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 Pays Industry Standard Subscription Revenue Fees to Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lets get one thing clear; the true purpose of Apple Music in the long term, as amicable it may be to persist in wanting to be the leader of music services (remember Ping?), is for Apple to have a world-wide radio broadcast system. And in this sense they've already won, easily: Up the date, to the second broadcasting alongside every single other person that has an iOS device.
The music streaming stuff is just a revenue stream for Apple; the channel to communicate with everyone, in real time is the real goal and honestly everyone is already a part of it.
This is the new world. Welcome.
I think we need to assume more in our lives.
Even the artists are rallying against freemium Spotify because it devalues the music. Ads don't even begin to cover the cost of producing the music which is why you had artists protesting it. I never used iTunes radio because well it was not what I wanted to listen to. I want to listen to what I want to when I want to. I don't like being forced into listening to music I'm not interested in. Many people can be the same way.
Lets get one thing clear; the true purpose of Apple Music in the long term, as amicable it may be to persist in wanting to be the leader of music services (remember Ping?), is for Apple to have a world-wide radio broadcast system. And in this sense they've already won, easily: Up the date, to the second broadcasting alongside every single other person that has an iOS device.
The music streaming stuff is just a revenue stream for Apple; the channel to communicate with everyone, in real time is the real goal and honestly everyone is already a part of it.
This is the new world. Welcome.
I find it strange that Apple are touting an old-fashioned radio station as part of their music strategy. I don't think it'll be a success.
Let me say this.. if you ever worked for a label you would understand how they really work. And I don't mean that as a slam to your comment or you personally. Just what I know in my experiences from a past life can easily put forth that there's no good label out there. If an artist grew a set they would see life is greener on the other side, but they have to work for it. Most take the easy route and let labels bait them into whatever deal looks good but under everything it's always a bad deal for the artist.
Last edited:
Distribution is still an issue because you have to get people to know about it and want to travel to your one off website to get your music. People like having a seamless experience. They don't want to manage a ton of mp3 files and whatnot with the exception of the older crowd who still sees ownership as a benefit they don't want to give up.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OR, the "everyone wants to stream music" spin is just spin and the problem is that digital never degrades so the traditional revenue prop of everyone having to re-buy canned music already on the shelf has been mostly killed off. Think about it. Even the generational drive of Junior leaving home and needing to re-buy some stuff in his parent's music collection is probably dead now, because Junior can take an exact copy of their stuff with him while leaving their entire music collection behind too.
Also, the used CD market seems to be thriving. One can get used CDs for a cheap as a $1 if they shop around. One business negative of that market: sales of used CDs don't kick any revenue back to the labels. They are not counted as new music purchases even though the buyers are buying music that will be new to their own collections. Again, digital yields perfect copies of the music on these CDs and it won't degrade (digital doesn't scratch or stretch or develop hiss or melt, etc).
So the problem of declining new music sales may be established in concepts like those I've just offered, rather than assuming everyone wants to rent a music collection. And if that's true, the solution is NOT to develop more and more streaming services but to bring high volumes of high quality, desirable music to market that people will want to own. Where is the next Beatles or Stones or Zep, etc? I've re-purchased their music on multiple mediums multiple times without ever wishing I could rent it instead. Where are the modern incarnations of creators of music we definitely want to buy?
In short, is streaming music a solution in search of a problem rather than addressing the actual problem?
McDonalds just had another quarter of declining food sales. Their solution? Kick a bunch of stuff off of the menu to "simplify the menu." Getting rid of food people may want to buy doesn't seem to automatically fit their problem as defined. In fact, while I'm just one observer, I never noticed anyone being overwhelmed by the former McDonalds menu such that they just turned away and refused to buy food there. Maybe that happened? Maybe it happened often? But there too, I speculate that the solution offered doesn't appear to fit that problem.
Is there a market for streaming music? Of course there is. There's always a pocket of consumers that will choose to rent instead of buy. Is it some kind of mass trend that the masses want to pay rent month after month for upwards of forever? Every renter I've ever known inevitably arrives at a mindset of just throwing money out the window. Even though $10/month is virtually throwaway money, it's still renting. I'm not convinced the masses want to rent music though it's obvious some certainly do.
Last edited:
I don't see it either. I think it can be okay. However, I think the time for the radio has passed TBQH. However, radio is insanely profitable when compared to streaming. So.....???
High quality music is in the eyes of the beholder. You don't see the Beatles selling at #1 on the charts currently. Most of the younger generation doesn't consider them worth buying. I think they can't sing worth a d*mn and the music they released is as good as garbage but that's my personal opinion. That means nothing in terms of the overall market.
I think there is a balance that is likely to emerge with streaming and downloads. I'd give streaming the edge though. I wouldn't consider trends with used CDs as anything that is notable TBQH. Why because you are getting a CD presumably 8+ songs for less than the cost of a current single download. If it was priced at market rates, I doubt anyone would buy as evidenced by the decline in overall CD sales year over year over year.
I wonder if there should be a law or regulation that any music after 10 years can be placed on streaming services but the artists (or the artist family/estate) still get paid from the streaming service...especially the artistst that are no longer with us (BB king, etc).
Spotify pays the same 70% of the revenue as Apple or Google
And no, nor Google, nor Spotify and nor Apple pays 70% to the artists
True. Anyone can make an album in front of their computer and sell it online. If that's all you want... you'll be fine.
But you might need someone to front the money to take you, your band, your crew, and others on tour.
Busses, equipment trucks, hotels, etc.
Is a "girl with a guitar in her bedroom on Youtube" gonna pay to take 20+ people on the road?
Record Labels are basically loan companies.
We are saying the same thing, though getting people to know you exist is marketing, not distribution. Even if you get distribution on Spotify or iTunes you still have a massive discovery problem unless you have a big enough marketing effort to inform people that you exist (and tempt them enough to check you out as opposed to the thousands of other things someone can do with their time).
The great thing about making distribution easy is that more people can get distribution. The horrible thing about making distribution easy is that more people can get distribution.
Prime case is YouTube. Great for distribution (global reach, house hold name, etc.,), but it's horrible for discovery because 300 hours of new content are uploaded every minute. 300 hundred hours each minute. That's insane (and that number keeps going up, a few years ago it only like 60 hours).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Taylor Swift pulled her music. Can you name another without having to do a search?
The Beatles haven't struck a streaming deal to be on Apple's service. Why not?
There were multiple rumors from months ago that Apple was encouraging popular artists to do exclusive deals with Apple much like the Beyoncé album. Swift- love her or not- is VERY popular right now. Put the rumor (illustrated by Beyonce album exclusive) together with the rumors of Apple trying to "motivate" the labels to kill Spotify's free deal and one could brew up a little conspiracy that maybe Swift was motivated by Apple to bail on Spotify to be an exclusive on Apple's impending streaming service? Speculation? Absolutely, but I'd be trying to make such deals if I was bringing a non-free competitor into an already established & crowded market where the established player is able to beat my price with a free* offering.
Her excuse was that she wasn't making enough from the Spotify streaming deal. But apparently Apple made the very same deal. So conceptually, her cut would be the same. Pair that concept with us knowing Apple likes healthy margins right off the top (first in line) vs. Spotify either not making any profit or barely making a profit, and it's another punch questioning whether Swift can actually make more money by being on Apple's streaming service.
Of course, if Apple cut a special deal with her like they did with Beyoncé, she could definitely make more money doing whatever Apple asked.
Last edited:
that's what they said when they saw itunes' 70/30 structure back in 2002.
yet here we are.
Another advantage Apple has is that you can buy music, with spotify you can't.
For example, Taylor Swift allows one of her songs on her new album on Apple Music streaming to promote her new album so people can buy the full for the first month or so. After that, the full album is allowed for streaming.
For example, Taylor Swift allows one of her songs on her new album on Apple Music streaming to promote her new album so people can buy the full for the first month or so. After that, the full album is allowed for streaming.
A couple posts up you claimed Spotify pays 70% to the artists. You were trying to claim they were similar to Tidal. But no, Spotify doesn't pay anywhere near 70% to the artists. So stop spreading misinformation.
I guess you were attempting to associate Spotify's payout with Tidal so you can present it as better than Apple Music but you got called out on it. Look, I know you like to hang out on Apple focused sites all day attempting to spread negative and misinformation on Apple but when you get called out on it in plain view at least own up to it.
Lets get one thing clear; the true purpose of Apple Music in the long term, as amicable it may be to persist in wanting to be the leader of music services (remember Ping?), is for Apple to have a world-wide radio broadcast system. And in this sense they've already won, easily: Up the date, to the second broadcasting alongside every single other person that has an iOS device.
The music streaming stuff is just a revenue stream for Apple; the channel to communicate with everyone, in real time is the real goal and honestly everyone is already a part of it.
This is the new world. Welcome.
I think the ultimate goal is to get people to buy the music they hear streaming. To take and buy instantly what they hear. The goal is to keep the listener totally in the Apple infrastructure, spending the money within the service
Because the labels pay to promote the artist, the album, the videos, their tour sets, and give big advances that let artists have PR people who get them out there.
Anyone can do exactly what you stated now, and has been able to forever.... but guess what, you never heard of them and they haven't had a hit, gotten on radio, or a gig outside a dive bar in their home town because it's just not going to happen for them without someone backing them.... like a label.
If it were that easy everyone would do it and be a star.
It charts the gross amount paid from a monthly vs a yearly subscription. A yearly subscription is cheaper than 12 monthly subscriptions for the same reason a 12-pack of soda cans costs less than buying 12 cans individually.
You're kidding, right?
Less than the price of a CD (which CD's are the only things that are not on track with inflation.... if they were, a CD should cost you about $37 since they are actually a couple of bucks cheaper than they were in the late 80's and early 90's when the format became dominate) for a month of unlimited music sounds like unfair practices to you?
*Face Palm*
You guess wrong, I was talking about Spotify paying the same as Apple, nothing more. But, I did the horrible sin of confusing artists with labels, thanks for calling me out of it.
Look, show the posts where i pass the day attempting to spread negative information about Apple.
Yes, I will pay the fine for confusing the word labels with artists.
Yes, Spotify, like almost all of the streaming services pay 70% to the label;s.