Sidebar Sidebar
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

HobeSoundDarryl said:
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?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see your point now. All good points.
 
SSDGUY said:
Getting paid for what you produce is a good principle and helps everyone … indie or highly successful.
Click to expand...
I always thought Apple purchased Beats because someone in the company thought they were missing the "cool" factor amongst young people. But what's cool about this?

giphy.gif


r5jiugngf0vt3rwh8tt0.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
peterdevries said:
This achieves similar levels of ridulousness as claiming that Bush bombed the twin towers to have an excuse to invade Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Except it really doesn't. You are comparing "Killing thousands of people to fuel a political agenda" with "Talking a celebrity into a PR stunt". I don't know, but that doesn't sound too close. The idea that Taylor Swift was persuaded into making some big anti-streaming show before finally saying it's alright in order to back up specifically Apple music is really not ridiculous at all. If true, it's still far from being the most ridiculous PR stunt ever. Stuff like that happens all the time. Never trust PR, not even Apple's, not even once.
 
MentalFloss said:
Or have you ever seen any operator actually promoting a high-bandwidth service?
It's completely the other way around: Apple releases services that make the operators worry that they will kill their networks.
If they wanted to drive up data volumes, they would have encouraged people to use services like that.
Nobody streams their HD video via 4G on more than a very occasional basis.
Click to expand...

Here in Australia for sure - data is the battleground right now. As one network is the flagship for Ericsson, and the other a very high profile for Huawei - expect this to be replicated in other markets.

Unlimited calls and messages are included in most services so coverage, data allowances, bundling and international roaming pricing are how they are differentiating.

Carriers are actively trying to increase data usage e.g. One carrier gives away free Netflix subscriptions, but the data is counted in your quota. The others give free Spotify Premium, or Presto (like Netflix).

9GB data allowance is the current battle ground for iPhone/Galaxy plans - as featured on the front page of:
http://www.vodafone.com.au/personal
https://www.virginmobile.com.au
http://www.optus.com.au/shop/mobile

Two carriers are expanding with their fourth and fifth bands of LTE so they have enormous capacity. There aren't any devices that can remotely use all the bandwidth.
e.g. Optus 45+45MHz FD LTE + 80MHz TD LTE + 5 Carrier HSPA+ 3G
e.g. Telstra 70+70MHz FD-LTE + 4 Carrier HSPA+ 3G
 
MentalFloss said:
I think your work should be free as well, and you should make a living by begging on the street for money. Stupid thing to say isn't it? But that statement makes just as much sense as yours.

Not all artists can tour. Not all artists want to tour. Not all artists are concert-compatible. Some people just have a "face for radio", or their music simply does not translate well to a concert environment. There are great artists with debilitating stage-fright. Some of the greatest music (quite a few people would say the greatest music) of the 20th century was created by artists who had decided to stop touring to concentrate on their music. Also, if artists support themselves purely through concerts, most artists (other than the "big names") will tour only locally. No more international tours. Artists that are not so terribly well-known used to tour to support their albums and then they make money through album sales. They actually very often lose money by touring internationally, so if you're a European fan of an American artist - tough luck for you!

So as you can see, there are a lot of arguments against what you said, but only one argument for it, and that is "I want I want I want I want I want, and I don't want to pay!"

An artist who has created music has already done quite a bit of valuable work and has already invested money into it (studio time and equipment is expensive!). Why do you want them to add more work to it before it is valuable enough to yield some payment for the artist? You want to listen to music, but it doesn't have any value for you? Why do you listen to stuff that has no value? If it has a value, why do you want it to be free? You want the artist to invest money into studio time and equipment, invest time and emotion into creating some music. And then you still aren't willing to pay for it. They still have to invest more into it - pay for touring equipment, pay touring personnel... and then, perhaps... yes, perhaps(!) then they actually are able to start making some money.

And I don't know what you mean by "ads"? You mean artists should appear in advertisements or what? Or they should play a small ad in the middle of their songs perhaps? On the one hand, there are people who think music should be ad-financed, and on the other hand there's people whining about advertisements. Do you have an ad-blocker installed in your browser? I hope not, or else it would be a major example of hypocrisy.

It has become difficult for artists to make money. A top 40 hit every now and then used to be sufficient. Now, there are more and more artists selling stupid VIP packages for hundreds of Dollars where the fans get to meet the artists after concerts, take pictures with them, etc. I used to get that for free. Or let me say: It was included in what I had already paid for. I have a picture of myself with Steve Lukather from Toto from 1988, taken after a concert. That was free. No strings attached. He was genuinely friendly and actually smiled on that photo. He actually gave me the feeling that he liked meeting the fans. Now you pay 200 bucks(!) for that same kind of experience and the band members on the pictures look like someone has ripped out their souls. People have always complained about how music is a big business. Well, it has become even more of a business nowadays, because it has become so hard for artists to actually make money. "Oh, you want to shake my hand and chat a bit with me? Well, that's $200, please!" In 1988, I paid a fair price for an album, I paid a fair price for a concert ticket and when I met a musician, they knew that there's someone who values their music, so they went the extra mile to make me feel valued as well. Nowadays, people think music should be free. They don't value the music anymore, and that has destroyed the relationship with the artists to a certain extent. Now it's all a big effing business. Thanks a lot for that!
Click to expand...

I still think music should be free.
 
Serban said:
You are going the wrong way, im saying if you cannot afford why no steal and live a better life?
Remember, the definition of words were made by people and not by GOD or something
So maybe live by the laws are making other people rich when you are living in the streets or have no music in your life
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you, but I do think music should be free.
 
62tele said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know Artists don't get paid for radio play, just publishers.
Also, the artist with contracts signed with labels, usually their recordings are owned by the label and are usually in debt to that label from the get go. They must tour or sell merchandise to pay back. I don't see streaming any different then radio play. The only difference is 1 million plays on radio is sure the hell better then 1 million plays streaming.

All this BS about her album 1989 is a awesome marketing ploy. In fact, why does she need a label ? I mean really ? once you ask that question you see where the corporations come into play. Only a star of her size in today's pop culture could only come of shewed marketing. Her music is pure commercialization and the day she makes that bland album, her power will erode.
 
Rogifan said:
I always thought Apple purchased Beats because someone in the company thought they were missing the "cool" factor amongst young people. But what's cool about this?

giphy.gif


r5jiugngf0vt3rwh8tt0.gif
Click to expand...

I think they bought Beats just for Jimmy. They wanted someone that thinks different, surely they didn't buy it for Dre.
 
There are some intelligent people in here but then there are some pseudo intellectuals that are ruining any meaningful conversation.

If you're one of the conspiracy theorists or one of the people that believes music should be free you're the problem.
 
Chris Coyle said:
You know Artists don't get paid for radio play, just publishers.
Also, the artist with contracts signed with labels, usually their recordings are owned by the label and are usually in debt to that label from the get go. They must tour or sell merchandise to pay back. I don't see streaming any different then radio play. The only difference is 1 million plays on radio is sure the hell better then 1 million plays streaming.

All this BS about her album 1989 is a awesome marketing ploy. In fact, why does she need a label ? I mean really ? once you ask that question you see where the corporations come into play. Only a star of her size in today's pop culture could only come of shewed marketing. Her music is pure commercialization and the day she makes that bland album, her power will erode.
Click to expand...

People need to understand that Apple was not in the wrong, the labels were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason83 and Chris Coyle
HenryDJP said:
Sure. Leave it to certain people here to continually crap on the company even though they did the right thing. Gotta love MR. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Certainly you see the difference between "choosing to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do" and "doing the right thing because to not do the right thing would result in damage to our finances, reputation, or both"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, BigInDallas and barmann
Gamerfanatic said:
Does anyone not see right through this already? They never specified how much they are going to actually pay during the 3 month trials.

I doubt Apple is about to spend "$9.99*71.5%" $7.14 per month on each and every customer for 3 months just so they can "try" this service. As much as I wish this was the case, I truly doubt it is.
Click to expand...

Why do you _wish_ this was the case? The big complaint was that musicians were not paid. Nobody complained that record companies didn't get paid. I would think that Apple will ask the record companies how much of those $7.14 per month would be paid to the artists, and exactly that amount is what Apple will pay.

Bathplug said:
Before you all begin praising apple. Let's not forget they tried to rip artists off to begin with by not wanting to pay them.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Apple's profit is about $3 per month per paying customer, minus cost of running the service. Everyone elses profit is $7 per month per paying customer, minus whatever cost. When Apple maximises its profit, everyone elses profit is maximised automatically. Apple thinks that three months free trial maximises Apple's profit, therefore everyone's profits. Which might very well be true. I don't know how many people sign up after a three month trial, but I think those that do will stay with it for a very very long time.
 
Last edited:
SgtPepper12 said:
Except it really doesn't. You are comparing "Killing thousands of people to fuel a political agenda" with "Talking a celebrity into a PR stunt". I don't know, but that doesn't sound too close. The idea that Taylor Swift was persuaded into making some big anti-streaming show before finally saying it's alright in order to back up specifically Apple music is really not ridiculous at all. If true, it's still far from being the most ridiculous PR stunt ever. Stuff like that happens all the time. Never trust PR, not even Apple's, not even once.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing the events. I'm comparing the ridiculousness of the statements made.

Swift has been opposed to streaming for a while. She didn't just invent it just to help Apple market a new service.

I can see how people might think this is a conspiracy, but it is much more realistic that it is a sequence of unplanned events. Why? There are numerous ways that Apple could have planned a marketing stunt that would make them look less like having lost an argument.

It doesn't take a marketing genius to think of a better and more realistic and more effective way to launch "the best streaming platform on the planet".
 
  • Like
Reactions: johngordon, Benjamin Frost and ErikGrim
Andrei90 said:
People need to understand that Apple was not in the wrong, the labels were.
Click to expand...
This is correct, the deal is with the labels. The labels are the artists boss. They are signed with a label. It's the labels that are screwing the artist, something that has been going on since day one of the record deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back