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

[alexmarchuk]

I prefer to own my music, as mentioned without internet connection.

 

[Shirasaki]

Well, that's just me. I am the sort of person who rented books because I didn't want to find space to keep them after I was done with them.

I haven't really found many songs that are worthy of keeping around. Many movies, books and songs I consume these days are the throwaway kind. You listen for a while, then get sick of it afterwards and never want to listen to again.

To your question, I probably won't bother trying to locate those deleted video content.

Well, that is not a question I want an answer because there is a simple "no".

But after this case, I then realise putting everything on cloud is not safe after all, same for content consuming, unless, as you say, they are disposable. I will listen to my previous songs many times even after listening to it over 100 times before. Watches movies will be reviewed again, and read books may be read again. Just like that.
So you are right in here: that's just me.
I prefer owning stuff, rather than renting. I have suffered the pain of renting houses, and don't really want to experience that again.

 

[petsounds]

Then Mr/Ms Petsounds - you obviously don't understand the mathematical implications of your statement. It will harm you as a musician, it might help you as a stockholder of Apple. I already posted what the proposal would mean mathematically speaking - its on Page 13 of this thread.

Streaming, in its current form, harms musicians, period. But at least this will help do away with the most egregious aspect of streaming, and that is the free tier. That's why I support this.

 

[j-dubya]

Streaming, in its current form, harms musicians, period. But at least this will help do away with the most egregious aspect of streaming, and that is the free tier. That's why I support this.

So instead of getting $0.188 per 100 streams on a paid tier with the current model (of which $0.094 goes to the writer(s) and $0.094 goes to the publisher(s)), you'd rather get $0.091 per 100 streams (of which $0.045 goes to the writer(s) and $0.045 goes to the publisher(s))?!? Because doing away with the free tier and going to this horrendous model means you'd make even less. Brilliant strategy!!

The free tier still pays, plus it leads to people ponying up for paid accounts in order to get rid of the ads. For those who've never used a streaming service - its harder to convince them if they have to pay up front and have never worked with it. A service with no free tier, in this case Apple, leads to people who either don't join, or join only to find out that service sucked, and that leads to having a high churn rate.

1. People not joining is worse.
2. People leaving a service makes it more difficult to get them back, leads them to try something else or they resort to pirating as one prolific poster named Teddy has stated.
3. Apple Music currently has a very high churn rate, roughly 3x that of Spotify. Why? Because Apple's UI isn't very good and their music exploration leaves a lot to be desired.​

Getting everyone into streaming accounts is the greatest thing for the music industry mathematically speaking. My guess is, you're unable to see the forrest for your own tree. And you clearly have no clue how the actual math works.

BTW - what's your Artist Name, I'd like to look up your music.

 

[rockinrakozy]

Your "group" is not the only creative group that produces a product and doesn't always get paid. There are software developers, artists, architects, lawyers, actors, and plenty of "creative people" who sometimes have their ideas copied/stolen. There are no absolute guarantees in life and for you to insist on government to protect you every step of the way from cradle to grave is pathetic. So live with it or come up with another way to make money from your creativity if you're not getting paid.

And if you think Apple really cares about you and is doing this to protect creative folks, I have a bridge in the Sahara Desert you can purchase.

Actually, software developers do get paid, architects do get paid, lawyers do get paid, actors do get paid... I dunno where you're going with this but THEY ALL GET PAID upfront. Royalties is only for certain groups like those with BMI or ASCAP for music, for example. So either your just an old grumpy man sitting on his front porch with a rage against the world or your completely clueless, I recommend to check your facts before spewing any more crap out of your mouth to fertilize that lawn of yours.

 

[newyorkone]

Spotify's current model isn't perfect, but Apple is the worst offender by far, and that's my point. Taking a 30% cut from Spotify is far more detrimental to the industry than anything 'nice' Apple is trying to do with their proposal.

Because even if Apple gets their way and gets 9.1 cents per 100 plays, they will still be profiting 30% from Spotify and not passing that out to artists, NOT A SINGLE CENT from that 30%.

The 30% Apple gets is what every app developer pays. It's the cost of selling apps and subscriptions via the Apple created, maintained, and operated, at no insignificant cost, ecosystem. Spotify is free to sell subscriptions via their website as much as possible and where Apple wouldn't earn a penny. However, if customers are finding their app via the Apple App Store, then Apple deserves to get their cut. Simple. Asking for anything else is ludicrous, and shows a complete lack of a basic understanding of how business works.

The royalties that artists would and should collect are not Apple's responsibility. It's the responsibility of Spotify who is serving up the music, whether through paid subscriptions or via their free tier. Spotify, under it's current business model is bleeding money almost worst than the USPS. That's not Apple's fault either.

 

[trifid]

The 30% Apple gets is what every app developer pays. It's the cost of selling apps and subscriptions via the Apple created, maintained, and operated, at no insignificant cost, ecosystem. Spotify is free to sell subscriptions via their website as much as possible and where Apple wouldn't earn a penny. However, if customers are finding their app via the Apple App Store, then Apple deserves to get their cut. Simple. Asking for anything else is ludicrous, and shows a complete lack of a basic understanding of how business works.

The royalties that artists would and should collect are not Apple's responsibility. It's the responsibility of Spotify who is serving up the music, whether through paid subscriptions or via their free tier. Spotify, under it's current business model is bleeding money almost worst than the USPS. That's not Apple's fault either.

Apple censors developers from linking or informing their users that they can subscribe on spotify.com.

This is something that other guys like Google don't do, they don't censor developers from giving such information.

So yes Apple is responsible for the censorship and they can change policies any time they want.

Apple is doing a disservice to both artists and users by inflating music subscriptions unfairly and unnecesarily with the draconian censorship.

 

[maxsix]

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

Apple being the 800lb Gorilla in the room, has full control and influence over a vast number of its users. Programmed to pay high prices no matter what, Apple customers pay without question... allowing the company to swallow up competitors at will.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Apple censors developers from linking or informing their users that they can subscribe on spotify.com.

This is something that other guys like Google don't do, they don't censor developers from giving such information.

So yes Apple is responsible for the censorship and they can change policies any time they want.

Apple is doing a disservice to both artists and users by inflating music subscriptions unfairly and unnecesarily with the draconian censorship.

Well Spotify should stick to the Google Store by your theory. Run that by them and ask if they can kindly neglect the App Store.

 

[newyorkone]

Apple censors developers from linking or informing their users that they can subscribe on spotify.com.

This is something that other guys like Google don't do, they don't censor developers from giving such information.

So yes Apple is responsible for the censorship and they can change policies any time they want.

Apple is doing a disservice to both artists and users by inflating music subscriptions unfairly and unnecesarily with the draconian censorship.

Censors, Censorship??? I think you need to look those words up in the dictionary because you are clearly misusing them. Apple's POLICY has been clear from the very beginning. If google doesn't have the same rules, then that's google's policy, which is different. That doesn't make what Apple is doing censorship.

Google can make additional money by selling your private data, and tracking your every move on the internet. That's why they don't care. Google can make money in other more nefarious ways. Nothing is free in life...

 

[Michael Goff]

Apple censors developers from linking or informing their users that they can subscribe on spotify.com.

This is something that other guys like Google don't do, they don't censor developers from giving such information.

So yes Apple is responsible for the censorship and they can change policies any time they want.

Apple is doing a disservice to both artists and users by inflating music subscriptions unfairly and unnecesarily with the draconian censorship.

And you're doing a disservice to reality by laying this all on Apple. There are ways around it if they were smart, or if this was really an argument about how unfair Apple supposedly is. This is Spotify wanting all the benefits and none of the costs. This is Spotify being unwilling to have a profitable business on the basis that free users are draining more money than bringing in.

'They're not doing anything to the artists. Period. Spotify is.

 

[trifid]

And you're doing a disservice to reality by laying this all on Apple. There are ways around it if they were smart, or if this was really an argument about how unfair Apple supposedly is. This is Spotify wanting all the benefits and none of the costs. This is Spotify being unwilling to have a profitable business on the basis that free users are draining more money than bringing in.

'They're not doing anything to the artists. Period. Spotify is.

Spotify costs $9.99 on every single platform I know of except Apple's. Of course Apple is at fault here, and yes it affects artists.
Look at the effect on pricing on Netflix, an increase of a few bucks had drastic effects on the number of subscriptions.

Apple's inflated pricing means it's less accessible to people, so less subscriptions = less artist royalties.

 

[Michael Goff]

Spotify costs $9.99 on every single platform I know of except Apple's. Of course Apple is at fault here, and yes it affects artists.
Look at the effect on pricing on Netflix, an increase of a few bucks had drastic effects on the number of subscriptions.

Apple's inflated pricing means it's less accessible to people, so less subscriptions = less artist royalties.

Spotify chooses to charge the extra 30%.