The musician likely won't be able to get away with it for long. I am sure there are algorithms out there looking for suspicious play habits (like a single device streaming 24/7, or the same song repeatedly?). If at the end of the week, one song or album or artiste is reporting earnings way higher than average, that is possibly grounds for the removal of the song, investigation or similar punitive action.
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 Paying 0.2 Cents for Each Song Streamed Free During Apple Music Trial Period
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would explain why Three (unlimited data*) has yet to get an agreement in Germany for free of charge roaming for their customers while the rest of europe is signing up. I use Vodafone's EU passport, £3 a day gets me my 10gb allowance in Germany as well as my unlimited calls and texts home. If only we could get free roaming it would save me a lot of money on my three trips to family in Germany every year.
That is per streamed song.
Isn't it more like $1.6 per 404 plays? Btw, as a comparison, I believe artists are paid around .16 on avg per each song purchased/downloaded. This equates to listening to that one song 80 times over your lifetime. Seems like a more then fair price, per song, over the intro period.
As far as the issue with data and streaming, the paid version which is what the 3 month trial is based on, allows you to download songs onto your device for offline listening. Also, you can add music to your library. So no issue if you download the songs at home and then listen when you want without data charges. Can't do that with the streaming stations but can with individual songs and artists.
Forgive me for asking two obvious questions:
1: Is the quality of the audio track lower for a demo, or exactly the same?
2: What is there to stop people simply just recording the free demos?
1: Is the quality of the audio track lower for a demo, or exactly the same?
2: What is there to stop people simply just recording the free demos?
Typical Apple. We make 100$ products but want 10.000$ for them.
When they buy from others. Ohhh you have no costs. We will pay you ¼ of what Spotify and the others give you.
Apple slowy disgusts me And lately nothing works probaly no more. My iMac has hickups all the time and my iPhone reloaded this page twice before I could post
When they buy from others. Ohhh you have no costs. We will pay you ¼ of what Spotify and the others give you.
Apple slowy disgusts me And lately nothing works probaly no more. My iMac has hickups all the time and my iPhone reloaded this page twice before I could post
You do realize Apple is paying artists MORE than other streaming services, such as Spotify... right?
Ed Sheeran has just under 400 million streams on 'Thinking out loud' on Spotify, with the $0.02 payout for this that would generate just under $1 million dollars, for a single song that's more than reasonable. These figures would increase when the trial period payout is increased to the payout when users pay £10 p/m
How is that Apple's fault, which Magic could they work to change that? It would require something awesome like downloading playlists for offline use to get around that. I can use the streaming though, hope that's alright for you. Don't tell Tyler to stop it, please.
So I will ask, why do you still have an iMac and an iPhone? Sell them and find an alternative that works for you and does not disgust you? Curious to hear a legitimate answer.
In my notoriously cheap and heartless Fortune 200 company? Yes, it's allowed. Big companies such as my employer love to give their employees "benefits" that cost them essentially nothing. And they have noticed millenials are more productive with earbuds on.
I don't think revenue will be split like that.
I'm thinking say, 10 people sign up at $10 a month. That's $100 revenue. After Apple's split there's $70 dollars to be paid out.
Say T Swift totals 200 plays, Pharrell gets 400 and an indie label gets 100. That'd be split in the same percentage/ratio.
700 plays / $70 = 10c a play.
Swift gets $20, Pharrell on $40 and Indie gets $10.
Revenue / Total Plays = Split/Shared per play
You can save tracks offline as you can with Spotify premium. This is a non issue.
I wonder if @Pragmatus will ever be as hesitant to reply first to a thread ever again?
Many stream using wifi. Just get a bigger plan. This seems to work for other steaming services.
Moreover, I think most people overestimate data consumption through music streaming... Through a combination of LTE streaming (commuting, running,...), WiFi (mainly home) and some offline playlists, I never come any close to my 3GB limit, using Spotify every day. Apple Music will also use smaller audio files than Spotify, if news were correct.
What makes you think that I'm wrong here? Spotify pays 70% and Apple will be paying 71.5% - that's a higher percentage.
I keep hearing about how the streaming industry is so hard on people compared to album sales. I thought I would do a few rudimentary calculations. I found out that for traditional CD sales, there are generally 2 types of royalty pay outs: high level which pays approximately $500,000 per 500,000 albums sold, and low royalties, which pay $150,000 for the same number of album sales.
So I assumed that the average album has 10 tracks on in and get played an average of 20 times. Below is how the numbers play out.
If we assume that labels only pay out high level royalties to already successful bands, then this deal isn't so bad: new artists are getting 33% more than they would with a label.
Is there room for improvement? Yes, of course; but the way the world would have it is that streaming is killing the artists. It is hurting the high paid ones, not the poor ones that achieve success.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that if someone listens to a piece of music, they will want to listen to it again. And again. And again. That is an absolutely incorrect assumption. I do have a music library of songs that I listen to every now and then and which I want to "own" until the day I die. But there's a lot of music which I would like to listen to, but that I will not buy, because I know that I will not listen more than once or twice.
Example: Yesterday, I checked out the "Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1986". I would really like to listen to these songs over the course of two or three evenings. I own four of the songs on this list. So to listen to the whole list, I'd have to spend over a hundred Euros (I think most of these songs are €1.29). I don't know when I will feel the urge to listen to Regina's "Baby Love" or Baltimora's "Tarzan Boy" again. Chances are: Never. Or perhaps one more time in another 30 years from now. If I wanted to own any of the songs on that list, I'd own them already. So please explain to me how a €9.99 streaming service is a bad value compared to spending >$100 on owning the music. And we're talking just about three evenings. If I listen to five or six similar playlists a month, then it's still a cost of €9.99 for streaming vs. >$500 for owning the music.
Other example: After I watched the "Green Lantern" movie, I thought that James Newton Howard's soundtrack is quite nice. Cost on iTunes: €10.99. Cost as CD on Amazon: €14. Cost with Apple Music: Included in the €9.99 monthly fee. How often would I listen to it? Well... perhaps five times, max. In fact, I'd listen to most cues just once and then the two or three best ones up to five times. So why would I want to buy it? I own a lot of soundtrack albums that I listened to those five times. What an effing waste of money.
Next example: I want to play Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" to my daughter. I loved it as a child, so I want to see what she thinks. I can buy it for €9.99 on iTunes and if my daughter doesn't like it, it will be listened to exactly once. Or I can play it through Apple Music for €9.99.
Streaming is a bad value only for music that you love and that you want to have for the rest of your life. If you don't listen to any other music beyond that, then streaming is not for you. But if you also like to listen to "incidental" pieces of music, if there is stuff that you like but that you don't love, then streaming is perfect. And most people are like that: They have a core library of the stuff they really enjoy and on top of that a wide variety of "ok" songs, and it would cost huge amounts of money to buy them all. In fact, I am quite attached to my core library. I don't listen to radio. Ever. And still streaming is a good value to me. And most people have a far more varied and less "concentrated" taste for music than me.
Hey, I want to listen to K-Pop this evening. I'm in the mood for it. I don't own any K-Pop. So now I can buy a bunch of songs from iTunes that I will most likely never listen to again. Or I can stream the current Korean top 20.
There is this strange paranoia about the music being "lost" if the service over closes. "Oh no, Apple Music is gone, so all my music is gone as well!" It never was my music. I never wanted it to be. And it's not lost. If I really wanted to, I could still buy it. If a radio channel gets closed down, I also don't cry about "my" music that I lost, and Apple Music is nothing else than a radio channel with the added benefit that I can put together my own playlist as opposed to some DJ doing it for me.
On the subject of data use, assuming this is for mobile use, I have an OK thing on EE in the UK. Its PAYG, and I put £15 on a month. That gets me:
2GB data
500 minutes
unlimited texts
But the good part is I can add 250MB every three months. I guess that helps keep with EE.
I'm up to 3GB now, which seems to mostly be enough - I've been using Spotify more recently.
I know that likely won't be enough for some people, but for my use I think it has reached the point where you I can get a reasonable amount of data at a reasonable price making something like this far more practical / affordable than it might have been a few years ago.
2GB data
500 minutes
unlimited texts
But the good part is I can add 250MB every three months. I guess that helps keep with EE.
I'm up to 3GB now, which seems to mostly be enough - I've been using Spotify more recently.
I know that likely won't be enough for some people, but for my use I think it has reached the point where you I can get a reasonable amount of data at a reasonable price making something like this far more practical / affordable than it might have been a few years ago.
And you can just listen to music while working - must be nice or is working at work an option for you?
Thats your first mistake, they will be lucky if even a quarter of all iPhone users out there use this service.
Where have you gotten that part from? Because its wrong.
Sounds like you comparing the average amount of Spotify payments with the amount Apple are paying during the trial.
Which is the same as Spotify pay on their free tier.
And Apple will be paying a little more than Spotify from paying subscriber's streams.
Ah the UK phone pricing...I'm on Project Fi here in the US and pay (with taxes) $34/month for unlimited talk/text and 1GB data with refunds for any data I don't use.