Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is what actually kills the artists, they are not paid accordingly...

You're right, they are generally overpaid which is why they drive Bentleys and various other expensive cars, have an unlimited clothing budget and live in mansions. They make it up on tour.
 
The reason why I no longer like Apple is that they're following the same strategies as Microsoft, or even worse. Ten years ago, you enjoyed maximum freedom when using Apple products. Now, when using Apple, you do what they want you to do, you update when they want you to update, you give them rights when they want to, you give them your data when they want... so, yes, they aren't more enjoyable than Microsoft anymore.

This isn't even remotely true. Go change the background on the original iPhone... Oh wait...
 
You're right, they are generally overpaid which is why they drive Bentleys and various other expensive cars, have an unlimited clothing budget and live in mansions. They make it up on tour.

What about independent artists where Spotify is their only chance of making it big without corporate help?
 
On the surface, this sounds like a really crappy thing for Apple to do. Maybe people are happy with Spotify, Rdio, etc. and don't want your damn Beats service.

That would be a dumb and illegal (price fixing) thing to do. Hopefully it’s just a rumour.

The legal phrase "restraint of trade" comes to mind.

And as the pundits say, the "optics" of such a move would tarnish Apple's hard-won aura.
 
This report annoyed the heck out of me. If Apple are really being this cut throat, they can shove their Beats service.
 
Maybe, one day, THE PEOPLE will tell Apple what to do instead of it always being the other way around.

Yet another example of Apple becoming their own 1984 commercial.
 
I just bought 4 Cat Stevens albums for a buck each on vinyl. Beats any other legal method by far.

My thing is that I like the ease of digital. I buy my music on iTunes now. I used to do CDs but keeping track of thousands of CDs, including mine and my father's were a nightmare. I even ripped like 1000 of them before they all came out remastered, and they sounded 100x better, so that was all for nothing.

For the artists I have now, I will not be buying any more "remastered" versions of those albums, maybe until Apple has lossless or high-resolution versions of the 256kbps. It would be great if Apple offered to let us upgrade our music libraries of everything we bought on iTunes to some new high-res format down the road for say $99, no matter how many songs you've purchased.
 
I'm a paid spotify premium subscriber. What I don't understand is from the artist standpoint, do they get the same amount of money whether the music is listened to on a paid account or free account?

If this is the case why is everyone up in arms about freemium services?
 
And how much money can they make from Spotify if nobody wants to pay a monthly recurring charge for it?

Doesn't matter. They will get fans which = ticket sales and merch sales. The only point to online music is to find the next artist you like.
 
Yeah, this is not something Apple would ever do. Just Apple and *every* other company out there given the chance. Good thing we have regulations for stuff like this...

The truth hurts, and it took me awhile to realize it. Apple doesn't care about me or you. If while they make their billions, they get some happy fans along the way, that's just gravy. Apple is only in business to make money, not sexy products.

But I'm ok with that. I don't trust Apple any farther than it takes me to press the power button on my MacBook Pro. But that's the relationship we both entered into.


What if I told you that all companies are only in the business of making money? #. Like, really?
 
The real money is made touring/selling stuff.

This works for music genres where touring and selling stuff makes sense... Classical music doesn't tour that much. Jazz doesn't tour much in some countries either. Likewise, people like Philip Glass won't fill stadium if they toured - thankfully he makes money through producing soundtracks for theater or movies, but not all people in his genre can live out of it.

This model certainly works for Pop stars, but not for everyone. Moreover, there is a problem with legacy. Currently, modern music has left a huge legacy thanks to some albums that are really legendary. But if albums become a mere promotional product, what legacy will be left ? Do you produce a White album or a Are you experienced or a 1 when the whole purpose of the album is only to sell tickets ?
 
Doesn't matter. They will get fans which = ticket sales and merch sales. The only point to online music is to find the next artist you like.

You're coming up with theories. This is the same issue with independent developers trying to make it on the App Store. Many times over their app doesn't get recognized amongst the many hundreds of thousands of apps.
 
Research how these freemium music services hurt the artists. Sure, you get free music and they get pennies. Put yourself in the artists' position. That's why I have no problem paying for my music. And I have lots and lots of music.

I'll have to look into that. I pay $9.99 per month for Rdio because I hate ads and I want to be able to download songs to my phone or tablet for things like plane trips.
 
Wrong meme dude. But I totally agree that owning your music is the personally the best way to go.

I liked this one better than Morpheus. Point being, owning your music has nothing to do with this, unless you can explain how having a song on YouTube somehow precludes you from buying it if that's what you'd rather do?
 
Apple = Lars Ulrich.
Noooooo. Buy our crappy 256kbps "high quality" store versions.
If Apple offered lossless or even 24-bit 96khz they could offer a better product. Right now they offer a worse product than even Spotify streaming. I don't know anyone that buys from their store. The prices are too high, the quality way too low for a purchase copy. Always knew eventually Apple as an entertainment company would suck.
 
You're coming up with theories. This is the same issue with independent developers trying to make it on the App Store. Many times over their app doesn't get recognized amongst the many hundreds of thousands of apps.

I'm not saying it solves the noise problem. But it gives you the opportunity to hear that music at all vs waiting for them to get picked up for a record deal.
 
I don't trust apple on this

I wouldn't put it past apple to heavily restrict competition in this area. Take the current music app for instance, when I start my vehicle while using bluetooth audio, the iphone music app will automatically start playing, even though I use spotify. I had to remove all my music and playlist's from the apple music app to stop this from happening. It would be a short sighted shame if apple borked non apple music app experiences.
 
You couldn't be more wrong.

As Jony Ive says:

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money"

More here:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/30/jonathan-ive-revenue-good-design

hahahahahaha

----------

And you believe him? Cute, so naive.

Apple wants profit, every cent of it. It even goes further sometimes like making sure competitors dont get profit even if it costs them initially money. This is probably such a case.

he is a Apple shill. Always preaching Apple
 
I wouldn't put it past apple to heavily restrict competition in this area. Take the current music app for instance, when I start my vehicle while using bluetooth audio, the iphone music app will automatically start playing, even though I use spotify. I had to remove all my music and playlist's from the apple music app to stop this from happening. It would be a short sighted shame if apple borked non apple music app experiences.

I listen to Pandora instead of Spotify, but my experience with in-car audio is that if I'm playing Pandora in the car, exit the car and get back in, the deciding factor on whether or not Pandora will continue playing or the music app taking over is if Pandora is still in active memory. If I don't use the phone, Pandora will continue playing when I get back in the car. If however during my lunch break I browse face book, check email, reply to email, send a few texts, read a few sporting articles on Team Stream, by then Pandora has been booted out of active memory and will not play unless I tell it to when I get back in the car.
 
What about independent artists where Spotify is their only chance of making it big without corporate help?

I have friends and family in the music/entertainment industry. Some struggled for years and gave up, some are still struggling, some are very successful. I've seen them try everything from self-producing to kick starter/Spotify and even up to signing with major labels. So I sympathize with what you are saying, I really do.

But Spotify, Google, Apple, Atlantic...none of these companies are friends to the little guy. The little guy is never going to make decent money from a huge conglomerate/mega business. It's unfortunate, but true. The best thing the likes of Spotify etc. will do for the little guy is help them be discovered. Back in the day this was really only possible by playing at small venue locations and someone noticing you (or knowing someone in the business). So, yes, these new mediums *do help* but they won't make a small time artist a decent wage...just like playing at a semi-famous dive bar won't pay rent.

I very well may have it all wrong. I admit that. But the people I know that have signed with big record labels were not discovered on Spotify or Youtube. They got paid nearly nothing to play in semi-famous dive bars that have decent exposure. Most gave up, some are still trying, a few were "discovered" and signed.
 
Hmm...I wonder who the Verge's sources are and if they're credible. I'm skeptical that Apple would do something right now that they know could get them in hot water with the DOJ.

Why not? Make a pile of money and pay 10-15% of that in fines.

By the time the case drags through court years and years from now they could probably make a good portion of that up in interest, new products, and tax breaks...

Playing nice only makes you look nice... Playing hard ball makes you money.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.