Apple Still Working to Finalize Streaming Music Deals Ahead of Rumored WWDC Launch

[Keirasplace]

That's interesting because I pay for Spotify and I've discovered a ton of new artists through them. I may not be purchasing their album, but I'm spending plenty of money, sometimes over $100 to see them live multiple times or to buy merchandise. Streaming has definitely helped with exposure for a lot of new or indie artists.

Unless you (and the average listener) prove me that you'd spend as much or even more otherwise, I'll call this anecdote bunk. The falling industry revenue numbers clearly point to the fact that your not average.

BTW, when in my late teens and 20s, I routinely spend $1500-1750 a year on music (that's about $2500-3000 dollars now) (concerts,CD's) in the 1980s and early 90s. I know nobody now that does that; not even close. People have been addicted to $1 tunes, youtube and streaming. I probably saw 15 shows a year back then, at least.

Indie artists existed BEFORE streaming, the web and they lived just fine. You think they just popped up in the last 2-3 years?

 

[Yojimbo007]

Iovine , Dre, Beats .....3,000,000,000 $$$

What for???

 

[daftpunker909]

Unless you (and the average listener) prove me that you'd spend as much or even more otherwise, I'll call this anecdote bunk. The falling industry revenue numbers clearly point to the fact that your not average.

BTW, when in my late teens and 20s, I routinely spend $1500-1750 a year on music (that's about $2500-3000 dollars now) (concerts,CD's) in the 1980s and early 90s. I know nobody now that does that; not even close. People have been addicted to $1 tunes, youtube and streaming. I probably saw 15 shows a year back then, at least.

Indie artists existed BEFORE streaming, the web and they lived just fine. You think they just popped up in the last 2-3 years?

Your argument is just as anecdotal. I'd say that you were also not the average person.
I second xthishero's point - I also went to shows only due to the fact that I discovered on my (paid) spotify account.

 

[TechZeke]

And btw: no one forces artists to offer their music on streaming services - they are free to opt out if they feel they are being robbed and reminisce in the good old days

This is what Taylor Swift did, and it payed off big time for her.

If streaming services are so bad, Artists need to get of them.

 

[SirLance99]

Your argument is just as anecdotal. I'd say that you were also not the average person.
I second xthishero's point - I also went to shows only due to the fact that I discovered on my (paid) spotify account.

Same here. I want to have streaming music I buy because it allows me to hear more artist music I wouldn't otherwise.

My requirements are: Able to use it on what ever platform I want (iOS/Android), have a web based interface that I don't have to download a program to run it, and a good enough UI. The first two are a must.

So for me, right now I use Google Play Music. I got in early when it started so I only pay $7.99 a month. I logged into my girlfriends iPhone and she can listen to it as well. No ads ever, unlimited skips, any song/album at any time, YouTube videos built in, web interface, plays on my iPhone 6 Plus and Note 4 and iPad Air 2, or any one of the many devices I have which also includes my Chromecast, ATV, Roku. For me it's perfect right now.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Spotify's business model is fine.
The reason artists complain and receive such little money doesn't have to do with Spotify itself. It pays 70% of all of its revenue out in royalties to the labels. The labels then pay out those royalties according to their contracts with those artists, as well as all the songwriters, producers and mixers that helped record that artists music. So the problem isn't with Spotify or even streaming. It's with the labels. So unless Apple is going to let royalties cut into more than 30% of its profits, there won't be much of a change in how much artists get.

The reason people are hating on Apple is because they're rumored to be attempting to get exclusives and get labels to no longer offer free music on YouTube or other platforms. Which is only going to drive up pirating rates.

No it's not. Spotify is the music industry equivalent of Amazon. They've never been able to turn a profit because of licensing fees. These tech companies who can't seem to turn a profit but are always claiming they are being picked on when they've never been profitable for anyone other than the 125k+/person developer salaries.

 

[Gasu E.]

That's a lot of "ifs" Who's to say Apple is in this as a charitable organization for artists? If they offered a better rate to artists, including new artists and not just millionaire talent that does quite well under any system then cool. I would support that.

But if it's the same, and only trying to kill competition by copying it then I would be the first to argue antitrust monopolistic actions and join end it.

I don't believe Apple is running a "charitable organization for artists"; but I do believe Apple is thinking about this in the long term, and understands that Spotify's payment structure is unsustainable for artists. It has always been a long shot to make it in the music business, but Spotify has figured out how to make the odds even longer. Apple is smart enough not to kill the goose, as well as having a respect for creative artists hard-wired into the company culture. They would not be in this unless they believed it could be a win-win, even after all the numbers are crunched.

 

[69Mustang]

If you knew how bad it is right now compared to how it was 20 years ago; it's not even imaginable. For everyone but the superstars, the bottom has dropped out!

So, I find your spiel hilarious. No, Apple is not a saving anyone (hello mr straw man), but the artists are so low on the totem pole right now that anything would be an improvement.

Things are different from 20 years ago. Not only in music, but the world in general. Even so, you're revisionist history ignores the fact that artists have traditionally been low on the totem pole. Their labels and management got the most money then, just as they do now. Also, in the past music was a larger part of the entertainment picture. Today, music competes with a ton more forms of entertainment.

If Apple offers artists a better deal than spotify, spotify will run out of artists willing to grovel.

Apple can just roll that higher money to artists into their whole ecosystem and bam, spotify is toast.

Artists don't have to give their product away if they don't have too.

If... hmmm. You like calling others out on their suppositions. This if you speak of... where's the rationale behind it? What has Apple said or done that gives you the impression they would even be offering a better deal to artist? Or did you just make it up to further a narrative. To borrow your phrase, unless you have something to support your "if's" I'll just call this bunk.

You're on Spotify pretty hard. Do you even know how Spotify pays artists? I ask because nothing you've said about Spotify actually seems fact based. Seems more emotionally anecdotal.

----------

I don't believe Apple is running a "charitable organization for artists"; but I do believe Apple is thinking about this in the long term, and understands that Spotify's payment structure is unsustainable for artists. It has always been a long shot to make it in the music business, but Spotify has figured out how to make the odds even longer. Apple is smart enough not to kill the goose, as well as having a respect for creative artists hard-wired into the company culture. They would not be in this unless they believed it could be a win-win, even after all the numbers are crunched.

I've heard several people speak about Spotify's payment structure being unfair for artists. What exactly is their payment structure.? That part seems to get left out.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Are you selectively ignoring all those big headphones with 'b' logos everyone seems to own these days?

You mean the ones that were trendy a few years ago, but people make fun of you for wearing nowadays?

Skidz were cool once too.

 

[HenryDJP]

They are way behind in this game. They should of bought Spotify instead of Beats.

Not every company is for sale. You can't just wake up and decide to buy XX-Company unless there's going to be some hostile take over.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Exactly. I'll never buy anything Beats. I don't like to associate myself that I bought anything Beats. Just not who I am.

Same here. Beats is not for me.

They don't have anything I couldn't get from another brand.

Probably small minded or old geezer attitude.LOL

 

[HenryDJP]

This is one area where Apple can't seem to reinvent to the point where people are willing to switch. Services in general seem to be Apple's black box.

Well it most certainly would be a good idea to wait to see what Apple is going to do before deciding their fate.

 

[Keirasplace]

Your argument is just as anecdotal. I'd say that you were also not the average person.
I second xthishero's point - I also went to shows only due to the fact that I discovered on my (paid) spotify account.

I pointed out that INDUSTRY NUMBERS supported my anecdote. Read what I write, not what you wished I wrote.

 

[Keirasplace]

Things are different from 20 years ago. Not only in music, but the world in general. Even so, you're revisionist history ignores the fact that artists have traditionally been low on the totem pole. Their labels and management got the most money then, just as they do now. Also, in the past music was a larger part of the entertainment picture. Today, music competes with a ton more forms of entertainment.



If... hmmm. You like calling others out on their suppositions. This if you speak of... where's the rationale behind it? What has Apple said or done that gives you the impression they would even be offering a better deal to artist? Or did you just make it up to further a narrative. To borrow your phrase, unless you have something to support your "if's" I'll just call this bunk.

You're on Spotify pretty hard. Do you even know how Spotify pays artists? I ask because nothing you've said about Spotify actually seems fact based. Seems more emotionally anecdotal.

----------



I've heard several people speak about Spotify's payment structure being unfair for artists. What exactly is their payment structure.? That part seems to get left out.

My support is Industry numbers falling through the floor almost constantly for 15 years. Once singles sales fall completely (this has already started this year), and with streaming going up, eventually it will, the destruction of revenue will be near complete except for a select number of artists than can make much money from touring and megastars

The average artist now is way way worse off than 7 years ago, and it doesn't even compare to how they were supported in 1990. It is the difference between eating at McD's dollar menu and eating a full course meal in a good restaurant.

As for Spotify being bad, I'll trust actual artists to know better than you (or me). That's all I'll need to know. I'm sure you can google actual numbers instead of doing the rhetorical, well, if you don't tell me, everything must be okeydokey...

But hey, lets give crumbs to artists and call it pizza... Everybody can "live" on that... It 's "pizza" (sic)

 

[Fenez]

The problem now is what the problem has always been... The labels take is bigger than it should be.

 

[69Mustang]

My support is Industry numbers falling through the floor almost constantly for 15 years. Once singles sales fall completely (this has already started this year), and with streaming going up, eventually it will, the destruction of revenue will be near complete except for a select number of artists than can make much money from touring and megastars

The average artist now is way way worse off than 7 years ago, and it doesn't even compare to how they were supported in 1990. It is the difference between eating at McD's dollar menu and eating a full course meal in a good restaurant.

So basically you have anecdotes. You are more than smart enough to realize the decline in music revenue has many causes, the way we consume it is just one of those causes. For you to lump all the problems onto streaming is disingenuous at best. You ignore the decline of physical media, the increase in used media, the increase of video, and alternative entertainment avenues. Those are just a few reasons off the top of my head.

Streaming plays a part. If the trend continues, it will play a bigger part. The industry will adapt. Just like it adapted to records, then tapes, and CD's.

As for Spotify being bad, I'll trust actual artists to know better than you (or me). That's all I'll need to know. I'm sure you can google actual numbers instead of doing the rhetorical, well, if you don't tell me, everything must be okeydokey...

But hey, lets give crumbs to artists and call it pizza... Everybody can "live" on that... It 's "pizza" (sic)

That's all you need to know? So am I to take it you've been going on about Spotify but you actually have no knowledge of their practices other than anecdotes? Sure I can google numbers (I actually did), but you are the one railing on the company. Shouldn't you care if what you're saying is true? The kicker? You love to call people out and say "prove it" all the time. Not just in this thread but on a regular basis. Funny thing, I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked you if you actually knew how Spotify paid artists. You went defensive and tried to turn that on me as if I said everything okay if you don't provide proof. Uh no. That dog ain't gonna hunt. I said no such thing and for you to imply that I did is just plain wrong. Am I wrong to expect better?

 

[Cigsm]

I don't even understand why Apple even bothered to buy the stupid Beats Music. Without Apple, Beats Music was going to be the next Tidal.

The smart thing to do would've been to buy Spotify, the king of all streamers.

By "the next tidal" do you mean going from 35,000 paying customers to 750,000 paying customers in two months?

----------

This is what Taylor Swift did, and it payed off big time for her.



If streaming services are so bad, Artists need to get of them.

Taylor swift owns her own publishing, so she can. Most artists do t, so they don't have a say.

----------

No it's not. Spotify is the music industry equivalent of Amazon. They've never been able to turn a profit because of licensing fees. These tech companies who can't seem to turn a profit but are always claiming they are being picked on when they've never been profitable for anyone other than the 125k+/person developer salaries.

Amazon makes billions a year in profit. They choose to reinvest that into r&d instead of sitting on it. The rest of your point is great!

 

[J.gerbes]

I hope that $3 billion investment paid off...

 

[smorrissey]

The day beat is out, RIP Spotify and the iTunes Store (regarding music files), even cd sales are gonna be affected.

Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this: MONOPOLY

 

[Hastings101]

My entourage

 

[lowercaseperson]

I'd file this under "cutting their losses." Having already wasted good money is not a good reason to keep wasting even more.

The hill is too steep to climb, unless they can find a way to innovate in a way that changes the steaming game. But their back-alley attempts to try and get their competition restrained makes me think they are aware they don't have much in terms of innovation to offer.

I simply have to disagree. As important as streaming *media* is - I really can't imagine Apple throwing in the towel.

There are too many reasons not to try and force it to work - plus they have the cash reserves/product base to make it happen. Will it be successful overnight? Maybe maybe not - but this is a long-term battle I think Apple is ready to fight.

Only time will tell.

----------

Problem is they have never been able to SEE that the iTunes buying the song set up needed an alternative, i.e. streaming.

Now they are coming very very very late to this game and do not have the better mouse trap. (I am gladly waiting to be proven wrong)

Plenty of folks can't warm up to the BEATS brand either.

I get what you're saying - and yeah it should be embarrassing how long it took them to wake up to the idea of streaming.

That being said - with millions of iPhones selling and billions in cash reserves, I think this is a battle Apple has decided to fight.

 

[McCool71]

Spotify has a horrible businessmodel that strangles artists. Do you know how many people should listen to your song just to live from it as an artist?

You are aware that Spotifys total customer base is just a fraction of the number of people that used to buy CD's back in the day? Just in the US alone the number of people buying a few CDs a year in the 80s/90s were probably 10x the number of paying Spotify subscribers worldwide today.

It always amazes me when people expect a single service like Spotify to bring in an enormous amount of money per artist. It is the biggest and best service of its kind by a wide margin, but still small compared to what the total music market used to be - and it is also just one piece of the total music market. It is not like it is the only income channel for music that artists have.

There is so much more to spend money on now in the digital age that if music by some strange happening was only available as physical media like CD's or vinyl today - in other words not in digital form in any way - its sales per year would very likely be a lot lower than it was 20 years ago.

Artists that made decent amount of money from CD sales (enough to finance the next album, but not enough to retire) in the 80s/90s would probably have a very hard time surviving financially today - even if the only way of getting music today was by buying CDs. Times have changed, and this is something that a lot of people do not take into consideration.

 

[quickmac]

I recently discovered all the features I wasn't using with Match. Hopefully they don't charge extra for this new feature.

 

[quickmac]

I recently discovered all the features I wasn't using with Match. Hopefully they don't charge extra for this new feature.

 

[Rogifan]

Amazon makes billions a year in profit. They choose to reinvest that into r&d instead of sitting on it. The rest of your point is great!

Yet pretty much every other company on the planet is able to invest in R&D and still show a profit. It's not like Amazon is a new company. At some point if these investments don't translate into profits what's the point?