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 needs iTunes to be great for Artists and Fans. It will payoff in the end. Just like Apple Paid billions to App Devs (except me). It will be the #1 market place for Musicians as well.
Why are you putting Apple AGAINST people? You present no middle ground here with your logic: ALL people are always good and all coporations are always bad.
Corporations are built on people, and run by people. Apple provides thousands of people with jobs, livelihoods, retirement plans, 401k's, paid vacations for memories to be made with family and friends etc. And that's just direct employees, not even mentioning indirect jobs and lives that are effected by them creating new markets with app development for entertainment, medical research, art etc.
Think of all the people they have empowered to enrich their lives through the devices and services they make. All the books and music able to be experienced because of their evil corporate greediness.
They have stood up for user privacy when other companies haven't, they self audit their sub contractors even for safety and health. I own a small business and I'm not paying a dime to send inspectors and auditors to my sub contractors companies and demanding they pay more, improve their working conditions etc.
Tim Cook has doubled paid vacation times during thanksgiving and Christmas, implemented charity donation matching for their employees, donated millions to LGBT communities, promoted and fought for female gender equality within the workplace, stood up against even the U.S. government for the privacy of their customers, transferred the company to 75% renewable, green energy with a goal of 100% within the next couple years, ALL to set an example of doing what the PEOPLE running the company feel convicted to do to set an example. Making money isn't evil, and empowers people like Tim Cook and Apple to both create devices and services within the structure of capitalism to empower and improve people's lives, AND make money so that they can continue to invest BILLIONS into creating those devices and services to improve people's lives.
I don't get the mindset of you and people like you spreading so much hatred and anger and bitterness towards people like me (who run a business) who have sacrificed YEARS of our lives to try and start a small ("evil") corporation (hopefully growing into a larger, more successful event one) to try and make money while providing services to other people or ("evil") corporations to try and fulfill the American Dream in hopes of being rewarded for our hard work with a great retirement and future for my kids. THAT is truly "amazing, bizarre and absurd."
Last edited:
I think this assumption that all your revenue would dry up is unlikely to be the case though.
Your music doesn't exist in a bubble where the only current option is buying it on iTunes, making free streaming a new alternative option.
If people want to listen to your music for free instead of buy it on iTunes, they can already do that on Spotify.
I just don't think your worst case scenario is ever likely to play out once you put numbers in - in order for it to happen, it would need virtually all sales to dry up, in favour of streaming.
If that hasn't already happened with the availability of Spotify's free tier, which would make an artist a tiny fraction of iTunes sales, then it seems unlikely to happen in the next three months.
You don't think its unauthentic for someone that lived in Nashville to not only suddenly move to New York, the greatest city in the world, but then also have the chutzpah to pretend she knows and loves the city enough to become an official city ambassador less than a year after moving there? Yeah, that's about as fake as it gets.
How so? Indie Artists, by definition, are not part of the music industry cartel, which Apple is not so much looking to break up as supplant.
If the service takes off, then it won't take 70 months to break even. Taking off implies an increase in customers over time, so the benefits to the artists will accumulate faster and faster.
If it doesn't take off, the users will get their music from somewhere, paid or unpaid. And the artists will get paid (or not) based on that. Apple has more to lose than the artists.
Nah, I meant the whole Taylor Swift open letter and Twitter "tempest in a teapot", and then Apple caving in - to me it's pretty clear this was all arranged to patch up the negative feedback due to the initial (piss poor) decision to not pay artists during the trial period.
When you say "pretend she knows and loves the city enough to become an official city ambassador less than a year after moving there" do you just mean wrote a song about being new in New York?
Where are you getting all the stuff about being an official city ambassador from?
http://www.nycgo.com/w2nyWhen you say "pretend she knows and loves the city enough to become an official city ambassador less than a year after moving there" do you just mean wrote a song about being new in New York?
Where are you getting all the stuff about being an official city ambassador from?
Please be aware of the topic you are speaking about.
Remember, Apple didn't negotiate the terms of Apple Music with the artists, they done it with the labels.
For Apple to say, on a whim, that they're going to pay for the 3 month trial period, I don't buy it. That goes against the terms and conditions they agreed with the labels, you can't just alter months of negotiations on a whim because someone writes an open letter.
That's why I believe this was the plan for the start, Apple were always going to pay the labels (and therefore the artist) during the 3 month trial but wanted to do something to publicly highlight it and do so in such a way it would seem like massive news.
For Apple to say, on a whim, that they're going to pay for the 3 month trial period, I don't buy it. That goes against the terms and conditions they agreed with the labels, you can't just alter months of negotiations on a whim because someone writes an open letter.
That's why I believe this was the plan for the start, Apple were always going to pay the labels (and therefore the artist) during the 3 month trial but wanted to do something to publicly highlight it and do so in such a way it would seem like massive news.
Comparing pop music sales and number of chart toppers does not correlate to how good an artist is. Comparing Taylor Swift's album sales to Michael Jackson's is not fair either. How we consume media in a post-Internet age changes everything, and is not fair to compare with the pre-Internet age.
The whole music industry is a mess, where record labels have way too much power. The growing trend is for a lack of ownership of media and a growing demand for streaming. Apple knows this entering the music streaming market, and did right by offering payment during the free trial period to artists and labels, even though they didn't have to. I personally think they should have right off the bat. But it doesn't really matter now because I'm sure Apple Music will go on to be a hit and we will all forget this happened and move on to the next thing Apple is cooking up. And then more haters will come to hate that.
The whole music industry is a mess, where record labels have way too much power. The growing trend is for a lack of ownership of media and a growing demand for streaming. Apple knows this entering the music streaming market, and did right by offering payment during the free trial period to artists and labels, even though they didn't have to. I personally think they should have right off the bat. But it doesn't really matter now because I'm sure Apple Music will go on to be a hit and we will all forget this happened and move on to the next thing Apple is cooking up. And then more haters will come to hate that.
Seriously? Do you even know what it takes to "sing" music? Let alone, write it and produce it? Thats a slam to artists from any field. Shut up.
But according to the article Apple is not altering already negotiated contracts, so they still will not be paying the labels during the free trial period. It seems to affect only new contracts and indie artists. It is still not clear to me if artists under contract to a label that has an existing contract will get paid.
Last edited:
Breathe, people. Enjoy some sunlight. This service has not yet launched; no one's used the service for free for 90 days, there are no users (yet), and no artist has missed out on payments because of Apple's non-payment during the users' free trial period. it seems Apple is still working out agreements, and making changes to how the service will work.
For those born before the web was invented, did you ever think you'd be able to call up and play any song ever recorded simply by asking verbally? The future rules. But who could have imagined how it would happen? This is how it happened.
For those born before the web was invented, did you ever think you'd be able to call up and play any song ever recorded simply by asking verbally? The future rules. But who could have imagined how it would happen? This is how it happened.
Companies have had a huge amount of power over artists for a long time, because only big companies had the resources to provide promotion and distribution.
But now? Promotion? One tweet from Taylor Swift is unparalleled promotion. And Taylor Swift can self-distribute, if she wants, for zero cost. Taylor Swift can write, perform, record and distribute her stuff.
Whether or not we think she's an artist, she's the creator and owner of valuable content.
Apple needs Taylor Swift a hella lot more than Taylor Swift needs Apple.
And that's why we see Apple caving. It's a new world, hopefully one that benefits all artists not just supernova stars.
Join Taylor Swift and the 55 million other visitors who come to New York City every year.
No. Swift has been on an anti-streaming rampage for a while now, even before they amounted Apple Music. It is much more likely that this is just a coincidental interaction as opposed a planned campaign. But that would be much more boring and would not satisfy conspiracy theorists.
It is not clear at all. You are all reading too much into this.
This decision isn't as black and white as some people seem to think it is. I like Apple. I also like Taylor Swift. I think both of their intentions are in the right place. Taylors letter to Apple was well written and I believe her concern for smaller artists is genuine and it makes logical sense. That said, I do take one small issue with the ending of her letter.
She says, "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
The problem with this line of thinking is that when Taylor Swift is buying an iPhone she isn't contributing anything there. She is purely a customer. On the other hand, when I use Apple Music to play a Taylor Swift song Apple is contributing. In that example, Apple isn't Taylors customer, Apple is her business partner. Both Apple and Taylor Swift have something to gain if Apple Music is a success. Apple is essentially asking both partners to invest in a future where they both benefit. Keep in mind that Apple isn't getting paid for the first three months either. What it boils down to is Taylor essentially making the argument that Apple can pay and therefore they should pay. While I'm not sure how much Apple will be paying in total, I would note that Taylor is worth 200 million and could potentially pay for smaller labels if she cared to.
Apple could play hardball back with Taylor and ultimately Apple would probably win. Apple won't do that though because of the poor PR they would receive. The other thing is that Apple understands what no other tech company seems to have figured out yet. In the grand scheme of things Apple doesn't really make any money from music but they understand that being a major player there is the best way for them to remain cool over the long term. Basically Apple won't fight back on this because they understand that a relatively small investment here and good relationships with artists is worth being "cool" for the next decade or so.
She says, "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
The problem with this line of thinking is that when Taylor Swift is buying an iPhone she isn't contributing anything there. She is purely a customer. On the other hand, when I use Apple Music to play a Taylor Swift song Apple is contributing. In that example, Apple isn't Taylors customer, Apple is her business partner. Both Apple and Taylor Swift have something to gain if Apple Music is a success. Apple is essentially asking both partners to invest in a future where they both benefit. Keep in mind that Apple isn't getting paid for the first three months either. What it boils down to is Taylor essentially making the argument that Apple can pay and therefore they should pay. While I'm not sure how much Apple will be paying in total, I would note that Taylor is worth 200 million and could potentially pay for smaller labels if she cared to.
Apple could play hardball back with Taylor and ultimately Apple would probably win. Apple won't do that though because of the poor PR they would receive. The other thing is that Apple understands what no other tech company seems to have figured out yet. In the grand scheme of things Apple doesn't really make any money from music but they understand that being a major player there is the best way for them to remain cool over the long term. Basically Apple won't fight back on this because they understand that a relatively small investment here and good relationships with artists is worth being "cool" for the next decade or so.