Apple is being the tight arse here? Um, I think it's spoiled brat Swift that's doing the arse tightening here. She couldn't care less about up and coming artists. She just wants another trillion dollars for her cushy little lifestyle.
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
Apple is being the tight arse here? Um, I think it's spoiled brat Swift that's doing the arse tightening here. She couldn't care less about up and coming artists. She just wants another trillion dollars for her cushy little lifestyle.
Whether we agree or disagree with the events that have taken place surrounding this matter, Swift has made a fundamental error in her judgement.
In her 'open letter' she claims that artists should not be asked to provide their work for free, and that Apple are not encouraged to give away free iPhones. While the latter is true; Apple do pay for all the costs incurred by the infrastructure, hosting, and delivery of the artists content. Apple invest in the platform on behalf of, yes themselves, but also the artists. If this cost is not shared, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the '3 month trial' should serve as an investment in the platform, equally by the artists that will serve to generate them revenue in the long term.
I fear the cost of this grand act will be swiftly passed on to the consumer.
The motives behind this matter are not all of morality.
In her 'open letter' she claims that artists should not be asked to provide their work for free, and that Apple are not encouraged to give away free iPhones. While the latter is true; Apple do pay for all the costs incurred by the infrastructure, hosting, and delivery of the artists content. Apple invest in the platform on behalf of, yes themselves, but also the artists. If this cost is not shared, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the '3 month trial' should serve as an investment in the platform, equally by the artists that will serve to generate them revenue in the long term.
I fear the cost of this grand act will be swiftly passed on to the consumer.
The motives behind this matter are not all of morality.
I think your work should be free as well, and you should make a living by begging on the street for money. Stupid thing to say isn't it? But that statement makes just as much sense as yours.
Not all artists can tour. Not all artists want to tour. Not all artists are concert-compatible. Some people just have a "face for radio", or their music simply does not translate well to a concert environment. There are great artists with debilitating stage-fright. Some of the greatest music (quite a few people would say the greatest music) of the 20th century was created by artists who had decided to stop touring to concentrate on their music. Also, if artists support themselves purely through concerts, most artists (other than the "big names") will tour only locally. No more international tours. Artists that are not so terribly well-known used to tour to support their albums and then they make money through album sales. They actually very often lose money by touring internationally, so if you're a European fan of an American artist - tough luck for you!
So as you can see, there are a lot of arguments against what you said, but only one argument for it, and that is "I want I want I want I want I want, and I don't want to pay!"
An artist who has created music has already done quite a bit of valuable work and has already invested money into it (studio time and equipment is expensive!). Why do you want them to add more work to it before it is valuable enough to yield some payment for the artist? You want to listen to music, but it doesn't have any value for you? Why do you listen to stuff that has no value? If it has a value, why do you want it to be free? You want the artist to invest money into studio time and equipment, invest time and emotion into creating some music. And then you still aren't willing to pay for it. They still have to invest more into it - pay for touring equipment, pay touring personnel... and then, perhaps... yes, perhaps(!) then they actually are able to start making some money.
And I don't know what you mean by "ads"? You mean artists should appear in advertisements or what? Or they should play a small ad in the middle of their songs perhaps? On the one hand, there are people who think music should be ad-financed, and on the other hand there's people whining about advertisements. Do you have an ad-blocker installed in your browser? I hope not, or else it would be a major example of hypocrisy.
It has become difficult for artists to make money. A top 40 hit every now and then used to be sufficient. Now, there are more and more artists selling stupid VIP packages for hundreds of Dollars where the fans get to meet the artists after concerts, take pictures with them, etc. I used to get that for free. Or let me say: It was included in what I had already paid for. I have a picture of myself with Steve Lukather from Toto from 1988, taken after a concert. That was free. No strings attached. He was genuinely friendly and actually smiled on that photo. He actually gave me the feeling that he liked meeting the fans. Now you pay 200 bucks(!) for that same kind of experience and the band members on the pictures look like someone has ripped out their souls. People have always complained about how music is a big business. Well, it has become even more of a business nowadays, because it has become so hard for artists to actually make money. "Oh, you want to shake my hand and chat a bit with me? Well, that's $200, please!" In 1988, I paid a fair price for an album, I paid a fair price for a concert ticket and when I met a musician, they knew that there's someone who values their music, so they went the extra mile to make me feel valued as well. Nowadays, people think music should be free. They don't value the music anymore, and that has destroyed the relationship with the artists to a certain extent. Now it's all a big effing business. Thanks a lot for that!
Three months free seems a little excessive regardless who pays for it, but I guess it may pursuade those who are already paying for a streaming service to cancel it that during that free trial and give time for those who are skeptical to change their behavior. A questions is how this will effect the profitability of this service in the long term, although relative to Apple's total earnings it is probably a rounding error.
I've not heard of a single artist calling for Apple to provide a free 3 month trial. This is simply about Apple trying to draw customers away from competing streaming services. In doing so Apple is the only one to benefit. The artists get paid the same whatever streaming service you use.
I hope she gets cap[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Damn you removed the reference to her being captured by ISIS, was going to ask about that
Think of the indie artists, not people like swift who can afford a 3 month without pay. You think she will get another trillion in the 3 months now?
Damn you removed the reference to her being captured by ISIS, was going to ask about that
Think of the indie artists, not people like swift who can afford a 3 month without pay. You think she will get another trillion in the 3 months now?
I agree, it is likely artists have not called for a 3 month consumer trial. This was not the point. Yes the trial is intended to draw consumers in. However, it also serves as an introduction to the platform which is deeply integrated to the Apple ecosystem and all of its users. It serves as promotion for all artists involved.
Artists usually speak only of liberal social issues, even in business, which largely, they seem to have a meager understanding of. Hence they are artists, not people of business.
Artists usually speak only of liberal social issues, even in business, which largely, they seem to have a meager understanding of. Hence they are artists, not people of business.
The production of the music is not free. Do you expect the artists to bear that cost and also supplement apples investment? apple did purchase beats streaming, they did not start from scratch.
Clearly it depends on the context. An artist on a major label is not paying for the production, it is usually fronted by said label (I work for a label).
Independents do front some of the cost but usually pursue free and complementary services at every turn to supplement their art creation.
Independents do front some of the cost but usually pursue free and complementary services at every turn to supplement their art creation.
Artists get paid during the free trial periods for every other streaming service so why should Apple be any different. Music streaming is not a new thing. It's a mature market with established players. Apple isn't bringing anything new to the table. They're just trying to offset falling revenues from iTunes music sales and as such their entry is purely altruistic.
That is conjecture. The payment structure for free trials elsewhere in the market has yet to be established in the public domain.
Apple is bringing integration and their ecosystem to the table. It has enormous value to artists.
Apple is bringing integration and their ecosystem to the table. It has enormous value to artists.
In the end it's always the consumers who are footing a bill here. The starving indy artists will only see very little money from streaming when the "taylor swifts" of music industry will get the millions. The fact remains, there is not a single profitable music streaming service in this world so the artist should be happy they are getting the money they are getting right now.
I wonder who signed off on the disastrous decision not to pay in the first place.
I thought we paid 3G$ for Jimmy, Dre and Trent so we could own the pulse of the industry, the minds of the labels and the creative hearts of the artists.
And then we squander all that by stiffing (or allowing the labels to stiff) the artists for the 3 month trial period.
If we are confident that the Apple Music concept has legs, then this is a program that will be around for years, and paying artists over the 3 month trial period should be no great hardship if the costs are amortized like a mortgage.
The only way the 3-month stiff would ever make sense is if it, and its subsequent reversal, were deliberately fine to shine an unfavorable light upon competing freemium services. (A light is good but if it doesn't result in change, like labels dropping support for freemium, or subscribers seeing it as a reason to move off it to Apple Music, then the decision was just a pointless exercise that exposed the Apple brand to needless and avoidable criticism.
I thought we paid 3G$ for Jimmy, Dre and Trent so we could own the pulse of the industry, the minds of the labels and the creative hearts of the artists.
And then we squander all that by stiffing (or allowing the labels to stiff) the artists for the 3 month trial period.
If we are confident that the Apple Music concept has legs, then this is a program that will be around for years, and paying artists over the 3 month trial period should be no great hardship if the costs are amortized like a mortgage.
The only way the 3-month stiff would ever make sense is if it, and its subsequent reversal, were deliberately fine to shine an unfavorable light upon competing freemium services. (A light is good but if it doesn't result in change, like labels dropping support for freemium, or subscribers seeing it as a reason to move off it to Apple Music, then the decision was just a pointless exercise that exposed the Apple brand to needless and avoidable criticism.
You do realize Spotify pays next to nothing using ads on their free tier. It's not a real trial because it doesn't give full access to the service until you pay.
There is nothing mature about music streaming services. They are loosing money not making it. One could ask why streaming service providers should loose so much money when they are essentially trying to get consumers to pay for music and therefore giving the labels and artist a reliable revenue stream. Maybe Apple asked the right questions and was therefore granted the three month "no payments" trial period. Naturally there must be some Taylor Swift who feels she is not appreciated when millions are not rolling her way from day one even though after the free trial the royalties from Apple Music will be higher than from other streaming services.
Little girls have a tantrum in public and get their way.
(I suppose it's not surprising considering she's made her considerable fortune doing exactly that, musically.)
Instead of taking it up with her record company, who are responsible for the licensing deals; Apple doesn't pay a single cent to her - they pay her employer, the company.
(Sarcastically, if I was Apple I would agree to pay her exactly what I'd always paid her - here's an invisitble cheque made out of unicorn hair, written in dragon urine.)
She's learned a lesson alright, and taught it to her legion of screaming tween fans.
The respect I had for her as an artist evaporated. It was obviously a promotional stunt.
If she'd meant it, she would have asked for her music to be taken down off iTunes in protest. That was not ever going to happen. Not in any of a billion alternate dimensions.
(I suppose it's not surprising considering she's made her considerable fortune doing exactly that, musically.)
Instead of taking it up with her record company, who are responsible for the licensing deals; Apple doesn't pay a single cent to her - they pay her employer, the company.
(Sarcastically, if I was Apple I would agree to pay her exactly what I'd always paid her - here's an invisitble cheque made out of unicorn hair, written in dragon urine.)
She's learned a lesson alright, and taught it to her legion of screaming tween fans.
The respect I had for her as an artist evaporated. It was obviously a promotional stunt.
If she'd meant it, she would have asked for her music to be taken down off iTunes in protest. That was not ever going to happen. Not in any of a billion alternate dimensions.
Last edited:
You do understand that major labels are shareholders in Spotify? Also Spotify is still loosing money.
Well played Apple.
I bet she didn't want her Album out there anyway but now she has no excuse to drop that Album on the Music app or she will look like a right ****.
Check mate.
I bet she didn't want her Album out there anyway but now she has no excuse to drop that Album on the Music app or she will look like a right ****.
Check mate.
But that was a promotion for just one album that was exclusive for Apple. The no price dumping rule exists to prevent companies from forcing out weaker competitors. Spotify is not going to go out of business if Apple gives away one album for a limited time.
Apple giving away lots of stuff for 3 months that is not free, for Apple, Spotify and everybody else, could be an anti-competitive move that is illegal.
Now, after the outrage, if the FTC went after Apple for doing this, many people would see the FTC as the bad guy.
Maybe.