Sidebar Sidebar
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

Call the WAAAmbulance

Get a grip. The best will be the best. This is not an antitrust issue - that idea has been used to bash successful companies since its inception.

(For example why can't Microsoft make an computer program that has internet explorer installed ?)
 
teabonesteak said:
not the same, HBO creates their own content. in this case, apple throws their money and just out pays to get exclusivity.
Click to expand...

HBO pays artists, and they make the movies. And you'll notice, that came after many decades where all they did was put on movies "right after they were in the theater!!!!" Now we don't give much of a damn. Original content is better. They can afford to pay for movies themselves because the cables and subscribers fork over like, $18 a month.
 
mantan said:
Because a lot of people will grab their Apple pom poms and blindly support Apple thinking 'they' are winning.

Apple's original foray into music was great for the consumer. It brought better pricing than the old CD model. But a lot of their recent activity is more 'anti-competition' at the expense (long term and short term) of the consumer.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how their recent activities hurt end users.

I can get unlimited music for up to 6 people in my family for only $14.99 a month. I also get to upload my entire music collection to the cloud which used to cost me $25 a year.

They pay a higher percentage to labels/artists than Spotify, ensuring the music industry will be around long term.
 
This i
gnipgnop said:
That sounds more accurate: Ocean is bypassing the label system entirely, which is viewed as an imminent threat by the label system itself.
Click to expand...
This isn't new. Remember that dude Prince. He sold many of his post Warner Brothers albums EXCLUSIVELY thru his NPG Music Club website direct to the consumer. Record companies are going to start losing the big names to direct to consumer if they won't let the artists have exclusives.
 
GreyOS said:
if there was healthy competition apple wouldn't have so much money and have such large profits
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Apple has a near monopoly on phones and computers. Right? That's where the bulk of their income and profits come from. Apple has to scrap it out with Samsung, Google, Dell, HP, Lenovo and other heavyweights.
 
I'm pretty sure you get three months free when you join anyway... ;]

Trial Apple Music = Listen to Frank Ocean' suped new album ;D

Or if you're feeling really 2010, purchase the album - Woooahh! ;P

It's call competition - Apple might have all the cash, but they certainly earnt every last £€$¥. I made them $500,000 in a quarter - Had no complaints from customers, including me <3
 
Good! Time to level the playing field.

He is right...Apple can just throw money at everything.
 
I don't care if they do exclusives, if that helps them, but I did think devoting the whole carousel to Blonde was a bit much. It looked like that was the only album available, lol.
 
In the long run exclusives will end up hurting the artists by limiting their reach, so I hope any financial benefits are worth it to them.

I have no problem with timed exclusives (within reason), or bonus releases beyond the main album itself. BUT if an artist is not available on my platform of choice, then I will simply not listen to that artist since I already have access to more new and old music than I ever will able to listen to in a life time.

Be available where I listen to music, or you will simply not reach me at all.
 
Last edited:
I support Lefsetz. Music should be platform, service, media agnostic. I remember when Apple used to fight the labels against using DRM. It looks like they've flipped when they realized they could make money with their own service. I should be able to buy a song anywhere and use it on any service or device.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nopitch
GreyOS said:
capitalism should encourage competition. if there was healthy competition apple wouldn't have so much money and have such large profits
Click to expand...
So is this supposed to be Apple's fault or the fault of the competition for failing to compete?

Do you see Usain Bolt deliberately slow down in a race just to give the rest a fighting chance? No, you look after yourself first, and continue to surge ahead as well as you can, because no one else is going to look after you.

The people have voted with their wallets. Many like Apple products and don't mind paying whatever price Apple charges for them, and that's how Apple is able to become as rich and successful as they are today. That's all there is to it, and in my opinion, that's as democratic as things can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BondiBlauw
Interesting points of view y'all.

I think the bottom line is this: The labels need to be phased out (or at least change their business model radically). They are the one's syphoning the most from the artists. Yes, I understand that they do serve a function in some cases, but that function is less and less valuable in today's market. (I'm open to an opinion contrary to this)

Also, let's raise the streaming cost to $20 a month and double the per stream fee (without the label the $ going directly to the artists will be even more. I'm serious... $10 is insanely inexpensive for access to literally millions of songs. I used to buy 3-6 CDs a month and got around 60 songs (I now buy 2-3 directly from the artist).

As far as exclusives go, I'm fine with a temporary exclusive. Patience is a virtue.
[doublepost=1472076904][/doublepost]
dan110 said:
I should be able to buy a song anywhere and use it on any service or device.
Click to expand...

Device, yes. Service, no. And you can buy almost all music either on CD or through several digital stores and play them on virtually all devices.
 
barthrh said:
Or, if you truly like and respect the artist, you way two frikkin' weeks.

Why does everyone feel entitled to get everything *today*?
Click to expand...
or if the artist respected us, the fans, they wouldnt sell out to apple or other companies for this ****.
 
Oh please. You used to have to buy an entire CD to listen to an album. A CD that cost more than the monthly cost of all of Apple Music. There were no "free tier" CDs. There was free radio, but there is free radio today as well. Apple even started their own free radio station.

The idea that you are entitled to free on-demand music is not founded in any historical context. Music is more freely available today than ever before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mindbomb2000 and dennysanders
citi said:
But when Tidal did it, it was "OK"? Was that because they didn't have the numbers apple music has? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

its never been okay, it's a bad practice. Unlike tidal apple has soooooooo much more resources and muscle, you must understand why that is bad when combined with a bad practice in an industry
 
Exclusive content for music has been around for a long time already, I remember artists would release exclusive albums or even singles that would feature extra songs that other countries won't get.

I don't mind if an artist goes exclusive on launch for a few weeks and then release it on other services after but I would be disappointed when they start releasing indefinite exclusive content with one service aka Taylor Swift, not that I listen to her but I would be pissed if an artist I listen to only releases on one service platform that I don't have a subscription with.
 
Hit music has has ALWAYS been behind a paywall. You either purchased the album, cassette, CD or digital version or you didn't. Back when physical media was the only way to get music I remember their being exclusivity to certain retail chains for big album releases or you could only hear a new hit song on a certain network of radio stations. This sort of stuff has gone on as long as there's been a music industry.
 
If exclusives were more than a few weeks, I could see some monopoly problems but short term is I think a reasonable incentive
 
dennysanders said:
i don't understand. why is that bad?
Click to expand...

Cause you get into a situation as a consumer where you need multiple devices / services if you want access to exclusive content.

As a praticle example you needed both a PlayStation and Xbox if you wanted access to the best games. Granted music exclusives are usually time based, though people these days have little patience .

It's exclusive crap that actually pushes people to pirate. And frankly I don't blame them .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back