If you don't appear on Apple music the people who subscribed and listen to these hipster artists will just download their albums for free on the pirate bay, so where's your profits now?
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
Absolutely - but as you say the artists will benefit from that in the long run. I certainly didn't mean to suggest artists should contribute to that, simply that they will likely benefit from it.
Sure they can jump onto the wagon at any time, but partner mutual-invested at the very beginning definitely will get a better treatment at a later time when the business thrives.
I would agree with that.
On that note there was a long and excellent interview with Iovine in a UK paper fairly recently which touched on the issue of streaming / Spotify paying so poorly. Iovine's argument that the issue wasn't streaming as such, but that currently such a small proportion of people pay for a subscription.
What they hope they can do through Apple Music is make the idea of paying for streaming more mainstream to the point where a much higher proportion of people are paying, and so generate a much larger pot of money to distribute to artists that it becomes a more viable / profitable revenue stream for them.
I know Apple have had some flak (unfair IMO) that Apple Music will fail because people don't want to pay for music. That may or may not prove to the be the case, but surely recorded music has some value, and $10 per month seems like a steal for access to pretty much all music you could ever want. (Which isn't to ignore the fact that Apple is a business and so seeks to make some money from it too - either directly, or indirectly as a hook for more people to buy their hardware.)
I don't see how Apple is devaluing music by promoting a service that will encourage users to subscribe and pay a monthly fee which will give musicians a steady stream of income. And if users don't sign up, there's a good chance they may purchase some tracks they heard during the trial period on iTunes or maybe attend a concert or two they wouldn't have otherwise.
Musicians often play for free just for publicity. Apple Music will give most of these indie artists the biggest stage they'll ever play on and if they're good, they'll reap the rewards with a larger fan base.
I've no idea what these musicians are complaining about. It's not as if the free trial entitles users to keep their music. It's just free publicity that will help increase the subscriber base which is a win win win for Apple, the labels and the musicians.
How many people watch a GREAT movie 20 times a year? (the true answer would be near to 0.000001%) How many people listen to a good music / song 20 times a year? (at least larger than 50%) What a good analogy!!
So... If you're a small artist or label making a living on iTunes selling songs... Let's just say you sell 1000$ per week... And all of a sudden everyone can listen to your music for free... You sales drop to zero. Even if you make more money after 3 months you just lost 12 grand in cash flow... I wonder if musicians landlords, and bills will let them Defer payments for 90 days.... These guys are going to have zero revenue for 90 days... It's the same crap Walmart plays with suppliers.... I bet you guys wouldn't work for 90 days for free for a bigger revenue in the futur... People have to eat.
People like YOU sicken me.
You and others on here clearly have NO FREAKING CLUE what it's like to earn your living from art forms like music where other people take all the money while you do all the work. How would you like your neighbor to get paid 93% of everything you make just because you rent your house from him? Yeah, it's like THAT. Between the music industry and companies like Apple, they get the money. You get the shaft. No wonder music has gone to crap this past decade. Who is going to bother to be an artist in a society that wants everything for FREE? It amounts to a bunch of kids living in their parents basement being sickened that someone would dare to ask to be compensated for their hard work. Amazing. Just amazing.
Apple can clearly afford to pay the free trial period to the artists. If they can't afford it then they shouldn't be offering a free trial period! Who does that trial period benefit, after all? It benefits Apple so Apple should cover it or not offer it.
The people quitting Spotify Premium and joining Apple Music just for the 3-month trial will be less than 1% of the current Spotify Premium subscribers. On the other side, there will be 10X more people who haven’t subscribed to any other paid stream service joining Apple Music.
The best analogy I've come up with so far is that as an artist you create something of value. You are now given the opportunity to invest that value in Apple Music, in return you have the right to a cut of the earnings.
It's almost like investing in a company but instead of buying shares with money you insert capital (in this case IP).
You don't become an employee who gets a pay check, you're an investor/shareholder who gets a piece of the earnings.
It's almost like investing in a company but instead of buying shares with money you insert capital (in this case IP).
You don't become an employee who gets a pay check, you're an investor/shareholder who gets a piece of the earnings.
Free trial = Potentially more customers = potentially more money for the artists after the guaranteed lack of payment for the first three months.
Not saying artists shouldn't do it, just that there's no inherent relationship between how many customers Apple Music has and how lucrative it is for each individual artist. A few artists will probably see a nice return, a few more will get 'eh, it's better than nothing' money, and the vast majority will say 'Hey, at least my music is out there..." Unfortunately 'potential' can't pay the rent.
Did Apple cover recording, marketing, merchandise, touring, legal, etc., costs of the musicians so they could make music that people wanted to buy so Apple could make a store/service dealing said product? What good is a store with empty shelves? It's a symbiotic relationship even if the money (and the power that comes with it) is concentrated on one end.
Yes, Apple has a platform that prints money... for Apple (for devs, musicians, film/tv shows, etc., in general... not so much). A few high profile success stories here and there but, much like YouTube, the vast majority never even cover their costs. And I never said Apple HAD to pay, I said Apple COULD easily afford to pay if they wanted to and it would be a win/win situation plus a massive amount of good PR.
My problem was never w/the free trial (even though I do think it's lame) but with the claim that Apple threatened to drop artists from iTMS entirely if they didn't sign up.
I'm going to preface this by saying the following rant is about things in general, not Apple specifically.
I'm not a musician but I'm in the indie film/new media/web series arena and many of the hurdles are the same. I've been doing this for around 10yrs now so I'm kinda over the 'hell yeah! Exposure!' stage. I have bills to pay. I like putting money way for retirement. It's a feast or famine industry so I need an emergency stash to get through the lean times. If the transmission goes out in my car I don't want it to go "well, do I pay to get my car fixed or do I pay the electric bill?" The entertainment industry in America alone generates well over 100 billion dollars in revenue annually yet somehow the people that actually make the movies, make the games, make the music, make the books, etc., keep getting asked to work for free. Or for exposure. Or for experience. Or deferred payment that never comes. It's beyond maddening.
Record labels have contract language that is most likely illegal (they've always settled out of court so it's never been legally ruled upon), movie studios cook the books so that movies never show a profit (to avoid paying royalties since royalties are normally based on profit, not revenue) yet when artists that actually have the wealth and power to fight back do, and could possibly improve things for all artists (not just themselves), they get labeled as greedy. WTF?
The industry has been designed to keep artists in a perpetual state of desperation because when people amass enough to have 'something to lose' they might actually be in a position to push back. As a whole it's a pretty pretty a messed up system and I don't blame anyone for making a rational argument against it. I say 'rational argument' because spouting off 'labels suck' or whatever isn't constructive.
The key word is potentially. How many of the free trial subscribers will actually switch to paying customers?
Apple is giving him the option... he's not being forced, be free for 3 months or go else where. He is welcome to take is music else where, don't see whats the big fuss.
I think you're misunderstanding a lot of very basic concepts here. Like your comment above that states:
"The entertainment industry in America alone generates well over 100 billion dollars in revenue annually yet somehow the people that actually make the movies, make the games, make the music, make the books, etc., keep getting asked to work for free. Or for exposure. Or for experience. Or deferred payment that never comes. It's beyond maddening."
Ummm... no one who is generating content that actually attracts a paying audience is being asked to do this. If you get 10,000 hits per video whenever you upload something to YouTube, chances are you're going to work for free. If you draw 10,000 paying ticket holders to every show you perform on stage -- you're getting paid. Do you see the difference there?
I'll give you one more example and then I think I'll have to leave you to it.
"Not saying artists shouldn't do it, just that there's no inherent relationship between how many customers Apple Music has and how lucrative it is for each individual artist. A few artists will probably see a nice return, a few more will get 'eh, it's better than nothing' money, and the vast majority will say 'Hey, at least my music is out there..." Unfortunately 'potential' can't pay the rent."
Apple can build the greatest music streaming platform of all freaking time and attract every last credit card holder on the planet to join it. It's still up to the artist to make content people actually want to stream. Apple can't help you there. They can bring hundreds of millions of people to the platform where your music lives -- which is a pretty amazing opportunity that most artists can't possibly create on their own. But the artist has to make them want to listen. The royalty agreement is more than fair -- no one is arguing that point so I hope you're not. So if an artist doesn't get a great return from being on the biggest music streaming platform of all time, that's their problem and no one else's.
Just understand that the way in which this platform is going to grow to be so huge is by offering people the opportunity to check it out for free first. A lot of people are still unsure if streaming music is the right solution for them, so Apple wants to give them plenty of time to see just how valuable a service this is -- hence the three month free trial. They're building an audience that can make the artists money -- an audience they otherwise simply wouldn't have access to.
If people leave after the three months, it's no loss to the artist. They weren't going to pay for their music anyway. But for the hundreds of millions of people that do decide to stick around -- that's a lot of potential listeners paying to listen to an artist's music. Which, again, at that point comes down to whether or not the artist has anything worth listening to. It's not down to Apple whether an artist gets a "nice return" or a "better than nothing" return or a "Hey at least my music is out there" return. Do you expect Apple to pay people just for hosting their music even if no one listens? I have to say, I really don't understand your issue here...
It's hard to feel particularly sorry for artists in this situation, because they'll still have plenty of other streams of revenue during this trial period. Physical record sales, digital sales, and salaries from a label just won't stop for 3 months because of this streaming service. I think some people are under the mistaken impression that because Apple Music is going to be free for a few months that the entire world is just going to stop paying for music for 3 months; it's a fallacy, not everyone is an early adopter like many here are and there are many staunch luddites who will still consume music using the traditional methods for a while still (funnily enough, these people are usually fans of bands like BJM too).
I like BJM, Bon Iver and a lot of the bands that fall under the Beggars Group imprint, but there's a lot of short-sightedness going on here on their behalf. And with all due respect to these labels, they should trust that Apple Music is going to be mutually beneficial to both Apple and themselves, just as iTunes was. Being an indie musician has actually never been easier, or better, and it's largely because of a digital revolution kickstarted by Apple. Let's not forget that.
I like BJM, Bon Iver and a lot of the bands that fall under the Beggars Group imprint, but there's a lot of short-sightedness going on here on their behalf. And with all due respect to these labels, they should trust that Apple Music is going to be mutually beneficial to both Apple and themselves, just as iTunes was. Being an indie musician has actually never been easier, or better, and it's largely because of a digital revolution kickstarted by Apple. Let's not forget that.
Last edited:
With Apple offering pretty much everything thats available on all streaming services for free for three months, even loyal fans will not be able to justify paying for something thats free. Therefore, Apple Music has the potential to have a massive hit to the music industry for 3 months from 1st July where nearly all music will be available for free with zero money going to content creators. As much as I want this service, I think it would be best for all artists and labels to force Apples hand and pay them for this period for their content or opt out. That would make AM insignificant and probably put a black mark over Apples music offerings including iTunes.
This is a different scenario compared to free apps or in app purchases for 3 months. Apps is yours to keep but the music is not after 3 months. Most likely after 3 months of using this service most would be addicted and continue to a paid subscription.
These artist aren't loosing a penny over this because who's to say people would've bought their albums or paid for a different streaming subscription service anyway. Artist will continue to make their money from people who always buy their music and pay for streaming subscriptions, and for people like me who haven't bought music in a very long time will either begin to buy music again or pay for the subscription service after the 3 months is up.
It's a brilliant effort by Apple to stimulate music purchase and paid subscription. The record labels know this and understands Apple tactics which is why they've agreed to this. They also know Apple is probably the only company who can do this and be the most profitable. Most artists have no idea how business works, they just make music go on tours and get paid. So they should just keep doing that and watch their profits rise in the near future rather than complain about something they do not understand.
Thank you I just wrote a post and then backed track and saw this. You and I seem to be just a few of the many who actually understands what is going on here, and why the Artists is not in any way loosing money.
Three months is longer than many on-hit wonders' careers. If Apple choose to give users a free trial period, the artists should still be compensated. Blackmailing them is uncalled for and the company should be fined by government authorities for doing that, like any common criminal would be.
I just don't understand why doesn't Apple assumes the costs themselves; that's the price of attracting customers to their new service. They have the capital to afford it and it's an investment that they expect to be profitable in the long-term.
Instead, what they are doing is like a retailer offering customers a free gift by spending X dollars at the store, then turning to the supplier of said gift and saying, "by the way, you have to manufacture this for us for free too".
Uh... What? That's ridiculous.
Instead, what they are doing is like a retailer offering customers a free gift by spending X dollars at the store, then turning to the supplier of said gift and saying, "by the way, you have to manufacture this for us for free too".
Uh... What? That's ridiculous.
People like YOU sicken me.
You and others on here clearly have NO FREAKING CLUE what it's like to earn your living from art forms like music where other people take all the money while you do all the work. How would you like your neighbor to get paid 93% of everything you make just because you rent your house from him? Yeah, it's like THAT. Between the music industry and companies like Apple, they get the money. You get the shaft. No wonder music has gone to crap this past decade. Who is going to bother to be an artist in a society that wants everything for FREE? It amounts to a bunch of kids living in their parents basement being sickened that someone would dare to ask to be compensated for their hard work. Amazing. Just amazing.
Apple can clearly afford to pay the free trial period to the artists. If they can't afford it then they shouldn't be offering a free trial period! Who does that trial period benefit, after all? It benefits Apple so Apple should cover it or not offer it.
Hey I would like to be a Koenigsegg test driver. They say they won't pay me because I'm not good enough, and I've no reputation also because of the same, but I don't care because I'm stupid when it comes to business, so I think it's their fault that I'm not good enough to be able to earn money doing that. Koenigsegg they are the devil!
I'm not a bad test driver I'm just alternative! Most people don't like the way I drive but what do they know, I deserve to get paid because I like to do it.
I'm an artist, respect me. Without me you wouldn't appreciate how good are the good ones.
If the labels want streaming to die, then who exactly wants streaming? Why do we even have streaming? As a consumer, I want to buy once, own forever. Renting music sounds like the sort of thing the labels would want, not consumers.
Meh after all the drugs they're all a bit scizophrenic/paranoid that the forces that be are out to get them.
Satanic corporation? Show us the full contract being offered not some weird snippit with 'satanic' claims. Probably something like 'dude you'll be on the front page of our site and you'll get like a billion downloads... this WILL translate into free publicity worth millions but... your music has to be free... that or you can just list the music with no priority like everybody else and make pittence from the low number of sales you'll get given nobody knows who you are... your call bro'.
He'll probably just have some more drugs instrad and decide that big corporations are plotting against him.