FTC Also Investigating Apple's Upcoming Music Streaming Service

[AdonisSMU]

Agree with most of that, but it is sorely misplaced to think that Taylor Swift is sitting in the poor house. Spotify was only one source of income for her and her labels. Apparently not a big enough one 🙂

Secondly it is strange that she, and music artists in general keep quoting that "everyone is complaining that music sales are down." The general public isn't complaining about that, it is just all the parties with a vest financial interest that are saying that. The consumer always wants to pay less.

Crap, I mean even artists who continue to refuse to have ANY kind of digital sales for various reasons, like Tool for example, well they are doing JUST FINE, believe you me. Every album platinum. If you make good art, it will sell.

Tool hasn't released an album since 2006. I don't they are an example of digital sales going down in the last 5 years....with streaming only accelerating the sales decline. I like Apple's thinking here... lower the top tier and raise the bottom tier in terms of price. I think that's the best way to go quite frankly.

 

[Keirasplace]

Agree with most of that, but it is sorely misplaced to think that Taylor Swift is sitting in the poor house. Spotify was only one source of income for her and her labels. Apparently not a big enough one 🙂

Secondly it is strange that she, and music artists in general keep quoting that "everyone is complaining that music sales are down." The general public isn't complaining about that, it is just all the parties with a vest financial interest that are saying that. The consumer always wants to pay less.

Crap, I mean even artists who continue to refuse to have ANY kind of digital sales for various reasons, like Tool for example, well they are doing JUST FINE, believe you me. Every album platinum. If you make good art, it will sell.

Yes, because we know that Taylor Swift is the typical case of an artists at Spotify... She's just the top selling artist of the last 10 years... No biggie. She pulled out because she can. Maybe to support all her other friends/artists which are getting rammed through by the streaming sites.

Those 10 level lower in popularity artists, may be desperate for a better deal than what Spotify (and others) is offering them, but with streaming not being fully monetized, the streaming sites are not replacing the money lost from singles/album sales going straight down.

if Apple offers them something better, they'd be crazy not to take it. When you compete for talent, someone who pays better gets it. That's how it should be. Labels/artists I think are waking up that the current situation is not sustainable in the long term.

As for those occult, "vested interest".. They are mostly artists which can only be charitably be called lower middle class at the best of times (but, often closer to the working poor). I know quite a few artists which have other low paying jobs to put food on the table, and barely have time to create/promote their stuff.

Yes, people want everything for nothing. But, people, especially the best artists selling their service don't have to give it them if they don't want to. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. If people absolutely want free music, I'm sure total amateurs of borderline skill may give it to them; they'll get what they pay for, which may accidentally be good... Sometimes...

 

[Keirasplace]

Why should apple worry about another companies business model if it is unsustainable? Why would they even bother thinking about something that will be gone shortly? When any company tries to illegally disrupt or put another company out of business it's smacks of fear. All any company has to do to prove themselves is put out a product, if it's good it will sell. For people to really believe that altruism is behind a move like that is just plain being blind. No one stops the labels from giving the artists a larger cut of the profits or apple from giving the labels a larger cut for that matter. All this discussion of poor artists starving due to big bad streaming is ridiculous, it's a business and apple wants their cut of streaming dollars, they couldn't care less if the artists got anything as long as they get theirs.

Nobody claims that Apple is doing this to give artists a break. But, giving a better deals to artists/labels, is a way to get them on board. Most artists prefer more money (or any money!); that obvious... So, it is a mutually beneficial transactions for artists/label to get to Apple if it is a better contract. It is a business transaction, first of all.

Artists are notoriously not getting much from Spotify, so Apple may incidentally be improving their lot by pursuing them. More bidders, especially big ones, makes what you sell more valuable.

In the end, it may not be Apple wanting "streaming money", but more reinforcing the stickyness of their own ecosystem. Apple doesn't make money only on music, they're selling the whole Apple experience. If for example, Apple bundled music streaming with high end video services (which are much more lucrative), they could make next to nothing on the music itself and use it as a loss leader.

 

[Fenez]

Offering a better deal is a great thing for the artists and labels although it wouldn't draw an investigation if that was the case.

 

[macUser2007]

I'm not understanding your point here. Its okay then for starving start up musicians to be denied fair payment for their work because you want free everything because... taylor swift?

Nope, You don't understand....

"Freemium" does not mean than money does not exchange hands.

Just like this site does not "deny fair payment" to those who work for it, just because you can read and post for free.

And no, Apple is not your friend, or the friend of all starving musicians.

Apple just wants to use its influence to screw up the market, so it doesn't have to compete with the currently successful players.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Tool hasn't released an album since 2006. I don't they are an example of digital sales going down in the last 5 years....with streaming only accelerating the sales decline. I like Apple's thinking here... lower the top tier and raise the bottom tier in terms of price. I think that's the best way to go quite frankly.

That's fair enough. Thing is a band like that will go platinum when they do release their next album regardless, and they will never go digital until a listener is forced to buy the whole album and not just one song at a time. Unrelated, but I don't see why that isn't already a thing if artists opt for it.

Anyway, agree with you, not arguing the point about Apple's strategy.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Yes, because we know that Taylor Swift is the typical case of an artists at Spotify... She's just the top selling artist of the last 10 years... No biggie. She pulled out because she can. Maybe to support all her other friends/artists which are getting rammed through by the streaming sites.

Those 10 level lower in popularity artists, may be desperate for a better deal than what Spotify (and others) is offering them, but with streaming not being fully monetized, the streaming sites are not replacing the money lost from singles/album sales going straight down.

if Apple offers them something better, they'd be crazy not to take it. When you compete for talent, someone who pays better gets it. That's how it should be. Labels/artists I think are waking up that the current situation is not sustainable in the long term.

As for those occult, "vested interest".. They are mostly artists which can only be charitably be called lower middle class at the best of times (but, often closer to the working poor). I know quite a few artists which have other low paying jobs to put food on the table, and barely have time to create/promote their stuff.

Yes, people want everything for nothing. But, people, especially the best artists selling their service don't have to give it them if they don't want to. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. If people absolutely want free music, I'm sure total amateurs of borderline skill may give it to them; they'll get what they pay for, which may accidentally be good... Sometimes...

Not arguing your points really, just two things:

1. Streaming service providers are not gouging artists with their free model - they're not making any money either. It is just a race to the bottom for marketshare. Plans will refert to premium only after that war has played itself out, even without Apple's involvement.

2. The poor artists you speak of would have no outlet whatsoever if not for this free model. Nobody would pay to hear their music since they've never heard of them. The vast majority would never have been discovered or signed by a major label, even if talented, and would have already turned to something else to make something of themselves. Being "on Spotify" has become a sort of dangling carrot for most of these artists, almost like a drug they can't drop, that maybe one day they will win the lottery and be snapped up or discovered through the service. They make a tiny bit of money, but obviously nothing that can pay the rent, so they slave away at dead end part time jobs to make ends meet in this trivial existence and it is almost impossible to put a value on the opportunity cost for them. It's actually sad.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's fair enough. Thing is a band like that will go platinum when they do release their next album regardless, and they will never go digital until a listener is forced to buy the whole album and not just one song at a time. Unrelated, but I don't see why that isn't already a thing if artists opt for it.

Anyway, agree with you, not arguing the point about Apple's strategy.

The industry now uses track equivalent album sales to measure album popularity.

----------

Nope, You don't understand....

"Freemium" does not mean than money does not exchange hands.

Just like this site does not "deny fair payment" to those who work for it, just because you can read and post for free.

And no, Apple is not your friend, or the friend of all starving musicians.

Apple just wants to use its influence to screw up the market, so it doesn't have to compete with the currently successful players.

It needs to be profitable for that industry as a whole or else there is nothing tieing anyone to Apple's service. There still isnt if people are persistent.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

The industry now uses track equivalent album sales to measure album popularity.

That's not the point - Tool, for example, don't want you to listen to one of their songs 10,000,000 times. They want you to listen to the whole album 1,000,000 times. It makes a difference to them. For them, the piece of art is the album, not the individual tracks so much. It's not so much about album sales or "going platinum" on an album, it is about giving the listener the intended experience.

IMHO the worst thing about the streaming phenomenon and the music industry in general isn't the business model, it is this ever more incessant focus on the single 3-4 (or increasingly 2-3) minute track, with things like Idol and Whose Got Talent reinforcing this bite sized idea.

I may be old fashioned for having this view, but I have to give a lot of respect to artists who are endeavouring to give the listener a deeper and more meaningful experience. Especially when the industry wants to ignore them and leave them behind with this new business model.

Why don't they let the artist and customer decide? Why not allow artists to require purchasing the whole album in one go?

 

[LordVic]

First thing I need clarification on is why is the "freemium" a bad thing?

Artists get paid (even if it's small amount compared to a paid service),

I see these freemium add supported streaming options akin to FM radio. You don't pay for that either. Yet you can listen to music of all sorts, ad supported all day long, 24/7, on dozens of radio stations

Again.. All for free.

These freemium streaming services aren't fundamentally different than FM radio, and nobody was complaining about FM radio putting musicians out of business.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's not the point - Tool, for example, don't want you to listen to one of their songs 10,000,000 times. They want you to listen to the whole album 1,000,000 times. It makes a difference to them. For them, the piece of art is the album, not the individual tracks so much. It's not so much about album sales or "going platinum" on an album, it is about giving the listener the intended experience.

IMHO the worst thing about the streaming phenomenon and the music industry in general isn't the business model, it is this ever more incessant focus on the single 3-4 (or increasingly 2-3) minute track, with things like Idol and Whose Got Talent reinforcing this bite sized idea.

I may be old fashioned for having this view, but I have to give a lot of respect to artists who are endeavouring to give the listener a deeper and more meaningful experience. Especially when the industry wants to ignore them and leave them behind with this new business model.

Why don't they let the artist and customer decide? Why not allow artists to require purchasing the whole album in one go?

I hold the opposite view. The customer is deciding. Look at album sales, song sales and streaming.

I'd rather only have the songs I like and nothing more. I won't be forced into buying more product than I want to purchase. I will simply withhold my dollars and buy only the single songs I like.

----------

First thing I need clarification on is why is the "freemium" a bad thing?

Artists get paid (even if it's small amount compared to a paid service),

I see these freemium add supported streaming options akin to FM radio. You don't pay for that either. Yet you can listen to music of all sorts, ad supported all day long, 24/7, on dozens of radio stations

Again.. All for free.

These freemium streaming services aren't fundamentally different than FM radio, and nobody was complaining about FM radio putting musicians out of business.

Listeners don't get to chose what they are listening to directly with FM radio. That is the difference. It's not the same thing as streaming.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

I hold the opposite view. The customer is deciding. Look at album sales, song sales and streaming.

I'd rather only have the songs I like and nothing more. I won't be forced into buying more product than I want to purchase. I will simply withhold my dollars and buy only the single songs I like.

That's fine, you are entitled to hold that view, that's not what I am arguing. I am saying that some artists would like you to hear their songs in the context of the whole album, as they feel the experience as a whole is lost in isolation.

All I am saying is that artists should be able to dictate how their art is sold. Then of course the consumer can make a choice themselves to either buy or not buy that art.

The streaming subscription model (paid or ad-based) actually doesn't allow for that at all, by definition. Digital sales does not equal streaming. When you have a streaming subscription, you are paying for access to a vast catalogue of music, so it is no surprise that album sales have plummeted with the rise of the streaming phenomenon. I am actually surprised that most poplar artists even produce "albums" at all anymore. They may as well be 7-10 individual single releases instead. That's pretty much the direcrion we are going.

Think about it. iTunes Match is a service that allows you to upload music you already own so you can access/stream it as your own personal Spotify. But that seems completely redundant when you could skip buying the music in the first place and just have a premium Spotify account instead, and have the majority of the music you already own accessible in any case.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's fine, you are entitled to hold that view, that's not what I am arguing. I am saying that some artists would like you to hear their songs in the context of the whole album, as they feel the experience as a whole is lost in isolation.

All I am saying is that artists should be able to dictate how their art is sold. Then of course the consumer can make a choice themselves to either buy or not buy that art.

The streaming subscription model (paid or ad-based) actually doesn't allow for that at all, by definition. Digital sales does not equal streaming. When you have a streaming subscription, you are paying for access to a vast catalogue of music, so it is no surprise that album sales have plummeted with the rise of the streaming phenomenon. I am actually surprised that most poplar artists even produce "albums" at all anymore. They may as well be 7-10 individual single releases instead. That's pretty much the direcrion we are going.

Think about it. iTunes Match is a service that allows you to upload music you already own so you can access/stream it as your own personal Spotify. But that seems completely redundant when you could skip buying the music in the first place and just have a premium Spotify account instead, and have the majority of the music you already own accessible in any case.

I'm of the view that if the song can't hold up without other songs to give it context then maybe the song isn't that good to begin with. The song is a single work of art. The album is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to buy more product at one time by bundling multiple works of art together. It's like buying 10 paintings when all you really wanted is one good painting. In order for a song to sell it has to get people to buy the single song for its merits not for the merit of other songs that may on an album.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

I'm of the view that if the song can't hold up without other songs to give it context then maybe the song isn't that good to begin with. The song is a single work of art. The album is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to buy more product at one time by bundling multiple works of art together. It's like buying 10 paintings when all you really wanted is one good painting. In order for a song to sell it has to get people to buy the single song for its merits not for the merit of other songs that may on an album.

Not the same at all, IMHO. We'll have to agree to disagree. I feel that your view is cynical and shallow.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Not the same at all, IMHO. We'll have to agree to disagree. I feel that your view is cynical and shallow.

I think your view is cynical and shallow. We'll have to agree to disagree. I just think songs should hold up on their own without the help of other records. Anything more than that is just becoming a tool for record company marketing. I can't remember a single album where I liked every single song enough to purchase it on its own...well save for Thriller but that album was really short 7/8 of the songs were Top 10 hits. The eighth track was getting unsolicited airplay....and likely would've been an 8th Top 10 hit had it seen a commercial single release.

I think single songs should be the focus. Albums are simply marketing to sell more product all at once even if it is subpar. Artists need to focus on selling one good song at a time rather than record companies flooding the market with material that will not necessarily get its fair shot or material that is just flat out subpar.

 

[BigInDallas]

Yes, because we know that Taylor Swift is the typical case of an artists at Spotify... She's just the top selling artist of the last 10 years... No biggie. She pulled out because she can. Maybe to support all her other friends/artists which are getting rammed through by the streaming sites.

Those 10 level lower in popularity artists, may be desperate for a better deal than what Spotify (and others) is offering them, but with streaming not being fully monetized, the streaming sites are not replacing the money lost from singles/album sales going straight down.

if Apple offers them something better, they'd be crazy not to take it. When you compete for talent, someone who pays better gets it. That's how it should be. Labels/artists I think are waking up that the current situation is not sustainable in the long term.

As for those occult, "vested interest".. They are mostly artists which can only be charitably be called lower middle class at the best of times (but, often closer to the working poor). I know quite a few artists which have other low paying jobs to put food on the table, and barely have time to create/promote their stuff.

Yes, people want everything for nothing. But, people, especially the best artists selling their service don't have to give it them if they don't want to. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. If people absolutely want free music, I'm sure total amateurs of borderline skill may give it to them; they'll get what they pay for, which may accidentally be good... Sometimes...

Go Apple Go🙄

 

[mi7chy]

Already a PR win for Spotify since Starbucks has picked them for music at all their locations.

https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-spotify-partnership

 

[applelover4u]

Apple is greedy and full of corruption but i love their products lol