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
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Streaming music burns a lot of data. Burning lots of data in 4G and LTE devices makes more money for key iPhone-subsidizing partners. Subsidies are key to iPhone sales. iPhone sales are most of Apple's revenue & profit. Rinse, repeat.
Look at each big iDevice innovation the last few years: Siri, Retina, Maps, Facetime, iCloud, etc. What do they all have in common? They all beg for data burn. What's next? The much touted Apple cable replacement video streaming service. Nothing will burn data faster than streaming HD video.
If I'm AT&T, Verizon, etc, I absolutely love the idea of Apple Music. And I'm even more excited about Apple "new model" (cable replacement) solution for streaming video. I'd also like to see Apple keep selling iDevices with relatively little storage because I know the masses will buy the cheapest one and then need to stream more data to make the most of them.
Otherwise, I don't see it either. There's all this spin about how consumer preference has shifted to renting music instead of owning it but that seems entirely based upon new music sales falling off a bit while existing streaming services seem to be adding more users. That LOOKS like the consumers are showing their preference. But I think it's a misinterpretation, ignoring the reality that used CDs are the same as new CDs when imported into iTunes... but they don't count as a new music sale because they've already been counted. Similarly, the drive to re-buy the same music is almost extinct because the old music library doesn't degrade in digital form, so the historical repurchases of on-the-shelf have thinned out. Third, when Junior leaves the nest, instead of having to go out and rebuy his parents music for anything he'd like to have in his collection, he can instead just take their whole collection with him.
Lastly, the biggest issue IMO is the lack of new, quality "must have" music that isn't already in our music collections (in other words, this is a modern music quality issue). Where is the modern day music that is as great as the favorites already in our collection? When I was younger, I'd tune into the "Top 40" programs to hear the best songs in the land. Inevitably there would be 8 or 15 new songs debuting in any given top 40 and I'd probably like 4-6 of them enough to want to run out and buy them. Now, I tune into top 40 programs and I hardly ever hear a song that is "must have". That's not me saying there's NO good music, just not as much (to my own tastes) as when I was younger. That's very subjective- just my own opinion- but, back then, my friends & family did the same generating enough revenues that there could be these things called record stores renting space in expensive malls and paying staff to work there. Now (and again this is very subjective), the music sounds over-produced, overly formulaic, almost the same song (or the same drum beat) over and over again. While there are certainly exceptions, they- IMO- seem relatively few and far between. Maybe this streaming music access to everything and it's "new music discovery" is going to make it possible for people like me to easily find all of this great music NOT already in my collection. I'm somewhat skeptical... but hopeful.
Does that mean nobody wants streaming? No there are always people who want to or have to rent instead of buy (in all things). But is streaming "the future"? We'll see. I think it will look like a massive success in free trial mode. Then, we'll see how many of us want to actually pay for "the future"... especially when- if we like it- we can switch back to Spotify's free tier to continue our free trial experience indefinitely.
Last edited:
Nice try at a rebuttal. Failed attempt. There's nothing nonsensical about what I said. The timing is too perfect. But by all means go ahead and believe that TS just magically saved the entire music industry overnight against the all mighty and powerful OZ, AKA as Apple Corp. I have an ice sculpture I can sell you for a few thousand that's guaranteed to work amazingly well in Phoenix Arizona in 115 degree weather.
No - remind me what her doing a promo clip for NYCgo has to do with her music, which is what I thought we were discussing.
Until you mentioned the NYCgo thing as though she thought so much of herself and what she knew about NYC that she was standing for Mayor or something.
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
Simply a well designed PR stunt......well designed.
So does this mean the PR stunt started back when Swift pulled stuff from Spotify? Have they been playing the long con all this time?
Or, you know, it could just be that she gives a crap.
Or, you know, it could just be that she gives a crap.
Oh dear lord. You don't have any idea about competition legislation and market dynamics. Please stop.
Wrong. Her exact words were "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." Apple did their part and now she's going back on her word.
Your point would have some validity accept for the fact that Android users won't be paying Apple anything for data. Sure they'll get the $9.99/mo but in terms of data (which is the point your making) Apple won't see a dime of that from Android phones.
I agree, with you. This Taylor Swift exercise could be an opportunity for Apple to deflect any thoughts of Deja Vu (thinking the book publishers debacle). This situation of busting up the existing distribution model to screw up the competition and gain penetration, as well as protecting Itunes, could already be under review.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think you missed the point. Apple people aren't paying Apple anything for data either (at least not directly). Maybe you think I'm seeing 9.99 music streaming as the data. That's not what I mean at all.
My supposition is about making partners like AT&T, Verizon, etc happier by increasing data burn. Happy subsidy-paying partners is good for Apple's business. Apple could limit that offering to just Apple iPhone but by spreading this service to Android too, there's that much more data to be burned, which should make even more money for AT&T, Verizon, etc who should appreciate Apple all the more for helping grow their success. Else, why offer an Apple (unique) service on Android too? What's in that for Apple other than 28% of $9.99 per month?
Where do you get that this was planned? Taylor pulled her music months ago from Spotify and she has ALWAYS been outspoken against stealing music. She's a smart girl when it comes to this stuff.
Getting paid for what you produce is a good principle and helps everyone … indie or highly successful.
There are way too many comments here to read through them all but my theory is this:
- they always intended to pay during the trial period, but because of the risk of being singled out for the anticompetitive behavior of giving something away for free that other providers could not afford to do.
- now that they have had a "public spat" they will be able to say that it wasnt anti competitive but that their hand was forced and they had to pay.
Apple gets the free publicity, plus a defense against anti competitive behavior, because it is not what they had originally planned but it was forced upon them.
- they always intended to pay during the trial period, but because of the risk of being singled out for the anticompetitive behavior of giving something away for free that other providers could not afford to do.
- now that they have had a "public spat" they will be able to say that it wasnt anti competitive but that their hand was forced and they had to pay.
Apple gets the free publicity, plus a defense against anti competitive behavior, because it is not what they had originally planned but it was forced upon them.
As someone who has been working in the mobile industry for nearly two decades, I will tell you one thing that the mobile operators definitely don't want you to do, and that is: use more data. Operators are constantly behind the bandwidth demand. Yes, they get more money from you when you purchase plans with higher volumes, but you are also using up a very expensive resource that is very scarce for the operator.
Or have you ever seen any operator actually promoting a high-bandwidth service? If operators wanted you to use up more data, then they would be doing that already. They'd already be offering you their own high-quality music services or video services. They wouldn't be waiting for Apple to create the service (and make the profit). Very few operators do that - in fact, the few that I know which do that don't make you pay for the data volume you use when using these services (e.g. there are operators which include Spotify in the monthly fee without charging you for the volume). So that is where your little conspiracy theory falls apart.
It's completely the other way around: Apple releases services that make the operators worry that they will kill their networks. What do you think why so many operators did not allow VoIP or video calls via their networks for so long? If they wanted to drive up data volumes, they would have encouraged people to use services like that. There is no partnership between Apple and operators where the operators would have any input whatsoever into what services Apple offers. If there were that kind of partnership, Apple never would have released services like iMessage or Facetime Audio that directly cut into the main revenues operators used to make. This kind of symbiotic relationship existed before the first iPhone was released, but Apple essentially killed that relationship (while e.g. Nokia thrived on it and never released anything without operator approval), and the operators have hated Apple for it ever since.
Also, if this were a kind of conspiracy to drive up data volumes, Apple would not be offering an offline option for Apple Music either.
And how streaming video plays into this - I have no idea. Nobody streams their HD video via 4G on more than a very occasional basis.
That's not how things work.
Scott Brochetta from Big Machine explains it quite well:
"There's not any artist that can go and pull them themselves" [because they don't own the rights]
"I went to her and said I want to pull the whole thing" [not her idea to pull 1989 from Spotify]
"Would I have [still] done it if she didn't want to?" [because she doesn't have a choice]
When asked why he chose to use Taylor Swift as a mouthpiece:
"she was the loudest megaphone" [A megaphone can't speak on its own. Taylor Swift publicly broadcasts the message from Scott]
Scott Brochetta from Big Machine talked of planning a showdown with Spotify in 2013, a year earlier.
Artists like Swift get paid large sums in advance - in return for contracting to make a number of records that the label will then own. Big Machine paid Swift big dollars for this. Her father only has a 3% share in Big Machine. Scott Brochetta says Big Machine has less than 51% share in rights with some other bands, and that is not enough to for him and an agreeing artist to pull from Spotify:
"[Big Machine] don't have control over [bands that Big Machine is in joint venture with Republic Records, a division of Universal]". "So I can't do anything right now about Florida Georgia Line or The Band Perry."
Read more for some background, and the above interviews:
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...ott-borchetta-on-spotify-beats-music-entering
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swifts-label-boss-her-769072
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'll respect everything you've written there, especially since you are apparently an industry insider. However, in all business more demand is usually a coveted thing. When it's hard to keep up with demand, there is great opportunity to raise prices which usually builds in widening the profit margin (I remember when the difference between regular-plus-premium gas was about 3 cents per tier).
Of course, the PR side of such a business is going to poo-poo bandwidth burn. But the bean counters should see more burn as more revenues and more profit: "What? Demand for our product is up? We can tighten our tiers and/or raise prices to try to balance demand and supply in a profit maximization way. With demand growing, consumers should just accept it."
I don't think Apple Music exists SOLELY for this purpose but it does look like another "innovation?" that fits the mold. Else, why is Apple messing around with this? Even if they can get 25 million paying subscribers, 25M times $2.80 = $70M/month or $840M/yr. Apple generally works on the billions-per-month plane now. Why are they messing around with this relatively small stuff?
iCar and maybe CableTV replacement product? Seems like there are billions per month potentials in those. Streaming music? Radio? What are they doing in that?
Or, flip it around: if AT&T and Verizon, etc really feel as implied, why aren't they flexing their power with Apple (as Apples biggest sources of revenue & profits) to influence Apple away from rolling out data-hungry innovations(?) in favor of other things Apple could do that would demand less of their bandwidth? They should have HUGE say with Apple. Apple needs that subsidized revenue business every single quarter. So why aren't they influencing Apple away from getting into stuff like streaming radio and similar?
Last edited:
15 seconds was quite enough, thanks. I'm from the generation of non auto tuning. Musicianship and originality so it's difficult to adjust to the same lady who gave inspiration to the Ex Machina movie screenplay who has none of these qualities. I'm just old fashioned like that.
Sony tried to make a go but ultimately failed with the AIBO
The marketing men came 15 years later. And succeeded with The Swift Unit
The vocal equivalent of consomme soup. See through and unmemorable.
But 'music' was never what this 'droid was about anyway. It was to really to find out if a comouter could convince humans that it too was human. And going by the active discussions in here - it succeeded.
A Taylor-Made Swift-Acting 'Artist. Programmed to dance (in naff videos). Mime to electronic song-jingles. Amd now ...this! Forget the music. There isn't any. Forget the talent. Ditto. Just be in awe of how far man has come in the 21st century with artificial intelligence levels. Respect guys! ;-
Last edited:
Taylor Swift demands free photos from photographers
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/06/photographer-taylor-swift-apple-hypocrisy.html
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/06/photographer-taylor-swift-apple-hypocrisy.html