The Apple Music ship has gotten nothing but negative press for Apple. Time really needs to pull it together. Johnny Ive seems like he's not up to the task at any level TBQH. Apple should give artists the option to opt out of free streaming services or make the trial period ad supported. Surely they can work out the differences 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 Not Coercing Indie Artists Into Apple Music Deals With iTunes Removal Threats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the publicity, obviously. Look how much attention he's getting. I bet his music sales have gone way up over this lie.
the bottom line is Apple should be paying artists and labels regardless of Apple's 3month promotion. Artists and labels still need to run and people who work with these companies producing the content still need to eat. Apple is the richest company on earth. They need to do a better job. Their nickel and dimming is hurting their image. Rather than giving money back to investors in the form of dividends maybe they could pay the content producers even during the free promotional periods. After all it is the cost of doing business. It's ridiculous that the richest most profitable company in the world is nickel and dimming artists.
Pot meet kettle.
The numbers don't lie. People can take the stats out of context but at the end of the day the numbers dont lie. People use the statistics to further their point of view. However, they may leave out other statistics which don't suit their point.
Current users of other music streaming services will likely suspend their subscription while they are trying Apple's free service. Meaning those other music streaming companies get no money for 3 months instead of 1. See how sneaky Apple is?
Your theory presupposes that at the end of the 3 months they switch back to spotify, thus robbing spotify of 3 months of income it would otherwise have had.
If the customer sticks with Apple after the 3 months are over, then whether apple gives 1 month or 3 months or 0 months free, what difference does it make to competitors? Either way they lose the customer at the same point of time and forever.
How about I setup a fake company and let people have 99 months of free streaming music and pay $0 to the record labels? See where this is going?
If you think you can get the studios to go along with it, why not? Of course they wouldn't, because they unlike a 3 month trial, they won't make any money. Whereas with a 3 month trial (where they don't get paid) they presumably believe they will make more money than with a 1 month trial where they do get paid. Else, all else equal, they wouldn't have agreed to it.
i agree its sux... Its not itunes, its there music service.... people may want to have their stuff on iTunes store regardless, whats wrong with that ? You don't be a meanie and say "We'll pull your music just because u don't wanna take up our steaming service for 3 free months" that's got nothing to do with having it on the store, its just it won't be available to stream.. I see no problem with this. 1 moth free trial, maybe but not 3.
Think of if Apple did this with NBO now for 3 months That definitely wouldn't happen, so why would this ?
Think of if Apple did this with NBO now for 3 months That definitely wouldn't happen, so why would this ?
Last edited:
It's called a mutually beneficial relationship whereby Apple offers the world's largest stage with the most highly prized demographics and the musicians supply the content. If they both do their jobs, millions of people will shell out $10 a month and everyone wins.
Just because Apple has money to burn, that doesn't mean they should assume all the risk and single-handedly secure a brighter future for musicians and the labels. The musicians and the labels will benefit just as much if Apple Music takes off so if they want to reap the rewards, they should share some of that risk.
Actually, if Apple did nothing they'd stand to make a lot more money. There's an interesting thing with Apple users where they are well locked into the platform in a lot of ways. It is convenient to simply buy an album off iTunes right on the phone or tablet and a good portion of Apple's user base has the income to do so. With Apple shoving the streaming right in our faces by having it take over 3 out of 4 of the Music app's tabs, they are encouraging a switch to streaming that may not benefit artists who do well through ordinary digital sales. They may turn a ton of pirates who steal the newest Katy Perry single into paying customers and that will benefit the labels and Apple greatly, but they will undoubtedly also turn some people who spend $20-$50 a month buying albums on iTunes into customers as well. The types of artists a customer like that purchases will take a huge hit if Apple succeeds.
I am a filmmaker and we sell our film for $5 drm-free on our website, yet our tracking shows that more people click on our iTunes link and buy the movie for $10 with DRM. It's convenience, trust, and habit for them. We sell more rentals/downloads on iTunes than all other services combined. Probably 50x more than we sell on Google Play. I honestly believe it is the type of customer Apple attracts... Which is also why their App Store is so much better.
Spotify and the others... They likely made very little dent in iTunes download sales. Apple is introducing the first streaming service that is advertising directly to the music industry's best paying customers.
To put it into perspective... Think of how many people have Netflix... Yet look at the top documentaries on iTunes... 75% of them are on Netflix, yet they still keep selling on iTunes. It's a strange little bubble of loyal customers. If Apple bought Netflix tomorrow and merged it into iTunes, all of those full sales would be gone.
If Apple wants to benefit everyone and give the labels what they want give them 1 month free trial, then the situation would be different.... 3 months is just too long for non payment.
I can see where their coming from. Movie studios are the same...
Maybe they need to loosen up a bit, but that's how they are.
I can see where their coming from. Movie studios are the same...
Maybe they need to loosen up a bit, but that's how they are.
This was something I was asking... I am trying Spotify... Found a new band and I've only listened to their music this month. Maybe 150 song plays. All the same band.
Is my $10 this month all going to them or is it going into the big giant pool where I just made that band a few pennies while most of my subscription fee went to subsidize pop music that kids are playing on loop all day, every day?
I'm guessing it is the big giant pool scenario, which seems to me to put adult music at a major disadvantage... I simply don't have the time to listen to as much music as I used to.
First off. Your take seems to automatically mean that Apple is ONLY after Spotify, Pandora etc. that's doubtful. Clearly by looking strictly at the FACTS Apple intends to be a "player" not a leader at the streaming table.
What Apple has the ABILITY to do for ARTISTS is RAKE IN THE MONEY by taking streaming MAINSTREAM faster than anybody else has been incapable of doing to date. I mean do ANY of you really *think* Apples focus is Spotify's measly 15 million GLOBAL paid subscribers ? C'mon. Seriously.
I think *a few* of you "get" that Apples objective is to grow a shifting market into reality and just get into a niche business like it's been. Yeah I said niche.
Until any of you show me PAID streaming numbers in the 100 million range OR more -- globally -- streaming is still, still, a Niche business. Spotify and everybody else will THANK APPLE later for its marketing reach and PR that will revolutionize streaming to the masses and they will GROW as a direct result of APPLE MUSIC.
Those of us that have either worked in the music or entertainment field know all to well that THE LABELS themselves are biggest crooks and THIEVES out there and services like Apple Music open the door wider to where a music artist can really exist WITHOUT THE CONTROL of a record company and its collusion with radio and other outlets. The only people who have a right to pissed are the labels themselves because the days of monopolizing the airwaves and even streaming as we know it are getting closer to the end.
Nobody other than the artists themselves have destroyed the paradigm of the "album" versus purchasing a song... Did Steve Jobs, the iPod or Apple itself somehow degrade the quality of writing or producing GREAT MUSIC?
ITS THE PRODUCT STUPID. Music in general is in such a SAD STATE I can see why 70's Bands like Fleetwood Mac are selling out venues again. They were a BAND that wrote poetic SONGS, that told STORIES, and PERFORM like ARTISTS. That's why hoards of today's "artists" are showing up at their shows to see REAL performers PERFORM...Adele... Meet Stevie Nicks
Last edited:
Such a moronic statement.
I still think they were bonkers to pay $3b for beats , and when you blow that money on.....Beats..... Millions paid to artists in the three months is short change
and in my books would be worth it for the reputation point of view .They paid stupid amount for Beats, bought Beats a radio station, and decided all the sudden to save on costs
the artists will be the lifeline of this service..... Wrong people to piss off. And a months free service would have been plenty for most of us, unless the service is as confusing as the wwdc presentation , in which case I need three months to work it out
wow.... You actually have no idea what Apple does for indie artists do you?
Do you have the same viewpoint about developers?
ive not compared the two, though is spotify not a free service, with an option to go premium? Apple has no free version.
You have to break an egg to make an omelette. That's how business work. Apple took a bold move with Itunes some 10 years ago and saved the music industry at that time, Apple music is going to be even better and bring in more revenue for the artists, show them a bit of faith and trust. Artists deserves to get paid for their work, and Apple will look after them better than any other music selling platform. But artists like this guy just don't get it. I cannot wait to start my own 3 month trial (no more downloads, all the latest music, proper playlists etc), after which I will subscribe monthly for many years to come, where previously I have bought music on itunes only occasionally. Millions of people will do the same.
I think he's saying Spotify gives out free trials of premium. Maybe it's how I can get a month or so of free Netflix every year or so when my birthday comes around if I'm not subscribed.
For those interested, here's the full Apple contract (covers regular iTunes, iTunes in the Cloud... the whole shootin' match) http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/per...es-the-entire-apple-music-contract-for-indies . I've been on both ends of this sort of contract - nothing outrageous that I've found. YMMV.
Just how much are the labels and artists giving up during the 90-day Apple trial period vs. the 30-day Spotify trial period, and how long would it take for them to recover their "investment" (earn the same cumulative revenues from Apple as they would from Spotify, on a per-subscriber-dollar basis)?
As much as I'd prefer Apple came up smelling like roses, my calculations show a subscriber would have to stay with Apple for 8 years before cumulative earnings matched the earnings from a comparable Spotify subscriber (based on the reported 70% rate for Spotify and 71.5% for Apple, and no change in subscription rates over that period). Since a fair percentage are likely to quit within a few months of the end of the free trial period, it would skew the recoup period well beyond 8 years.
Based on that, there's only one way this "investment" by the labels and artists can be recouped - which is if Apple's marketing prowess succeeds in changing the fortunes of the industry for the better. Worldwide, inflation-adjusted music industry revenues dropped from $3.99 per person in 2002 to $1.88 in 2014. If a widespread move to the subscription model can turn that situation around (or even stop the slide), the money labels and artists give up during trial periods could turn out to be one of the better investments they've ever made.
Just how much are the labels and artists giving up during the 90-day Apple trial period vs. the 30-day Spotify trial period, and how long would it take for them to recover their "investment" (earn the same cumulative revenues from Apple as they would from Spotify, on a per-subscriber-dollar basis)?
As much as I'd prefer Apple came up smelling like roses, my calculations show a subscriber would have to stay with Apple for 8 years before cumulative earnings matched the earnings from a comparable Spotify subscriber (based on the reported 70% rate for Spotify and 71.5% for Apple, and no change in subscription rates over that period). Since a fair percentage are likely to quit within a few months of the end of the free trial period, it would skew the recoup period well beyond 8 years.
Based on that, there's only one way this "investment" by the labels and artists can be recouped - which is if Apple's marketing prowess succeeds in changing the fortunes of the industry for the better. Worldwide, inflation-adjusted music industry revenues dropped from $3.99 per person in 2002 to $1.88 in 2014. If a widespread move to the subscription model can turn that situation around (or even stop the slide), the money labels and artists give up during trial periods could turn out to be one of the better investments they've ever made.