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

[vooke]

This fact that you state - which of Apple's executives said it and when?

You need it spelt out for you?

 

[CarlJ]

You need it spelt out for you?

There is no magical number of times that you can say "of course it's true" that makes something actually be true.

 

[vooke]

There is no magical number of times that you can say "of course it's true" that makes something actually be true.

Remind me of any business that goes out of its way to promote its competitors

 

[owen.meredith]

This is sooo not gonna fly.

First of all this is not about artists making any money cause 9.1 cents on a 100 streams is an insult but artists have accepted the offer to stream their music so who give a crap about them. They have blatantly chosen to make their money on tours and from merchandise if they have an easy 360 contract.

This hits the consumer the hardest cause they might not have a free option.

What I don't get here is how come the CRB only consulted Apple instead of other leading music streamers. That is the sole reason why this proposal will go down.

Well, this is completely wrong. Streaming is part of the major music market now, so choosing not to stream (unless you're a MAJOR artist) is incredibly detrimental. Especially for independent artists, making money through music sales is a main source of revenue. Increasing the amount of money an artist gets per stream to this extent would be a massive help - streaming is the future of music, and companies need to start paying out more.

p.s. artists DON'T choose to make their income from tours and merchandise, they HAVE to because streaming has knocked off a large portion of their income because it pays out so poorly.

 

[skitidetdu]

This is awesome! Finally someone with the power to change things does something!

 

[Robstevo]

Well, this is completely wrong. Streaming is part of the major music market now, so choosing not to stream (unless you're a MAJOR artist) is incredibly detrimental. Especially for independent artists, making money through music sales is a main source of revenue. Increasing the amount of money an artist gets per stream to this extent would be a massive help - streaming is the future of music, and companies need to start paying out more.

p.s. artists DON'T choose to make their income from tours and merchandise, they HAVE to because streaming has knocked off a large portion of their income because it pays out so poorly.

Artists have simply went back to what they use to have to make money...touring. This isn't a bad thing by the way!

They have simply had to adapt to what the market have chosen.

 

[KidAKidB]

Apple's just accelerating the inevitable. Spotify will end their free streaming soon because it's not sustainable. Here just trying to capture as many users as possible before they flip the switch to paid streams. Is that really any sleazier than Apple trying to get more money to artists?

It's 100% more sleazy because Apple isn't doing this to be benevolent they're doing this to help themselves and their own money bags in the long run.

 

[x0vash0x]

It's 100% more sleazy because Apple isn't doing this to be benevolent they're doing this to help themselves and their own money bags in the long run.

I never realized how many people thought businesses were moral, benevolent, entities until I read this thread. Why in the world would any business be moral or benevolent?

 

[KidAKidB]

I could have picked a better quote. This all came out when Bruce Sewell (Apples lawyer) tore Spotify a new one over their whiny btch session about Apple being anti-competitive.

In Sewell's letter to Spotify he explicitly states that if you have subscribers that have already been with you for a year, the 85/15 split starts immediately.


Which brings up a very interesting point. Why does Spotify still charge 30% more for in-App subscriptions when most of their subscribers are now on the 15% rate? I fully expect the next Spotify App update to hit The App Store to reflect this new reality and charge customers less for an in-App subscription.

Quite simply because not all users would already be at the 1 year point, and Apple won't allow Spotify to charge users different prices depending on how long they've been subscribers for. It's either all or nothing. Plus if they charge 15% rather than 30% then Spotify would be making even LESS money.
[doublepost=1468661538][/doublepost]

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.

There's nothing illegal with Apple colluding with record labels on a decision that 100% is based on destroying it's competition? Apple KNOWS that this would destroy Spotify's free tier and this is what they're after. They don't want competition and they're doing all this in the name of the artist. As if anyone is actually stupid enough to actually believe that.

 

[apolloa]

Who cares about Spotify, I don't need OR WANT any competition, I can only survive with Apple telling me what to do everyday.... I want them to crush CRUSH all competition into the ground and then charge me ludicrous amounts of money for the services I want, because I love Apple so much I'm UTTERLY blind to what they are doing, I believe Cook personally knows me and Ive is doing everything for me personally...

Does that about sum up this comments section? It summed up the comments on the last Spotify story that's for sure. Yeah perhaps people on here should wake up to what REALLY happens when Apple kills its competition through dirty tricks.
Apple is a business, it wants money, it try's to kill competition in ANYWAY IT CAN INCLUDING PATENT CASES!! Oh look we've just got Samsung products banned from sale Kachin, there's a load more iPhone sales....
Oh look we've just killed Spotify's free streaming service Kachin there's a load more Apple Music subscribers.

These are simple things that I see many on here completely fail to understand as I guess your under the Apple magic spell, and that's called marketing, it's the best thing Apple does, it does marketing better then iOS features and updates!

Dirty tricks and clever marketing is what all businesses do, and they will try dirty tricks to kill the competition. One of the magic bubbles that makes you 'think' Apple isn't like that is its marketing.

 

[Makosuke]

Despite user and revenue growth, Spotify continues to operate at a loss due to expensive royalties and revenue sharing with music labels, with recent losses growing 10 percent to $195.7 million.

Leaving aside any good or bad of current or possible future streaming payment structures, this is a case of "We lose money every sale, but we'll make it up in volume!" if I ever saw one.

 

[bobob]

eBook scandle part 2

I wonder if macfacts knows what the real ebook "scandle" was?

 

[apolloa]

I think another reason to use a non Apple streaming service is the awefull mess of a music app my 6S and iPod Touch now have! Even the podcast app doesn't seem to download things properly.

If Apple actually spent time and money on its apps and told Ive to leave software WELL ALONE!!! Then they would be onto something I think many would appreciate.

 

[Reticuli]

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?

Perhaps some of them paid for their music. But the ad funded tier brings in a significant number of people who would have never paid.

It's all about expanding the cross section. Bring in those who were going to pay anyway. Have as funded for those who wouldn't.

 

[owen.meredith]

Artists have simply went back to what they use to have to make money...touring. This isn't a bad thing by the way!

They have simply had to adapt to what the market have chosen.

Purely from having no choice due to streaming taking over and paying out disrespectful amounts, which is largely down to spotify's free streaming option and their payouts. This day and age there should be allowance to choose how you make an income, and you shouldn't have to be forced down a route which doesn't work for everyone purely from a business paying you less than dust for users consuming your product. I'm just simply referring to the previous point that artist choose for streaming and touring, because that's not the case at all.

Paying out more for streams will help the smaller artists, in comparison to larger mainstream artists.

 

[Steve121178]

Sounds simpler and fairer; kicking Spotify and Google is just an added side bonus ;-)

You've just won most idiotic comment of 2016 and it's only July...
[doublepost=1468667288][/doublepost]I like this quote from The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12203906/apple-music-spotify-streaming-songwriting-royalty-rates

It’s important to note that because Apple struck its own deals with record labels for its Apple Music service, the company may be able to avoid following the rules of its own proposal.

 

[smacrumon]

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.

No, it's completely anti-competitive behaviour from Apple here. Apple has opened up a platform, now either it makes it fully open, non discriminatory and competitive or just close it down entirely. If Apple is concerned about other music services in its platform, it need only look at its own music service and compete with an even greater product. Apple is spitting the dummy and chucking a tantrum in the playpen when it should only be looking at developing and growing itself. There's no reason to be concerned about other music services if Apple creates a best and much loved service of its own.

 

[LovingTeddy]

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?

Point is it is stupid that someone lock into one ecosystem, especially one that is wall gardened.
[doublepost=1468667997][/doublepost]

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

Not really. I have Yahoo Mail, hotmail as well. I also back up files to local computers. I use QQ Music for music streaming.

I always keep several of some services, so I can jump ship if I want to.

I can switch to Android just by change SIM card and vice versa. Because all the stuff I use are available to Android and iOS, all my photos are synced in both iOS devices and Android devices. I don't need iPhone to access my email, because I use gmail and Yahoo Mail. I don't need iPhone to navigate, because I never use Apple Maps etc.


[doublepost=1468668182][/doublepost]

The guy lives in China. Of course he pirates everything. Apple Music is $1.25 (10RMB/Month) in China and to some Chinese even THAT'S expensive. QQ Music is an on-demand streaming service. They offer a paid subscription, but most people don't do that. There are tons of websites (i.e. www.4399.com) where you can get APKs for local and big name games like Minecraft.

Piracy is HUGE problem in China, it's no wonder that a guy living in China and is probably Chinese refuses to pay for anything.

I don't care. It is either I download or I am not. Either way, I am not paying.

 

[littyboy]

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.

Huh? Your sentences don't make sense.
"But also, since when has businesses competing been such a bad thing?" - You're implying it is a good thing to have competition.
"Businesses SHOULD be anti-competitive" - You're saying that there should NOT be competition.

Contradicting yourself?

And furthermore, I'm not sure what you call exclusive rights to artists, and possibly exclusion from this new proposal due to deals with exclusive artists. Can't really have competition if there's exclusivity right?

 

[alexmarchuk]

Point is it is stupid that someone lock into one ecosystem, especially one that is wall gardened.
[doublepost=1468667997][/doublepost]

Not really. I have Yahoo Mail, hotmail as well. I also back up files to local computers. I use QQ Music for music streaming.

I always keep several of some services, so I can jump ship if I want to.

I can switch to Android just by change SIM card and vice versa. Because all the stuff I use are available to Android and iOS, all my photos are synced in both iOS devices and Android devices. I don't need iPhone to access my email, because I use gmail and Yahoo Mail. I don't need iPhone to navigate, because I never use Apple Maps etc.


[doublepost=1468668182][/doublepost]

I don't care. It is either I download or I am not. Either way, I am not paying.

Doesn't negate the fact that you want everything free yet cry that Apple is doing this against the artists. You admitted to pirating movies and music. Your opinion on this isn't exactly strong.

 

[bushido]

They find it a ready platform to spread their rants. They know that they will get responses and thus get the self gratification and increase their feelings of self importance they crave. (Like Junkies searching for their next fix)

Or simply Apple only started to suck and became just like every other company out there over the last few years but you still hold onto those better times and have a glimpse of hope that it will go back to its former self.

I got 2 iPhones, an iPad, MBP and an apple Watch and i still think they suck from a business point of view. its all about pleasing those share holders. tim cook is a numbers guy just like most CEOs out there

 

[threesixty360]

The problem with Spotify is that it was trying to follow an Amazon/Facebook/YouTube business model where you grow so fast that there isn't another option in the market. When you become ubiquitous you can call the shots in terms of the fees you have to pay because the content makers / providers need you more than you need them. To get that point, investors throw ridiculous amounts of money at you in order to literally "buy the market" for that company.

Which is all good, but two things happened that scuppered everything. Spotify took ages getting into the US due to stalled contract negotiations. Secondly, apple stepped in worried about securing their iTunes business in the future. Apple have just as much money as the vc's that are bank rolling Spotify so this has caused terrible problems for Spotify and its vc's business plans.

At the end of the day, Spotify were just too slow in building up users. They are going to have to IPO or sell off soon because you can't keep selling product at a massive loss and not gaining the market share to make that loss sustainable in the long run.

I really think they'd be better off getting rid of the free tier completely and making the business profitable now rather than hiding behind the googlesque view of providing content that is expensive to produce for free to the public. All the while pretending it's some charitable contribution to society when really it's a crude attempt to get a monopoly in the streaming business which has failed.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Or simply Apple only started to suck and became just like every other company out there over the last few years but you still hold onto those better times and have a glimpse of hope that it will go back to its former self.

I got 2 iPhones, an iPad, MBP and an apple Watch and i still think they suck from a business point of view

I don't have any problems with iOS or macOS and have been using iPhone since the first one. From PowerBook to today as well. I have ran into more problems with Windows 7 and 10 than ever on OS X or iOS.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

Hence why an artist like Prince was so against Spotify and others. He went on a YouTube rant on Twitter early in 2016 (but later deleted all those tweets). His publishing company is still actively removing stuff from YouTube all the time though.

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/...tance-and-why-he-removes-all-concert-footage/

 

[LovingTeddy]

Doesn't negate the fact that you want everything free yet cry that Apple is doing this against the artists. You admitted to pirating movies and music. Your opinion on this isn't exactly strong.

I don't complain Apple do whatever. I don't care about music streaming. If free music streaming is not available anymore, I just go download.

I don't expect anyone agree with me, I just express my opinion. Never buy into wall gardened ecosystem. And FREE IS ALWAYS GOOD AND NOTHING BEATS FREE