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
"During the three-month trial period, Apple has managed to get music owners to agree to waiving the royalties. This is a major coup, since the music labels seldom want to give up any revenue, but Kondrk says that Apple’s higher-than-average payouts are meant to account for the royalty-free trial period."
Source: AppAdvice.com
Source: AppAdvice.com
You've got it twisted.
The free trial is designed specifically to attract as many paying customers as possible. Which in turn benefits the artists who host their music there.
Your App Store example is way off because the apps are already on the store -- you can't pull a 180 like that on your developers, and there's no good reason why Apple would want to do so.
That's not what Apple is doing with the artists. They're saying, hey look we've built this platform in which you can get paid for your music and we think the best way to attract paying customers is to offer them a free trial. Want in?
It's entirely up to the artist if they want to join. And if they do, they're making an investment up front in order to get a higher pay out from then on once the trial is over.
So labels agreed to it..doesn't mean the people who actually do the work have to be happy with it...
Some do, yes. Others are snobs who would not listen to "compressed sh*tty music".
How much would 
lose if they paid the Artists for 3 months while they ran this service?
Would the good will of paying the Artists while not charging Trial Customers be of no value?
Lets see:
30,000,000 songs x $10/day x 90 days = $27,000,000,000
hmmm,
let's assume a 1/4 of the catalog gets streamed and paid for then that is
$6.75 Billion.
I'm sure this math is way off not factoring in cost per user or server costs.
But as soon as you stick 30 million into the equation then the dollars get big fast.
lose if they paid the Artists for 3 months while they ran this service?Would the good will of
paying the Artists while not charging Trial Customers be of no value?Lets see:
30,000,000 songs x $10/day x 90 days = $27,000,000,000
hmmm,
let's assume a 1/4 of the catalog gets streamed and paid for then that is
$6.75 Billion.
I'm sure this math is way off not factoring in cost per user or server costs.
But as soon as you stick 30 million into the equation then the dollars get big fast.
What's to stop the bands that have made albums and toured for years from opting out of Apple Music and continuing to make their money the way they always have?
The only reason to take the 'internship' at Apple Music is because you're not yet able to be paid enough money to make your music. The same as with regular internships.
Taylor Swift is a little indie guy? She clearly has the same opinion. I can't believe people on here are defending Apple, currently the biggest corporation on Earth, for not paying people for work they have created. For three months!
How many of you would be willing to give three month's work away to potentially hundreds of millions of people around the world?
If Spotify can pay people during trial periods, Apple can too...
Why? Apple isn’t making any money off the 3-month trial period, why would they pay the artists anything? It seems reasonable that Apple is going to be splitting profits with them 30-70 already, how can the artists expect a cut when the profits are 0 during the trial?
Earlier this week, singer-songwriter Anton Newcombe of The Brian Jonestown Massacre took to Twitter to rant about the Apple Music terms he had allegedly been offered by Apple, accusing the company of threatening to take his music off iTunes if he did not agree to the three-month free trial period that's been a sticking point with indie artists.
Calling Apple a "satanic corporation," (and mistakenly tweeting at an "Apple Official" Twitter account not run by Apple) Newcombe said Apple offered him a deal that required him to provide his music for free for three months, and when he asked what would happen if he refused, he was told his music would be removed from sale on iTunes.
Newcombe's claims have been circulating around the Internet for the last several days, and as of yesterday, they prompted a reply from Apple. An Apple representative spoke to Rolling Stone and said the company has not been threatening to remove artists' music from iTunes for refusing Apple Music deals. "It will not be taken off," said the representative.
Newcombe's representative did not respond to a request for comment following Apple's statement, but Newcombe has continued his tirade against Apple Music on Twitter.
Apple plans to offer consumers a three-month trial for Apple Music, but during that period, the company will pay no royalties or fees to artists and labels. Several indie labels have spoken out against the move, claiming the trial period will "literally put people out of business."
Following the free trial period, Apple will give labels a 71.5 percent split of subscription revenue in the United States and will pay out a slightly higher percentage outside of the U.S., but labels say the numbers do little to alleviate the sting of three months of no royalty payments at all.
Apple Music will launch in a week in a half, going live on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. The service will be free for the first three months, after which it will cost $9.99 for individuals and $14.99 for families up to 6.
Article Link: Apple Not Coercing Indie Artists Into Apple Music Deals With iTunes Removal Threats
He is clearly making it up for publicity and it is working, as I had never heard of him before. Of course since it is a greedy and petty move I will not be listening to him, but most people won't feel the same.
Let's say Spotify are paying 70% royalties with 1 month free and Apple 72% with 3 months free.
If someone signs up with Apple rather than Spotify, it will take 5 years before the Apple royalties have caught up with the Spotify royalties (due to the extended free period).
What is this logic? So multibillion dollar companies always lie?
This remark is just odd. As if Apple is personally responsible for an artist his, her, or their success. You can agree or disagree but to call people crybabies isn't the right tone for having an adult level discussion.
Here's my beef.
Firstly: Yes, Apple has every right to offer their music streaming service for 3 months for free. thats business. thats their "loss leader" to get people in the door.
What I have problems with is Apple trying to dictate to the suppliers (musicians / artists) that they wont get paid for the first 3 months.
Listen, in this case, Apple is a vendor for someone elses product. Just because Apple chooses that their service will be free for a period of time, doesn't mean that their suppliers should be forced to bear the brunt of that financial hardship.
Appple is giving us a discounted/free item, not at their expense, but the expenses of those who are producing the goods we wish to consume.
That to me is wrong. When your local burger place is doing a "2 for 1" special. They don't turn around and tell the beef producers to also give them 2 for 1 on their chuck, they still pay full price.
What Apple has done with this 3 months is unethical, and they're using their sheer size and momentum to force suppliers to eat apple costs.
Firstly: Yes, Apple has every right to offer their music streaming service for 3 months for free. thats business. thats their "loss leader" to get people in the door.
What I have problems with is Apple trying to dictate to the suppliers (musicians / artists) that they wont get paid for the first 3 months.
Listen, in this case, Apple is a vendor for someone elses product. Just because Apple chooses that their service will be free for a period of time, doesn't mean that their suppliers should be forced to bear the brunt of that financial hardship.
Appple is giving us a discounted/free item, not at their expense, but the expenses of those who are producing the goods we wish to consume.
That to me is wrong. When your local burger place is doing a "2 for 1" special. They don't turn around and tell the beef producers to also give them 2 for 1 on their chuck, they still pay full price.
What Apple has done with this 3 months is unethical, and they're using their sheer size and momentum to force suppliers to eat apple costs.
Apple doesn’t make any money from the labels for 3 months. Once the profits roll in, Apple has promised to split the profits. That sounds pretty reasonable to me from both a business and ethics perspective. Apple agreed to profit share with the labels, not pay them a salary. and since profits are $0 for the first 3 months, naturally there is nothing to share.
Unpaid internships, at least in the US, are not free labor (even though employers would love them to be free labor). Here is a link to the Department of Labor's guidelines for internships. Recently companies have been losing lawsuits filed by unpaid interns that were actually unpaid employees. But this is all beside the point.
The issue the musician had was the claim that Apple would punish musicians, by way of removing their songs from iTunes, if they didn't agree to take part in the unpaid free trail. Assuming the claim is true, it basically comes down to artists' rights and not wanting to be coerced by the largest music distributor on Earth.
Again, you are not getting it, Swift wasn't complaining about free trials, she was complaining about the free tier on Spotify.
Plus, you are already "giving out your work for free", with the free tier option on Spotify, according to your logic, which again, was the thing Swift was complaining about.
3.- You are making it sound as if you wouldn't be able to do anything else... I mean, the sales continue, the YouTube videos, Spotufy, Rdio, etc. Everything carries on, it doesn't stop.
4.- If people are not subscribed to a music service, they might do it now thanks to Apple. If people didn't know you existed, maybe they will thanks to the free trial. Maybe they will even buy your music even if they don't subscribe. The free trial is the biggest exposure you can get... Again, they are not working for free.
That's a valid point, although assuming the claim is true would be quite silly. The guy hasn't shown any evidence that he hasn't just made it up to get attention and it's not exactly the kind of business move any sensible company would make.
Then maybe the artists who made the music shouldn't have given the labels so much power over how their work is distributed...
I can see this being an on/off discussion for a while, at least until the first lot of 3 month subscriptions are done and the cash starts rolling in.
If it does well enough I can see many current complainers stop complaining, if not then I can see it continuing with potential boycotts.
If it does well enough I can see many current complainers stop complaining, if not then I can see it continuing with potential boycotts.
But what if the cost is something like $6.75 billion? Would you sign off on that?
How much would
Also Spotify is not making money.
The record labels would like streaming to die. So they can keep selling CDs.
"i enjoy the intangible experience that is the Arts. i cannot make art or music because i lack all traces of a right brain. somehow, and against all the inherent traits of what make human beings an intellectually curious species, i do not understand The Arts to such a degree that i won't even stop for one second to ponder the notion there is a lifetime cultivated skill, determination, and hard f***ng work behind all of The Arts i enjoy on a free and unlimited basis - simply because i was spoiled rotten enough to have been born in the digital age. i do not respect The Artists. i spit on all Artists for expecting their products to have monetary worth in this capitalistic society, even though i have no disparaging remarks for the professionals in the industry I PERSONALLY work in. after all, i need to eat and pay bills."
ugh. just UGH
But THEY AREN'T STEALING!!! The Artist is perfectly free to turn the conditions down and sell their music where they see fit.
So, some kid lies about the situation, calls Apple a 'satanic corporation', and does it on a large public social media platform ... ostensibly to just get attention for himself at the expense of the company hosting his music.
Guess which artist I'll never listen to now?
Guess which artist I'll never listen to now?