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 Backs Down on $7.99 Price Point for New Music Service After Meeting Resistance From Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ya the artists are a bit short sided with this seeing that they get paid a fraction of a penny per play. A) It's more than what they would get from someone pirating the song B) These streaming services are in there infancy. Once more people join because it's a lot more convienient and the quality is guaranteed they will make more money C) As you said it helps them get exposure to make more money from concerts and merch. I can tell you I've discovered a lot of new artist that I wouldn't have had I know subscribed to Google play music all access.
----------
It's going to take a good feature like smart lists or lossless quality as an option to get me to change from Google Play Music since I got in when they were offering it at $7.99. The artists exclusives don't mean anything to me either. There is more than enough music to keep me busy I'll just listen to other artist.
Apple has been the one company with genuine concern about the artists creating the music. Streaming services, as currently structured, are a financial disaster for songwriters. Perhaps Apple could conceive a way to right this ship so artists can realize a reasonable return?
Nope. They will continue to find the next "big thing" and beat it into the ground until people are sick of it.
They will never learn that no matter how hard you try, an autotuned turd is still a turd.
Music industry execs are a bunch of greedy bastards, worthy of having an upper-decker left for them in their bathrooms.
Yes, because we should crush those greedy musicians into the dirt until they give us all the music for free.
Yes, because we should crush those greedy musicians into the dirt until they give us all the music for free.
Indeed...
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/
I get that Apple is trying to come up with something that makes sense and sets them apart from the other players (spotify especially). But I dont get why they were silent at today's event. They should have said something. Regardless of price, you would think the interface should be far enough along that they could have provided a preview. I guess we now wait for WWDC.
Taylor Swift anybody?
I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple approached her a few months ago with for an exclusive deal; she then makes these big public statements slamming Spotifys payment model, pulls her music off streaming for half a year until iTunes streaming comes along with miss Swift. And then we get to listen to that Taylor Swift song we're all too ashamed to admit we like.
I'll take off my tin foil hat now.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple approached her a few months ago with for an exclusive deal; she then makes these big public statements slamming Spotifys payment model, pulls her music off streaming for half a year until iTunes streaming comes along with miss Swift. And then we get to listen to that Taylor Swift song we're all too ashamed to admit we like.
I'll take off my tin foil hat now.
Last edited:
$9.99/month is MORE than fair for a service that allows you to listen to basically anything you want at any time, and even download it in 320kbs, with no ads. One CD would cost you more than that.
Because the backroom mentality is Apple pockets the extra $2. Apple wants you to think they've got your back, but really, the bean counters at Apple pulled out their 15 digit calculators and figured out how much the extra $2 would earn them.
----------
Welcome to Microsoft and their Zune Music Pass from 5 years ago.
This. The ONLY reason I pay a monthly fee for Beats Music is because I can access virtually any song from any artist at any time. The moment I start finding too many gaps in availability is the moment I cancel my subscription and resort to alternate methods for music access, which are not likely to be favorable to either the artists or the studios.
Apologies for carrying on down this side track. But do you really think that 'indie artist' hadn't weighed up the factors you mentioned? Do you think they aren't aware of what revenue streams they can access, and what each means to them? This is their livelihood.
Perhaps that artist has figured out what the incremental benefit to streaming on spotify is, and saw that it is negative. In their case, the cannibalism of record sales outweighs the potential growth in merchandise and gigs.
There is a limit to the number of gigs an artist can play (not to mention the heavy downside to a life of touring), and merchandise is not the area most musicians look to be successful in. There are also a lot of creative stakeholders who benefit not a jot from the sale of merchandise (such as the writers of the music performed that night).
The whole shifting of the debate towards blaming musicians for not choosing to make their living from selling T-shirts and 'meet and greets' is to me the same as encouraging app developers to combat piracy by shifting towards free apps but with IAPs for 'gold' and 'gems'. In other words, it's dumb and it's short-sighted.
I really wonder about some of these armchair economists, who think they have figured out how to win at the music industry (or rather their simplified take on it).
$9.99 is ok.....
Who can't afford that ?
if u were in business u'd want to make a profit too right?
Taylor Swift pulled her music from Spotify, because she said "She didn't wanna give her music away for free"..
Well, if Spotify is not paying people and keeping most of the profits, then that's not an end user problem, its their problem, and as a result less music will be available to stream regardless of the price, since the music labels wouldn't see it much go up anyway, all because these greedy companies want to get as much as possible..
What about playing fair ? no one hears of that anymore.
Who can't afford that ?
if u were in business u'd want to make a profit too right?
Taylor Swift pulled her music from Spotify, because she said "She didn't wanna give her music away for free"..
Well, if Spotify is not paying people and keeping most of the profits, then that's not an end user problem, its their problem, and as a result less music will be available to stream regardless of the price, since the music labels wouldn't see it much go up anyway, all because these greedy companies want to get as much as possible..
What about playing fair ? no one hears of that anymore.
Last edited:
