I am not a nice guy, I’m just trying to persuade my neighbors to be a business partner, and all invest a part in the beginning, so that we can all earn money in the long run.
Last edited:
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 Not Coercing Indie Artists Into Apple Music Deals With iTunes Removal Threats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am not a nice guy, I’m just trying to persuade my neighbors to be a business partner, and all invest a part in the beginning, so that we can all earn money in the long run.
And exactly why should those same artists get to have their music distributed by Apple for nothing? Did they in any way contribute to the infrastructure in place? Is their music that bad that NO ONE would click on "Buy?" Do they HAVE to have their music on there during the trial period? Face it, they want a lot for nothing as well.
I have now read at least 4 other artists on these forums repeat what I am trying to say here. Not receiving "small payouts" for three months of streaming service so that you can be part of a HUGE program with extreme potential for exposure seems perfectly fine. Apple built the platform with Beats, Apple is going to use their servers and funds to get this thing off the ground, Apple is going to put this service AUTOMATICALLY in the hands of anyone with iOS8.4 on June 30th (How many users have compatible devices?), AND prompt them to join for free for three months.
As a small time artist, how do I lose here? I am with Genshi, I have made a little money inside of iTunes selling my single and EP, but Spotify has yet to EVER send me a dime. The fact that people can at least find me on the service, listen to my beats, and potentially become fans is amazing. It is almost just as good as an online retailer benefiting from their customers finding them on google! Awareness and exposure to millions are what artists will win the most from.
I called Anton out on Twitter, and he called me "really cute". Don't be jelly, ladies! lol
The knob deleted the tweet, but I will always cherish it.
The knob deleted the tweet, but I will always cherish it.
The funny thing about that quote is that Apple is not making any money either during those first three months haha.
Yet on the flip side if I were desperate for work I may take on this risky offer to make money. This decision would be made by comparing risk to reward just like the fundamentals of investing.
There is nothing wrong with what Apple is doing.
Well, for one the artists did not have a word in the decision to stream the music for free for 3 months. Also, I think there is a difference between big labels and small indie artists. The labels have a diverse portfolio of music and a constant stream of new titles. Indie artists may only produce a few songs per year. Not getting revenue while the music is "hot" can make a big difference.
But if Apple really threatened to take the artist's music off of iTunes if he didn't agree to the Apple Music terms, that would be a clear abuse of their market position in music downloads. I don't know if it's true, but given that we do know that Apple has played hardball before (remember e.g. the attempted ebook price-fixing), it doesn't seem completely impossible to me.
thanks for your input... as I suspected, many indie artists priority is to first seek greater exposure for their art before maximizing their revenue.
I don't see what the issue is, apple are only offering a one time global free trial for 3 months from June 30th. Then everyone pays, no more free trials. That's why it's 3 months one time rather than numerous 1 month trials. If the artists are not willing to participate during the trial then fair enough they just join in after the trial ends.
Basically, for instance... I listen to an artist on Spotify Premium, and Apple Music comes out, so I cancel Spotify Premium and listen to that same artist on Apple Music for free for three months.
But they gain market share (assuming the strategy works). It's essentially a marketing campaign for Apple Music. And the labels and artists pay for it.
Actually, the trial is 3 months from the time each individual user signs up:
"...Requires initial sign up. At the end of the trial period, the membership will automatically renew and payment method will be charged on a monthly basis until auto-renewal is turned off in account settings."
so basically there will likely always be a new users signing up at various times. The bulk of existing users probably within the first year (guessing).
Are you sure? I was pretty sure that it was a 3 Month Free Trial. And the service starts June 30th. Not a 3 month trial only from June.
While I totally agree with you on this guy just being a PR stunt, artists don't make anything in streaming. Which is a problem because people are now streaming stead of buying.
A song makes about .007 per stream on Spotify. If it's streamed a million times in a quarter, well, you do the math.
A song makes about .007 per stream on Spotify. If it's streamed a million times in a quarter, well, you do the math.
sure, fine. i wasn't even on the same planet as 'apple' in my original reply. nothing to do with this article, everything to do with a certain mindset that irritates me to no end.
correct, but if Apple's campaign does work, the artists get a high royalties thereafter. If the artist doesn't like it, they do not have to opt-in to Apple's campaign or they can join a some later date if they want.
I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe it has been mentionned, but the whole Anton Newcombe accusation is completely fabricated.
He suffers from a variey of mental illnesses, including being diagnosed schizoprenic a decade ago.
Unfortunately media seems very much on the look for the next "scandal" and don't care about cheking facts first.
It's a completely separated issue from the unpaid 3 months trial problem.
He suffers from a variey of mental illnesses, including being diagnosed schizoprenic a decade ago.
Unfortunately media seems very much on the look for the next "scandal" and don't care about cheking facts first.
It's a completely separated issue from the unpaid 3 months trial problem.
Huh? They aren't making any money now from the stream that hasn't started yet. In three months they will have a new source of revenue. Apple isn't making any money off of them for the first three month, but Apple is given them a stage to develop a new revenue stream in 3 months. I don't see that Apple is doing anything wrong here.
He's not adding his music to Apple Music. Isn't he upset he'll miss that $.02 check from those 3 plays he'll get? No one's heard of you, no one cares if your music is on Apple Music, no one is downloading your garbage anyway, so quit crying.
I'm with Apple on this. Why ? Because i think that musicians are in really good position here. I'm software developer, and because of App Store i'm able to make a living. This is same thing, only for music. What you get is millions of potential customers for what? for free... They are giving you a platform to distribute your music with millions of customers across the globe to discover your talent. This is something that i as a developer will gladly accept just because i see potential in this platform. And in few years when the time comes it will pay back.
Having been associated with communications relating to supplying content to/from Apple at a very high level, I can say that IMO I would not be surprised one bit, if someone made a very strong effort to make the point of "take it, or leave it". It may not be policy, but the mid level does not get paid to make content suppliers happy, they get paid to make users happy. Unless of course, they get caught. IMO they need to get caught more.
Certainly, if everyone in the world could watch a first-run major motion picture for free for the first three months after release, with no back-end subscription commitment, no offsetting revenue (ads, popcorn, etc.)... yeah, it doesn't seem like a smart move. The economics of that part of the movie business is dependent on advanced publicity and holding the movie for ransom - lavish production and marketing budgets that are set on the assumption of high revenues in the first months. That's why we won't see Jurassic World on pay-per-view, HBO, Netflix, or iTunes Store for several months at a minimum.
But if instead of seeing it totally free, the theater-goers had to subscribe to a $9.95/month service as a condition of seeing the movie, and the subscription service gave greater visibility (and play) to all the older films in the studio catalog... based on the normal dynamics of "free trial" subscriptions (a fair proportion continue as paid subscribers and under-utilize their subscription), there would likely be more than enough revenue on the back end, coming from views of the entire catalog, to offset the loss-leadering of one title at the front end.
Regardless, the music business doesn't work like big-budget Hollywood. New music goes to wide distribution almost immediately, it goes out free on the radio immediately. There are a few acts that are able to ship double-platinum, for but for the vast majority of releases, the first three months are a buzz-building period - the greater exposure they receive, the better their long-term prospects will be. A judicious amount of "free" greases the wheels.
We don't know yet if Apple Music will succeed; all that loss-leadening may still result in a bust. But... At the time iTunes Store came along, nobody in the music business was making money on music downloads - it was all free file sharing, and CD sales were plummeting. Apple came along with a successful method for getting people to pay for their downloads and, arguably, saved the music business. The longterm goal here is not to replace the money Apple's lost to Spotify, it's to get the public to spend more on music than they already do. Subscriptions, on the whole, seem like a great way to do that.
Its not work for free, its trail to test if its worth paying for. Its the business model everywhere.
You test drive a car
You use software in trial (waiting for appstore too)
You trial you clothes before you buy them
I ask 3d artist for test before they join our gaming company, then 3 months on probation.
the list goes on and on.
if you saw the apple keynote you may have realised that apple music is not just about the streaming, its a lot more than that. i need to know if that system works or not.
Trial is needed.
Apple will definitely agree, if
1. that “someone” has a distribution channel much much larger than what Apple already has at present,
2. this extra distribution doesn’t add extra cost to Apple,
3. the intellectual property being distributed during that free period automatically disappears after the free period,
4. Apple automatically get another stream of income for the distributed intellectual property after that free period.