I think this all stems from larger companies being able to take 3 months of a hit for higher percentages later. Indie labels don't want to make nothing from apple for three months regardless what they make later. Which is probably why they're indie labels and not large. Because their business sense is sub-par
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
I guess if you're a struggling band that most people have never heard of, go on a Twitter rant against a big company for 15 minutes of fame.
Did you even read the whole article? You know, the part where apple basically said "he's lying"?
Theoretically, if Apple offers a free service for 3 months, people will cancel their Spotify accounts and/or not buy music from iTunes that they otherwise would have bought. So artists could potentially lose money over those 3 months, but they're not seeing the big picture. Apple Music WILL have more customers than Spotify and other streaming services and in the long run, artists will see more money than they did before.
well apparently the best selling artist named Taylor Swift isnt having it either
The other factor is there are 800 million iOS devices.
There could be 200,000,000 iTunes radio users easily.
That would be $4,200,000,000 dollars.
That sounds like every pitch made since the beginning of time, 'I know it looks shady now, but trust me this is going to make you rich in a few years!'
these companies and artists seem to be extremely short-sighted. the 3 month trial is the only way i would have even considered subscribing. those 3 months may be so awesome that i decide to pay $9.99 a month. without the trial i don't think i'd have ever even given apple music a glance.
i'm betting there are a poop-ton of people who feel the exact same way as i do.
i'm betting there are a poop-ton of people who feel the exact same way as i do.
I bet she is crying that greedy #@&@* maybe she should stop crying over guys keep dumping her.
to be fair i dont think i would be listening to the same artists anymore by the time theyd get paid 3 months later. i think thats one of their issues
The artists/bands who aren't huge sellers don't really care about you subscribing to Apple Music. They care about getting paid when people stream the music they put out, period.
So I make music right? I can make money on that music by performing live, selling tracks and albums digitally, or make a fraction of a sold track by allowing songs to be streamed to users on a subscription service..
Now, I have already made the music because I am an artist and I love to make music. I perform live to make the most amount of money I can out of the music I have made. In order for people to know I exist and that I make good music I might offer my songs to be played on radio for a fee, post samples on social media, or maybe I distribute my music through a service like iTunes that will show my music next to artists that are similar.
In comes a new Apple Music service. Now, I am a small time artist, Independent label and I don't have massive reserves to market my music. So, I make a little money on Spotify right now, and some of the money from digital sales on iTunes as well. I still make the most money by selling tickets to see me perform in concert, and this is why I tour. After each tour, people who came to the concert might go look me up on iTunes/ Spotify, and I may make a bit more money from that. Apple Music comes in and says, "You can be on our service, but if a user is new, then they can listen to your music, or anyones, for free for three months. Oh, and we have this service ready for 100's of millions of Apple devices right away."
If I say no, I make no money indefinitely from Apple Music, and people who will still inevitably use Apple Music can't hear my stuff, and maybe some of those people forget about me or never discover me.
If I say yes, the small percent I get from streaming services as people play my song are not paid to me for three months from Apple Music. After three months, I then have the potential to reach millions more people, who may find me for the first time using the only service they have, Apple Music. They may decide that I am good enough to see live, and buy a concert ticket as I play live.
---- Does anyone get this?
Now, I have already made the music because I am an artist and I love to make music. I perform live to make the most amount of money I can out of the music I have made. In order for people to know I exist and that I make good music I might offer my songs to be played on radio for a fee, post samples on social media, or maybe I distribute my music through a service like iTunes that will show my music next to artists that are similar.
In comes a new Apple Music service. Now, I am a small time artist, Independent label and I don't have massive reserves to market my music. So, I make a little money on Spotify right now, and some of the money from digital sales on iTunes as well. I still make the most money by selling tickets to see me perform in concert, and this is why I tour. After each tour, people who came to the concert might go look me up on iTunes/ Spotify, and I may make a bit more money from that. Apple Music comes in and says, "You can be on our service, but if a user is new, then they can listen to your music, or anyones, for free for three months. Oh, and we have this service ready for 100's of millions of Apple devices right away."
If I say no, I make no money indefinitely from Apple Music, and people who will still inevitably use Apple Music can't hear my stuff, and maybe some of those people forget about me or never discover me.
If I say yes, the small percent I get from streaming services as people play my song are not paid to me for three months from Apple Music. After three months, I then have the potential to reach millions more people, who may find me for the first time using the only service they have, Apple Music. They may decide that I am good enough to see live, and buy a concert ticket as I play live.
---- Does anyone get this?
Why does the small artist have to take the risk they never decided to take? Why can't they take their music off and in five months go back in?
The artists/bands don't have to pay for the infrastructure to distribute the music as they weren't the ones who decided to offer this platform.
No one including me thinks that it is wrong for Artists to want to get paid for their work, however all I am pointing out is that Apple is under no obligation to carry an artist's music.that was a purely emotional response to the person who said only that one ridiculous statement. i somehow doubt they were thinking very contextually about the article. people actually feel like this, and it's absolutely appalling to me. and i'm merely a musician hobbyist, so i don't care personally about making money at it. but for those that do, i feel for them. they have people like nando87 as hurdles. the '87' standing for his mother's birth year, i assume
What do you mean take the risk they never decided to take? The small artist is deciding whether to 'YES' offer music on Apple Music, or 'NO' do not offer music on Apple Music.
Did you understand that small artists make their most money from playing live?! The more exposure they get ANYWHERE, the more people know about them when they perform in a local pub, coffee shop, bar, or event!
You have to work with the system your given or leave. I can see Apple trying to get smaller artists to sign up or removing content off iTunes music store. But then having a change of heart when the story goes beyond a phone call or email. Interesting.... It has a very mob boss mentality.. hum
Yes I know that most musicians, even big ones, make their music live.
For the last, oh, decade, many of these bands have been on iTunes. Now due to this new service that Apple is deciding to do which really isn't a big growth area as there are many music services already, they lose a source of revenue and either 1) get to advertise for free or 2) don't get to be on the service anymore(or until after it settles down).
Yes, Napster decided for them long ago, but then came evil Apple and... wait, what?
They don't have to take the risk. The independent label can say "No Thanks". Then Apple can decide that they don't want to sell that independent label's stuff any longer. I am not getting where the outrage is. Why is Apple, Google, Spotify, RDIO, etc obligated to carry an Artist's music?
Agree with everything you're saying but for the artists not paying Apple a dime for the investment costs... isn't that part of what Apple's cut is covering?
The artists absolutely benefit from that payment, though. Just as they benefit from the free trial. Give a little, get a lot. Sounds like a good system to me.