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 Asking Music Labels to Cut Prices on Music Streaming Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously…a coworker of mine, smiling, told me she listens to all her music now for free on Pandora. When I asked her don't you want to ever have pride in owning a song, and feeling good a bout music you actually bought and own, she just shrugged her shoulders and continued smiling..damn kids today are whats starving musicians, god forbid they ever pay for a song.
My first album I ever paid for I remember I was in 6th grade i think and I purchased G&R Appetite for destruction, I believe. It was a cassette, and it felt so good to own that cassette
All i can think of is the South Park episode where the cops go after the kids for downloading music. Not a big deal huh!
This is Britney spears, because of downloading music she had to sell her g5 private plane and get a g4 lol...
great episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wXeN6_FY
This is Britney spears, because of downloading music she had to sell her g5 private plane and get a g4 lol...
great episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wXeN6_FY
Just because it's a cliche, doesn't mean it's true -- I fixed that for you ...
THINK ABOUT IT!
they want everyone else to take less but apple is more than happy to put up the price of their phone ever year, especially in canada when the dollar dropped 10¢, OH lets put it up 5x what the difference would be.
Honestly even though $10 a month is a reasonable price, between all the legal ways I can play music now combined with a very extensive old library, $4.95 a month is my get it and forget it price point for streaming music.
I don't listen to a ton of music any more but at that price point I would be okay if I didn't use the service for a couple of months.
----------
Only a very tiny percentage of music artists ever made money off the playing of their music or purchase.
I don't listen to a ton of music any more but at that price point I would be okay if I didn't use the service for a couple of months.
----------
Only a very tiny percentage of music artists ever made money off the playing of their music or purchase.
Seeing how Spotify and Pandora are struggling to make a profit this is good.For those who are saying Spotify and the likes are "raking it in"you're mistaken
http://www.businessweek.com/article...-the-streaming-music-industry-cant-make-money
http://www.businessweek.com/article...-the-streaming-music-industry-cant-make-money
The issue of artists not getting paid enough isn't about people not willing to pay, it's about how scalable the format is. Any industry that has superstars also has many starving artists, because the few stars take all the attention. There are no superstar accountants, but also few starving ones, and that's because they can't be crowded out be superstars, the business doesn't scale that way. People who take a moralist view of people not wanting to pay are missing the point. Plus, should the people who decide to enter an industry dominated by superstars be subsidized? It was their decision to have that life.
I think that's the key. Probably for the 25 percent (every three months? I don't understand that part, does that mean they don't have a continuous subscription?) $10 is a great deal. But for the considerable majority the amount of music they consume is less than the equivalent of about an album per month.
If they lowered the subscription cost, I don't think it would dramatically change their listening habits, but it would bring in quite a bit of revenue that was untapped.
I know music labels take the big cut from streaming, but can't indie musicians just release the songs for streaming by themselves and get the labels cut also or is that not possible? or just create an indie label that takes any musician and only takes out from the streams what it needs to run and the rest goes to the musicians?
----------
Dr. Dre aka jdamiano, please go back to making new apple beats
----------
yes,
Dr. Dre aka jdamiano, please go back to making new apple beats
I wonder how indies work. Right now I'm listening to Swans which is on a label owned by the lead singer, and they are on Beats. There definitely can't be negotiation with indies, there are too many. I'm guessing indies are given the rates and they can take it or leave it, but the majors have negotiating power. This usually causes the indies to get paid far less because they have no power. I remember reading that Beats is different because it pays all artists the same amount per play. I wonder if it will stay that way.
Actually I read recently that except for major corporate backed acts many bands were canceling tours due to poor tickets sales.
Thank you music pirates for driving music into the hands of mega-corporations that promote lowest-common-denominator cr@p to death, while the good stuff gets harder to find and harder for musicians to earn even a modest living.
Serious question, not snark.
What's stopping Apple from charging less for Beats Music right now?
Because the way this looks to me is pretty crappy and greedy as hell.
Snark starts now.
to Music Labels: "Hey buds, can you do us a favor and lower your prices?"
ML to: "Uhhh, whaaaa? Why would we do that?"
to ML: "Oh we want to maintain our absurdly high profit margin. If you lower your profit, you can pay artists less too. That way you break even. We, on the other hand, look like a hero to our users since we got the subscription cost lowered for our Beats Music. Since you'll be lowering our cost we can still maintain our lovely, lovely margins. In the end, don't we all want to see us continue to add to the obscene stockpile of cash we have?
ML to: "You do realize the only party that benefits from this is you, right?
:
What's stopping Apple from charging less for Beats Music right now?
Because the way this looks to me is pretty crappy and greedy as hell.
Snark starts now.
to Music Labels: "Hey buds, can you do us a favor and lower your prices?"ML to
: "Uhhh, whaaaa? Why would we do that?" to ML: "Oh we want to maintain our absurdly high profit margin. If you lower your profit, you can pay artists less too. That way you break even. We, on the other hand, look like a hero to our users since we got the subscription cost lowered for our Beats Music. Since you'll be lowering our cost we can still maintain our lovely, lovely margins. In the end, don't we all want to see us continue to add to the obscene stockpile of cash we have?ML to
: "You do realize the only party that benefits from this is you, right?: 
Nope. I happily pay $10 to Beats and I think they're the best compared to Spotify and Rdio.
What pisses me off is people comparing this to pandora. Pandora is a digital radio. Spotify, Rdio, and Beats actually let you pick what you want to listen to in addition to the radio options. Why don't people understand this?
I straddle both generations. I spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on tapes and CDs at local stores and big chains and of course the awful BMG music club. But now I can listen to almost anything on Beats for $10 a month. People are sickened by this? Why? It's a natural evolution. It's no different than Netflix. Artists are still making money the same old way and that's by touring. That's why a ticket to see Demi freaking Lovato costs $110.
what if the artists make 1/4 of what they make currently except they make it 10x more often?
from my understanding, that's what's trying to happen here.. barely anybody is willing to spend $10/month on streaming service so the artists aren't making any money anyway.
Oh Please
Anyone who can't afford to pay $10 lousy dollars a month for an an "unlimited" amount of music, isn't a fan at all and just someone who is likely stealing it anyway. So basically Apple wants to try and bully the labels and get artists to work for slave wages so they can take their high markups? AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. NOR SHOULD IT.
Anyone who can't afford to pay $10 lousy dollars a month for an an "unlimited" amount of music, isn't a fan at all and just someone who is likely stealing it anyway. So basically Apple wants to try and bully the labels and get artists to work for slave wages so they can take their high markups? AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. NOR SHOULD IT.
What I want them to do is reduce the price on songs bought on iTunes in countries outside the US.
Songs that are $1.29 in the us ($1.47 with exchange rate) here in Australia it $2.29 or 55% more than in the US.
I know it's to do with local contracts which sees artists getting more for their music here than in the US.
Songs that are $1.29 in the us ($1.47 with exchange rate) here in Australia it $2.29 or 55% more than in the US.
I know it's to do with local contracts which sees artists getting more for their music here than in the US.
No
$5 a month is completely unreasonable. If you don't want to pay a fare price, don't listen. You aren't entitled to music.
$5 a month is completely unreasonable. If you don't want to pay a fare price, don't listen. You aren't entitled to music.
There is still a sizable fraction of folks out there, I'm one of them, who are not interested in streaming because they don't want to eat up all their data. I've never had an unlimited plan so I really do think about how much data I use each day and streaming music, much less video, would eat up my 1 GB/month pretty fast.