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

Peace said:
Well Apple responded to Swift not Rolling Stone.
Click to expand...

200w.gif


Erhm... The point I'm trying to make is that Apple got "beaten" by the music industry in general, not just Taylor Swift. Many labels where seriously thinking about boycotting Apple's new streaming music services due of Apple's plan for a three month free streaming period.
 
Rogifan said:
Well to be fair Billy Corgan didn't say artists should get a cut of hardware revenue, those were basically leading questions from CNBC anchors.
Click to expand...

I listened to it twice. He's the one that brought up a "fair share of the hardware or IPO stocks". He's just greedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuvi
2IS said:
I wonder if the Apple fanboys who berated anyone who spoke out about this policy of not paying the artist now feel betrayed by apple for not reciprocating the blind allegiance.
Click to expand...

Why? It's irrelevant, why would the so called "fanboys" feel being betrayed? You make it sound like this is some kind of kids discussion while it's pretty clear what had happened. There is no reason why not to debate this situation in a mature fashion instead of falling back to silly namecalling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran
dragje said:
Actually, Apple got 'beaten' by the negative hype that became stronger each day Apple didn't respond. Look at Greenpeace, they also complained, now they "worshipping " Apple due of it's new approach towards environment.
Click to expand...

That's a great example. It's another case where the negative PR was piling up and Apple didn't have to bend (it didn't have to embrace any green movement). I'm sure to go as far as Apple has gone there cost FAR MORE than this 3-month trial will cost.

Sometimes even Apple has to spend some money on image/brand/PR. It won't take many days of profits to replace whatever Apple actually spends on this particular PR and they'll get to write the entire cost off as a promotional expense. Some of us are treating it like this might bankrupt Apple (or at least it can seem that way from some of the posts). This is nothing. Worst case, it would cost Apple much less than it cost them to buy Beats. Apple makes more than that in profits every month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
TMRJIJ said:
That's what makes it so awesome. Artists were complaining as soon as they read it. But when Swift writes a public letter, Eddy Cue then comes his senses?!?
Click to expand...
I am sure there was quite a bit of complaining behind the scenes from other artists that did not like this arrangement. And every single one of them is happy that Taylor Swift did not want to take it and actually said so in public.

Taylor Swifts open letter is of course not the first time Apple have had bad feedback from artists when it comes to the three month trial, there has probably been a (behind the scenes) shi*tstorm against Apple the last couple of weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran
HobeSoundDarryl said:
That's a great example. It's another case where the negative PR was piling up and Apple didn't have to bend (it didn't have to embrace any green movement). I'm sure to go as far as Apple has gone there cost FAR MORE than this 3-month trial will cost. Sometimes, even Apple has to spend some money on image/brand/PR. It won't take many days of profits to replace whatever Apple actually spends on this particular PR. Some of us are treating it like this might bankrupt Apple (or at least it can seem that way from some of the posts). This is nothing. Worst case, it would cost Apple much less than it cost them to buy Beats. Apple make more than that in profits every month.
Click to expand...

Correct! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer
peterdevries said:
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".
Click to expand...

Sorry but this stunt over the weekend WAS a very ingenious and "realistic" way to launch the best streaming platform on the planet. In fact I can't see a better planned out way. Apple gets the #1 female pop artist in the country that just so happens to have issues with Spotify, Apple's competitor. Couple that with her "letter of concern" quickly making the airwaves by way of social media, along with the fact that Eddy Cue uses social media (Taylor's Twitter account) to inform her that Apple "reversed the decision in her honor" knowing she has almost 60 million followers that will view this tweet, easily gives Music a ton of promotion, especially as it just so happens it will be launched in a week. It also helps Taylor promote her tour.

Sorry you don't see the logic in it, or are you purposely ignoring this as a major possibility because it's just too logical?
 
dragje said:
Actually, Apple got 'beaten' by the negative hype that became stronger each day Apple didn't respond. Look at Greenpeace, they also complained, now they "worshipping " Apple due of it's new approach towards environment.
Click to expand...
Worshipping anything is a bad idea, especially a corporation, it's only for the terminally irrational, but Apple knows it doesn't pay to look like a huge greedy corporation, even if you are one.
 
dragje said:
Why? It's irrelevant, why would the so called "fanboys" feel being betrayed? You make it sound like this is some kind of kids discussion while it's pretty clear what had happened. There is no reason why not to debate this situation in a mature fashion instead of falling back to silly namecalling.
Click to expand...

For one, we tend to be hypocrites on MR, and after debating this topic, with many people supporting apple for not paying the artists, are now hailing apple as an awesome company for changing thier mind.

It's just tough on the "fans" to have to swap debating teams like this sometimes :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
slmarkymark said:
my theory is this:

- the risk of being singled out for the anticompetitive behavior
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I posted this on another forum:

The outcome is perfect for Apple - with a lengthy free trial and a higher royalty rate, Apple Music is already skirting with monopoly regulators who seem to be seeing Apple as buying their way into the streaming music market and extinguishing competition.

The public remarks from Taylor Swift/Anton Newcombe remarkably reframes Apple's terms as uncompetitive, and makes it impossible for monopoly regulators to comment on the even more generous new terms without beginning an unpopular public war with artists.

Perhaps this is the kind of genius that Apple's $3 billion acquihire Jimmy Iovine is renowned for. Amazing!
 
Whether this was planned by Apple all along or not, I'll now feel less dirty using a free 3-month trial. I'm glad Apple is doing this.
 
Traverse said:
What exactly do you mean? Apple did dictate this, Swift didn't make the executive decision.
Click to expand...

Actually, apple chose to have a free trial that would include artists not making any money for 3 months. Taylor swift bullied them, along with many other bands underneath her, and apple seeing the potential negative publicity changed their mind. Their decision was to not pay artists. After seeing the huge upset, they amended their policy. I guess no one else has given this any thought, but Apple didn't just willy nilly say "Oh I don't think these artists are going to care much, let's do a free trial for 3 months". Apple got caught on their dick move, and tried to play the "perfect angel" card when Swift called them out. That's why they responded so quickly, because they knew their bluff was exposed.

Michael Goff said:
Because Apple will likely make more money from Apple Music in one month than she does in multiple years? Even without Taylor Swift, I'd say the same.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? He was mentioning how Taylor Swift bullied Apple, and she did. They wouldn't have changed the policy they released unless she had said something - therefore, she had influence over what happened.
 
MH01 said:
For one, we tend to be hypocrites on MR, and after debating this topic, with many people supporting apple for not paying the artists, are now hailing apple as an awesome company for changing thier mind.

It's just tough on the "fans" to have to swap debating teams like this sometimes :)
Click to expand...
the trick in making these kinds of comments ('funny how the fanboys say one thing yesterday and go 180º on it today'..etc)
..is to show the person who's done such.. i doubt you'll find a solid example of it in the 2000 comments generated by these two threads..
otherwise, it just comes across as someone spewing the 'fanboy' talk due to some sort of superiority complex

(not necessarily meant directly at you @MH01.. your comment along with a few others in similar ilk)
 
  • Like
Reactions: magicman32
Nuvi said:
Billy Corgan said "[we want] piece of a bigger pie what Apple makes" then he says "it doesn't have to as simple as share of hardware sales". He ends the interview by saying "Tech companies are afraid that artists claimed their fair share of hardware sales". Therefore, I'm very convinced he wants share from hardware sales even though he said "it doesn't have to be as simple as that".

However, here is news flash for every greedy artist. Tech companies can flip a finger to whole music industry and write the whole online music business off as an expensive experiment. Consumers can easily find alternative channels to obtain their music. The labels and the greedy artists on the other hand won't survive that backlash. So, maybe the greedy millionaire artists and record labels should just shut up and be thankful that there still is something they can call music industry.
Click to expand...
Angry? Wow. Such emotion over something that really doesn't affect you
 
  • Like
Reactions: dragje
BigInDallas said:
No by stiffing them for 3 months. Apple backed down quick when confronted with TS and her mighty sword
Click to expand...
Actually not what happened at all. They still going to pay highest royalty in industry and artists will still make more than any other streaming service.
 
MH01 said:
It's the daily mail ..... Enough said.
Click to expand...
As much as the Daily Mail is a horrible paper with misleading headlines it's internet section is rather good and rather unbiased and little spin.

Also they are just re-reporting a story already told by a freelance photographer which is available to view away from the Daily Mail's website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
NeroAZ said:
I cannot help but notice..



SO, this only goes for the hold outs?
Click to expand...
No there are simply multiple deals for the different groups. Artists and publishers get different royalties. I believe artists get a much smaller royalty than publishers in the end and the publishers will not be getting paid during the three month trial.

I would have to go back and dig up the actual numbers but I seem to recall artists only getting small part of overall royalties anyways.
 
MentalFloss said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet the music publishers all agreed to it and still agree to it. Trying to compare this to some sort of employee relationship is absurd. The goal is for everyone to share in the build up to maximize revenue.

It doesn't matter, next contract the artists will end up having their royalty adjusted to make up the difference. Pretty short sighted. Literally only musicians this impacted negatively were ones who were only going to have music streamed for first three months of apple music and never again.
 
MentalFloss said:
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. :cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah that persons calculations were wrong.
 
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