You're gonna have to read the article and understand the difference between what Apple pays rights holders and artists and what the App Store policy is.
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's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One thing very few people here seem to understand is the actual math involved. As an artist that owns their own music, I can explain how the math would work out. So here we go:
A stream is worth anywhere from about $0.00071 (on the low end free accounts) to about $0.0126 (on the upper end paid premium accounts, it can be even higher on hi-def tiers) - on average for the complete stream. Some paid accounts pay more. Out of that amount, roughly 70% goes to the entity that owns the master rights of the recording and roughly 30% gets divided up between writers, publishers, mechanicals and performers.
Apple's proposal to simplify this is somewhat good for just one entity, and a whole hell of a lot bad for everyone else. Here's why:
On the low end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.01 per 100 streams. Obviously it would be a hell of a lot better if it was the $0.091 Apple currently proposes - and a freemium tier remained. But at 9x that, I can't imagine a freemium tier could remain, unless they did way more advertising in the playlists.
On the high end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.188 per 100 streams. Obviously the $0.091 Apple Currently proposes would be horrendously bad. Artists (writers/publishers) et al would be getting roughly slightly less than half as much as they currently do from streaming, which technically isn't all that much as it is. But to reduce this to half as much is highway robbery.
This all comes down to Apple making an attempt to get rid of free tiers and lining their own pockets at the same time. However, if this proposal were accepted, this would ruin how much artists would make from Premium tiers. Which is currently more than the proposed rate Apple is suggesting, by 2x as much.
Thus this proposal benefits one entity - Apple. It will not benefit artists in any way if it gets everyone to go to Premium accounts and then the rate ends up going down to $0.091 for 100 streams (that's a whole lot of bad)!! Mind you that $0.091 gets divided in half, where 50% goes to the writer(s) involved and 50% goes to the publisher(s) involved.
Personally, I hope the CRB does not implement this concept. Its a terrible idea. Not to mention, streaming services currently enjoy a discounted royalty rate as it is. What the CRB really needs to do is to do away with the discounted streaming royalty rate.
All that being written, if you're still here and wanting to hear what a non-signed artist can be like on Spotify (its a pop song) - https://open.spotify.com/track/6JmOLaD6hqXLMq872fTw7N Enjoy!
p.s. - I switched from Apple Music to Spotify for a couple of reasons. 1. Spotify is more transparent about how they pay. 2. Spotify has an easier interface to deal with. 3. Their playlists update more frequently and tend to play better selections than Apple Music's. (1 is a fact. 2 & 3 are my opinion).
p.p.s. - For high def tiers (ala things like Tidal or Deezer) it goes up even more. The amount can go as high as $1.21 for 100 streams for the rate. Now compare that to $0.091 that Apple proposes and Apple starts to look very bad.
p.p.p.s - If you're torrenting music and not using something like Spotify's free tier, you're an asshat. Why? Because 1. I didn't grant you the right to take my music for free. 2. End of story. Nothing you say, unless I specifically gave you a copy, is valid. Its uncool from a moral standpoint. Oh, and its illegal by law. Would I sue you? Not likely. But flaunting your torrenting nature makes you a dick in the eyes of people who create entertainment for a living.
A stream is worth anywhere from about $0.00071 (on the low end free accounts) to about $0.0126 (on the upper end paid premium accounts, it can be even higher on hi-def tiers) - on average for the complete stream. Some paid accounts pay more. Out of that amount, roughly 70% goes to the entity that owns the master rights of the recording and roughly 30% gets divided up between writers, publishers, mechanicals and performers.
Apple's proposal to simplify this is somewhat good for just one entity, and a whole hell of a lot bad for everyone else. Here's why:
On the low end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.01 per 100 streams. Obviously it would be a hell of a lot better if it was the $0.091 Apple currently proposes - and a freemium tier remained. But at 9x that, I can't imagine a freemium tier could remain, unless they did way more advertising in the playlists.
On the high end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.188 per 100 streams. Obviously the $0.091 Apple Currently proposes would be horrendously bad. Artists (writers/publishers) et al would be getting roughly slightly less than half as much as they currently do from streaming, which technically isn't all that much as it is. But to reduce this to half as much is highway robbery.
This all comes down to Apple making an attempt to get rid of free tiers and lining their own pockets at the same time. However, if this proposal were accepted, this would ruin how much artists would make from Premium tiers. Which is currently more than the proposed rate Apple is suggesting, by 2x as much.
Thus this proposal benefits one entity - Apple. It will not benefit artists in any way if it gets everyone to go to Premium accounts and then the rate ends up going down to $0.091 for 100 streams (that's a whole lot of bad)!! Mind you that $0.091 gets divided in half, where 50% goes to the writer(s) involved and 50% goes to the publisher(s) involved.
Personally, I hope the CRB does not implement this concept. Its a terrible idea. Not to mention, streaming services currently enjoy a discounted royalty rate as it is. What the CRB really needs to do is to do away with the discounted streaming royalty rate.
All that being written, if you're still here and wanting to hear what a non-signed artist can be like on Spotify (its a pop song) - https://open.spotify.com/track/6JmOLaD6hqXLMq872fTw7N Enjoy!
p.s. - I switched from Apple Music to Spotify for a couple of reasons. 1. Spotify is more transparent about how they pay. 2. Spotify has an easier interface to deal with. 3. Their playlists update more frequently and tend to play better selections than Apple Music's. (1 is a fact. 2 & 3 are my opinion).
p.p.s. - For high def tiers (ala things like Tidal or Deezer) it goes up even more. The amount can go as high as $1.21 for 100 streams for the rate. Now compare that to $0.091 that Apple proposes and Apple starts to look very bad.
p.p.p.s - If you're torrenting music and not using something like Spotify's free tier, you're an asshat. Why? Because 1. I didn't grant you the right to take my music for free. 2. End of story. Nothing you say, unless I specifically gave you a copy, is valid. Its uncool from a moral standpoint. Oh, and its illegal by law. Would I sue you? Not likely. But flaunting your torrenting nature makes you a dick in the eyes of people who create entertainment for a living.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more, someone being paid low streaming rates is just like being held down and sexually assaulted. I can't tell you how many meeting for support groups of "victims of low streaming rates" I have seen in recent months. Hopefully rape victims will see who the true victims are, people who are paid low streaming rates and will stop crying and complaing about being sexual assaulted.
I don't cheat on my exam. It is wrong clearly. But downloading music is from YouTube and torrent site is not wrong, it is just other way to get music.
I am not paying for music regardless what you say. I will try to use Google Music, QQ music or any free streaming method first, then restore to old fashion torrenting.
FREE IS THE KING AND NOTHING BEATS FREE. I WILL TRY TO GET STUFFS FOR FREE FIRST.
Free streaming music has been around for over a century, it's called Radio , and it is STILL going strong.
Even better, the end user does not have data caps so they use it all day every day while working, while driving, while sitting at the beach, pretty much anywhere. Does not require a multi hundred dollar receiver , works well in areas that don't have the internet , cheap to set up and keep running.
When the time comes, Apple will jack up price for Apple Music and pay artist as little as possible.
But why do I care, I don't use Apple Music or pay for any subscription services. Free is only way.
Yeah, but with music streaming, I get to decide what I want to listen to, rather than be at the discretion of the music curator.
No ads, no banter, just the music I want, when I want it.
Again, what you're suggesting isn't supported by anything.
If Apple paid Spotify to put their app in its App Store, that still wouldn't mean more money for artists. The only way to ensure that is to change the law to require increased payouts to artists. It's like when certain politicians suggest that cutting taxes for corporations will lead to job growth. There's no linear connection there; and historically, they just pocket the money they save. The only way to ensure that jobs are created are to either increase demand or legally require more jobs to be created.
I know it's not a 1:1 comparison but I hope it illustrates my point well enough.
You are missing the point and no one is answering the question I'm asking.
I am not missing the point; your argument is just terrible.
I did answer your question. Apple proposing an increase in payouts to labels and artists per stream is indeed to benefit artists (as well as destroy free tiers). Them taking a percentage of revenue from streaming apps on their platform is not at odds with those aims.
Why would they forgo revenue from streaming apps in their App Store? Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason to think that money would be paid out to artists.
Your argument makes no sense. I wonder if you'll answer the question I posed to you earlier now; I doubt it though.
You might be confusing what the two numbers mean.
1. The 9.1 cents or $0.091 per 100 streams - is a royalty proposal that they wish to see happen. This proposal benefits Apple and any other Premium Tier streaming service. This does not benefit artists, writers, publishers at all. I made an earlier post about it where I explained the math.
2. The 30% cut you are referring to is for In-App subscriptions. If an iOS user signs up for Spotify thru the iOS, then Apple takes a 30% cut of the fee. Which is why Spotify is charging $13.00 for people that do that. If you purchase Spotify thru their website its only $9.99.
To Be Clear - Apple's proposed Copyright Royalty change does not benefit artists, writers or publishers in the least. All it does is simplify a relatively complex system, saves Apple tons of money in Royalties and screws artists even more than they're already getting screwed.
[doublepost=1468723436][/doublepost]
Actually HH - if you read my post about how the math works, you'll understand this proposal does not benefit artists at all.
Fair enough. I was wrong on that point but I was more arguing that Apple taking revenue from streaming apps isn't to hurt artists and them forgoing that revenue wouldn't benefit artists.
Right, Apple taking a cut from a subscription thru iOS only hurts artists if the subscription service charges the same rate inside the app as they do outside the app. Spotify raises the rate inside the app to compensate for the 30% fee Apple takes. The problem with this is that it gives Apple an unfair advantage. Apple can undercharge for a service to put a competitor out of business. Its a business tactic. Not a very good one, but a legal one.
Apple is becoming exactly what they resisted in their early days.
Does anyone honestly believe they are going to allow Siri to play music from 3rd party apps? I think hell might freeze over first.
Does anyone honestly believe Apple cares about artists? In the case of this thread, musicians? Not on your life. If they did, they wouldn't be attempting to lower the royalty rate on premium streaming.
Apple's churn rate on Apple Music is extremely high for the type of service it is. Its about 6.4% which is apparently 3x that of Spotify's churn rate. Personally, I believe its because their interface and their playlist selections are poorly executed. At that rate Spotify is the clear winner. This proposal is strictly to benefit Apple. To think otherwise is being ignorant.
Apple could grow their service the old fashioned way - build a better music streaming service (i.e. better interface and better playlists). But apparently they're having a very difficult time doing that. Instead, they are now resorting to substandard business tactics and attempting to say its for the good of the artists.
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your outright dismissal that the 30% burden imposed by Apple doesn't affect artists. That price hike makes a music provider like Spotify pass on the premium directly to the customer. You don't think a price hike in subscription pricing doesn't affect the number of subscriptions? See the Netflix example I gave earlier. And the number of subscriptions directly affects artist's royalties.
I do admit I was wrong in thinking Apple's proposal was intended to be seen as helping artists, apparently it's not.
You can justify it however you want. And I honestly don't care if you think it is wrong. The point is that it is illegal. Torrenting music is legally theft. Whether it is moral is another question entirely.
If you torrent you are a thief. You are a thief. Hell, so am I. I don't pay for HBO Go, yet I still watch Game of Thrones. I am a thief. All we're saying is that people who torrent copyrighted material are thieves. This idea that you're not stealing is either you trying to save face, or just complete ignorance.
Of course free is king, and nothing beats free. But, be honest with yourself and everyone else: you're a thief when you torrent a copyrighted movie, book, or music.
Last edited:
Great effort shouting your reply, but you don't get to decide what is or isn't illegal.
[doublepost=1468726187][/doublepost]
The reality is that Apple is lobbying government to make doing business easier for itself while the effect of changes would mean making business more difficult for competitors. This is the reality.
Your Netflix comparison isn't quite Apple's to apples. Netflix had a rate and raised it. Spotify's in-app price has always been the same. For anyone that was going to subscribe to Spotify over the alternatives, they could just sign up on a non-IOS device (by the way, Google takes revenue from apps on the play store too). Since all third-party streaming apps were selling their service for $13 a month, it wasn't a problem until Apple began selling theirs. It's definitely unfortunate for Spotify and co. though.
Except, that I'm right, you're wrong. You have yet to prove any fact beyond telling me I'm wrong. Yet, I provide you with quotes from the FTC, and you still refuse see anything beyond your own nose. I thought maybe you were simply heard of hearing, thus my reply.
So, perhaps you would actually like to submit facts, like I have. As the trite saying goes: put up, or shut up.
It's unfortunate for everyone, unfair terms that hinder fair competition, it affects the music industry and the end user. If Apple uses their position of power to make it much harder for others to compete, it drives competition out of business, less players, less competition, more power for Apple and the big players. We've been through something similar before, Apple's unethical ebook pricing manipulation.
*Sigh* You keep making comparisons that do not hold weight. In the e-Book case, Apple was colluding with publishers to increase prices. With the music streaming case, Apple is requiring the same revenue split they always have from apps in their store. They've literally done nothing shady here. What are they supposed to do (without changing rules for just music streaming apps), charge themselves 30%? Like I said earlier, Google takes revenue split from all apps in its store too, including streaming apps. That they don't have to charge themselves for their streaming app is just a benefit of creating the platform.
At this point, I don't think you're willing to discuss this in an intellectually honest fashion. You can keep making non-sequitur arguments and false comparisons, I'm gonna go do literally anything else.
Last edited:
Good artists borrow from each other and build upon what they borrow, knowing other artists will borrow from them in turn. You are taking and not contributing anything back, you are simply being a parasite.
It very much is a kind of theft (yes, it's a little different from physical theft, that's why it is often called "piracy" instead). If everyone downloads movies and music from pirate sites, the people who spent all the money to make those movies and music won't get paid for their work. If they don't get paid for this movie or album, they won't have the money to make the next movie or album. You're looking at it as, "well, but me taking a copy of this won't hurt them". Yeah, one person doing it won't hurt them very much. And you're only a petty thief not a big-time one. If you and everyone in your city/state/country do the same thing, yes, it can and does hurt the people who make the movies and music quite a bit.
But why stop at movies and music - you can get everything else for free too - all you have to do it take it and run. Works in shops and stores, works with bicycles and cars and electronics, works with things other people have that you want. You can live your whole life without having to pay for anything. So why do you only do this for movies and music and software?
I probably shouldn't bother writing this, you've already pointed out you don't care about fairness, morality, or how the world works as long as you get "free" stuff.
So do people sign up for Spotify in the App Store or in the Spotify app? Once I download an app onto my phone is it really part of the App Store anymore? Also how come I can buy an Amazon Echo or any other physical good via the Amazon app but not digital music? Using your logic aren't these physical goods purchased from Apple's store? But yet the Apple tax only applies to digital goods.
If Apple wants to charge a premium for in-app purchases fine, but developers should be able to offer other methods (or at least direct people to other methods inside the app). It would be simple, pay a bit more for the convenience and security of billing plus ease of subscription management via iTunes or pay less using the developers billing option. Some will chose to pay more for the benefits of iTunes billing, others won't. But it seems silly that Spotify can't even tell people go to spotify.com to sign up within the app. And for those that say this is about security and safety, if that was really the case then Apple would force every developer with subscription service to offer IAP as an option. But they don't. If you want to buy Kindle or Nook books you have to do it via the browser. Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
Why do people think they deserve things for free? Would you work without being paid? Or do you expect everyone else to pay so you can go grab it from YouTube or pirate bay or wherever for free?
I think it's a misunderstanding, my ebook comparison is directly in regards to Apple's 9.1 cent proposal, not the 30% cut. I think the comparison is appropriate enough in the sense Apple is being shady in manipulating pricing not for the benefit the artist, but to kill the competitor's free tier, both of which points we agree with, per @j-dubya's posts.