Bieber. I also dislike shrimp, oysters, and other assorted underwater creatures/food but I'd never classify it as hate. I simply avoid them...
 

simonmet

Cancelled
Sep 9, 2012
2,666
3,663
Sydney
If Michael Jackson was still around I'm sure he would've taken a liking to Justine...they could've had sleepovers!

Sometimes I think Canada has a lot to answer for...
 

Liquorpuki

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2009
2,286
8
City of Angels
So much for all the noobs who claim that Apple is only interested in profits and doesn't care about the artists.



/s

That's because Apple gets most of its profit from hardware. They can afford to use undercutting as a weapon and sacrifice streaming profits because they know the feature will lead to more hardware sales.

Pandora, which is in one market only, can't afford to do this.

Don't confuse alternate forms of monetization with compassion.
 

Johns12

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2008
300
305
I am getting great enjoyment from reading this discussion. My main philosophy for life is that most people have no idea how difficult another persons job or life is. We think we know, but we do not. Yes, I am an artist. There are many ignorant statements being made here, but I don't think anyone means harm. Even people who state they don't care what the artist get, or If they can't get enough, go back to school and get another job are not being malicious. Just a little harsh.

Oh by the way. Touring is not a panacea. Lot's of tours lose money or make very little for the amount of time and work it takes. Very large tours are many times underwritten by commercial interests. Small venue artist do not have that pull and usually make very little for a life on the road. No one needs to cry for them, it's the life we choose.
 

polbit

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2002
528
650
South Carolina
I believe broadcast radio does in fact pay royalties in a similar way.

With that said, I am against streaming just like I am against cable TV. I want as few people as possible in between me and whoever is creating the content. I don't care about the 1,000,000 song titles available or the 1,000 TV channels available. I only care about the several hundred songs I want to listen to and the ten TV shows I want to watch. Just let me pay for what I want and let the advertisers keep their money.

Radio does in fact pay rotalties.

It's a lot higher than f few cents per hundred songs too.

Broadcast radio pays only the royalties to the PRO group. Internet radio, in addition to paying those royalties, also has to pay royalties to SoundExchange. As percent of revenue, it's not even close - typical broadcast station pays under 10% of their revenue in royalty payments. On the other hand, it's well over 50% for companies like Pandora.
 

lilo777

macrumors 603
Nov 25, 2009
5,144
0
Apple owns the entire recording industry because of iTunes already. Of course they can low-ball them again.

Can anyone explain why so many people here are obsessed with how much profits Apple makes?

And you still don't get it? People are "obsessed" with how much profits Apple makes because they are the ones who actually pay these profits. Of course, some people here feel good that they pay a lot for Apple products because they think others can't afford them. Well, in most cases that's factually wrong and juts plain stupid. When others pay less and get better products from, say, Samsung what's there to be proud of?
 

Tubamajuba

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2011
2,186
2,444
here
And you still don't get it? People are "obsessed" with how much profits Apple makes because they are the ones who actually pay these profits. Of course, some people here feel good that they pay a lot for Apple products because they think others can't afford them. Well, in most cases that's factually wrong and juts plain stupid. When others pay less and get better products from, say, Samsung what's there to be proud of?

Keyword being "some". Most Apple customers simply buy Apple products because they prefer them over other brands on their merits, not their price. And Samsung products being better is just an opinion... I personally will take an Apple device over a Samsung device any day of the week. And that is my opinion, nothing more.
 

TallManNY

macrumors 601
Nov 5, 2007
4,752
1,601
Interestingly, I was on a course this week where we had to look at how the music industry operates. General consensus at the end was that the streaming model currently doesn't work for either the record company or the artist. Just to clear a few things up. On a normal CD sale or album download (averaging out to 10 songs per album), the artist makes anywhere between 30c and 1$ (depending on their bargaining power with the record company. Shania Twain famously negotiated 40% royalties on one of her albums)). The record company makes roughly $1.70 profit on a CD and slightly more than this on a digital download (difficult to be precise as its usually reported as revenues, rather than profit, for this but again, the good guesstimate is in the region of $2).

So, if we take the example of Adele (ok this is an extreme example but it gives you an idea of the numbers involved), in the last two years she has sold 26 million 'albums' (mix of CD and download). That equates to about $25M in royalties for her (indeed she probably received more as she writes her own songs, but we'll keep it simple for now). That equates to roughly $50M profit for the record company. Not bad I hear you say, and I would agree. However, here comes the 'issue' for the record companies and the artists. To receive the same amount of profit in that two year timeframe, the record company would need 25 BILLION streams of Adele songs (or 2.5 billion albums if you want to keep it that way). Its worse for Adele as the artist royalties fall to about a third that the record companies get (rather than the roughly half in the CD and download systems). So Adele would need over 35 billion downloads to get the same profit.

Now, I know, we're talking huge (crazy?!) numbers here for profit, but equate this back to your Indie band, or even another 'successful' artist (Adele had the top-selling album last year at 18M copies, the second placed album was 8M copies), and you'll see that the numbers do drop off quite significantly especially outside the top 10 or 20 albums.

Another famous example is Lady Gaga - 1 million streams of 'poker face' on Spotify and she made about $160. If that had been 1 million downloads she would have made $100,000.

Again, you may not feel any sympathy for these really high earners, but think about the little guys, they just are not getting anything of any note at all from Spotify....

Sorry, very long winded post, but the take home message is that, streaming services need really massive numbers to work.

Oh, and Spotify lost $59 million in 2011 (not sure about 2012).

Spotify just recently announced earnings. Revenue up, but losses are double.

This service doesn't even work in massive numbers. Basically even if the artist is writing a song that is regularly entertaining a small city of listeners (like a million streams a day), that artist won't make enough money from the stream to quite their day job.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.