30% more is pretty significant to me...
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 Music and Apple Arcade to Earn $8.2 Billion Annual Revenue by 2025, Says JP Morgan Analyst
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see why most artists even need record labels or distributors. Once a new artist gets some initial popularity why can't they hire their own producers, bands, song writers, etc. and release their own music? Sure it's many thousands of dollars in production and promotion costs, but they will make it all back if they own all the rights to the music, and they will make even more when they tour. If their album or selection of songs doesn't become popular then I guess they lose their life savings, but no risk no reward. The labels make most of the profits because they take most of the financial risk in getting the music actually produced and promoted.
Ok, still doesn’t make the original statement any more factual.
This makes sense. Apple Music is obviously a big player in music streaming, and Arcade is a cheap way to keep kids busy on iPads without worrying about them charging thousands of dollars with in-app purchases. I recently signed up for Apple One Premier and, yeah, Arcade is a bit lacking, but my mom gets to play her puzzle games without being bombarded with ads and attempts to buy crap. I still believe Apple could make a play for a larger chunk of gaming markets if they really tried, especially if Apple Silicon can keep improving and someday compete with PCs on performance.
Because the hope is that one of these days I'll sign up for a trial and just keep paying when it ends. A trial costs them basically nothing, but if it gets me to switch over and bring a family member or two with me, that's recurring revenue.
Remember back when Spotify was taking off and everyone was like “Apple needs to have their own music streaming service” and now that Apple has one, the conversation shifted to “but how will the musicians get paid?”
Funny that this was never part of the conversation when the focus was on how Apple was supposedly lagging behind its peers. I suspect that in the long run, music streaming, given its unprofitable nature, may end up being subsided by platform owners like Apple, google and amazon because it’s simply not sustainable for any one company to manage as a standalone service.
Funny that this was never part of the conversation when the focus was on how Apple was supposedly lagging behind its peers. I suspect that in the long run, music streaming, given its unprofitable nature, may end up being subsided by platform owners like Apple, google and amazon because it’s simply not sustainable for any one company to manage as a standalone service.
I'm trying out the one month Apple One offer and I agree, Apple Arcade is pretty weak. I'm not a gamer, but there was perhaps just one game that was remotely interesting to me.
The question seems whether or not AppleArcade wants to play in the big leagues (buying EA would help), or simply an added throw-in service provided to subscribers.
Or buy EA.
That aside, Apple's services category brings in more revenue than several Fortune 500.
Maybe we should stop giving so much exposure to multi-billionaire pop "artists" who produce recycled crap with non-sensical lyrics written by a 5 year old, and start pushing more unknown real artists with talent in automated playlists. Just a thought.
And we know the EU is all about competition so it won't harm an EU based business.
I'm an artist (a small indie one at that) and this just shows the pay-out to artists across the board. These streams are from 2012 to 2022. Apple do pay more than any other platform; however the thing here is the principle of it all. Artists spend money on their art and spend a considerable amount hosting it on such streaming services. The point is that artists create content for sale. Without artists, your platforms become pointless and limited. Pay artists more and play it fair. By these standards, we should tell Apple and Spotify that their subscription prices should be £1 per month. They feel their platforms are worth 9.99 a month. We feel our art is worth £1 / $1 per stream, they say different, because it means more money for them. Feel like I'm on a rant now.
Comes down to define games. I enjoy Apple arcade for a relaxing distraction from the challenges of everday life. At the end of a hard day, I am not into using more intense brain power for games. Same with traveling on airplanes. Not to say there are not challenging games. Like everything, comes down to what fits your needs.
I am eager to get more details on how things work but I am not clear as to what you are advocating. Surely not that I should pay you one dollar every time I listen to one of your songs?
I have read countless times that the contracts artists have with a label is the main problem as it was in pre streaming days. The artist is beholden to the label, not the streaming service. You are an indie. Does that mean you are not in contract to a label?
Before, we had them music conglomerates making CDs, records, and such. It seems like all we did was traded one villain for another
AA pulled in $1.2 billion!? I'm both impressed and surprised. I've tried AA for a few months now. While it's not all that it was cracked up to be, it ain't too shabby either.
So doing math, if AA got $1.2bn, Music got $7bn, and total is $19.82bn, that leaves $11.62bn between the App Store and ATV+. My guess is a nontrivial majority of that is from the App Store. Again with being surprised, this would seem to indicate that AA and Apple Music can sort of hold their own
Sounds like they're not earning much even with streaming, so what's the sell here?
Also, when you bring up exposure as compensation, it makes it very hard to take anything else you say seriously.
Certainly not what I was advocating. I wouldn’t expect the listener to pay that per stream, I’d expect that from the streaming service; they’re rich enough to do so. Why is it that big companies can set a price for their products, but artists are told their product is set at whatever the streaming service say it’s worth, no ifs, ands or buts.
And no, I’m completely indie. No label, no management. I am set to make 100% royalties for both performance and as technical / sound engineering. I know plenty of fellow musicians in this same situation. If you’re in the know about how to do everything from composing to mixing, to advertising and publishing, who needs greedy labels anymore?
So you are in a much better position than an artist who is contracted to a label. You keep 100% of what Spotify and Apple pays you while a label contracted artist receives perhaps 50% or whatever the contract stipulates.