The artists shouldn't have sold their souls to the major labels. I don't feel bad for them.
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 Confirms 71.5% Revenue Sharing for Apple Music, No Royalties During Trial Period
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The artists shouldn't have sold their souls to the major labels. I don't feel bad for them.
You have no clue what the agreement with Swift looks like in either platform.
But this is likely: With iTunes as an established music ownership platform and extended integration, Swift is likely to earn much more from this platform than from Spotify.
This makes no sense. Under the model you are describing, record stores would pay for their inventory only after they sell the records.
I feel pretty content crenz objection just meant they would steal the music instead.
Hard to believe any musician/publisher being upset with a higher payout in exchange for a longer trial period.
The funniest part to me is apple has Spotify so twisted Spotify is left arguing iTunes Radio is the free tier of apple music. Spotify doesn't know what to do with themselves.
In theory it shouldn't matter to the artist how their music is streamed as long as it is streamed. Someone moving from Spotify to Apple or vice-versa shouldn't matter as long as someone is listening to their music. Spotify pay the same royalty payment on their "free" service or their premium package as Apple do on theirs; the only difference being where the money comes from; advertising revenue or monthly payments.
You should't they told it will roll out with 8.4 so everyone and also people from Europe,...already had some indication of it. Should be okay..
Anybody know how streaming revenue is split amongst artists? Not just for Apple, I mean any of these services.
I am close friends with a few indie bands. I've heard them complain about ASCAP before and how it favors mainstream acts.
Say I pay $10 for Apple music and I listen to one album the entire month and only listen to it a few times... Am I giving $7 to that artist or is (more likely) my money going into the big pool to fund huge payouts to Justin Bieber because teen girls listened to his album 5 times a day? As in, I give an indie artist 30 plays and a tween gives a mainstream act 300 plays... We both paid $10 separately but is the mainstream act getting 10x as much as my indie act?
I am close friends with a few indie bands. I've heard them complain about ASCAP before and how it favors mainstream acts.
Say I pay $10 for Apple music and I listen to one album the entire month and only listen to it a few times... Am I giving $7 to that artist or is (more likely) my money going into the big pool to fund huge payouts to Justin Bieber because teen girls listened to his album 5 times a day? As in, I give an indie artist 30 plays and a tween gives a mainstream act 300 plays... We both paid $10 separately but is the mainstream act getting 10x as much as my indie act?
People want to own music. That has already been established by the huge sales of music, both from physical media and online.
It has yet to be proved that people want to pay for streaming. Spotify is said to have some 20 million paying subscribers. As they have a student rate of $5 per month, it's reasonable to assume that a large proportion is at that rate, as youngsters are the ones who like to hoover up music.
Spotify is cross-platform, so we're talking a potential audience of at least 2 billion people. So about 1% of iOS and Android users are prepared to pay for it, with an average price of, say, $7 per month. That's a niche audience.
Is it worth Apple's while? As with the Apple Watch, we can assume that, in the absence of hard figures from Tim Cook, it will be a failure.
It has yet to be proved that people want to pay for streaming. Spotify is said to have some 20 million paying subscribers. As they have a student rate of $5 per month, it's reasonable to assume that a large proportion is at that rate, as youngsters are the ones who like to hoover up music.
Spotify is cross-platform, so we're talking a potential audience of at least 2 billion people. So about 1% of iOS and Android users are prepared to pay for it, with an average price of, say, $7 per month. That's a niche audience.
Is it worth Apple's while? As with the Apple Watch, we can assume that, in the absence of hard figures from Tim Cook, it will be a failure.
You could respond that way about any internet post.
Thanks for reading my comment and enthusiastically responding ms. Legstool.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
"No royalties during trial period" - what a shabby business model where artists are pre-financing Apple's market entry.
Exactly. Apple is richer than most countries, but they will be giving away artists' content to anyone for free for up to three months with no obligation to subscribe or purchase later. How nice of them!
Most artists aren't multimillionaires. Unless individual artists on a label can opt out of the three-month free trial (which I highly doubt), it really sucks that they can't decide whether or not they want to do this.
I subscribe to Spotify, in addition to having thousands of tracks I've obtained legally (through CDs, iTunes, etc.). I was really hoping Apple Music would be better for artists than Spotify and help them, a win-win situation similar to the original iTunes store, but right now it really is not looking good...
Exactly. Apple is richer than most countries, but they will be giving away artists' content to anyone for free for up to three months with no obligation to subscribe or purchase later. How nice of them!
Most artists aren't multimillionaires. Unless artists can opt out of the three-month free trial (which I highly doubt), it really sucks that they can't decide whether or not they want to do this.
I subscribe to Spotify, in addition to having thousands of tracks I've obtained legally (through CDs, iTunes, etc.). I was really hoping Apple Music would be better for artists and help them, a win-win situation similar to the original iTunes store, but right now it really is not looking good...
Maybe I'm not understanding something but surely just because Apple aren't paying anything to the labels during the three month trial, it doesn't mean the labels aren't paying their respective artists does it?
Only the part about paying up front is flawed, all else is still valid. I looked up on Apple website and there is a footnote.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
If the labels aren't getting any royalties from Apple during the three-month trial, I'm assuming that the labels aren't going to be paying the artists for the user of their content for those three months. So artists are receiving no royalties from Apple or their label for using their music for up to 3 months for each trial account.
I think it's also reasonable to expect that they may actually receive less money in royalties at least temporarily, since people may not be going to Spotify or other services (where they would be getting royalties) to listen to the artist's music during that 3-month period. So they could actually be getting less money overall in royalties in some cases.
Eventually, if the user does sign up for Apple Music, the artist will see the royalties from that. Maybe in the long run it will be more than they would have gotten otherwise if Apple Music didn't exist. I think it should be the artists' choice whether or not they want to gamble on eventually getting royalties after a three-month free trial.
It sounds like Apple will be paying what is already industry standard for this type of streaming service, but offering a 3-month trial with no payments whatsoever. So unless labels out of the goodness of their hearts decide to pay artists for the period they're not seeing any increased revenue for an artists' content, they start pay artists more in general than they're already paying them, or Apple Music brings in lots of new users that weren't otherwise paying for downloads or using Spotify or other streaming services (which I'm sure Apple and the labels are banking on), then the artist isn't getting anything out of this.
Maybe Apple Music will help out artists in the long run, but at least in the short run it doesn't sound like it's going to change much. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Unfortunately for the artists, it's the labels that will be making most of the money, just like they do on Spotify. Streaming Is a great way to promote your music but it's not a great way for artists to make money.
You may be right I've got no inside knowledge but:-
1> "I'm assuming that the labels aren't to be paying the artists for their content being in Apple Music. So artists are receiving no royalties from Apple or their label for using their music for up to 3 months for each trial account".
That seems like a big assumption, I'll agree record companies like any company don't like paying out money if they can get away with it but I would have though what they pay their artists is governed by the individual contracts they have with each of them. Maybe some of them will have contracts that stipulate they get paid for streaming during any free trials the record label negotiates.
I realise I may just be playing devils advocate here.
I am really looking forward to June 30, I have been using Spotify for the last year and have lost touch with my music collection.. which I hope I can 'iTunes Match' with my Apple Music subscription and will discover all the hidden gems, all over again.
Well that's the way the cookie crumbles. People that are paid on commission don't make a dime unless they are selling. Many times their jobs make them do many tasks daily they won't get paid for. That's business. You have to take the bad with the good.
The bad: Artists aren't always paid for everything they do.
The Good: Their music is promoted on streaming which brings more concert ticket sales and more promotions at awards shows which they also get paid for.
Want to buy music? You can buy songs from iTunes.
Want to stream music? Apple also provides that with Apple Music.
Apple will soon be offering two ways that people listen to music. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Sure... streaming isn't very popular overall... but I keep hearing it's the future of music.
If it turns out not to be... Apple can still sell songs the old fashioned way with iTunes instead. If anything... Apple is covering their bases. They aren't closing the iTunes Music Store with the launch of Apple Music... they're simply adding another product.
Will it be worth it? It's difficult to tell.
Yeah... there's not a ton of money in streaming yet... but Apple would rather get your $10 a month than let it go to someone else.
Your lack of reading comprehension & knowledge to provide a thoughtful response is as expected.