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
Well move over Jesus - we have a new savior. At least that's how the media is treating her anyway.
Honestly, none specifically. Explaining: Maybe T.Swift was in front of this, but same reactions were noted from other artists as well, as also posted in MR (most of them they're just not too famous to be heard). Even T.Swift made it clear that the problem was affecting mainly the small artists rather than the most commercial ones.
If the above is true, and the former policy was really affecting the small artists, then I'm glad apple changed their minds. If, however, the whole thing was planned to be like this, then...this is not the apple I used to know.
Taylor Swift is a thief! Her team demands photographers give their rights to any compensation. These are photographers not being paid by Swift. If the local newspaper wants to send in a photographer to shoot her in concert or during an interview, that photographer must sign over all rights to their photos to Swift for no additional compensation. Swift can use those photos, for free, for anything she likes, worldwide, as much as she wants. This is theft plain and simple, and using the threat of harming the photographers day job to force them to give away their rights. She has no room to complain about anything nor to pretend to be standing up for the little people. Boo Taylor Swift, boo. Here is a better written piece about her thievery.
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/
You cannot compare a musician's job to a software developers job likewise
Does the software developer get continuous royalties every time Apple uses their code? No
If a company told me, I wont pay you for developing this code for 3 months but after that you will get royalties for every person that uses it. I would do it lol.
Do you think artist are going to do promoting of Apple Music for free? I highly doubt it, Apple will still have to pay them for all promotions.
That all depends on the conversion rate, and nobody knows what that will be in the future. Therefore, we cannot assume anything at this point. I do know that I will try Apple Music during the free trial period, and if Apple didn't backtrack, I would have enjoyed all of that free music to the detriment of the music industry.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Poor Apple. I hope this doesn't drive them to bankruptcy.
Here's the math (and let's use your 100 million, which would be a MASSIVE success here)...
100 million free trial users times at approx. $7.20 per month times 3 months = $2.16 Billion dollars. That's wildly best case and most certainly far exceeding what will actually be paid if you read Eddy's words literally. But let's pretend they'll pay up to that much. Is that a "ton of money"? For Apple? How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit does Apple make each month?
This is a marketing promotional expense. Apple will get to write the whole expense off, reducing their tax liability. Among other things it is buying repair to image for some AND the concept that Apple is the best streaming music option for the starving artists... very publicly endorsed just before launch by one of the most popular artists in the world right now.
If Apple flexes this a bit- as they should- Apple marketing can put great pressure on the other streaming music partners to try to show how they look out for the staving artists. And solely on scale, Apple will look like they pay far more to the starving artists than any of the others. Those of us with the sentiment of how artists should get paid should delight in what could be a public showdown illustrating how Apple will pay them the best.
That's all win for Apple. Their only mistake is not announcing the service and this (now) concession right up front, avoiding the negative publicity and riding this good will from the start. Some of you guys are looking at this like Apple is still in 1997 and on the brink and/or that these artists are on par with Apple and should be sharing fully in the risks for their future potential. But Apple is far from the brink... now the dominant force of the industry and the 64,000LB gorilla of the music industry. Apple will pocket more in one month after the service converts to pay than any one of these artists- Swift included- will probably make from the service in a whole year or two. Getting to take about 28% right off the top is a very lucrative business arrangement for basically hosting music (already physically hosted on Apple servers long-since paid for as iTunes support hardware) and managing software to make the service work for tens of millions or a hundred million+ that decides to try (and then the subset that decides to pay for keeping it going).
Last edited:
I guess people don't understand what "investing in a platform" is anymore.
This is so bizarre that you brought race into some ones music selection.
logical progression:
1. Artists angry about not getting paid for a trial period. = Apple paying an undisclosed amount during said time period.
2. Apple reveals its just a fraction of a cent per play. = Artists angry for getting paid for trial period.
This is just going to keep on going...
1. Artists angry about not getting paid for a trial period. = Apple paying an undisclosed amount during said time period.
2. Apple reveals its just a fraction of a cent per play. = Artists angry for getting paid for trial period.
This is just going to keep on going...
Who knows. There's no way in heck that I ever would have bought a Taylor Swift album. But you know, after all this, I am actually tempted to give her album a listen if and when it appears on Apple Music. Pure curiosity (*). So if this was a marketing move by Swift, feel free to call me a stupid victim of a free advertisement for her. Either way, I will not be the only one who would listen to her music through a streaming service without ever wanting to buy any of her albums.
Heck, there's a lot of pop music that I would never buy, but having it play in the background every now and then is quite ok - and that's what a streaming service is for, in my opinion. So she will make money that otherwise, she would not have made. If the bottom line is more or less money for her, I can't say.
(*) In fact, that curiosity has existed ever since the Kanye West incident at the VMAs. I felt "Hey, if someone like West hates her so much, perhaps she's not all that bad after all!"
i for one am glad they conceded: in reality, some indie bands would get popular and lose momentum within this three month trial and only get paid for their waning sales after seeing their 15 minutes come and go rapidly. for them i'd feel bad. but i can't see how popular artists would have suffered from this trial period. short-sighted on their part if their worries are just for themselves. based on what i know about taylor swift, i do think she has smaller labels/artists in mind.
Since spotify pays less for student subscriptions she a fraction for ad based tier there is no reason to believe spotify pays the full subscription royalties during any trial period.
You cannot compare a musician's job to a software developers job likewise
Does the software developer get continuous royalties every time Apple uses their code? No
If a company told me, I wont pay you for developing this code for 3 months but after that you will get royalties for every person that uses it. I would do it lol.
Do you think artist are going to do promoting of Apple Music for free? I highly doubt it, Apple will still have to pay them for all promotions.
true, but many artists and musicians (i.e. NOT superstars) don't get a base salary for the year. if you, a coder, made nothing before and during your period of hard work and cultivation of your skill set, sure, this deal would be great. but your analogy falls short in many ways. especially considering that a record lasts your whole lifetime and you get WAY more return on your investment by listening to it over and over whenever you like - however your coding would probably be gutted, repurposed, or thrown out entirely as the times changed.
You may have a valid point regarding the photography, but I don't understand how you are trying to compare photos to her music and the music of the indie artists for whom she stood up?
That's not meant to be sarcastic by the way - please explain because to me, they are completely different situations.
She wrote Apple on the behalf of indie artists (and all artists really) to say "Hey, while you're giving 3 months free to users, pay the folks for their music of which you're offering up for free" That makes sense to me.
The photos, I'll completely agree with you, it's just not right to refuse paying for photographs from a newspaper etc.. and then want all the rights. If it's a free lancer working for TMZ or something, I have no sympathy b/c I don't understand how you can take photos of anyone or thing and expect to make money without paying that party - or, in the least, obtaining permission.
Cheers,
Keebler
Why would they care about software?
This is basic artist decency by Apple. Has nothing to do with the platform, it's the way they're paid.
Exactly, I won't even reply to those kind of questions.
Really? So let's assume you are earning X Dollars per month, and your employer asks you to take a pay cut for three months, and then you will get royalties which make up... about... X Dollars a month, you would do it?You cannot compare a musician's job to a software developers job likewise
Does the software developer get continuous royalties every time Apple uses their code? No
If a company told me, I wont pay you for developing this code for 3 months but after that you will get royalties for every person that uses it. I would do it lol.
Your calculation only sounds great, because you make "royalties for every person that uses it" sound great. It's not. Not for the majority of artists.
The fact is that the artists currently get royalties. Apple is asking them to accept less royalties for three months, and after that, they will go back to what they had before, plus a potentially minor increase. Really, you would accept that?
This is great news. Apple was perfectly within their rights to not offer compensation but doing so gives them the high ground (even if they were convinced onto that high ground).
Sure she would. She is one of a handful of artists with the clout and control of her career and music.
She pulled her music from spotify ad tier not big machine.
It's not that. It is Taylor using her influence to speak to Apple and in a very short time Apple said ya, you're right, not paying them is a bad idea, OK we will pay them now. This is after whatever planning and research that Apple did when they concluded this no paying idea is the plan they will move forward with.
Taylor speaks and in just a few days, boom, complete reversal and they are going with Taylors idea and they even tweeted about it.
So ya, Taylor strong arming Apple with the broad reaching platform she has does seem like what happened here.