Pharrell's Single 'Freedom' Will Be Exclusive to Apple Music

[bpp85]

There are no "exclusives" in 2015. Why do some people not seem to get that. Any song or video that is an exclusive is just going to be shared in a different way in a matter of minutes. It's just a sign of not caring for music fans when any company tries to do that and i tend to boycott such services.

 

[darcyf]

Right, exclusives are good for the companies that sell video game consoles, but not for the gamers. Just like this music exclusive will be good for Apple but not for people who listen to music.

What do you do if your favorite artist has an exclusive on Apple Music and your second favorite artist has an exclusive on Tidal? Are you going to pay for two streaming services?

Naw, you just cry a river because everything doesn't always work out in your favour and it's so unfair...

Seriously, people. This is business. No one owes you anything.

If Pharrell decided to put his next track out exclusively on vinyl that's his choice as the distributor of his music. It's not "bad" for anything. It's just not ideal for anyone who doesn't own a record player. So what?

 

[oneMadRssn]

Naw, you just cry a river because everything doesn't always work out in your favour and it's so unfair...

Seriously, people. This is business. No one owes you anything.

If Pharrell decided to put his next track out exclusively on vinyl that's his choice as the distributor of his music. It's not "bad" for anything. It's just not ideal for anyone who doesn't own a record player. So what?

I realize this is business and no one owes me anything, and I don't owe anyone anything either.

However, Pharrell and other musicians have been the ones crying a river over lost royalties and piracy, and yet they're the ones that continue to shoot themselves in the foot by going along with these half-baked ideas that are bad for consumers. If it's bad for consumers, it's not a sustainable business.

Pharrell can sit on a bowling pin for all I care, live stream it on his website, and sell access to see it live. It would earn him cash today, but it sure would leave his out-door sore for the long term.

 

[darcyf]

I realize this is business and no one owes me anything, and I don't owe anyone anything either.

However, Pharrell and other musicians have been the ones crying a river over lost royalties and piracy, and yet they're the ones that continue to shoot themselves in the foot by going along with these half-baked ideas that are bad for consumers. If it's bad for consumers, it's not a sustainable business.

Pharrell can sit on a bowling pin for all I care, live stream it on his website, and sell access to see it live. It would earn him cash today, but it sure would leave his out-door sore for the long term.

Again with this bad for consumers complaint. This isn't oil or wheat. It's a song. It's entertainment. And there's plenty more where that came from.

 

[Mtmspa]

Tidal will be dead by the end of the year.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Man, sometimes Apple makes so many correct decisions, but sometimes they just make decisions that harm the customer... like this one.

How is anyone benefitting from this deal except for Apple and Pharell who likely gets a big bag of money? The answer: no one else is benefitting.

If you want to win over customers to switch from competing streaming services, than create a great competing streaming service that dwarfs the competition when it comes to ease of use, loading speed, pricing, etc. But paying artists to basically withhold their music from other streaming services? Than you're doing it wrong...

 

[Pakaku]

Hip-hop? Meh, I won't miss it.

 

[mazz0]

I'm not saying all exclusives are great, but some some of the best games are (and you named 2), and you already mentioned some benefits, better graphics and less cost to develop. Although the cost of development is probably the same, developers can spend more time on optimization and therefore better performance and graphics. That alone is worth it for the exclusivity for me.

You also mentioned 2 great games, TLoU and Uncharted are a prime example of what console exclusives are capable of.
If those titles would have been multi-platform they would have been worse. Tomb Raider is similar, and a great game, one of my favourite, but Uncharted is still better. Gamers benefit. But consumers have 0 benefits from an Apple exclusive deal.

Maybe the real conclusion is that Naughty Dog is just the best developer and they should make all games...

Edit: At the end of the day if a game like Witcher 3 was made only for PS4, or only for Xbox, it would have better graphics, better performance, less bugs and would probably have better calibrated controls. It's still an awesome game, and yes not all exclusives are great, but great multi-platform games would be even better.

Maybe the benefits don't outweigh the cost, but there is still a benefit, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

Certainly there's a benefit, but I definitely don't think it outweighs the costs, and I think you're exaggerating the benefit too. I bought a PS4 solely for Naughty Dog games, and I wish I hadn't had to, which I wouldn't have if they made their games available on PC. I think the graphics are somewhat improved, but it's really not very significant.

I think you're right about Naughty Dog, and I think Tomb Raider is inferior to Uncharted not because it's cross platform but because the developers aren't such good story tellers.

 

[sinsin07]

Console exclusives are great and a bit different than music. Developers can push the limits of a particular system by creating a game for that specific hardware. The most amazing games on the consoles are usually exclusive games.

But you can't really do the same with music. And I'd compare exclusive music with timed exclusives on consoles. They'll still end up being multi-platform, they're not usually as good as the true exclusives, and the only reason they do it is because they got paid a big chunk of money from Sony or MS. Gamers don't benefit.

So I agree with you that consumers don't benefit from exclusive apple music. But I do think that gamers benefit from true exclusive games.

I completely disagree with your assertion that console exclusives have a track record of being the best games. With the exception of The Last of Us and Uncharted I can't think of any console exclusive that's better than the best cross platform games. I think the most you can say is that they sometimes have better graphics, and probably cost less to develop. For the consumer that doesn't mean much, as the game costs the same, plus you need to buy the console its on.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Again with this bad for consumers complaint. This isn't oil or wheat. It's a song. It's entertainment. And there's plenty more where that came from.

What does it matter what the product or service is? From bubblegum to plumbers, if the industry relies on consumers, then the deal should be good for consumers. Otherwise, the whole industry fails.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

After seeing Pharrell on The Voice, he seems like a really down-to-earth, genuine person. On the other hand, it seems everything he does is for money. Wait...I guess I'm just jealous. BUT, I know I won't be listening to Freedom.

 

[wesk702]

After seeing Pharrell on The Voice, he seems like a really down-to-earth, genuine person. On the other hand, it seems everything he does is for money. Wait...I guess I'm just jealous. BUT, I know I won't be listening to Freedom.

You expect him to spend a season judging on the Voice for free? How about spending months preparing and album? Or maybe he should spend a year going out on tour for free. This is his job and celebrity doesn't last forever. Gotta hit when you're hot.

 

[wesk702]

Apple plans to attract users to sign up for Apple Music by offering a free three-month trial period, but another way it will attempt to lure subscribers is by offering exclusive content through the incoming streaming music service. In late April, it was reported that the company was in talks with multiple artists, including Florence and the Machine and Taylor Swift, about exclusive content deals.

Just a few months later, hip-hop artist Pharrell Williams appears to be one of the first artists to reach a deal with Apple. Pharrell recently tweeted a teaser video for his upcoming single "Freedom," and the ending credits reveal that the song will be exclusive to Apple Music, which launches June 30 on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac and PC for $9.99 per month after the free trial period.

​

"Freedom" was also the soundtrack of the Apple Music ad "Worldwide," featuring DJ Zane Lowe, that was shown at WWDC.

It remains unknown what Apple is offering artists in return for making their music available exclusively through Apple Music, as the terms of the deal have not been disclosed, but it likely involves additional payment beyond Apple Music's standard 71.5% to 73% revenue sharing model. Apple already pays a few percentage points more than market leader Spotify and other competitors, which share approximately 70% of revenue with artists and music rights holders.

Article Link: Pharrell's Single 'Freedom' Will Be Exclusive to Apple Music

I'm calling it now. Every celebrity you saw with an advanced Apple Watch is going to be doing some exclusives with Apple.

Who's left?
Drake
Beyoncé?
Katy Perry? I maybe way off if she got the watch

 

[Ries]

If it is not on spotify, I am not listening to it. Have not heard anything I can live without...

 

[iChristos.]

Okay the most popular streaming services right now are Pandora, Google, Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Rdio, Tidal, Rhapsody.
The one with the most exclusives wins.
Lets the game begin.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Hip-hop? Meh, I won't miss it.

Hip-hop, you do stop—and thank goodness for that.

 

[joeszef1]

given that they have a "worldwide" 24/7 radio station Beats 1, does that mean Apple Music will be available on all countries where Apple Appstore exists? Or they will somewhat follow Spotify's slow roll-out?

 

[cube]

Exclusivity is another reason why I'll never subscribe to music. I will boycott any business model that forces people to waste a lot of money on huge overlap just to have access to all their favorite artists.

By the way, does exclusivity mean no CD sales too? If so I will boycott these "exclusive" artists (forced to really, because they will be unavailable for me to give them money because I won't subscribe to a music service) until they wise up. I don't need them to survive.

I suggest you learn about Qobuz before throwing all providers together under the same characterization.

 

[Sonmi451]

Are you aware? That if wasn't Black Eyed Peace and iTunes this article wouldn't exist, same goes Spotify and others, we were probably still using CDs

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[AleXXXa]

It will be on YouTube 15 minutes after the launch on AppleMusic.

 

[subjonas]

I suggest you learn about Qobuz before throwing all providers together under the same characterization.

When did I throw all providers under the same characterization?

 

[cube]

When did I throw all providers under the same characterization?

You said "I'll never subscribe to music" and explained why.

 

[subjonas]

You said "I'll never subscribe to music" and explained why.

Sorry yeah my wording was probably inaccurate. I already made up my mind to not subscribe to music for other reasons. This was just an added reason to stay away from these particular services. I put those two separate thoughts together. Wasn't intentionally implying any blanket statements. Hence my confusion to your comment. Good catch.

 

[iMember]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You said you hate Black Eyed Peace, and I replied to your post if you aware of their accomplishments.
Wich part you don't get it? Or do you mean this [same goes] for [spotify]?

 

[DeepIn2U]

Competition with exclusive music for streaming services, is going to be bad for consumers.

If you want to listen to many artists, you're going to need a tidal subscription, and an apple music subscription, and a spotify subscription.

An ideal streaming services has all the music you want to listen to.

A streaming services can artificially have more songs than another services with exclusive content.

Apple + 1
Spotify - 1
Tidal - 1

But then if all of them start to do this, you'll get chaos:

Apple +6 -3
Spotify +3 -7
Tidal +4 -3

Which will make choosing the right services hard for consumers

Great layout. Making it worse is the UI layout ... for the life of me I STILL cannot figure out Apple Music paid streaming service layout for a genre ... these 'DJ's' seem to mix up everything and screw it up. Too old for this streaming crap ... is FM Radio still around? Can I get this on my iP6S??!?!???!!!??