looks like that's what they are doing. since it hasn't even started yet
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 Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People should give Apple some credit.
When was the last time BP Oil changed course ? Or some financial institution ?
changing their mind isn't a bad thing nor does it show any kind of perceived weakness.
It's the end result that matters.
When was the last time BP Oil changed course ? Or some financial institution ?
changing their mind isn't a bad thing nor does it show any kind of perceived weakness.
It's the end result that matters.
Nope. I think both Apple AND the artists had a too short-term view on this:
Apple: could have anticipated the reactions of the artists and should have known that in the long run the cost of compensating the artists during the period would have been compensated by the revenue generated by the additional artists willing to join the platform. In addition Apple should have realized that they are in a position to actually shine a positive light on the streaming market as a whole.
Artists: they should have realized that absorbing the three months loss of (partial!) revenue would have easily been offset by the pull of this platform (it's on all devices and tightly integrated with iTunes). Even though this is streaming, this platform will also drive sales of music. So, even if they would not be paid during this period, they are standing to earn a lot more on this platform than on any other.
Why? She is a accomplished artist who did the right thing. Apple made a mistake in this case. She managed to convince them of that. Here's hoping she now let's them have 1989 for Apple Music.
Best marketing campaign ever!
PS: waiting for Craig Federighi to tweet "We love Swift!"
PS: waiting for Craig Federighi to tweet "We love Swift!"
I don't know, this seams a little bit stupid. Apple was not being attacked before because we didn't know they weren't paying the artists. It's so stupid to try to get away with not paying someone for 3 months it almost feels false. I don't want to say Apple planned all of this to put Taylor on the spotlight (now she needs to put her new album on Apple Music to back up her claims) but that's how the whole situation feels.
I agree with you but now we have people saying "The biggest company in the world is afraid of taylor swift"
Why do you say that ?
Nobody knows right now. I'm sure things are in a flux at the moment.
But but but according to all the pathetic fanboys on here, apple wasn't in the wrong...
The most logical conclusion from this is that it is a purely business decision by Apple: provide a free 3 month period to entice as many people as possible to the platform. Expect the artists to be grateful to be on a new platform that also drives actual sales (which none of the other platforms do) and ask them to absorb the cost.
It is a pure business decision. There is no conspiracy between Apple and Swift. It would have been much more powerful for Swift to show up at the keynote and announce with a few indies that "This is the platform that should be endorsed". There are far easier and more sincere ways of marketing products than creating diversions. The simple reason is that not everyone understands and responds to diversional tactics.
Occam's razor.
So. Who cares. I'm sure Apple won't go down the drain.
On the contrary. Apple probably just got more people willing to sign up.
Which would be their right and entirely justified.
Remember greats is subjective.
No, I didn't mean a conspiracy theory between Apple and Swift, I meant it seems Apple played Swift. Anyway, there's no way Apple's going to pay for the 3 month trial, no way. They already have the contracts signed, they proably talked it over with the labels and agreed to pay only for the artists share wich would be like 5 percent right?
To be fair, Apple made a deal with the labels, the labels were in the wrong, not Apple. It was just business.
I think this whole situation is a plus for Apple. Some big star starts complaining about the injustices to the little guy and Apple replies, "You're right! We're sorry." /good guy
And it's not like they intend to make much money off this service. It'll have little affect on their earnings, but I t's not about the money. It's about further strengthening their ecosystem. In a few years, there will be little reason to use anything but Apple devices.
And it's not like they intend to make much money off this service. It'll have little affect on their earnings, but I t's not about the money. It's about further strengthening their ecosystem. In a few years, there will be little reason to use anything but Apple devices.
Not that i wouldn't embrace the Apple's decision to pay the musicians at last, but the reason is not because Taylor Swift is "stronger than Apple", but much more pragmatic: Apple can not afford such bad publicity before their service has even started.
As stated many times above: they should have done that in the very start and get a huge sympathy bonus as a side effect.
Now they are just reacting, but at least they do...
As stated many times above: they should have done that in the very start and get a huge sympathy bonus as a side effect.
Now they are just reacting, but at least they do...
Last edited:
Credit for what? Credit for caving in and being weak, doing what some pop country artist wants? In the end it's not Apple paying the royalty it's the customers. So why on earth would you be happy about that? The artists who actually get money that matters from streaming services are already multimillionaires. Anyone who thinks suffering indy artists are going to get real money need a reality check. The end result is, consumers will eventually pay the royalty so the rich artists can be become even more rich and the suffering indy's will keep on suffering no matter what.
70 % goes to the labels. What the labels pay the artist is between the label and the artist.
If it's an indie band with no label or their own label they get 70 %.
From a UK label :
Last week, UK-based independent record label Beggars echoed Swift's comments, saying it struggled "to see why rights owners and artists should bear this aspect of Apple's customer acquisition costs".
It said it did not have an agreement with Apple that would allow it to participate in the new service but hoped the "obstacles to agreement can be removed" in the coming days.
Contracts can be changed by the agreeing parties with the stroke of a pen.