Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial

[bbeagle]

Makes Perfect sense if you accept this was a PR stunt planned by Swift's management and Apple from the very beginning.

Look at the facts
1. This 'situation' allows Taylor Swift to come out as supporting streaming services as the 'savior' of small artists, without looking hypocritical for reversing her decision and views on Spotify.
2. Apple gain a huge amount of positive PR by creating a massive trending discussion and global news story featuring two extremely powerful brands (Swift and Apple), just before the launch of their new service.
3. Apply have spent months if not years working the financials of the streaming deals - but suddenly overnight they re-work all the numbers to make it work in favor of the artists? No chance, this was planned for a long time.

After the fact, a 'conspiracy' many times looks legitimate.

But imagine Taylor Swift and Apple getting together in secret meetings to discuss this. How do they know how public reaction will go? Maybe Taylor Swift is hurt because people think she's whiny? Maybe Apple is hurt because people think Apple is money-grubbing? And won't accept Apple's about-face? Planning something and an actual outcome matching what you want won't work most of the time.

The most likely thing that happened is that Apple was using standard industry contractual agreements, didn't know it would ever get out to be publicly known, when it did, Apple didn't like the bad press, calculated what it would cost to 'save face', saw that they could afford it (and it was worth paying vs. bad press), so did an about-face.

I agree with Taylor Swift on this one, and I'm ashamed of Apple's initial position, and glad they changed their minds.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[alexgowers]

Cant believe apple bowed down to a whiny singer.

I can't believe you have that opinion? If your job asked you to work for free for three months so they could pass on your services for free, you wouldn't be happy. You might not like her music or voice or lyrical content or public image but her argument had nothing to do with her.

Apple reversed course over many factors but I think they realised that it was an error of judgement to assume in the crowded streaming market anyone was going to swallow those terms.

It seems like apple has issues with bad PR for the past couple of years and it might be time to head out and find someone more capable.

 

[kdarling]

Apple, Inc. = Class Act

Too late for that. Doing the Right Thing without being called out first for being greedy, would've been a class act.

Instead, this was like someone finding a wallet full of money, intending to keep it for themselves. Then someone else publicly points out those intentions, so he decides to give the money back. Sorry, but no extra credit for doing what they should've done to begin with.

 

[nouveau-apple]

Eddy get the wallet out.

This is the MacRumors post of the year.

 

[GroundLoop]

That is an interesting scenario, but doesn't that essentially happen now anyway? Just substitute 'Apple Music' with 'Spotify's free tier'. OK, they might get something, but that something will be a tiny amount.

If an artist is prominent enough to get millions of streams, they will almost certainly sell lots of copies of the album as well.

And given that the revenue from streaming is a tiny fraction of the revenue from actual sales, then in that scenario they might lose the streaming revenue, but that would likely be a very small proportion of their total revenue.

Which again, isn't to say that it isn't great that they'll get that revenue, just lets not make out its more significant than it really is.

Is Spotify's app pre-installed on hundreds of millions of iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches? The fact that Apple Music is so accessible with minimal/no effort does make a difference here.

 

[JosephAW]

Now that apple has done their part lets see if apple users back up their approval with their wallets.
If this works it will go down as the greatest publicity stunt of all time.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Don't say, that Apple don't respond to public opinion.

They don't.

They respond to celebrity opinion. That's all they care about these days.

 

[ggibson913]

It's kinda hard for me to feel sorry for Taylor Swift who still charges 200+ per head for her concerts, does she share that with Apple? Artist/ Record label greed is what created the first wave of unbridled piracy and it will, IMHO, be the reason for the second. If these artists think that they are safe from being pirated, they are sadly mistaken.

 

[iBug2]

Too late for that. Doing the Right Thing without being called out first for being greedy, would've been a class act.

No. If Apple did the right thing from the start, nobody would even know about this it wouldn't be hailed as a "class act".

 

[BigInDallas]

A part of me is believing that Apple and Taylor Swift pull together and caused this stir. First, there's no way that she could have Apple change their mind that quickly and speak to all the at the labels and change the contract terms and have all that done in 24 hours. Her letter being put out as of yesterday then Apple changing their mind makes me think this was a planned jab at Spotify.

No, TS wields power in the industry

 

[bbeagle]

Why does it seem like everyone is turning a blind eye to the labels that signed these deals on behalf of the artists?

I still don't understand why everyone is ******** on Apple, when there were two sides to the agreement. It wasn't spun out of midair by Apple directly connected to the artists with a "sucks to suck". Someone who stood for the rights of the artists OKed it and helped shape it.

We know how labels constrict artists in return for their services, this being one of them. Apple does not have the weight in music it once had and while obviously able to drive a hard bargain, no one was forcing these agreements. If they were so bad, how did they get signed and why? If they were so impactful, why were artists not in stance before it? Because they didn't know, because of the label that signed the agreement without their knowledge or consideration.

I agree. This was probably a standard-type agreement that everyone uses for 'free trials'. Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc. all probably have similar agreements for trials, and non-paid users. Apple negotiated a contract and included standard terms.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Apple's been "Swiftboated".

A Swift turnaround by Apple.

 

[BigInDallas]

I blame the labels more than Apple.

It just highlights what little regard labels have for the artists they claim to represent, when bloggers and Taylor Swift can get them a fairer deal in a weekend - than the many months of negotiations that took place between labels and Apple. Ultimately it should have been the labels fighting the corner of artists that secured the royalties through trial got paid. Generally it isn't Apple's job to negotiate for higher payments out of their coffers. They have probably chosen to do it now because it doesn't cost that much, and they feel it is the right thing to do. It's the labels who should face the brunt of the backlash here!

Big suprise

 

[AppleInLVX]

Good. What really cinched it for me was the end: "We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation." That is so true. So many times artists don't get taken seriously, and therefore are made to 'play for exposure' for that day sometime in the distant future where they'll be paid for what they do. It's wholly unfair, and it's not a standard most need to deal with. You do work, you get paid. Good on you for realizing this, Apple.

 

[Janichsan]

Wow! Taylor swift just intimidated a multi-billion dollar company in to doing something!

Well, have you seen these cold staring eyes in her blank plastic face?

That's terrifying! If she would turn that gaze unto you, you would do anything, too!

 

[bbeagle]

No, TS wields power in the industry

Exactly. People who pooh-pooh Taylor Swift don't understand that's she's Top 5 most powerful in the industry.

Just because you don't like her music, doesn't negate her power - it just proves you're a fanboy for your music and can't respect reality. In 2015, Taylor Swift is the big dog. In 1965 it was the Beatles, and every year in-between it was somebody else. Things change over time. And ALL of the time, it will appear to be crappy music to someone.

 

[AppleFanBoyCAN]

Thanks for highlighting this issue Taylor. Now enjoy your free Apple Watch Edition!

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Cook has renamed Apple's music catalogue:

iChangedMyTune Store

 

[NachoGrande]

Makes Perfect sense if you accept this was a PR stunt planned by Swift's management and Apple from the very beginning.

Look at the facts
1. This 'situation' allows Taylor Swift to come out as supporting streaming services as the 'savior' of small artists, without looking hypocritical for reversing her decision and views on Spotify.
2. Apple gain a huge amount of positive PR by creating a massive trending discussion and global news story featuring two extremely powerful brands (Swift and Apple), just before the launch of their new service.
3. Apply have spent months if not years working the financials of the streaming deals - but suddenly overnight they re-work all the numbers to make it work in favor of the artists? No chance, this was planned for a long time.

My thoughts exactly.. Multimillion dollar deals are not done in 1 day. I would think the BOD would need to have input before a deal of this magnitude is changed.

 

[hanpa]

Apple's new programing language Swift should be renamed to Taylor Swift IMHO.

 

[johngordon]

Well, the artists would have ended up getting less money. I don't need to do any math whatsoever to figure that out. Would they have starved? No, probably not. The streets would not have been littered with dead musicians. But artists who are currently flipping burgers on the side to make ends meet would have had to flip more burgers for a while. And that is not a great situation.

And I'd absolutely agree with the sentiment that its great that they are getting paid.

But the amounts involved for the sort of artist flipping burgers on the side to make ends meet wouldn't just have been small, they would have been virtually zero.

An artist in that situation would likely have to flip burgers for about 3 seconds longer.

And forever after the first three months get more than they otherwise would have.

 

[MentalFloss]

It's kinda hard for me to feel sorry for Taylor Swift who still charges 200+ per head for her concerts, does she share that with Apple?

Nobody, including Taylor Swift, asked you to be sorry for Taylor Swift.

Artist/ Record label greed is what created the first wave of unbridled piracy

Actually, it was the Internet and the greed of the users who didn't want to pay for music anymore. Artist/record label greed is just a myth made up by people who want some excuse for not paying for music.

Before the Internet, people bought albums. I never heard anyone complain then about how the albums are too expensive and how music should be free. That idea only originated with the invention of MP3 and the widespread adoption of high-bandwidth Internet connections. Only when people were able to copy music with no loss of quality, they started making up reasons for why they should.

and it will, IMHO, be the reason for the second. If these artists think that they are safe from being pirated, they are sadly mistaken.

Who said they are safe from being pirated? You only create that strawman to be able to make such a pseudo-bold statement.

 

[62tele]

Should have just paid them in the first place...

I agree. After all they paid U2 a ridiculous amount of cash to distribute their last album at no charge to Apple users. It's not like they don't have the cash.
However, at least Apple rectified the error. Kudos!
Apple needs to stop being cheap about the small stuff. Instead of withholding small hardware improvements or software features they should help the average consumer with products that will last and not be limited after one generation.

 

[BigInDallas]

No black artist ?

What does that have to do with this