Probably less? The average royalty rate on Spotify is .006 per stream on Spotify. So if you're the most streamed song on Spotify and its streamed 1 million times is $6,000. 1 MILLION listens. $6,000.
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 to Push Paid Streaming Music Service With Free Trials and SoundCloud-Like Sharing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably less? The average royalty rate on Spotify is .006 per stream on Spotify. So if you're the most streamed song on Spotify and its streamed 1 million times is $6,000. 1 MILLION listens. $6,000.
Not yours, but for the vast majority of people. CDs and buying individual tracks is a market share that is shrinking and streaming is the future, whether you like it or not.
Uhhh if you're listening to their music they've already made it. And they should be paid appropriately for that. And why did you pinpoint indie artists.? Spotify gives pennies to even the most popular artist. Their business model is flawed which is why they haven't turned a profit and its looking less likely they ever will. They will be out of business in 5 years. Can't make a business on selling other people's stuff and not paying them while simultaneously not brining in enough revenue to survive.
I listen to music free. It's not my concern to support anyone that "chooses" to become an artist.
I have my CD's in Google music & supplement it with Pandora or Spotify. Both free.
I work damn hard for my lifestyle & I'll be damned if some indie artists didn't make better plans to supplement their career choice.
Most of these services are only going to appeal to the few people who have unlimited data or who will use the service where there is wifi. I have only 1GB of data/month and I am not going to fritter that away on music that I can just add easily load into my iPhone from iTunes.
Yeah those poor artists that have to do concert tours to make a living. Hello? It's the career they chose. Yeah, a living that grants them a walk on the red carpet after getting out of their limo or Bentley and after all the glitz and glam of the red carpet those poor souls have to tough it out in their multi million dollar mansions.
While everybody else who slaves on a job to save up to pay for these concerts that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Free trials are nice but I rarely upgrade to a paid membership off a free trail unless the app is top notch. There are so many other options right now I think Apple will have a hard time getting a lot of subscribers unless they can differentiate themselves. Simply offering a paid plan isn't going to have people swarming to them.
----------
Blame the record companies, not the radio stations and internet radio stations and the stores that sell/sold records or mp3's. If you ever read about the lawsuits against the record companies you'll learn they were still deducting a fee for vinyl records broken during shipment from mp3 sales. As for the concert income being icing on the cake, you're wrong there too. The income from concerts has always been much higher than income from record sales, simply because artists get paid almost nothing from record sales. Between up front advances to charging the artist for studio time and promotion, etc. etc. artists make shockingly little from record sales, long before the Internet even existed.
----------
Blame the record companies, not the radio stations and internet radio stations and the stores that sell/sold records or mp3's. If you ever read about the lawsuits against the record companies you'll learn they were still deducting a fee for vinyl records broken during shipment from mp3 sales. As for the concert income being icing on the cake, you're wrong there too. The income from concerts has always been much higher than income from record sales, simply because artists get paid almost nothing from record sales. Between up front advances to charging the artist for studio time and promotion, etc. etc. artists make shockingly little from record sales, long before the Internet even existed.
Beats was and is a turd.
But Apple should have bought MOG, which Beats bought for $15 million shortly before Apple paid $3 billion for Beats. It was a decision most likely based on personal relations and not on sound business judgment, and it would have gotten some other heads of companies fired.
MOG was actually great, better than Spotify in my opinion, but Beats ruined it after the acquisition. I tried Beats for a while and it was pretty bad. Its supposedly "pro"curated lists are a joke, much worse than most of the user lists you find on other services.
Right now I use Google Play Music, which is $9.99 and is great. It also provides free access to the Premium Youtube videos for each artist, which is great.
I fully agree that Apple's attempt to bully the industry should be slapped by the regulators and it should fail.
If they screw up the market, I hope someone (likely the EU, since the US regulatory agencies are too weak nowadays) hits them hard in the pocketbook. It's high time regulators go after management personally when clearly illegal activities occur, instead of just fining the shareholders.
And if one million radio listeners (regular old-fashioned radio) listens to your song you get a fraction of what you get from 1 million plays on Spotify...
Don't forget that Spotify even today is a very small service compared to the number of people that used to buy music back in the day (before digital streaming/pirating).
Just in the US alone there were probably 10x as many that bought music on a regular basis in physical form back in the 70s/80s/early 90s that there are paying Spotify subscribers worldwide today, so expecting Spotify alone to deliver more than a slice of a huge (theoretical) cake is delusional.
I believe the Spotify-model is the way to go, and with more subscribers more money will end up in the artists hands. Spotify sends close to 70% of their total revenue back to rights holders, and doubled the payout to the rights holders from 500 millon USD in 2013 to 1 billion in 2014, and I highly doubt there were twice as many songs in 2014 to divide the money on than there were in 2013...
Last edited:
If iTunes is not going to be a music streaming service no is going to care or Beats is not going to be part of iTunes Match no is going to care again. Apple wasted a lot of money on Beats which is a useless app, I rather purchase my music instead of wasting money on a APPLE service when it should be part of iTunes.
Yeah those poor artists that have to do concert tours to make a living. Hello? It's the career they chose. Yeah, a living that grants them a walk on the red carpet after getting out of their limo or Bentley and after all the glitz and glam of the red carpet those poor souls have to tough it out in their multi million dollar mansions.
While everybody else who slaves on a job to save up to pay for these concerts that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Huh! Are you for real, 99.9% never go anywhere near a red carpet. Many bands can't even tour at all. They're stuck playing local gigs and eating mac&cheese (not even the real one, it is too expensive...). Seriously, time you actually talk to a real musician & crew.
You're talking about a very small minority.
The top artists in sales for the last 15 years, and when they started to chart
- Eminem (1999)
- Rihanna (2005)
- Taylor Swift (2006)
- Katy Perry (2008)
- Kayne West (2004)
- Lady Gaga (2008)
- Jay Z (1996)
- Bruno Mars (2010)
- Black Eyed Peas (1998)
- Beyonce (2002)
Beyonce, sold 75M units in that period, Eminem 150M.
Those are the superstars and yes, you sure hear a lot about those guys.
Just to tell you how small a group really successful artists are (even temporary ones). In 20 weeks to start 2015, only 46 artist in the UK had a top 10 song. In the whole year of 2014, 115 artist had a song in the top 10 in the UK chart. Those artists came from dozens of countries. The US chart has an even lower turnaround, which means even less artists; you hear a lot about those songs and artists while they're up there and if they're lucky, this notoriety will sustain them till their next hit...
Streaming has in fact increased the stickyness of the most popular songs in the top 10; which mean the successful well known artists tend to block out everyone else for a very long time. So, instead of discovering new artists with streaming, they're listening more to a broad plate of well known artists with some novelty breaking through once in while.
How about the same that most others do ? as the simple solution....
Offer the service for 14 days.... Music companies will go for that.
If Apple try's to offer free music for an extended time frame over and above what others so, i can tell u right now before its even out, based on I've seen with other streaming services who have a free tier, Apple will loose the extended time frame.
Music companies don't want t see the word 'Free' allot.
Offer the service for 14 days.... Music companies will go for that.
If Apple try's to offer free music for an extended time frame over and above what others so, i can tell u right now before its even out, based on I've seen with other streaming services who have a free tier, Apple will loose the extended time frame.
Music companies don't want t see the word 'Free' allot.
Spotify's $4.99/mo student plan is something I can't live without, so Apple can't win me over on this one.
that's less than it used to cost to buy one CD per month..
but your library is hundreds of thousands of CDs available immediately instead after one year, having a collection of 12 albums.
it's like 30¢ per day
some people think because they spend a lot of money means they are getting a better product. Its mostly in their heads.
No they shouldn't have.
I subscribed to Spotify once it worked on the PS4. I realised that that kind of deal would never happen with Apple. Spotify are neutral enough to cross platforms, and that's quite important when it comes to an unlimited music service.
Spotify have a cross-platform libSpotify library which anybody can integrate in to their applications to create their own Apps which can integrate streaming from Spotify. Can you see Apple doing something like that?
I use Macs at home and work, have an iPhone and an iPad and an AppleTV, but Spotify is the service that will work great on all of those AND on my non-Apple devices, too (e.g. the PS4).
To be a superior product it must be released worldwide and not just for the Apple ecosystem
Last edited: