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
I can't believe Apple realized that it is fair to compensate artists for their work.
Last edited:
Love that Apple PR machine. Taylor, you rant on twitter, and we’ll reply a day later and change our ‘original plans’. Got it? 
Billy Corgan was on CNBC this morning ripping Apple a new one. Basically saying they don't care about artists and are using music to sell more hardware. Is he part of Schiller's marketing scheme too?Great marketing ploy by Apple. Set up a public spat with a global star, hits the headlines world wide. Well done Phil Schiller
Seriously, you are mistaking Taylor Swift as a person. Taylor Swift and her brand are integral part of music industry and therefore should be viewed as corporate entity. This is about consumers having to "pay for free" aka free trial which they eventually will if they end up subscribing to Apple Music. Brands like Taylor Swift represent the corporate greed that has nearly destroyed music industry by not accepting solutions that would allow wider consumer reach.
I think the whole thing is quite ludicrous really and I don't follow the argument that indie musicians were going to significantly lose out by the 3-month trial being unpaid, but it's a pragmatic move by Apple and they'll have gained a lot of publicity from being in the news about the issue (I don't think it was some planned conspiracy, but I can see why some might suggest that!).
I compose my own music (soundcloud.com/fdporco) and am happy to provide it for free. Its value to me is purely artistic (some may think it awful, that's fine too!) but I don't feel like because I'm not a signed artist selling it as a job that it's worthless. I find this 'music being free devalues it' argument a very specious one.
That said, the artist should have the final say over what they want to do with their music, and not feel coerced by a massive corporation into doing stuff they don't want to.
I compose my own music (soundcloud.com/fdporco) and am happy to provide it for free. Its value to me is purely artistic (some may think it awful, that's fine too!) but I don't feel like because I'm not a signed artist selling it as a job that it's worthless. I find this 'music being free devalues it' argument a very specious one.
That said, the artist should have the final say over what they want to do with their music, and not feel coerced by a massive corporation into doing stuff they don't want to.
Yeah, I'm really not sure why Apple is so interested in doing streaming music except that it really is true that music in their DNA. They see that iTunes sales are going to drop off and they want to make sure that they stay involved in the space. But I don't think it is about making a huge profit in this area. They are probably just doing this to make the experience of using a Smartphone (and maybe the Watch, which can download music) better.
Beats was an odd acquisition and probably Apple overpaid. But as long as the hardware remains popular, this investment can pay off. And I'm sure Apple can use some of the headphone hardware knowledge and tech in the VR set they are working on.
Sorry - I assumed we were talking about her music.
I still don't see what the big deal is. NYCgo presumably wants to encourage people to visit NYC. Taylor Swift is a high profile figure who has visited NYC, loved it, and wrote a song about how great it is. And NYCgo are using that to promote the city to other visitors.
So um, yeah - remind me what this has to do with her music.
"She" might just be a humanoid robot lady who wails dirges and has as much talent in her little finger as she has in the rest of her whole body - but she/it has proven that the Turing Test really did work here!
Sorry, but you're misguided. I am no fan of Swift. (I couldn't name one of her songs other than "Shake it Off".) Swift gets paid based on her market appeal. Superstars can charge what the market will allow. This has always been true. Apple has no right to stream music to market Apple's service without paying the artists for their creations.
It doesn't sound as though you have listened to much of her music or know much about her.
Amazing how you figured that out, and no one else did. Apple is genius at PR! And you still love it.Love that Apple PR machine. Taylor, you rant on twitter, and we’ll reply a day later and change our ‘original plans’. Got it?
Actually they did have a choice, they could've dropped TS just like Spotify let her go. Don't pretend that she has that much control over the industry.
I still think this was all a PR stunt. Just wait in the coming days or weeks and MR will be posting this news if it's true, or a rumor.
I use Spotify right now and I'm perfectly satisfied with my experience. I don't think Apple needs Apple Music to sell hardware or make the iOS experience better. Ben Thompson wrote a piece on Stratechery wondering out loud if Apple was losing focus and if they really needed to stand up a streaming music service. Personally I don't think they had a choice but like I said I don't think they need to focus this much energy on it. They could use existing iTunes employees to stand something up and curate stations/playlists. This whole global 24/7 lets copy BBC Radio radio station and Connect social media stuff is not necessary. I can easily pull up TuneIn and listen to thousands of world wide radio stations including BBC Radio 1. Most people are already plugged into Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The last thing they need is another social place in their lives. And the last thing artists need is another place they feel they have to post content too. It's just more work and for what exactly?
I don't think so because of course that would leak and then Apple would really look bad. If it was a PR stunt then someone needs to be fired for concocting such a stupid thing.Actually they did have a choice, they could've dropped TS just like Spotify let her go. Don't pretend that she has that much control over the industry.
I still think this was all a PR stunt. Just wait in the coming days or weeks and MR will be posting this news if it's true, or a rumor.
I have a slight different take on this - Imagine if Apple announces the same 3 month trial and also that they will be paying the 9.99 fees for all their customers - I bet Spotify will then be crying to the FCC for antitrust claiming Apple is trying to gain market share by buying into the market.
Now Apple has a way out saying that this is what their content providers are demanding.
Am I reading this right, despite this - she still hasn't agreed to put her album on Apple Music?
Apple won't look bad. It's in the name of business. Any company would do this and they have. Nothing new, nothing illegal and nothing immoral. But I like how you said "Apple would look bad" and not Ms. Taylor. Hmmm.
If the company and TS created this PR stunt then who would be fired? That's nonsensical.
Love that Apple PR machine. Taylor, you rant on twitter, and we’ll reply a day later and change our ‘original plans’. Got it?
This achieves similar levels of ridulousness as claiming that Bush bombed the twin towers to have an excuse to invade Afghanistan.
They bought Beats for Jimmy Iovine and Dre since they no longer have Jobs to do the negotiating for music. Just shows how much Jobs really did for Apple.
What you are claiming is nonsensical. There are multitudes of ways how Apple could have announced Apple Music with the same amount of exposure as creating an artificial scandal. No one here is realizing that this is quite bad press for Apple. There is not a trained marketing professional on this planet that would think this up.
Exactly.
This was clearly a pre-planned publicity stunt that hugely benefits BOTH parties.
A huge company like Apple reverses course on something as big as this in less than 24 hrs (most of which was a Sunday)?
And they conveniently report their reversal on early Monday AM (had the sun even risen in California?) so as to get *all* the elements of this "incredible" story in place before the week's news cycle even begins, thus minimizing any negative press.
I don't buy it for a second.
Didn't see anywhere there was a deal that if Apple pays all the artists during trial period, she will put her album in Apple Music. All she did was join her voice with every other artist in complaining. Definitely it worked because she is considered as the heavyweight among artists. No matter how bad her songs are or how much money she makes for herself, that she came to help the indie artists who were getting treated like crap by Apple, makes me feel like she knows what she is doing.
And she's still not going to allow 1989 to stream on Apple Music? She pulls her album and demands Apple pay artists during the free period, Apple respond in a positive way and she still pulls her 1989 album?
You know what Swift, keep your album. Your music is worth too much obviously!
You know what Swift, keep your album. Your music is worth too much obviously!