Not every band has the power and means to reverse 50 years of label and artist relations...
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
The problem with common sense is that it is not that common. And then, some people critique others' lack of common sense by... displaying, or typing in your case, lack of common sense.
Music, like other products, is not a tangible value. Apple is providing a platform for the artists to have yet another mechanism to sell their music (Apple is not stopping all the other mechanisms artist are using to sell their music during the free trial period, so what doesn't make sense is people saying things like " Apple is saying, hey you, come work for me for free for 3 months").
Another way of seeing this is, Apple is saying to the artists, at no cost to you just showcase your product for 3 months in this nice new platform to millions of potential paying customers, and then start cashing in. Simple. Software companies sometimes offer their software for free for a trial period. You use it, and it you like it, you pay for it. That does not mean the software companies are "working for you for free for x amounts of months".
If you have physical products, then that would be different as somebody actually losses a tangible value given for free for consumption, but even there, some companies give their product and if you don't like it, just return it. The company takes the loss of the used products returned. Here, Apple has setup some infrastructure that benefits them, and yes we know, it will be nothing without the music, and they take that loss, and asks the musicians who want to sell through them, lets showcase this for 3 months to get the customers and then you get a cut, nicer that what you currently get from other platforms.
Apple choose to offer the service. Just because you haven't heard of the band doesn't nobody hasn't heard of them.
If is Apple's CHOICE to offer free for three months, therefore they deserve the consequences.
Quite frankly the whole thing is kind of pointless anyway, I don't see what is so attractive about their service to begin with as somebody who just wants to chose what they listen to, not have it chosen for me.
To be fair its two way street - Apple have invested heavily in Apple Music, a platform which artists will likely benefit from in the long run. If just 5% of iTunes account holders sign up, they'll be on a par with paying Spotify subscribers almost immediately.
Something the artists will surely benefit from. And they won't have had to pay Apple a dime towards any of those investment costs.
Again, I don't see what the fuss is - a free trial to lure people in is one of the oldest tricks in the book - the way some people are going on anyone would think this was some new, devious tactic dreamt up by the evil Apple.
Clearly, not taking any sideWithout taking any side, it means, Apple wants to use and distribute someone's content for free for certain period of time? Isn't that considered illegal elsewhere?
I mean, go try using some unlicensed music even in your non-commercial YouTube video and you're going to face a legal claim in no time, or your video gets banned "because of using copyrighted material"...
So why doesn't Apple want to pay copyright owners for three whole months?
Well, because they wont get paid by customers for the same period of time. But this is called a commercial risk, which only Apple has to bear and nobody else.
But maybe Apple will send those "ungrateful hipsters" another U2 album, at least. Because that's punk and because Apple has already paid Bono for it.
This is just plain tone-deaf (no pun intended) on Apple's part: The most valuable company in the world with the largest cash reserves gives away music for three months but doesn't reimburse the artists/songwriters in any way? For a music service subscription they are hoping to get people to sign up for? <SMH>
Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine, of all people, should know better.
Edit: I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Cupertino if someone tried to give away Apple's intellectual property for free for three months as part of a "business model"...
Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine, of all people, should know better.
Edit: I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Cupertino if someone tried to give away Apple's intellectual property for free for three months as part of a "business model"...
I've got numerous BJM records on vinyl... enjoy your Taylor Switft mp3s!
Thank you - I will. 1989 is a superb pop record. If people can't see that, then they know nothing about music.
And no - I'm not being ironic.
There are some truly awful analogies in this thread.
When I though stupid analogies couldn't get any worst, you came up with this, all by yourself. Wow. Kudos.
I am sure a 'song' streamed during the trial period will not be available anywhere else in the world for streaming.
Except they are reimbursing the artists / songwriters by a. absorbing all the initial development costs, and streaming costs, and b. providing a platform that will likely benefit the artists / songwriters in the entire long term other than those initial three months.
Pop quiz - if you were an artist, would you really opt out and miss out on that potential long term revenue stream?
Do you really think that in the long term you would be better off having none of that streaming revenue ever, than having none of it for three months, and then having it forever after that?
So basically the Artist doesn't want to be promoted it is not about the music but about the money sad no wonder music is terrible now.
I agree that it would be a very overt move by Apple and I'm not buying it unless there is some corroboration.
I dunno, as long as the right margins are being met I think the labels would be excited about the idea of only renting music to consumers as that would give them 100% control. No more 2nd hand/used market that they don't get a piece of. No more easily pirate-able CDs. Rental is great DRM.
Please stop the 'internship' analogy. It is yet another stupid analogy that doesn't make sense.
That would really depend on an artist to artist basis and what they're currently releasing.
if you're an artist whose riding on a large catalogue of already released music? I would agree to Apple's terms. its not good terms and it's Apple absolutely taking advantage of me, but, The long term payoff should be worth it.
if I were an artistwho is expecting a major album release during the time? No, I would not sign up. Initial album release tends to be the biggest bulk of most income on releases. Releasing a brand new album during the free time would mean i get zero money during what should be the most popular time for my new album.
residual income from that album 6+ months down the line are irrelevant if you can't bring in sales in the first few. Especially if the label has to eat most of the costs. If a label sees you're new album isn't making them any money, you can generally kiss goodbye to future albums being funded by that label.
And most artists cannot afford to put up front the type of money that is required for producing a major album. Some artists get several hundred thousand upfront from their label in form of loan just to pay for these albums. So yeah, Not everyone is going to benefit from this 3 month freebie
So you can not purchase music from iTunes after listening the music if you really cared about the artist you would purchase their songs or albums. Love how people complain and yet many still download music illegally and lets not forget there is Podcast which is pretty much free music also but I don't see many artist complaining since it helped them a lot to get noticed.
Huh? If I manufacture widgets, nobody expects a me to subsidize a retailer to build stores so they can sell my widgets in their stores. Or give them free widgets -- to sell -- while they try to establish their business.
Why is it up to (in this case) the indie musician to subsidize Apple's new streaming subscription business model? That's not how capitalism works; the entrepreneur takes the risk and receives any benefits (or incurrs any losses).
Normally, Apple does such a great job (i.e. "it just works") that I find it mind boggling when they get something so obviously wrong...
As I mentioned earlier, I'm completely shocked that Jimmy Iovine, of all people, would be so tone-deaf.
Last edited:
Does three month trial mean I can download as much music as I want or is it limited somehow?
Yes for a music subscription service they are hoping to get people to sign up for. I don't know what you don't get. The idea of streaming music is still fairly new to people and not everyone is sold on it. This trial is a way to entice people that otherwise wouldn't be interested in the hopes that they subscribe in the long term.
And news flash, software companies offer demos and trials all the time in the hopes that you subscribe/purchase their product.
The studios (who hold the rights to the music - usually not the artists) presumably agreed to this arrangement because they realized they will make more money if Apple gives away 3 months of music because more people will sign up as paying customers that way. Apple didn't unilaterally make this decision - if you don't like it, blame the studios as well.