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
haha, it is funny when you actually think how much Apple products must be used across the music industry, and here is Apple potentially stating it wants those users to be paid less or earn less and undercut it's competitors for it's own profit interests.... irony or what.
I'm looking at this from a different angle. The crud that gets churned out by the music factories is far too expensive. Artists that in the main have learned 3 chords, have spent an hour in a studio and will have their produce filtered through an electronic device before it is let loose on the public are lucky to be getting what they already are. They should be paying us to listen to it.
Last edited:
Funny how people think a music today sucks when they're probably not even looking. If good musc is hard to find, you need Internet lessons. Music is better than ever because the labels aren't gate keepers anymore. Imagine trying to be indie decades ago. "Can I have a record deal?" "No" "Okay then" There's so much more opportunity now for self starters, but people will only see what's being taken away, not what's being added.
The Truth About Royalties
These numbers are way off. I've had numerous plays in various sites and my typical royalty check rarely goes above $50.00 a check (about 2 a year).
Here is an article that may be a eye opener to you:
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/2...-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/
These numbers are way off. I've had numerous plays in various sites and my typical royalty check rarely goes above $50.00 a check (about 2 a year).
Here is an article that may be a eye opener to you:
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/2...-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/
Is anyone reading the numbers?
I think most current streaming supporters are missing the math here.
25% of users.
$10 every three months.
So, as it stands, the typical person that thinks Spotify or whatever is "just fine" is paying $3.33 a month. Now don't you think it's possible that if apple says $5.99 a month that it would grab more cash? People would pay monthly instead of quarterly and stop cancelling their subscription. Maybe they would get 50% of users.
I can almost guarantee that the bandwidth or number of plays would only increase like, 10-20%. People that stream all day and every day are the minority (let's say, oh 25% at the most) and are already subscribing. I love my tunes but with my schedule, work- and lifestyle I can only listen to a couple of dozen songs a week on average.
Add that up, that's a huge amount of extra cash (and I suspect Apple might raise artist royalties as part of a bargaining chip).
I think most current streaming supporters are missing the math here.
25% of users.
$10 every three months.
So, as it stands, the typical person that thinks Spotify or whatever is "just fine" is paying $3.33 a month. Now don't you think it's possible that if apple says $5.99 a month that it would grab more cash? People would pay monthly instead of quarterly and stop cancelling their subscription. Maybe they would get 50% of users.
I can almost guarantee that the bandwidth or number of plays would only increase like, 10-20%. People that stream all day and every day are the minority (let's say, oh 25% at the most) and are already subscribing. I love my tunes but with my schedule, work- and lifestyle I can only listen to a couple of dozen songs a week on average.
Add that up, that's a huge amount of extra cash (and I suspect Apple might raise artist royalties as part of a bargaining chip).
Can you please explain how one feels pride/feeling good about owning a song?
I havent bought a cd is years. Pandora is great for my listening habits. 4.99 a month. Every genre covered. BTW I do own over 1000 CDs, all are ripped to PC and I never listen to them. I do listen to my grateful dead boots frequently though.
I hate "content."
Thinking of music (or any creative product) as "content" is the whole problem. Unique creative products--music, writing, photographs, film, art--are worth something, but "content" is not.
"Content" is neither special nor unique. "Content" doesn't happen once in a lifetime only for you. "Content" can't make your heart thump, "content" can't make you cry. "Content" can't comfort you, assuage you, persuade you. "Content" doesn't help develop or maintain a well-informed democracy. (Journalism does that, not "content.") "Content" is easy and fast--an algorithm or an app can crank it out anytime, anywhere! You don't need talent, 10,000 hours of practice, or a unique perspective for "content." It's just there, "content," lorem-ipsum filling up the vessel. "Content" is just chaff that helps the box keep its shape. "Content" is the ballast that floats the boat.
Because "content" is certainly less important than the service that stores or distributes it. If you buy the tech culture line, then we're supposed to think of Beats and its "content," not of John Coltrane and "that web site, whatever its name was" that we used to listen to him plead, beg, search, scream, and proclaim a Love Supreme.
Reality check: "content" is the word greedy sociopaths use to describe one of the cogs in their latest self-serve money printing press. You might call it "art" or "music" or "journalism" or "the humanities" or "your life"; but to the folks who call it "content," it's all just another angle they can work to print themselves money until one day the ink runs dry, and then they'll move on to something else to "disrupt." The tech culture cares about money. Not music, not the humanities, not history, not society, not you, not even really the tech. It's money, money, money. Make it rain, yo.
I mean, "people?!?" What are "people?" Don't you mean "content" for Facebook?
Thinking of music (or any creative product) as "content" is the whole problem. Unique creative products--music, writing, photographs, film, art--are worth something, but "content" is not.
"Content" is neither special nor unique. "Content" doesn't happen once in a lifetime only for you. "Content" can't make your heart thump, "content" can't make you cry. "Content" can't comfort you, assuage you, persuade you. "Content" doesn't help develop or maintain a well-informed democracy. (Journalism does that, not "content.") "Content" is easy and fast--an algorithm or an app can crank it out anytime, anywhere! You don't need talent, 10,000 hours of practice, or a unique perspective for "content." It's just there, "content," lorem-ipsum filling up the vessel. "Content" is just chaff that helps the box keep its shape. "Content" is the ballast that floats the boat.
Because "content" is certainly less important than the service that stores or distributes it. If you buy the tech culture line, then we're supposed to think of Beats and its "content," not of John Coltrane and "that web site, whatever its name was" that we used to listen to him plead, beg, search, scream, and proclaim a Love Supreme.
Reality check: "content" is the word greedy sociopaths use to describe one of the cogs in their latest self-serve money printing press. You might call it "art" or "music" or "journalism" or "the humanities" or "your life"; but to the folks who call it "content," it's all just another angle they can work to print themselves money until one day the ink runs dry, and then they'll move on to something else to "disrupt." The tech culture cares about money. Not music, not the humanities, not history, not society, not you, not even really the tech. It's money, money, money. Make it rain, yo.
I mean, "people?!?" What are "people?" Don't you mean "content" for Facebook?
Last edited:
I was hoping you meant thisand not this
While the majority of Apple's revenue is generated from hardware a significant portion comes from iTunes and the App Store and Apple wants more from these revenue streams. More importantly Apple doesn't need concessions. They just want them. What does Google have to do with the topic? Deflective arguments are usually a sign of weak topic points.
1. You don't know what the bolded portion of your comment means do you?
2. You don't know what Google's actual business model is do you?
3. I just ate a strawberry Pop Tart and that violates my diet. Don't tell my wife.
Upon waking up this morning, I realized that I was pretty bored and out of it. Sorry for the incoherent comments all of you board readers!
Yeah, iTunes initially and now Deezer have opened my eyes to so much new music and also obscure old music. My tastes have become far more eclectic and I can spend hours of an evening digging further and further.
This is probably more true in the States than the UK. Trying to find a decent station when I visit friends in LA and San Diego is near impossible. It makes me realise how much I take BBC and in particular 6 Music for granted.
Seriously, if anybody out there wants to hear great new music being promoted, check BBC Radio 6 Music out. They aren't owned by big labels and the presenters are all huge music lovers who aren't afraid to play music they like rather than what they're told to play.
BBC also now has an awesome feature where you can add any track they play to "Playlister". This can then sync with your Spotify or Deezer account to listen to it. The various presenters each have their own playlists too so you can subscribe to them if you like what they play.
I honestly can't think of a time when I've been able to access so much great music.
----------
Semantics pedantics.
Spotify is also 4.99 per month, if you are a student or have an education email.
Apple's looking to the new generation (teens); if you can hook them for a fraction of their allowances, chances are you'll hook them as permanent customers.
My son and his friends all use a multitude of apps on their iPods that scrape music from various online sources (Youtube, etc.); he's played the various trial subscriptions to Google Music, Spotify, etc. and eventually ends back up with, well, free.
Adults are already too set in their ways to change (look at how many people already balk at $10/month or insist on sticking with one music service or another).
If I already have my own subscription, chances are I'm not going to double up for yet another service just to provide him with music. However, if there was a service that he could "afford" without putting strain on his limited finances, I'd heartily encourage he do that.
My son and his friends all use a multitude of apps on their iPods that scrape music from various online sources (Youtube, etc.); he's played the various trial subscriptions to Google Music, Spotify, etc. and eventually ends back up with, well, free.
Adults are already too set in their ways to change (look at how many people already balk at $10/month or insist on sticking with one music service or another).
If I already have my own subscription, chances are I'm not going to double up for yet another service just to provide him with music. However, if there was a service that he could "afford" without putting strain on his limited finances, I'd heartily encourage he do that.
*pats on head*
Sooooo..... let me explain to you how numbers work. Ok- let's say I'm willing to pay $10/mo for a streaming music service because I listen to it all day at work. For the sake of round numbers we'll say that I play 100 songs/day & work 20 days/month. At 1 cent/song, that would mean that the streaming subscription would be paying artists $20/month for my $10/month service.
Do you see the fail in this?? Pretending like popular musicians aren't well paid is both silly & ingenuine, btw... you know that they are- despite your outlandish claim that you know "many" artists making money off bandcamp & eschewing streaming sites.. lol, that's not even vaguely believable.
Upon waking up this morning, I realized that I was pretty bored and out of it. Sorry for the incoherent comments all of you board readers!
Bored and out of it? Been there and done that.
Several issues here, IMO ....
First and foremost, one of the early posters on this thread is absolutely right. The "record label" is an inefficient middle-man in the digital music distribution process these days.
If you eliminated all record labels tomorrow, businesses like Apple could still run iTunes just like they've done all along, except negotiate directly with each artist who contacted them and submitted sample material.
Then, you could cut streaming subscription prices in HALF and still pay artists more than they're receiving now.
Of course, old business models die hard -- especially when they've done everything possible to entrench themselves (tie up good musicians with long term legal contractual obligations to them, position themselves as the "one stop source" for negotiating use of music in other commercial productions, etc.).
But even given the current situation? The other big problem is the lack of interest and excitement over new music releases. Honestly, it's sort of the elephant in the room that we all like to ignore. But the ease of getting practically any song out there with a few mouse clicks, and the ease of listening to all manner of broadcasts from anywhere in the whole world with a few different mouse clicks has changed the whole landscape.
Under the old business model, people were only exposed to a pretty limited selection of musical works at a given time. The media hyped up the ones they wanted you to listen to, and you heard the songs enough to warm up to them and memorize the names of the artists and albums. That would lead to you going out to buy the albums, and a well timed concert tour would follow right along so you'd buy into that too, while the hype was at its peak. Rinse and repeat.
Now, there's no ability to "focus" people on specific bands or albums of music. It's scattered all over the place, with people deciding they only like 1 song from band X, and 2 songs from band Y, and only BUYING those specific tracks. Then they'll often decide not to pay to see the live show from those bands either, as "they only have 1 or 2 songs I know anyway".
So yeah -- it's cheapened the perceived value of a song or an album for a lot of people. I don't even know if that's a "bad" thing as much as just things changing with the times? But it does mean "rock musician" isn't that likely to earn you a glamorous lifestyle anymore.
First and foremost, one of the early posters on this thread is absolutely right. The "record label" is an inefficient middle-man in the digital music distribution process these days.
If you eliminated all record labels tomorrow, businesses like Apple could still run iTunes just like they've done all along, except negotiate directly with each artist who contacted them and submitted sample material.
Then, you could cut streaming subscription prices in HALF and still pay artists more than they're receiving now.
Of course, old business models die hard -- especially when they've done everything possible to entrench themselves (tie up good musicians with long term legal contractual obligations to them, position themselves as the "one stop source" for negotiating use of music in other commercial productions, etc.).
But even given the current situation? The other big problem is the lack of interest and excitement over new music releases. Honestly, it's sort of the elephant in the room that we all like to ignore. But the ease of getting practically any song out there with a few mouse clicks, and the ease of listening to all manner of broadcasts from anywhere in the whole world with a few different mouse clicks has changed the whole landscape.
Under the old business model, people were only exposed to a pretty limited selection of musical works at a given time. The media hyped up the ones they wanted you to listen to, and you heard the songs enough to warm up to them and memorize the names of the artists and albums. That would lead to you going out to buy the albums, and a well timed concert tour would follow right along so you'd buy into that too, while the hype was at its peak. Rinse and repeat.
Now, there's no ability to "focus" people on specific bands or albums of music. It's scattered all over the place, with people deciding they only like 1 song from band X, and 2 songs from band Y, and only BUYING those specific tracks. Then they'll often decide not to pay to see the live show from those bands either, as "they only have 1 or 2 songs I know anyway".
So yeah -- it's cheapened the perceived value of a song or an album for a lot of people. I don't even know if that's a "bad" thing as much as just things changing with the times? But it does mean "rock musician" isn't that likely to earn you a glamorous lifestyle anymore.
Artists actually get less than a cent per play. Spotify, Deezer and Rdio average about 0.7 cents if we're lucky. Google Play and Xbox Music pay about a cent, Nokia even more. Amazon and iTunes Match pay very very little - like 0.2 cents per song.
The whole thing is a giant experiment. The recorded music industry has always been shady. Bible-thumpers use to claim that it was Satanic in the 1950s with Jerry Lee Lewis et al, and I believe them - just look at classic rock artists like the Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, etc., and all the pseudo-illuminati nonsense put forth in pop trash now-a-days.
I think the comment was about how Google doesn't lower their prices (very much) even though they do collect and sell your data.
re: They don't WANT to do the looking ....
I think you've missed a key point here?
In the "old days", the record labels picked and chose what they believed you'd enjoy listening to and force-fed it (via radio stations putting tracks on hot rotations, etc.). Now, everyone's turned loose to sift through all the music out there and discover for themselves what they think is good.
I think that's awesome, BUT, it's also time-consuming and you will hear a lot of lousy tracks in the process. The masses are used to hearing "more good stuff" because they're used to having all the garbage culled out for them in advance, and only hearing what was deemed superior, when listening via mainstream channels.
I think you've missed a key point here?
In the "old days", the record labels picked and chose what they believed you'd enjoy listening to and force-fed it (via radio stations putting tracks on hot rotations, etc.). Now, everyone's turned loose to sift through all the music out there and discover for themselves what they think is good.
I think that's awesome, BUT, it's also time-consuming and you will hear a lot of lousy tracks in the process. The masses are used to hearing "more good stuff" because they're used to having all the garbage culled out for them in advance, and only hearing what was deemed superior, when listening via mainstream channels.
This got pointed out from someone on Twitter from Re/code. Peak CD buying, people spent $64/year. Hate to admit it, but Apple are playing the game in a justified way.
Is this fair to artists? Hell no. I doubt streaming will ever be though. I won't use it.
Is this fair to artists? Hell no. I doubt streaming will ever be though. I won't use it.
Bored and out of it? Been there and done that.
It was a slow descent into madness...