I've been working on the indie film/original web content side of things for about a decade so I think have a pretty good grasp of the reality of the situation.
Views, downloads, streams, ticket sales, etc., are empty stats w/o revenue attached to them. For example, at least one artist has said that Tidal pays out about three times what Spotify does so 1,000 streams on Tidal is more lucrative than 2,000 streams on Spotify. Would you rather have more streams or more money in your pocket?
But other other companies can create similar opportunities and the artists are still responsible for their own marketing to try and stick out from the crowd. I guess being another needle in another haystack doesn't blow my socks off anymore. Sure, being in more places hypothetically improves your odds of being 'discovered' but, meh, I'm over 'opportunity' sales pitches.
You mean kinda like brick & mortar stores that buy their inventory and then sell it to customers? Or cable/TV networks that pay for content and then use commercials to generate revenue? In the streaming world, Netflix paid $118 million for the right to stream the show Friends. That's Friends though, so of course people are going to watch Friends (and maybe even sign up for Netflix just so they can watch it), but Netflix even paid some money up front for the indie doc in my sig with no guarantee that anyone would watch it (it isn't on Netflix anymore so I should probably update my sig).
Try making a living as an artist in the entertainment industry and what I'm talking about will probably resonate more. Still might not agree with me but it would probably make more sense. Below is the Cliff's Notes version.
1. If the claim that Apple has threatened to kick artists out of iTunes entirely if they don't agree to the three month trial then that's a really shady move by Apple.
2. The three month trial is most likely going to do insane traffic and when your paycheck is tied to traffic I completely understand not wanting to leave three months worth of insane traffic money on the table. For all the 'we love music' talk you'd think Apple would be willing to eat such an insignificant cost relative to its bottom line. If someone offered to give you 9 months of wages for 12 months of work I doubt you'd accept it w/o at least suggesting, "How about 12 months of wages for 12 months of work?"
3. I'm not enamored with the potential reach a distributor has, I'm interested in the realistic amount of direct and/or indirect revenue I'm likely to earn via said distributor.
For example, my documentary was on many online platforms when it first came out (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, PSN, XBL, Vudu, iTunes, etc.,) and while Netflix had the biggest audience potential the distribution company I worked with said we should push people towards iTunes, not Netflix (we were responsible for our own marketing), because we had a better shot of making more money with iTunes even though the audience pool was smaller. This is because iTunes does a revenue split where as Netflix just does a lump sum up front.
For a more apples to apples comparison, if I was doing a multi-platform release today, and was responsible for my own marketing, I would push viewers towards Vimeo's paid service because it has a 90/10 split as opposed to Apple's 70/30 split. Sure, iTMS has more brand recognition and more potential reach, but if the onus is on me to tell viewers where to go I'm going to point them towards Vimeo first.
This is getting weirder and weirder... so are you saying that all content should be treated equal in terms of payout, whether it's music, movies, TV shows, etc? Because we're talking about music streaming in this thread but you're citing your experiences in trying to monetize your documentary as an example and bouncing back and forth between netflix, iTunes and vimeo...
Every platform and every content type is going to be treated differently in terms of the deals that are made between platforms and producers. Because the audiences are so completely different. People's perceived value of a movie is different from a song is different from an app.
Same goes for the distribution model. Purchasing vs. streaming vs. renting will all have different payouts.
You can't compare any of it because it's all so different from content type to market... it's like trying to compare the sales of soy beans to coffee beans. You just can't.
And then yeah, even the platforms themselves are different. Like if Tidal has a better revenue split for artists and you think it's a better place for the artist to make money from their music then WHY are you complaining about Apple Music? They're not the only game in town and you obviously think there are better games so that's great! Something for everybody! Some people want a massive audience with a sensible split and some people want a small audience with a much bigger split and so everyone can have what they want. What's the problem??
By the way, that "claim" that was made about getting kicked out of iTunes was already debunked, so I'm not sure why you're still going on about that but it does say a lot about your perspective in this.
As for your concern about my perspective, I have been working in film, television and video production for over ten years. I've written, produced and directed short films that have played in festivals and on television, written and directed for two television series', and shot and edited buckets of video productions from corporate to documentary. And I'm currently writing a feature length screenplay that I hope to sell when it's ready -- but I don't *expect* it to sell unless it's something people think is worth buying. So I'm no stranger to making my living as an artist -- every year is a new struggle and there's never any consistency or certainty -- but I'm also not about to compare my experiences in film and television and video production to the experiences of a musician because they are very different fields with very different audiences, perceptions, business models, etc.
So let's get back to basics here because we've gotten WAY off track.
Apple's decided model for streaming music is to generate as massive an audience as possible in order to get them all paying $9.99 a month -- the more people that pay, the more money there is to distribute to the artists. To generate that audience, they've come up with a plan to offer a free three month trial. Apple clearly believes this is the best way to get the most people signed up for a paid account.
If you don't believe this is best way to get people to sign up for a paid account, Apple Music is not for you.
If you don't like big audiences, Apple Music is not for you.
If you don't like their revenue split, Apple Music is not for you.
Your music is ultimately what is going to drive people to listen to your music, so by all means put that music in the place or places where you think you'll make the most money doing so. No one is telling you otherwise and I wish everyone the best in their choices. Apple Music isn't stopping anyone from making their own choices in life. I really don't get the issue.
