It's referring to a Bloomberg Article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...taliate-against-artists-with-apple-exclusives
[doublepost=1472308648][/doublepost]
It's not surprising as they started with FREE model sponsored with ads.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[doublepost=1472308648][/doublepost]
The hardware is there? I beg to disagree...
FM - 88 - 108 MHz
The very lowest communication band in any cell phone anywhere in the world is the low band LTE at 450 MHz. So, the highest frequency (and shortest wavelength) of the FM band is still a factor of 3.5 from LTE. Even the great engineers at Apple, Motorola, and Samsung cannot overcome the laws of physics.
Going old Walkman style and making the headphone cable an antenna would be the only way to create a usable signal.
Oh, wait...
I bet the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't completely believe the article... but do I believe that Spotify has probably started to hint at some "strong arm" tactics against artists that play nice with Apple Music... yes.
I'm a happy Spotify subscriber (Apple Music just didn't work for me)... I hope they focus on making Spotify _better_ and worry less about "exclusives", etc. I personally don't listen to any mainstream music so I could care less where Brittany Spears sends her next album...
I'm a happy Spotify subscriber (Apple Music just didn't work for me)... I hope they focus on making Spotify _better_ and worry less about "exclusives", etc. I personally don't listen to any mainstream music so I could care less where Brittany Spears sends her next album...
The contract is an agreement between the record company and the artist. Not all agreements stipulate an employer-employee relationship.
The artists have been getting the "worst deal" since Napster.
[doublepost=1472314014][/doublepost]That tactic wouldn't make sense. If someone liked a specific artist and couldn't find it on Spotify, they would go to a different service (i.e.. Apple). This just makes the existing problem of exclusive content worse.
Apple has stated (I cannot remember where) that if your app gets rejected, publicly complaining isn't going to help your case. Now this _could_ be interpreted as punishing those who publicly complain about a rejection.
On the other hand, an app rejection should be based on some reasoning. Possibly on a mistake, but also possibly based on some violation of the app store rules. Publicly complaining won't fix the mistake, and won't fix a violation of the app store rule. Telling Apple why the reasons for a rejection were wrong may help. Submitting a new version that fixes the reasons for the rejection may also help. Publicly complaining should not reasonably be expected to help.
TBQH Exclusives only last about a week. It makes sense that paying customers get first dibs on the new releases that become available.
[doublepost=1472318211][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1472319286][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1472318211][/doublepost]
Artists have to eat. People expect them to slave away on the content but not make enough to live on while they create this content...yet Spotify's CEO is making a killing off the deal. The engineers are getting 100k+ per year each one of them. Spotify had 7 years to make themselves profitable but the truth is ad supported doesn't really support the free tier. At best it offsets the cost of the free tier but not nearly enough to make Spotify profitable.
[doublepost=1472319286][/doublepost]
Frank Ocean created his own albums and released the video album exclusively as it was the last album on his label. He then followed it up with his independent release a 2 days later. Clearly, Apple is giving artists an outlet for their creativity that a record company can either work with or not. I think independent is the wave of the future TBQH.
Last edited:
I know this is very American attitude but I see Apple upping the ante with the competition and Spotify threatening to take their ball and go home. FFS, when will European companies learn that the correct response to competition is to compete, not have a hissy fit? Surely, they have some ideas about how to counter this or some killer plans in the works that they can push out to score some points against Apple. If not, then so long Spotify--your days are surely numbered.
You won't see those comments because the "choice" that Spotify has made here is quite possibly the worst one. Nobody is going to champion that kind of childish reaction with homilies about the free market.
Cue the 'free market', 'their choice', 'they can do whatever they want' comments. Oh wait the article is about Spotify's practices not Apple's
You won't see those comments because the "choice" that Spotify has made here is quite possibly the worst one. Nobody is going to champion that kind of childish reaction with homilies about the free market.
Last edited:
You just remembered wrong.
She only pulled music from streaming services with a free tier (and no differentiation between the content available with or without a paid subscription) like Spotify. Apple Music was not affected.With regard to exclusives, I'm not a huge fan of the idea myself. But they usually only last for a week or two before becoming available on other services, and I usually don't mind the wait. Spotify has always been a bit different here in that some very popular artists' albums sometimes takes months or longer to become available for streaming (I remember this happening with Adele's 21, which was not available for a long time), and I do occasionally buy an album if I want to hear it sooner or if I want to be able to actually listen offline make a CD (I'm old, I guess) for a road trip or something.
It's not a matter of age. It's a matter of having accepted an inadequate, substandard solution. "Real Radio", as you put it, is a terrible product! I swear, if I hear one more "pills and smoothies" radio show, I'll scream. Yes, they have WHOLE SHOWS on pills. Or the newest weight loss fad. Or mortgages. That's talk radio. Music radio isn't any better. Massively syndicated programs with lame "morning zoo" formatting and "controversial" afternoon drive personalities. It's all just disguised pap. Radio, in its current state, sucks.
Let's say that each of Apple's 15 million PAYING customers is shelling out $9.99 per month (middle rate between family and student rates). It basically comes down to about $1.7 to $2 billion a year. A lot of companies would consider $2 billion as profitable
Are you suggesting that Madonna is going through bins/garbage cans to find food? I don't think those poor artists are actually slaving away, and if they do, so do many other people at work. Artists have to stop crying like babies, if art doesn't pay, get another job. Simples!
Actually the hardware is there, its required by law because in an emergency when all the power is out or the towers are overwhelmed, radio waves are the only real good way of getting emergency instructions or broadcasts out to the public. Any new smartphone has the hardware. On android devices and on jailbroken iPhones you can unlock that hardware and listen to good old FM radio without data. In many third world countries this is officially supported because of the limitations on good data connections. Its just here where they don't want FM to cannibalize their profits where they lock that functionality out. I assume there is an emergency protocol in there where if it "hears" an emergency broadcast it plays it or allows you to hear it without the need of an "app". For the most part however, the hardware just sits there and does nothing.
Why would you listen to such a thing several times? Or twice? Or ***, for more than three sentences?!
If the movie and tv show industry can have multiple subscription companies with exclusives requiring customers to sign up to multiple services, why can't the music industry?!
Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group each with their own subscription service and exclusives!
Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group each with their own subscription service and exclusives!
What do you think these artists are doing? Precisely what you suggested they do, make their work pay and earn what they feel to be a decent wage, be it in the form of exclusives, touring, merchandising etc.
And then when they, shocker, try to earn more money, you turn around and lambast them for it?
That's the whole point. Artists have every right to decide how they want to monetise their work. You like it, you support them with your wallet. Don't like it? Don't support them. What gives us the right to expect that artists owe us something and that they shouldn't engage in practices such as album exclusives?
