Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Paying 0.2 Cents for Each Song Streamed Free During Apple Music Trial Period

itsthenewdc said:
Well, technically you never own the song, so as long as you listen to it 404 times before you die, then the artist got more than they would have from just buying the song for $0.99, unless they died before that happened. I don't drive excessively, but there's a few songs on the radio I've probably heard a hundred or so times just within a few months, i.e. Uptown Funk.
Click to expand...
Technically, you never own the song, even if you buy the rights to listen to it in your home or on your person with iTunes.

When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you only buy the rights to listen to it at-will on your person or in your home, and not for public consumption.

I know, it's a small point, and I got what you posted, and I get your point. I'm just being one of those engineer types... :O
 
pragmatous said:
Again there's no wifi at work for me to use. I wouldn't watch netflix at work but I would listen to music at work.

Are you having a hard time understanding the difference? I don't have a choice in data caps that's what the carrier provides. There is no unlimited with my carrier.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should buy your music instead of streaming it. Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amirite, keysofanxiety, fonso and 3 others
pragmatous said:
Because I'm allowed to listen to music while working? I have music loaded on my iphone so I can listen to it.

I can't believe how dumb some of these comments are. Do you seriously lack the ability to critically think?
Click to expand...

most people are critically thinking about how petty you're being. and it bothers you evidently.

you're complaining about how your work's lack of wifi means you can't use apple's streaming service and you weren't using a streaming service before because you couldn't then either. like, you're problem is with a handful of personal things and none of it has to do with apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amirite, Arndroid, kerrikins and 5 others
rickvanr said:
Can someone explain this to me? I don't see the big deal. This is a new service, so what were the artists losing out on if the service was free for the first three months aside from exposure? So when it does become a pay model, if anything, they're going to be more popular- and make more money.
Click to expand...

The counter argument I would make is that Apple would be using intellectual property freely to promote their service. It's not so much exposure for the big name artists (radio still moves that needle) but you could view it that way for the smaller lesser known artists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rickvanr
KALLT said:
Generous in relation to what? In the worst case, people will put their subscriptions with other providers on hold to listen to Apple Music during the trial and people who currently don't stream may not continue doing it afterwards. The onus is still with Apple to demonstrate that this temporary loss of revenue will actually lead to net profit increase after the first trial period ends. Spotify and others still have the advantage of network effects.
Click to expand...

In the best case, millions of users—most probably don't currently stream—will begin streaming for the first time after being prompted by an app they use daily, and artists will receive money they never would've otherwise. A large percent of them might grow fond enough of this service over the next three months and subscribe, earning artists more. Whether or not this compares with straight download profits is unknown to me, but it seems fair as far as streaming goes; I've altered my OP to reflect that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeyEatWorld
ck2875 said:
I've been using iTunes since autumn 2003 when I got a PowerMac G5, and looking at the song with the highest play count in my library, I've played that song 669 times. This would mean that if I had been using Apple Music this entire time, the record label/band (Coldplay) [Yeah, go ahead and judge] would have received $1.34 from my enjoyment of this song (using the .2 cents listed in the article) which is about on par with me just buying it outright from the iTunes store (which I did). For most music I buy, I don't listen to the song nearly this many times, so I can definitely see why some artists aren't big fans of the whole streaming concept.

Edit: As pointed out later in the thread, I guess I was calculating this using the free period rate. So I guess you can ignore what I said and I'll go back to lurking.
Click to expand...

Wait....aren't we burying the lead. What about listening to a Coldplay song 669 times and all of us just letting it slide......?!?!
 
pragmatous said:
Again there's no wifi at work for me to use. I wouldn't watch netflix at work but I would listen to music at work.

Are you having a hard time understanding the difference? I don't have a choice in data caps that's what the carrier provides. There is no unlimited with my carrier.
Click to expand...

And this is different from Spotify, Pandora, Google Play how??? Oh wait, it's not. No one's forcing you to use it, just like using any of the other services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amirite
whit2891 said:
Will someone tell this guy to download his songs on wifi for offline listening already?!
Click to expand...
I disagree with this solution though.

To me, the whole allure of music streaming is precisely so that I can access any song I want, when I want it. If I have to plan ahead and decide what songs I might want to listen to later in the day and download those songs first, it kinda defeats the whole purpose of using an on-demand streaming service, IMO.

I am not saying it is not a valid solution, it's just not a solution people want to hear.
 
dukebound85 said:
$10 per 4040
$100 per 40400
$1000 per 404,400
$10,000 per 4,044,000
$100,000 per 40,440,000
$1,000,000 per 404,400,000

Seems fair to me
Click to expand...
I thought you were trying to wow us with your magic shifting decimal point, but now I wonder if you're trying to tell us there's a price break at $1000...
 
MacRumors said:
The money that Apple is paying per stream during the trial period is significantly less than what rights holders will receive after Apple Music has paying customers, but it appears to have satisfied many indie labels. As of this morning, Apple signed deals with both Beggars Group and Merlin Network, companies that represent more than 20,000 indie labels and distributors.
Click to expand...
How much less is it?

0.002 dollars per song * 20 songs an hour * 8 hours a day *30 days a month is $9.60
71.5% of 9.99 is $7.14

It's comparing apples and oranges (well magnitudes and percentages), but it doesn't look like they're that far apart.
 
pragmatous said:
Wifi exists in your work place for your personal use? probably not.
Click to expand...

Yup :cool:

But on topic, at about 17 songs an hour, and that including my lunch I normally work a 10 hour day, with continuous streaming that's:

$0.42 Apple will have to pay out for my daily enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
Good that the artists are getting something. Quid pro quo, and all.

Under the original model, they were expected to forfeit 100% of their early income on the new streaming service in order to to finance Apple's customer acquisition costs. For what will be Apple's lucrative subscription service going forward.

Accepting zero would've set a dangerous precedent. Good someone stood up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
rickvanr said:
Can someone explain this to me? I don't see the big deal. This is a new service, so what were the artists losing out on if the service was free for the first three months aside from exposure? So when it does become a pay model, if anything, they're going to be more popular- and make more money.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. Then Taylor Swift happened and it seems like Eddie Cue got starstruck or something.

Meanwhile Reznor is screaming from his office "you ***** kowtowed to who?!".

What I don't get is why it was the Indie artists that were so up in arms. How many plays do they expect to get in 3 months that the money is worth whining about? Seems they should be more focused on other parts of the service and the long term prospects of competing with the big labels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rickvanr
Analog Kid said:
What I don't get is why it was the Indie artists that were so up in arms.
Click to expand...

Whenever you see "artists are upset" and crap like that, there is always some no-talent, spreadsheet jock with a corporate bank account and a checkbook telling the creative talent to bitch to the press so they get their table scraps from the corporate table.

It is amazing how many artists just get screwed up on their drug of choice, record, hand over the session media to a post editor who really does the work to make it sellable as long as a the drugs, women and tour bus keeps on rolling.

Yeah, been there, done that, wrote code to make the strung out half-talent that has sex with the right promoters to get on stage look good. So happy, I am not in that scene anymore. Paid much better now.
 
Wait, are they paying 2 cents or 0.2 cents? 0.2 cents per song means that 10 songs played equals 2 cents. Confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back