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

[LovingTeddy]

Bravo, bravo. Well said. Couldn't agree more.

Wow... Just wow... No wonder Apple makes boat of money.

I won't ever allow me to lock into one ecosystem. That is why I will keep Android phone. I never subscribe to iCloud. I never use Apple services. I always use Google Map, Google Music free, Google Photo.

I am not here to pay extra that I am not need to pay. And I really don't think Apple's stuff worth the premium than competitor.

 

[tomi03]

Ok I understand you prefer Spotify, which is cool. And that their UI is better than Apple Music. But..... What does that have to do with this article?

What Sux?

The way Apple is trying to compete, and it will affect me in the future because I don't want to use a bad app just because exclusivities

 

[trifid]

Do you really believe that Apple is doing this to help the artists?

Indeed. This move by Apple is 100% geared towards diminishing Spotify's free tier which is hurting Apple music, which in turns is hurting Apple's profits. 0% is about giving money to artists.

Anyone that thinks otherwise please explain to me how Apple can care about artists when they are stealing 30% from Spotify every month and keeping the entire thing, no a penny of that is going to artists. Even 15% is outrageous.

On Mac Apple steals 0% from Spotify.
On iOS Apple steals 30% from Spotify.

0 justification, all profit and greed-driven.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Huh, so petty thief then. Do you also shoplift most of the physical goods you desire?

I don't go shoplift, but I wait for big discount and take free samples. For example, i go take free small bottle of shampoo or small toothpaste. If there is store that offers everything free and supported by ads, then I don't mind they target me for the ads. But I will never go to other store.

But I don't pay for music and movie. I also don't buy computer software, hence, I never buy apps from App Store. I wait paid app free or I dowload free alternative. Or I download .apk file from truested sources and manually install them. For music, I will use QQ Music, Google Play Music or YouTube. But I will not pay. For movie, I streaming online or I download from torrent sites using VPN.


I only pay I have to pay. If there is free alternative, I don't pay. For example , I will go take free sample of shampoo every so often. I don't pay for banking.

 

[R3k]

Wrong. Under current licensing, 1M plays equates to $60k-85k, depending on the licensing deal. 6¢-8.5¢ per play.

According to spotify average per stream rate of 0.006 cent paid per play, 1million plays would pay out $6000

0.006 cents not 6 cents

https://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#how-does-spotify-make-money

 

[Cineplex]

Ahhhh. Eddy Cue went to work today. Wrote a memo and here we are.

 

[GhostRaider]

Someone should kick Apple in the rear because you are too cheap to pay musicians more money when the vast majority are struggling?

And you let Apple be cheap with its customers? You contradicted yourself.

 

[Cigsm]

"Why the heck is the government involved in wages?"

Now you see how ridiculous you sound

Why the heck is the government involved in music royalties?

 

[Hastings101]

I think it's more fair for artists (well, mostly record labels...) than the current system. I don't necessarily like it because I definitely don't want to see Apple Music succeed and kill off Spotify and the alternatives, but it *seems* like it's an improvement on the current system. I would just hate to end up with a big Apple monopoly in the music streaming world, especially considering how poorly designed Apple Music has been despite coming from a company known for well-designed UI and ease of use. It's like they have only a limited interest in what they're doing compared to someone who is all in like Spotify, Pandora, Deezer etc.

 

[Cigsm]

Riiiight. The government should have no say when a company like Spotify decides to open a business based 100% off of someone else's work.

keep the gov. out of this and most other things!

 

[OSX7]

I don't go shoplift, but I wait for big discount and take free samples. For example, i go take free small bottle of shampoo or small toothpaste. If there is store that offers everything free and supported by ads, then I don't mind they target me for the ads. But I will never go to other store.

But I don't pay for music and movie. I also don't buy computer software, hence, I never buy apps from App Store. I wait paid app free or I dowload free alternative. Or I download .apk file from truested sources and manually install them. For music, I will use QQ Music, Google Play Music or YouTube. But I will not pay. For movie, I streaming online or I download from torrent sites using VPN.


I only pay I have to pay. If there is free alternative, I don't pay. For example , I will go take free sample of shampoo every so often. I don't pay for banking.

Emotions are not my thing but damn....I actually feel sorry for you.

 

[oldmacs]

The only reason Apple is doing this is to force Spotify out, they don't really care at all about the artists, just look at the original Apple Music free tier debacle.

Spotify's free tier encourages people not to pirate, and I think lower revenue for artists is better than no revenue if people are pirating. I use Spotify's free tier to try out an album before I purchase it physically, as Apple Music is too expensive and the interface is horrible.

 

[doelcm82]

Yeah, it will be much better for the consumer when they have a choice of Apple or Apple. We know how Apple loves to pass on the savings to their loyal followers.

You're only saying that because Apple snuffed out the competition in phones and computers, and now Apple can charge whatever they want, because there isn't anything else. No, that's not right. Apple doesn't have 100% of any market.

I suppose it's fun to think about Apple wanting to have no competition, and maybe in their deepest heart of hearts, that's what they're after. (Just like everyone else.) People are greedy in general, so Apple is therefore greedy. And it burns our greedy souls.

The truth is, that if Apple gets a system in place that benefits Apple, leading to a lucrative market for Apple to enjoy, other companies will covet that lucre, and they'll find ways to take advantage of that system and steal some of the market share away.

You may find this hard to believe, but there are consumers who don't want Apple to have a monopoly (and even some that don't want Apple to succeed by any measure). Some of those consumers will want services like the ones Apple provides, and will be willing to pay for those services from someone not named "Apple". That's a built-in market just waiting to be tapped, and it's the reason there will probably never be a time when the consumer has a choice of Apple or Apple.

 

[oldmacs]

Indeed. This move by Apple is 100% geared towards diminishing Spotify's free tier which is hurting Apple music, which in turns is hurting Apple's profits. 0% is about giving money to artists.

Exactly, anyone who thinks this is about a better deal for artists is wrong, its about Apple's already fat profits.

 

[gotluck]

Yes because heaven forbid you leaches actually start paying for music or listen to commercial-driven radio. Oh, the horror!

Isn't free tier Spotify commercially driven radio?

 

[smacrumon]

Anti competitive. Nothing else but that.

 

[x0vash0x]

Anti competitive. Nothing else but that.

Getting really annoyed at people calling this 'Anti Competitive'. There's nothing illegal about this. But also, since when has businesses competing been such a bad thing? Businesses SHOULD be anti-competitive.

 

[sudo1996]

"Why the heck is the government involved in wages?"

Now you see how ridiculous you sound

Why the heck is the government involved in wages?

BTW, this is even beyond that since they're also dictating exactly how the artists need to be paid. It's highly unnecessary.
[doublepost=1468644645][/doublepost]

Riiiight. The government should have no say when a company like Spotify decides to open a business based 100% off of someone else's work.

Spotify isn't piracy. Artists and producers agree to put their music on it. 100% off their work? They've got a whole service going. Before all this, music was sold on expensive CDs. Apple saved the music industry with iTunes back then.

 

[4jasontv]

I guess the question then is - why do people feel entitled to a free music streaming option?

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

I don't feel entitled. I feel I'm paying exactly what it's worth. I can't get away from music. It's everywhere. TV, stores, movies, elevators, cars, airplanes, lobbies, bathrooms. Don't you see, I'm not being charged for the right to play a song but rather I'm being charged for control over what plays next. They want to invade my home and pitch their wares without compensating me? How entitled are they?

 

[Icaras]

Wow... Just wow... No wonder Apple makes boat of money.

I won't ever allow me to lock into one ecosystem. That is why I will keep Android phone. I never subscribe to iCloud. I never use Apple services. I always use Google Map, Google Music free, Google Photo.

I am not here to pay extra that I am not need to pay. And I really don't think Apple's stuff worth the premium than competitor.

And I will never use any of those Google services you mention. I've been a happy Apple user in all it's services of the eco system for well over 10 years.

So what's your point?

 

[jpn]

Why the heck is the government involved in music royalties?

to monitor and enforce fair trade, by not allowing companies that are already big to use their sheer size to dictate market terms and probably therefore eliminate smaller companies that may just be starting out with better products but can't get traction. laws that support this helped apple's own initiatives to grow over windows. these laws tend to be good for competition and innovation.

in this case apple is clearly trying to use complexity of business terms to try to change the market's dynamics.

if this is all they got, i don't think their attempt will work.

apple should work to improve apple Music.

 

[Klyster]

Once you've got rid of the competition, you set the terms.
Who can't see this happening....

 

[sudo1996]

Wow... Just wow... No wonder Apple makes boat of money.

I won't ever allow me to lock into one ecosystem. That is why I will keep Android phone. I never subscribe to iCloud. I never use Apple services. I always use Google Map, Google Music free, Google Photo.

I am not here to pay extra that I am not need to pay. And I really don't think Apple's stuff worth the premium than competitor.

It sounds like you're in Google's ecosystem...

 

[UAV]

nothing wrong with being apart of the worlds biggest ecosystem right?

 

[sudo1996]

to monitor and enforce fair trade, by not allowing companies that are already big to use their sheer size to dictate market terms and probably therefore eliminate smaller companies that may just be starting out with better products but can't get traction. laws that support this helped apple's own initiatives to grow over windows. these laws tend to be good for competition and innovation.

Usually, they have anti-dumping measures for that, which I completely agree with. This is kind of the opposite.