Apple's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify

[macfacts]

...
Show me all the news stories (I'm sure there must be plenty, since you keep putting all the blame on Apple) where Apple put a gun to Spotify's head and ordered them to: a) put an app in Apple's App Store, and b) offer subscriptions in the app. You're calling Apple a fat pig for DOING EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED IN THE AGREEMENTS THAT SPOTIFY AGREED TO when Spotify chose to put an app in the store - ...

If you can't see how it is unfair for Spotify that Apple owns the store and is competing with them in the streaming music business imagine this ... Ford makes cars, then the Government starts a car company GovCars. No one forced Ford to start a car company. Meanwhile Ford has to pay taxes to the Government and GovCars pays taxes to itself.

 

[LovingTeddy]

If YOU weren't getting paid for your work, I'd be concerned. I'd fight for you. And that's exactly why I do take the moral high-ground here. It's not a bad thing to look out for your fellow humans.

Oh thank, but no thanks. I don't give crap about someone siting next to me and dying beside me.

Do you go pull out your wallet and give your money to every homeless? Do you go and give every artist who perform on street? Don't make me laugh. If you give one homeless money but not to other, then you are not truely taking care of your follow humans.

But since streaming is legal, your high moral ground does not work.
[doublepost=1468820216][/doublepost]

Teddy argues that Apple is ripping artists off and being greedy yet enjoys free loading. Hilarious and sad at the same time.

It is up to whatever content holder to pay artist fairshare. It is not my concern.

 

[Mindbomb2000]

Oh thank, but no thanks. I don't give crap about someone siting next to me and dying beside me.

Enough said.

But since streaming is legal, your high moral ground does not work.

You fail to understand the difference between "legal" and "moral." My moral high-ground stands. Your unintelligence and lack of empathy and compassion stands as well. Congratulations.

 

[trifid]

You fail to understand the difference between "legal" and "moral." My moral high-ground stands. Your unintelligence and lack of empathy and compassion stands as well. Congratulations.

Funny how some of you guys find it so easy to judge an individual on the basis of morality, but when it comes to shady business practices by a company like Apple, oh no, it's legal and business, it doesn't matter if it's morally or ethically right, as long as they profit off the backs of artists and rip off users, it's all good right?

The amount of hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[Shirasaki]

Funny how some of you guys find it so easy to judge an individual on the basis of morality, but when it comes to shady business practices by a company like Apple, oh no, it's legal and business, it doesn't matter if it's morally or ethically right, as long as they profit off the backs of artists and rip off users, it's all good right?

The amount of hypocrisy is astounding.

Yeah. as long as they rape and beat customers to death and rob everything they have, their task is completed successfully.
This is all what they want - I mean, profit - after all. To some extent, I even think pirating is some users fight against those always greedy publishers and distributors.

 

[Mindbomb2000]

Funny how some of you guys find it so easy to judge an individual on the basis of morality, but when it comes to shady business practices by a company like Apple, oh no, it's legal and business, it doesn't matter if it's morally or ethically right, as long as they profit off the backs of artists and rip off users, it's all good right?

The amount of hypocrisy is astounding.

And how has anything I've said supported you calling ME out on this? I called out LT for what he does (which is scummy). I said I think 30% is too high. My position is this: I think artists should be paid fairly, and I think businesses should make a fair profit. I think spotify's free tier is unsustainable.

Please explain. Because you just called me a hypocrite.
[doublepost=1468823509][/doublepost]

Yeah. as long as they rape and beat customers to death and rob everything they have, their task is completed successfully.

Please stop with the hyperbole. It's offensive to those that have actually suffered those offenses. Thanks.
[doublepost=1468824032][/doublepost]

This is all what they want - I mean, profit - after all. To some extent, I even think pirating is some users fight against those always greedy publishers and distributors.

You wanna fight greed? Don't buy it. You want to hear music? Go to a coffee bar and listen to a local live musician. Buy his CD for $5. You want to see a movie, go to an independent screening, or go to a library and read a book for free (many libraries have DVD's too). But DO NOT justify theft as some higher goal. It's silly and distasteful.

 

[trifid]

And how has anything I've said supported you calling ME out on this? I called out LT for what he does (which is scummy). I said I think 30% is too high. My position is this: I think artists should be paid fairly, and I think businesses should make a fair profit. I think spotify's free tier is unsustainable.

Please explain. Because you just called me a hypocrite.

I apologize, you did call out the 30% as too high, so you are right on that. Still, you unleashed judgement hell on some poor guy, scrutinizing him left and right and calling him names, to me what Apple is doing is as deplorable if not more, I wish you'd unleash the same scrutiny on Apple's shady practices. Also for the record, my comment wasn't aimed just at you.

 

[Shirasaki]

And how has anything I've said supported you calling ME out on this? I called out LT for what he does (which is scummy). I said I think 30% is too high. My position is this: I think artists should be paid fairly, and I think businesses should make a fair profit. I think spotify's free tier is unsustainable.

Please explain. Because you just called me a hypocrite.
[doublepost=1468823509][/doublepost]

Please stop with the hyperbole. It's offensive to those that have actually suffered those offenses. Thanks.
[doublepost=1468824032][/doublepost]

You wanna fight greed? Don't buy it. You want to hear music? Go to a coffee bar and listen to a local live musician. Buy his CD for $5. You want to see a movie, go to an independent screening, or go to a library and read a book for free (many libraries have DVD's too). But DO NOT justify theft as some higher goal. It's silly and distasteful.

I just point out the harsh fact that they always want to grab money, being one way or the other. If you like then welcome. I would pay for what I think proper, not they think.
Moral high ground is not a place you should defend. Be careful. Seriously.
I don't justify theft. I just point out a possible reason they want to pirate. And this is a way, after all, even though it is illegal in many countries around the globe.
And, don't think "I have paid for them so I am better than you". This is just another form of hyperbole. Debating on it would bring zero benefit to all participants.
I stop here.

 

[R3k]

. Still, you unleashed judgement hell on some poor guy, scrutinizing him left and right and calling him names.

That 'poor guy' is deplorable and deserved to be slammed down lest someone impressionable comes along and adopts his ignorance.

 

[Mindbomb2000]

I apologize, you did call out the 30% as too high, so you are right on that. Still, you unleashed judgement hell on some poor guy, scrutinizing him left and right and calling him names, to me what Apple is doing is as deplorable if not more, I wish you'd unleash the same scrutiny on Apple's shady practices. Also for the record, my comment wasn't aimed just at you.

No problem. I appreciate your response.

I did go off on him, but keep in mind, my interaction with him was a progressive communication. I didn't call him names until I was sure those names fit. And I think you'd agree that they do.

Regarding Apple... I do call them out when I think they are in the wrong, but I don't think that they are the villain that they are made out to be. Yes, they do some things that I object to, but in all honesty, I'm still in flux as to my opinion on the specific issue this thread started with. As I said, I think 30% is too high, but I do think they should profit. I don't remember his name, but one of the posters here made some good points regarding how the Apple proposed structure would affect artists negatively. I need to think on that, because even as an Apple shareholder, I would object.

The bottom line is that most of the people posting here do truly care that the developers/artists/distributers/companies get a fair shake. How that happens is what we disagree upon. But it's an important discussion.
[doublepost=1468826051][/doublepost]

Moral high ground is not a place you should defend. Be careful. Seriously.

Why not defend morals, when those morals come from a place of logic, critical thinking and compassion? I'll be honest... my own morals are not above reproach. I have done bad things. And when called out, I defended them out of ego. That was wrong of me, and I'm glad that others called me out. I'm better for it.

I have absolutely no issue with claiming a moral high-ground to a man who would let a man die beside him without care (his words, not mine).
[doublepost=1468826495][/doublepost]

And, don't think "I have paid for them so I am better than you". This is just another form of hyperbole. Debating on it would bring zero benefit to all participants.

Sorry, but paying for what a creator asks IS better than taking it for what YOU think it's worth. If you don't think that the creation is worth the asking price, simply walk away and find something else. Or create it yourself.

 

[Shirasaki]

Why not defend morals, when those morals come from a place of logic, critical thinking and compassion? I'll be honest... my own morals are not above reproach. I have done bad things. And when called out, I defended them out of ego. That was wrong of me, and I'm glad that others called me out. I'm better for it.

I have absolutely no issue with claiming a moral high-ground to a man who would let a man die beside him without care (his words, not mine).
[doublepost=1468826495][/doublepost]

Sorry, but paying for what a creator asks IS better than taking it for what YOU think it's worth. If you don't think that the creation is worth the asking price, simply walk away and find something else. Or create it yourself.

Then good luck for you guys, as this is not "fair profit" means. Glad that you can pay $30 to buy something generally should only cost $20, including $5 profit. I will spend $20 to buy it rather than $30. $20 is what I think the fair price for both of us but not YOU.
How "fair" goes? Both in a complete commercial activity are happy and willing to pay in order to get what others want. This is we call it "fair". Maybe you have some better understanding then I am also glad to be educated.
According your logic, we do not need "summer sale", "Christmas Sale" anymore because $30 is "fair price", and everyone should pay a flat $30 even though $20 is a more reasonable price.
Sounds like "fair price" is a subjective term. O_O

 

[Mindbomb2000]

Then good luck for you guys, as this is not "fair profit" means. Glad that you can pay $30 to buy something generally should only cost $20, including $5 profit. I will spend $20 to buy it rather than $30. $20 is what I think the fair price for both of us but not YOU.
How "fair" goes? Both in a complete commercial activity are happy and willing to pay in order to get what others want. This is we call it "fair". Maybe you have some better understanding then I am also glad to be educated.
According your logic, we do not need "summer sale", "Christmas Sale" anymore because $30 is "fair price", and everyone should pay a flat $30 even though $20 is a more reasonable price.
Sounds like "fair price" is a subjective term. O_O

I'm not sure if you've read what I've actually said. I've actually said that I think Apple's cut is too high. I personally pay $9.99 (USD) a month to have access to literally millions of songs anytime I want. I think that's a fair price to pay. Actually, I think that's a damn bargain, because I used to pay about $30 a month on CDs and I got around 30 songs. My main issue is that the actual creators of the music get paid. I don't think that Apple or any other company's business model is perfect, nor do I think this issue is solved.

As far as "summer sales" go... those are loss-leaders designed to get you to buy other things, and irrelevant to this conversation. (and by-the-way, don't actually cost the manufactures (artists) more... they are reductions given by the store to generate traffic).

"Fair" is when the consumer gets the music, and when the artists can afford to make a living creating art. And you or I don't get to determine the value of the product. We do, however, have a great power... that is: we can walk away. I think cable TV is over-priced. I don't buy it (which sucks for me, because I can't see my favorite baseball team play... so I listen on the radio). I think Vitamin supplements are a sham... I don't buy it. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to steal it.

If we were talking about food or a necessity, that would be a different conversation. But we're not. We're talking about music and movies... a luxury. Don't buy it, and the market will correct itself.

 

[Shirasaki]

I'm not sure if you've read what I've actually said. I've actually said that I think Apple's cut is too high. I personally pay $9.99 (USD) a month to have access to literally millions of songs anytime I want. I think that's a fair price to pay. Actually, I think that's a damn bargain, because I used to pay about $30 a month on CDs and I got around 30 songs. My main issue is that the actual creators of the music get paid. I don't think that Apple or any other company's business model is perfect, nor do I think this issue is solved.

As far as "summer sales" go... those are loss-leaders designed to get you to buy other things, and irrelevant to this conversation. (and by-the-way, don't actually cost the manufactures (artists) more... they are reductions given by the store to generate traffic).

"Fair" is when the consumer gets the music, and when the artists can afford to make a living creating art. And you or I don't get to determine the value of the product. We do, however, have a great power... that is: we can walk away. I think cable TV is over-priced. I don't buy it (which sucks for me, because I can't see my favorite baseball team play... so I listen on the radio). I think Vitamin supplements are a sham... I don't buy it. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to steal it.

If we were talking about food or a necessity, that would be a different conversation. But we're not. We're talking about music and movies... a luxury. Don't buy it, and the market will correct itself.

Apples cut is definitely too high and I seriously doubt if actual artist will earn more. Or even worse, or they would not like to admit publicly.

What I am talking about is not necessities such as food. I talk about recreation stuff such as game and music. Amazon, Apple both have some form of sales happen at some random times a year. And people often buy more at those sales. For whatever reason, many like cheap recreation cost and we all want to save.

So, to save we can just choose not to buy. However, to force market correct itself, there must be enough customers not buying certain categories of stuff for a considerably long period of time. This is simply extremely hard. As long as customers like you buy them, market will naturally assume they still can earn money and choose to leave it as-is. Then, customers like me who don't justify those crazy price can only choose to wait forever or give up, or get it elsewhere.

I admit I am not a market specialist and all are from my own experience, rather than solid theoretical analysis. But my point remains the same: as long as I don't justify the price, I would not consider the price as a "fair price".

 

[PlainviewX]

Certainly you know this was already set to
Drop to 15% and is old news right?

Yes it is, but no it isn't. It's 15% ONLY in the second year and there after IF the person auto-renews their subscription. If a person doesn't auto-renew it goes right back to 30% when they re-enroll.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Why not defend morals, when those morals come from a place of logic, critical thinking and compassion? I'll be honest... my own morals are not above reproach. I have done bad things. And when called out, I defended them out of ego. That was wrong of me, and I'm glad that others called me out. I'm better for it.

I have absolutely no issue with claiming a moral high-ground to a man who would let a man die beside him without care (his words, not mine).

Moral is depends on how each of individual grew up with and its culture background.

It is like how America always think they have the moral high ground and educate other nations which do not agree with USofA and start war against them in the name of democracy and freedom. Give me a freaking break.

It also appear to someone that it is moral to defend perverted same sax marriage, baby killing abortion.

When you judging someone based on your own moral and thinking you have moral high ground is just hypocrisy.

 

[Michael Goff]

It is my my concern that how much money does one content creator makes or loss.

Now let us say, if website offers free steaming content, but pays louality to content maker. If someone streaming content for free, would you also complain?

You just feel that it is unjust that you paid for something that others did not.
[doublepost=1468818671][/doublepost]

You are correct. Though with Google Play Music or QQ Music or whatever streaming services, you can find anything just as quickly and streaming for free.

Unjust? No, it isn't unjust. I'm just judging people like you who aren't paying on the basis of unwarranted entitled thoughts.
[doublepost=1468851183][/doublepost]

Funny how some of you guys find it so easy to judge an individual on the basis of morality, but when it comes to shady business practices by a company like Apple, oh no, it's legal and business, it doesn't matter if it's morally or ethically right, as long as they profit off the backs of artists and rip off users, it's all good right?

The amount of hypocrisy is astounding.

Apple's 30% doesn't come from artists. Period. Stop making false arguments.

Yeah. as long as they rape and beat customers to death and rob everything they have, their task is completed successfully.
This is all what they want - I mean, profit - after all. To some extent, I even think pirating is some users fight against those always greedy publishers and distributors.

Don't try to justify theft.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Unjust? No, it isn't unjust. I'm just judging people like you who aren't paying on the basis of unwarranted entitled thoughts

If there is legal way of streaming music, videos and TV shows for free, like using free Spotify, Google Music, Curchyrolls, Kissanime, why would I spend money to watch exactly same content?

Whether if these content holder pays artist, it is not my concern.

If you rather want spend money rather than using the services for free, then by all means. But if services provide offer free streaming, you cannot judge people who choose using free services.

It is like I go to hospital and using my provincial health card to get broken ankle taken care. What I paid? 0 dollars. Free. Do you think any patients in hospital remotely care how much health profession make?

If there is free health care available, would you spend thousands and thousands of dollar in hospital? I would assume mojorty of people will use government sponsored health care. Given that some of my tax dollar is going to health care, but I don't really pay and I got most of my tax dollar refunded anyway.

In this day and age, where internet is common for everyone. Content creator need think other ways to make money. Because freemium model is taking over and people will always choose free than pay.

[doublepost=1468852608][/doublepost]

Don't try to justify theft.

It is not theft.

 

[trifid]

Apple's 30% doesn't come from artists. Period. Stop making false arguments.

I didn't say anything about 30% in that post, are you imagining things now? What I said is Apple has deplorable shady practices and that encompases a list of things. Please stop making false accusations.

 

[Michael Goff]

If there is legal way of streaming music, videos and TV shows for free, like using free Spotify, Google Music, Curchyrolls, Kissanime, why would I spend money to watch exactly same content?

Whether if these content holder pays artist, it is not my concern.

If you rather want spend money rather than using the services for free, then by all means. But if services provide offer free streaming, you cannot judge people who choose using free services.

It is like I go to hospital and using my provincial health card to get broken ankle taken care. What I paid? 0 dollars. Free. Do you think any patients in hospital remotely care how much health profession make?

If there is free health care available, would you spend thousands and thousands of dollar in hospital? I would assume mojorty of people will use government sponsored health care. Given that some of my tax dollar is going to health care, but I don't really pay and I got most of my tax dollar refunded anyway.

In this day and age, where internet is common for everyone. Content creator need think other ways to make money. Because freemium model is taking over and people will always choose free than pay.

[doublepost=1468852608][/doublepost]

It is not theft.

Except I can, and will, judge you for using streaming that doesn't pay the creator. Also, most people don't pirate. Don't thrust your bad actions on the majority.

http://hollythelibrarian.com/2013/05/19/piracy-is-theft-no-matter-what-people-say/
[doublepost=1468853358][/doublepost]

I didn't say anything about 30% in that post, are you imagining things now? What I said is Apple has deplorable shady practices and that encompases a list of things. Please stop making false accusations.

Then how are they "profiting off the backs of artists"?

 

[kyleh22]

This sounds like something out of Hooli's playbook. If Apple's engineers can't help Apple music win, Apple just lawyers up It sounds like everyone but Spotify and Pandora win here.

 

[alexmarchuk]

I didn't say anything about 30% in that post, are you imagining things now? What I said is Apple has deplorable shady practices and that encompases a list of things. Please stop making false accusations.

You've been arguing this whole thread the 30% hurts artists.

You think that 30% premium being passed to customer has no impact on subscriptions and the industry? Of course it does, Apple is being another fat pig taking a cut off the backs of artists and Spotify by passing the premium onto customers is making subscriptions 30% more expensive which in turn alienates a good amount subscribers and represents lost royalties for 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.

Please answer something for me, why is Apple seeking 9.1 cents from 100 plays, is it to sorely to benefit artists? If so, if they truly cared about recognizing an artist's efforts, why are they taking a 30% cut which is unprecedented outside of iOS (on Mac they take 0). If Apple cared so much to make a proposal to the government, why wouldn't they change music streaming policies on the iOS app store to benefit the artists?

Huge potential benefit to artists, because suddenly Spotify would become 30% cheaper on the app store, potentially a lot more customers would find it alluring enough to subscribe, which in turns generates more paying customers that leave the free tier.

 

[Michael Goff]

This sounds like something out of Hooli's playbook. If Apple's engineers can't help Apple music win, Apple just lawyers up It sounds like everyone but Spotify and Pandora win here.

If Apple wanted to "win", they'd just wait for investors to get tired of throwing money at the unprofitable Spotify. :| I don't even think they have any real idea how to make money.

 

[trifid]

Then how are they "profiting off the backs of artists"?

By doing many shady things, we've been through this.

 

[Michael Goff]

By doing many shady things, we've been through this.

Like what? Wanting money for letting people on their platform?

 

[oneMadRssn]

Except I can, and will, judge you for using streaming that doesn't pay the creator. Also, most people don't pirate. Don't thrust your bad actions on the majority.

http://hollythelibrarian.com/2013/05/19/piracy-is-theft-no-matter-what-people-say/

What is the benefit of calling it theft? I think we can agree that piracy is wrong. I think we can agree it's a problem in need of a good solution. But how does classifying it as something that is objectively different going to help?