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, it's the basic thought process that goes into any kind of investment. You take a hit for now, hoping that you will get something out of it later.
I guess the difference here is that only one specific group of people was asked to make that investment. Sure, Apple as a corporation (i.e. the shareholders) made an investment here, but Eddy Cue certainly did not agree to a pay cut for three months in exchange for a minor raise after Apple Music takes off. That is my main complaint. Most people would consider it an absurd request if their employer approached them with that kind of proposal (ok, this kind of thing could happen at a start-up, but Apple certainly isn't a start-up anymore). But artists somehow have to be financially flexible, forward-looking, innovative people who are always willing to take a risk. Everyone expects a steady paycheck, but as artists are used to fluctuating royalty payments, people think it's fine if these payments fluctuate a bit more... downwards.
It's like there's a bunch of people sitting in a room... developers, marketing, management, artists, designers, networking experts, etc., etc., planning the "Next Big Thing (tm)" in music business, which might become the new iPod, or it might become the new Ping (who knows), and when someone mentions financing and how to make the launch as cheap as possible, everyone suddenly turns to the musicians.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If they are only going to get pennies, what are we whining about? Apple is very likely to be able to afford pennies... hopefully
What spending a few pennies does is changes everything about the building perception of Apple the big, greedy bully in this situation. I'm not saying they are a big, greedy bully, but it's the perception that was highlighted here. Apple could see that there was no easy way to spin out of it without reversing, so they reversed. This was a growing PR problem not a bratty, rich musician problem. Some of us are griping like Swift played Darth Vader here to take down the rebels but those more objective might cast Swift in the role of Leia, because she simply leveraged a position of relative power within the rebels to try to rally the troops to action against a much larger, far more powerful entity.
And again, this is all good... even for Apple. They'll write the whole cost off and they'll now look like the company that cares so much about the artists that they'll be sure they are paid even while Apple is making nothing from the service during the trial. Famous musicians like Swift pretty much must praise Apple's move now... right as it goes into a full-speed-ahead launch. Her influence on her own fanboys & girls alone is enough to bring a lot of new people to Apple Music and Apple hardware. All these other musicians who were apparently also griping to Apple behind the scenes (per Eddy's own admission) will also be able to reverse their stance against Apple here and endorse Apple's new service too. This is practically a PR case study of turning lemons into lemonade. What a bargain and what timing!
What really happened is Taylor Swift threatened to sue Apple over their Swift programming language.... so Apple caved.
Oh. So what you really mean is that you don't like autotune.
So unless every pop song uses autotune, and no song in another genre like country would ever use autotune, its absurd to say you don't like any pop music, at all, because of autotune.
Not you paying dust to her best album, 2010's Speak Now. If you want to criticize pop Taylor, start with Red.
It's not "real music" just because you say it is, though.
Service Updates
. That is actually how the Software industry works.They sell pre developed components to people and then have a yearly fee to continue getting updates for it. Having a per user fee would be even better and there are a few companies that charge based on each install. My analogy holds perfectly fine
.Well written code can easily last a
This service benefits both the Artist and Apple at the end of the day.
I would do it. If you know, whatever it is you do is a good product you should have no problem with this model.
Heck, this is how most Freelancers work. Spend a lot of time putting together a marketable product, with no income and then go out and sell that product to everyone.
Not likely that Apple will double the price of Apple Music after a year. That's just a paranoid fantasy.
Some people think Apple is like their cable provider or carrier. Relax, not every company is entirely satanic.
In stead of second guessing the motivations of something that might not adhere to your personal taste, it might be good to look at the overall picture and see what is happening here.
I'm actually starting to believe the entire thing is a massive two way publicity stunt.
She's got a new album coming.
Apple have a new music service coming.
Swift's "open letter" was overly flattering toward Apple, going as far as to praise them multiple times.
Then Eddy Cue appears less than 24 hours later with the "news" Apple would be paying labels and artists for the free trial duration, commenting that Apple and Swift have a good relationship.
So now both Apple and Swift are trending and both Swift (and her new album) as well as Apple Music is being spoken about in a positive light.
Her for getting a big company to "back down" and Apple for "doing the right thing".
Publicity stunt, planned to perfection.
I dunno, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The whole thing seems too "perfect". First, Apple Music is about to open for business in a week. Taylor Swift is a thorn in Spotify's side. They let her go without any amount of compromise. Then over night Taylor Swift post a public letter to Apple (something she didn't do to Spotify) threatening to pull her album if they didn't pay artists. Within a few hours Apple responds and simply reverses their decision. Hmmm. That was just too easy.
Not only did Apple respond but instead of getting in touch with Taylor's label to discuss terms or come to an agreement Eddie Cue decides to post on Taylor's Twitter Page saying, "We hear ya Taylor, we're reversing the decision". Well isn't that just too unbelievable? It's very un-Apple like or unlike any company for that matter to instantly bow down and post on the artists Twitter Page reversing a business decision.
To me, it just seems like this was all setup between Taylor Swift and Apple. It makes Taylor look good and promotes her album. It makes Apple the good guy and creates more buzz for their forthcoming music streaming service, and it's jab at Spotify on a competitor level.
IMO, had this been real TS would've spoken up the day after the Music keynote and at least one other artist would've made a public stance on this. Not a single person besides TS made any public buzz.
Nobody here has to agree with this but if it's true somehow the truth will hit the airwaves.
Not only did Apple respond but instead of getting in touch with Taylor's label to discuss terms or come to an agreement Eddie Cue decides to post on Taylor's Twitter Page saying, "We hear ya Taylor, we're reversing the decision". Well isn't that just too unbelievable? It's very un-Apple like or unlike any company for that matter to instantly bow down and post on the artists Twitter Page reversing a business decision.
To me, it just seems like this was all setup between Taylor Swift and Apple. It makes Taylor look good and promotes her album. It makes Apple the good guy and creates more buzz for their forthcoming music streaming service, and it's jab at Spotify on a competitor level.
IMO, had this been real TS would've spoken up the day after the Music keynote and at least one other artist would've made a public stance on this. Not a single person besides TS made any public buzz.
Nobody here has to agree with this but if it's true somehow the truth will hit the airwaves.
Yes, as someone calculated above, the artists would break even after 70 months, and then they would start benefitting. If the service takes off.
Yes, that it exactly what musicians do. They spend a lot of time putting together a marketable product, with no income...
...and then Apple comes and asks them to provide that product for free for three months. That's where the analogy breaks down.
Like people here have said, if you have the bad luck of actually releasing your new album during the free trial period, then it could actually be the most-listened-to albume in Apple Music for three months - you would not make a single Cent. Then the three months are over and another album takes up the top spot. Well, tough luck! But at least you invested into a great service that is now really benefitting some other artist.
Me too.
No, that's not until late 2016.
Yes, but she also criticized them harshly.
Not perfect, but fooled many people. I'm impressed.
So is Apple going to pay the extra % that they were to make up for the 3 months or just the standard contract amount. If only the standard amount that means that in the long run artists are going to make less than they would have and Apple will actually make more in the long run.
What a wimp company - remember Taylor is probably significantly richer than any one at Apple. I certainly won't touch any of her music now - and pretending she cares for other independents - what a joke.
Taylor would make a great president - she is a crook and a loser
What a wimp company - remember Taylor is probably significantly richer than any one at Apple. I certainly won't touch any of her music now - and pretending she cares for other independents - what a joke.
Taylor would make a great president - she is a crook and a loser
This thread now has 29 comment pages, so I think that joke has been made about 29 times in this thread already.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It appears so. So all this whining about Apple getting so ripped off here is probably about almost nothing. To read some of the comments, you'd think we're worried that this could bankrupt Apple but if one does the math even on a wildly successful rollout, one can see that even if Apple was paying full price for every streamer, it is highly unlikely to cost even close to what they paid for Beats or what they profit in a single month.
This is actually a big score for Apple PR at what should be a relatively low cost. The press coverage alone will reframe the entire image from Apple being a villain by robbing poor, starving artists for 3 months to Apple looking out for them while the free trial runs. From black knight to white knight almost overnight and with only a small PR expenditure they can fully write off.
Well, it's the basic thought process that goes into any kind of investment. You take a hit for now, hoping that you will get something out of it later.
I guess the difference here is that only one specific group of people was asked to make that investment. Sure, Apple as a corporation (i.e. the shareholders) made an investment here, but Eddy Cue certainly did not agree to a pay cut for three months in exchange for a minor raise after Apple Music takes off. That is my main complaint. Most people would consider it an absurd request if their employer approached them with that kind of proposal (ok, this kind of thing could happen at a start-up, but Apple certainly isn't a start-up anymore). But artists somehow have to be financially flexible, forward-looking, innovative people who are always willing to take a risk. Everyone expects a steady paycheck, but as artists are used to fluctuating royalty payments, people think it's fine if these payments fluctuate a bit more... downwards.
It's like there's a bunch of people sitting in a room... developers, marketing, management, artists, designers, networking experts, etc., etc., planning the "Next Big Thing (tm)" in music business, which might become the new iPod, or it might become the new Ping (who knows), and when someone mentions financing and how to make the launch as cheap as possible, everyone suddenly turns to the musicians.
You completely discount the millions of dollars Apple invested in the worlds largest music infrastructure and distribution service and chalk it up to "a few million dollars" that if they lost wouldn't even impact their bottom line. They spent decades and probably billions establishing their market position to even be ABLE to be in the position to offer this type of service. You act like its a crime they are making a higher percentage than the artists in return for the past 20 years of work creating their music business??
Maybe artists should go back to begging people at malls to check out their new mix tapes for $6. Like Taylor swift is this little girl burning CD's in her basement and writing its title with a sharpie on it. According to your logic, poor "Taylor Swift Inc." sitting at a net worth of over 200 million is NOT an individual, but a corporation so she can AFFORD to lose a few tens of millions and it not even effect her bottom line (extreme sarcasm). Your logic is just because someone has more money they have an all new set of rules to operate by, completely discounting the hard work and risk they put into GETTING into that position.
Listen, indie artists need exposure and seemless turnkey distribution to survive these days just like Apple needs subscribers to ensure Apple music doesn't fail. Otherwise indie artists return to sharpies in their basement and playing at local dive bars and Apple just sells whole albums on iTunes, both of which are dying business structures.
Last edited:
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 on Twitter and, according to
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.
Update 4:30 AM PT: Cue confirmed to Re/code's Peter Kafka that Apple Music will pay rights holders an undisclosed amount on a per-streaming basis during the free trial period. Swift tweeted that she is "elated and relieved" about the change of course, although Cue told multiple publications that she has not yet agreed to stream top-selling album "1989" through Apple Music.
Cue also told BuzzFeed News reporter John Paczkowski that "Taylor Swift's tweet today solidified the issue for us" and "we decided to make a change." Paczkowski says that all artists will be paid during the free trial period, although deals with publishers already on board with Apple Music stand. Cue personally called Swift to inform her of the decision and said "she was thrilled to hear from us."
Article Link: Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial
Dear Apple,
That is all.
Love Taylor.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This horse has been beat to death. This is Apple's service that Apple wants to launch. This was not a partnership engagement between Apple and all these artists. There was no equal say here. The 64,000LB gorilla decided it wanted to move in and dominate this particular space and it flexed it's "most important music retailer" might to dictate what it wanted and ended up getting most of it. The service was announced to the public before all these independent artist agreements were even forged, so they very much did not have any say. They were as surprised as us consumers.
If it was any other wholesaler-scenario, the wholesaler would buy the product from the creators/suppliers and then give it away if the wholesaler wanted a free trial offer. Apple wanted the business benefit of the give away for 3 months without having to pay the wholesaler bill to the creators of the product. "But Apple won't make anything during the free trial either". True, but Apple's goal is to create a long-term new profit stream by leveraging a free trial offer to somewhat addict a segment to the service enough to motivate them to stay (a very, very common tactic often behind just about every free or heavily-discounted promotional trial offer). Apple is well equipped to make far more than this will cost over the long term. Years after the 3-month trial is history, Apple can still be making 28% every month we pay. For some of these artists without $200 Billion in the bank and billions in profits pouring in each month, the long-play reward is not nearly as palatable.
What do you make at wherever you work? Imagine Apple deciding they want to give away your product for several months as part of getting an Apple service off the ground. Do you just roll over and run with that? "If that's a free trial, it means zero initial revenue for anyone. And potentially lots of revenue for everyone after the trial" Do you do it? If so, good for you. I hope Apple decides it wants to bite into the industry in which you work so that you can experience the same scenario first hand.
Last edited:
She doesn't have a new album coming.
So I guess there goes the conspiracy theory.