So in other words, Only the labels should be able to have exclusives like they have always done. How dare any company compete with the labels.
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's Reliance on Exclusives Coming Under Fire From Labels and Critics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good. Streaming exclusivity is just a bad practice overall, wether it's on Apple, Tidal or even Spotify (rumored that they're gonna start signing exclusives soon). Everyone I've seen (online or irl) that wanted a Tidal/Apple exclusive, either pirated it or just signed up for a trial and never used the service again once the album became widely available. Just look at Tidal, huge subscriber surge once Kanye and Beyonce dropped their albums, doubtful if a big portion of them became paying subscribers. People just hate being forced to sign up for a service just for something that would otherwise be more easily accessible.
Read this guys website and it's pretty clear he hates Apple, Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine. So I'm not surprised he would hate this.
In the wake of the much-anticipated launch of Frank Ocean's new album "Blonde," Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge has sent out an email to UMG executives, saying that the company is prohibiting the practice of exclusive music streaming moving forward (via The Lefsetz Letter). The email officially ends "all future exclusives with Universal artists," meaning popular artists like Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift, and The Weeknd could all be affected by the change since they each belong to labels owned by UMG.
The news was shared by Bob Lefsetz, a music industry analyst and critic, who penned a letter over the weekend in response to Blonde's exclusive home on Apple Music for the first two weeks of its release. Lefsetz said that the heavy reliance of streaming services on exclusive content, and how the practice is becoming increasingly normal among consumers, will ultimately hurt the industry in the long run. Halfway through, he particularly sets his sights on Apple:
According to Lefsetz, Apple's practices not only lock off entire albums to non-subscribers, but grant greater showcase to its exclusive artists -- like the Frank Ocean-centered carousel currently in the app -- consequently hurting the chances for indie musicians to break out. He calls Ocean "complicit" in Apple's schemes, and shames "everybody else who takes money from Apple and screws fans."
With exclusives popping up every few weeks over Apple Music's short fourteen-month lifespan, Kanye West even voiced frustration with the model, hoping to end the fight between Apple Music and Tidal and "let the kids have the music." Among recent artists with an exclusive Apple Music deal are Britney Spears, Frank Ocean, Katy Perry, and Drake.
You can read Lefsetz's full letter here.
Article Link: Apple Music's Reliance on Exclusives Coming Under Fire From Labels and Critics
Exclusivity is a bad practice when you're trying to maximize exposure.
Bad analogy. Music has always been open source..or rather you could buy/access it on whichever platform/medium suits you best..of course over time the options became more limited (i.e. you can no longer buy everything on tape or 8-track) but being limited to having to subscribe to a single service in order to access new music from your favorite artist is a complete sea change..and the only people that suffer are listeners who DON'T want to download torrents and would rather support/hear music on the medium/platform of their choice.
Is that really a valid comparison. This album is only exclusive to Apple Music for a couple weeks.
The music industry always complains about its distribution "partners." They've been doing that since the days of AM radio and wax cylinders.
The fact is that labels and record companies are run by a bunch of greedy bastards who think that anyone else making money in the business is taking their coke budget away from them.
The fact is that labels and record companies are run by a bunch of greedy bastards who think that anyone else making money in the business is taking their coke budget away from them.
Cry me a river. Exclusives are common thoughout the whole music and film/tv industry. Next please.
Last edited:
No one owes you a thing. These music industry dinosaurs liked the monopoly when they were the ones in control of it
For the years of trying to sue people downloading music I say, payback is a bitch
For the years of trying to sue people downloading music I say, payback is a bitch
Ok, but it's ironic asf that UMG (or any major label) is censuring Apple for using its financial clout to draw listeners and artists by limiting/controlling the distribution venues of music, right?
Game of Thrones is HBO-exclusive while the current season ends, then you can buy it on iTunes or Bluray - of course it is not a valid comparison per se but who cares, this Lucian Grainge man is a crybaby.
These are huge artists that don't need exposure and besides superstar artist, most don't make money off of record sales. They make it off of shows. This is entirely the labels fear of extinction.
Maybe - but then even more - it's a silly reason to be in Apple's (or other services) corner. They are businesses and so are the music streaming services. Both want to maximize revenue. Faulting one over the other is biased.
For what? Getting something that the labels are willing to provide? The labels don't have to grant exclusives, it's not as though Apple would actually refuse to carry music from them unless it was exclusive.
It's funny, Apple gets so much flack for being such a crappy service, and Spotify had an almost-monopoly for so long - but after only a year it's getting criticized for paying 'too much' to labels, getting exclusives, etc. All I hear over and over is that Spotify is so much better, so why are they having such a problem? Why is Apple Music suddenly considered such a threat? Seems to me that Apple just gets criticized most of the time because they have deep pockets and grab headlines.
The labels are afraid because Frank Ocean went independent and dropped this exclusive and got a huge payout from Apple. Frank didn't need the labels, now, no one really needs a label.
can someone please explain to me why having a streaming exclusive for only two weeks is such a big deal?
Are we on the same website?
ROFLMAO. This guy really doesn't know how anti-trust works, does he? None of what he wrote is actually how it works.
If he can send an email saying no more exclusive is allowed from now on, that suggests he has the power and not Apple. So, how is Apple violating anti-trust again? Apple Music doesn't own the majority of the market, they're still behind Spotify.
Spotify has exclusives, Tidal has exclusives and Apple isn't allowed to have one? GTFO.
If he can send an email saying no more exclusive is allowed from now on, that suggests he has the power and not Apple. So, how is Apple violating anti-trust again? Apple Music doesn't own the majority of the market, they're still behind Spotify.
Spotify has exclusives, Tidal has exclusives and Apple isn't allowed to have one? GTFO.
I don't like exclusives. I don't think anyone will profit from it in the long run.
But weekly exclusives don't hurt me much. And if it's longer than that, i'll just find another way to get my music. (Buy it, if possibe) But i'm sure as hell not going to pay for 2 music subscription services.
But weekly exclusives don't hurt me much. And if it's longer than that, i'll just find another way to get my music. (Buy it, if possibe) But i'm sure as hell not going to pay for 2 music subscription services.
His example points out just how silly this is. There are exclusives in every industry. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get exclusive games, Streaming movies/TV networks get exclusive shows and movies, and what do you know? Music streaming services get exclusive albums.
Personally I'm not a great fan of exclusive deals. However I can see the attraction for artists having an exclusive deal with Apple, as they pay a larger percentage over to the artists (or labels depending on the details); either way the distribution is fairer. It benefits them not only immediately but places pressure on those services paying a lower rate to increase it.