Sidebar Sidebar
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

EricTheHalfBee said:
This is not Apple only, as you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...
Mr. Half Bee, you're getting in the way of their agenda to paint Apple as a Bond Villain. The conclusion was already set, they're just looking for tidbits to shoehorn into their narrative.
[doublepost=1468629290][/doublepost]They all complain that every story is about Pokémon. Give them a story about actions Apple has taken, with no mention of Pokémon, and they all complain that Apple is evil. Clearly the real problem with the Pokémon stories was that there was no easy way to bend those to fit into their "Apple is Evil" agenda.

Remind me again why people who hate Apple hang out on an Apple news site?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueParadox, thisisnotmyname, HenryDJP and 7 others
Abazigal said:
I guess the question then is - why do people feel entitled to a free music streaming option?
Click to expand...

That's unimportant. What matters is they would pirate otherwise, so offering an ad financed option still brings in more money than abandoning that cross section to piracy.

I didn't switch to the Apple ecosystem to save money. I switched precisely because I was willing to pay to get a great computing experience, and Apple simply offered the more compelling option.

If I need to pay more to get a better listening experience from Apple Music, I will.
Click to expand...


I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment when it applies. It doesn't with Apple Music though does it?

The user experience was horrendous last time I tried it. Spotify right now is just better.

Apple should beat them by being better. Not by playing daft industry politics
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheRealCBONE, JonnyBlaze, Oblivious.Robot and 9 others
Abazigal said:
So like Apple to introduce a move which is simultaneously great for its intended recipients and devastating to its competitors.

It's a very tempting offer, and I would like to see how Spotify responds to that. They seem to be having a hard time of late, with losses still.
Click to expand...

Spotify will claim this is anti-competitive. They'll shoot themselves in the foot. Like they have already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hanafuda and Stridder44
Reticuli said:
That's unimportant. What matters is they would pirate otherwise, so offering an ad financed option still brings in more money than abandoning that cross section to piracy.
Click to expand...
I'm curious, these people who would resort to piracy, if ad-supported streaming wasn't available - what did they do before ad-supported streaming was available? Did none of them buy songs?
 
Reticuli said:
That's unimportant. What matters is they would pirate otherwise, so offering an ad financed option still brings in more money than abandoning that cross section to piracy.
Click to expand...

So you want people who make music to earn less in order to coddle a bunch of mooches because if they can't mooch they will instead just steal like trashy thieves. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keane16, jedifaka, farmboy and 12 others
Reticuli said:
That's unimportant. What matters is they would pirate otherwise, so offering an ad financed option still brings in more money than abandoning that cross section to piracy.
Click to expand...

I don't see why we should be holding out an olive branch to these pirates. Let them steal what they want, and let them face the consequences as necessary.

Reticuli said:
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment when it applies. It doesn't with Apple Music though does it?

The user experience was horrendous last time I tried it. Spotify right now is just better.

Apple should beat them by being better. Not by playing daft industry politics
Click to expand...

For you perhaps. I am using Apple Music over Spotify, primarily because Apple Music has access to a wider selection music that I like. As well as being available on Apple TV and generally being more integrated with iOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueParadox, HenryDJP, hanafuda and 5 others
sudo1996 said:
Why the heck is the government involved in music royalties?
Click to expand...

Because when they were put in first, musicians didn't get a dime from airplay or performance at all. It came in with radio,and the foundation of the FCC. Music royalties got to be a problem with player piano. "Mechanical rights," huh? If you published a piano roll, you had to pay the music publisher. It's also not enforced with police, but with the right to sue if you don't get paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan, R3k and kildraik
Swift said:
Because when they were put in first, musicians didn't get a dime from airplay or performance at all. It came in with radio,and the foundation of the FCC. Music royalties got to be a problem with player piano. "Mechanical rights," huh? If you published a piano roll, you had to pay the music publisher. It's also not enforced with police, but with the right to sue if you don't get paid.
Click to expand...
Copyright law is a different matter. Musicians should own the rights to their music. But they should be free to sell their rights to publishers however they want. If they don't make money from royalties, so what, that's what they agreed on. I don't see why government involvement is necessary here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stjuls
-Garry- said:
How awful that a musician's work can be listened to one million times, yet they would receive just $910.

I dread to think how many hit songs they would have to write in order to make a living.
Click to expand...

I'd guess that a lot of musicians don't make a living from their music, it's a small percentage that makes the most money, just like everything else.
 
Jakexb said:
It's nice to see musicians benefit from tech competition rather than get squeezed more.
Click to expand...

Thats what apple wish to show, so it looks better for them. They tried the same with books, but as it was with distributors, nobody cared.
 
Seems pretty anti-competitive of them to try to implement a "rule" that wouldn't affect them but would only hurt the competition.
[doublepost=1468631139][/doublepost]
sudo1996 said:
Does YouTube count? Any song I want, chances are I can find it on YouTube.
Click to expand...
I guess YouTube could count, sorry I was only thinking of Google Play Music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996
GucciPiggy said:
Seems pretty anti-competitive of them to try to implement a "rule" that wouldn't affect them but would only hurt the competition.
Click to expand...

The rule doesn't hurt Apple because Apple is already paying that price or higher. It's like the threshold for an "A" grade just got raised from 85 to 90 and you shrug because you are easily scoring 95 marks anyways.

Apple is raising the rest of the industry up to its level (whether they want to or not), rather than stoop down to their level.
 
Abazigal said:
The rule doesn't hurt Apple because Apple is already paying that price or higher. It's like the threshold for an "A" grade just got raised from 85 to 90 and you shrug because you are easily scoring 95 marks anyways.

Apple is raising the rest of the industry up to its level (whether they want to or not), rather than stoop down to their level.
Click to expand...

If Apple chose to pay more that's their own decision, but they're knowingly hurting the competition by doing this. Streaming music is expensive and Spotify's free tier cannot cover a higher fee. They pay the royalties they need but this would hard blow to them. It's extremely anti-competitive of Apple's sake to stick their nose in business that's not theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996
Abazigal said:
The rule doesn't hurt Apple because Apple is already paying that price or higher. It's like the threshold for an "A" grade just got raised from 85 to 90 and you shrug because you are easily scoring 95 marks anyways.

Apple is raising the rest of the industry up to its level (whether they want to or not), rather than stoop down to their level.
Click to expand...
So Apple made bad deals or for whatever other reason has to pay musicians more. I know whose level Apple is stooping to by trying to get the government to take care of the competition for them...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stjuls
Abazigal said:
The rule doesn't hurt Apple because Apple is already paying that price or higher. It's like the threshold for an "A" grade just got raised from 85 to 90 and you shrug because you are easily scoring 95 marks anyways.

Apple is raising the rest of the industry up to its level (whether they want to or not), rather than stoop down to their level.
Click to expand...

All Apple is trying to do is raise their revenue and pretend that their intent is to help out the artist. Apple doesn't like competition because it forces them to stay on their toes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonnyBlaze, Strutten, AlexGraphicD and 3 others
AppleScruff1 said:
I'd guess that a lot of musicians don't make a living from their music, it's a small percentage that makes the most money, just like everything else.
Click to expand...

This. Musicians make money from tours and merchandise, not music. Music is a dead industry.

GucciPiggy said:
Seems pretty anti-competitive of them to try to implement a "rule" that wouldn't affect them but would only hurt the competition.
Click to expand...

Not anti-competitive at all. Anti-Competitive would be dumping: offering an incredibly cheap or free to drive competition out, then increasing the price. This would be like Apple offering Apple music for free for years, driving Spotify out of business, then increasing the price. Don't think they could drive YouTube/Google out of a free tier since Google has a ridiculous amount of cash as well. Spotify, doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back