Does Apple have to compensate the artists for their own out of pocket costs to be professional musicians, like equipment and recording sessions etc? No. So why should the musicians have to compensate Apple for what essentially amounts to the same thing? Apple doesn't make it's money from the server farms or software development, and the musicians don't make their money from buying equipment or spending time in the recording studio. You should pay for what makes someone money, and that's what royalties are...so it makes perfect sense for Apple to change the policy.
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
Does Apple have to compensate the artists for their own out of pocket costs to be professional musicians, like equipment and recording sessions etc? No. So why should the musicians have to compensate Apple for what essentially amounts to the same thing? Apple doesn't make it's money from the server farms or software development, and the musicians don't make their money from buying equipment or spending time in the recording studio. You should pay for what makes someone money, and that's what royalties are...so it makes perfect sense for Apple to change the policy.
Not me. I refuse to listen to singing plastic Barbie dolls, heavily using vocalizers and other tricks. Didn't see start as a country & western singer ?
Wow if only Ms Swift spoke up on Apple's obsession with 'thinnerness' and bulging camera, maybe they would've listened too!
Certainly that is the converse argument. And it makes sense in a world of idealism. However, in practice, it only serves the petulant creators, and not the people in business.
In reality, all of these costs are passed on, and eventually arrive at the consumer level.
Why does everyone actually go on about those "millions" that Taylor Swift or others artists make? People act like it's immoral for them to make so much money or like they are not entitled to an opinion on the music business, because they are rich. But the fact is that people actually like their music. A lot of people do. So they should get paid for it, period. And no, I am not a Taylor Swift fan - there is very little music in the top 10 nowadays that I like. But a lot of people like her music. They listen to it. They value it. And something that has value should generate revenue. Someone with millions of fans should be allowed to be a millionaire and should be allowed to rake in millions of Dollars continuously. I really don't see the big deal. And I refuse to be jealous of Taylor Swift. I don't want to be that petty.
Most major artists whine about something related to the music business. Swift was at least whining about the right thing, and she actually mentioned the not-so-wealthy artists in her rant. That's better than any of the whining I have heard from artists like George Michael or the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince who only care about their own current situation and forget how it felt to be a young artist signing the first contract with a label.
Don't anyone think for one single second that Apple has changed its mind from the goodness of its heart. The only reason they have changed their decision and plans is because of media attention around this story, it was in our national newspaper even this morning, basically Apple was getting bad publicity in the public's eye.
And no corporation wants bad publicity if they can avoid it.
And no corporation wants bad publicity if they can avoid it.
Last edited:
Well done to Taylor Swift for winning on this. Naturally, apologists will interpret Apple's U-turn as a knee-trembling display of compassion instead of merely being caught out trying to rip people off.
Pretty impressive how Taylor Swift maneuvered Apple into this. The letter had a nice blend of flattery and a barb, the timing was perfect, the demand was clear, she built her credibility on the issue with her previous interactions with Spotify... Apple either had to give in or blemish the launch of their next big product.
I'm not much a fan of her music but now I'm kinda a fan of her.
I'm not much a fan of her music but now I'm kinda a fan of her.
More likely the fact that hundreds and hundreds of indie labels and srtists refused to agree to the trial terms, thus catalog seriously depleted.
Nice, I woke up to this. Good to see apple step up to the plate, albeit late. I suspect the negative press had a lot to do with it. A company worth billions upon billions screwing out the struggling indie music folks didn't really really produce the most uplifting story for Apple.
Not to be cliché, but not sure if this would have happened when Steve was still here.
If they want to change the world, think different, they should be the ones who make the decisions.
If they want to change the world, think different, they should be the ones who make the decisions.
I don't care for Taylor Swift's music but am saddened by the tone of a number of replies on this thread - quite a lot of misogyny on show here 
I knew Apple would bend an do the right thing but why didn't they set out to do that right from the beginning? That would have been much better PR and show that Apple was really a class act.
Good. It doesn't matter if the provider isn't making any money, they're distributing someone elses work and not paying them. That was a horrible decision.
It would have been nice if they listened when smaller bands were saying this instead of when an ultrapopular singer said it. The message I'm getting is that they listen to you if you're famous enough.
I'm also shocked whenever anyone believes that any company did something "from the goodness of its heart".
I truly believe that there are people at Apple in the upper management who actually are passionate about music, but that only affects their product decisions (getting into the music business with iPod and iTunes, services like Ping or iTunes Match and now Apple Music, etc.), but it will never affect the business side. In the end, it's all about making money and maximizing profits.
"There is only one thing in life that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
Oscar Wilde
Or this whole thing might have made her realise Apple's position on this (swayed by big musicians not small, had the wrong idea initially). It looks a little amateur to me. I'd have to think about signing up with them. But don't forget she isn't on Spotify either because royalty rates for streaming services are dire.
The musicians are no less involved in business than Apple. There's nothing petulant or idealistic about wanting to be paid royalties for use of the music.
So does that apply to BP too then when it's pipe was leaking all that oil into the sea near America then? It must do.
I'm afraid you are quit wrong sir, bad publicity leads to dropping share price as it means customers leaving, when a story like this is in the international news and international pop stars are raising the story's, it means Apple would loose customers to the competition like Spotify, and this it affects shares.
Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, posted on Twitter tonight in response to concerns that Apple would not be paying artists during the three month free trial of Apple Music. Cue wrote that Apple will now be paying artists during the initial free trial of Apple Music, in a reversal from their previous policy.
The most vocal criticism came earlier today from Taylor Swift, who argued that many indie artists would suffer under the plan. Cue responded specifically to Swift:
Apple Music will launch on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. After the service's free three-month trial it will cost $9.99 per month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families up to 6.
Article Link: Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial
Perhaps later today we'll read, "Apple reverses course again, only offering a 1 month free trial period, showing that nobody doesn't like to get paid"
But seriously, good job, Apple. I love how all of the people flaming Apple on Taylor Swift's announcement come on here to flame Apple again for not 'getting it right from the beginning'.
Good grief. The company will likely pay millions of dollars to these artists, even though it isn't collecting money itself. For an entire quarter. That's incredibly generous. Get over yourselves people Apple is a great company.
Some people are just never happy. All the fandroids and Apple haters, I'd guess :-D
I don't care for Taylor Swift's music but am saddened by the tone of a number of replies on this thread - quite a lot of misogyny on show here
Is it misogyny because the protagonist is female? I think the same reaction would have been garnered had the protagonist been male (except for the usual minority band of idiots). it is not the case that any criticism of a stance taken by a woman should be perceived as misogyny, and you don't get points as a male for implying that it is.
Well, how do you know what they actually listened to? I am quite sure that this was not a decision that was made within a few hours. They had previously negotiated with record labels for months and months to get them to agree to the three month trial period. I doubt that it takes just a couple of phone calls to tell them "Hey, we will pay you now during the trial period after all!" Sure, the labels will readily agree, but it implies that contracts have to be changed. Even if all sides are happy with it, a contract still has to go through legal departments.
My guess is that when Swift wrote her open letter, Apple was already in the process of rethinking the policy.
Does this mean no struggling unknown artists will starve?
I have total respect for Swift for speaking out on something she believes in.
But I don't believe for a second any of the stuff written throughout these threads about artists starving and not being able to pay their bills.
Not once was anyone ever able to plug any figures in that theory to demonstrate that that would happen.
All that likely happened here was:
1. Apple did their sums, and realised that if anyone would take much of an initial hit it would be Apple and the record companies, but smaller artists would lose virtually nothing. Plus the deal was to pay 71.5% instead of 70% for all time after the trial.
2. They got the labels to agree to it all.
3. The whole thing about screwing artists over and them starving not paying bills etc got completely blown out of proportion.
4. Apple relented out go goodwill - not because any artists actually would have been starving or not be able to pay their bills.
I have total respect for Swift for speaking out on something she believes in.
But I don't believe for a second any of the stuff written throughout these threads about artists starving and not being able to pay their bills.
Not once was anyone ever able to plug any figures in that theory to demonstrate that that would happen.
All that likely happened here was:
1. Apple did their sums, and realised that if anyone would take much of an initial hit it would be Apple and the record companies, but smaller artists would lose virtually nothing. Plus the deal was to pay 71.5% instead of 70% for all time after the trial.
2. They got the labels to agree to it all.
3. The whole thing about screwing artists over and them starving not paying bills etc got completely blown out of proportion.
4. Apple relented out go goodwill - not because any artists actually would have been starving or not be able to pay their bills.
Last edited: