Spotify Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]

[Dave245]

£10 in a the UK = too much, especially since I already own (legally) ~20,000 songs which I have no need to subscribe to again. £5 and I'm interested as a new music discovery tool.

Wow, you think that £10 a month, for access to millions of songs and albums is too high? I use and love Apple Music and I consider it a bargain, considering the cost of the average album is around £8-£10 all you have to do is listen to 1 album a month to get your monies worth, I end up listening to far more than that. A complete bargain if you ask me.

 

[wovel]

So Spotify is intentionally giving Apple even more benefit for their exclusivity agreements by making it look like the artists are completely exclusive to Apple. Nice work Spotify...

 

[Gasu E.]

I have nothing against Spotify specifically and I’m not rich, but I welcome the crumbling of devaluing creative property to near zero by offering it all on demand for free. This is just the start. There are too many self-righteous people thinking they are owed everything digital for free.

They counter-argue that if it isn't given to them for free, they will just steal it. And then EVERYONE WILL BE SO SORRY for forcing them to become pirates.

 

[1498032]

So Spotify is intentionally giving Apple even more benefit for their exclusivity agreements by making it look like the artists are completely exclusive to Apple. Nice work Spotify...

No, they are preventing artists from having their cake and eating it too. If an artist wants to hurt Spotify by artificially limiting the availability of their work, Spotify will do the same.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm the biggest Apple fanboy, but I believe going "thermonuclear" was an horrible mistake.

Apple became "the bad guy", and Samsung (a criminal organization that shamelessly copied their products), in an unbelievable twist, looked good in comparison.

Also, Apple had to reveal tons of secret documents and blueprints to the public, something they had avoided if possible.

And, most glaringly, the patent war sowed in the general public the seed of the idea that Samsung stuff is just as good as Apple's, given Apple itself said it was identical.

All things considered, it was a mistake in my opinion, the typical fruit of Steve Jobs' worst instincts.

But that's all just unsupported feelings, not what actually took place. What really happened is that Samsung was branded a copycat and the iPhone turned Apple into the most successful company in the world. Samsung stuff was never seen as just as good as Apple except among the pundits. They couldn't outsell the iPhone in the premium market at half the price.

 

[akadafni]

Spotify and Apple Music are becoming increasingly bitter rivals, and according to new reports from The New York Times and Bloomberg, the feuding is now affecting artists. Spotify has been punishing artists who agree to Apple Music exclusives, displaying their content less prominently and offering fewer promotional opportunities.

Spotify has explicitly told artists who offer Apple Music exclusives that their music won't be included on featured playlists, and Spotify has also "buried" their songs in its search rankings. The music streaming service has reportedly been using these retaliatory tactics for about a year.

Spotify's tactics may not affect major artists in a significant way, but according to Bloomberg, the service has also threatened smaller acts who introduce their music on Beats 1 Radio with Zane Lowe.

Since Apple Music launched last year, Apple has been using exclusive content as a way to lure new subscribers to the service. Artists like Drake, Frank Ocean, Dreezy, Taylor Swift, and Katy Perry have debuted content exclusively on Apple Music, something both Spotify and record labels have become increasingly uncomfortable with.

Earlier this week, Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grange told employees that UMG is now prohibiting its artists from offering music exclusives, meaning popular content from Taylor Swift, The Weeknd, Kendrick Lamar, and more, will no longer be eligible for debut solely on Apple Music. UMG's new policy has already affected Apple, preventing Apple Music from inking a deal with Lady Gaga.

At its one year anniversary in June, Apple Music boasted more than 15 million subscribers, and should it continue its rapid growth rate, the service could eventually eclipse Spotify as the most popular streaming service. Spotify continues to have approximately twice as many subscribers but the music service continues to struggle because it has yet to become profitable.

Article Link: Spotify Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives

so instead of trying to come up with a better product or be profitable, Spotify decides to get even? If I were any of the affected artists I would just pull my catalog. It's not like their getting slot of money from Spotify anyway.

 

[shk718]

They're not attacking anything but blatant anti-consumer behavior. Get over yourself.

If an artist (or their label) decides for him/herself that an exclusive with the full promotional power of Apple would be good for their record/career then isn't that is a choice they should make. It should not be influenced by some 3rd party distribution company threatening them. Exclusives are a way of life. How is this any different than the producer of a television show giving an exclusive to HBO to distribute their product? Or a movie being distributed by AMC vs. Lowes ... According to you all TV shows should be available on all networks.

 

[1498032]

so instead of trying to come up with a better product or be profitable, Spotify decides to get even? If I were any of the affected artists I would just pull my catalog. It's not like their getting slot of money from Spotify anyway.

Please tell me how they can achieve this nebulous goal of "having a better product" when they don't have the cash to bribe artists to artificially limit the availability of their music.

You people are utterly childish and transparent fanboys. Exclusives hurt no one but YOU. Stop defending this awful behavior just because it helps Apple.
[doublepost=1472239047][/doublepost]

If an artist decides for him/herself that an exclusive with the full promotional power of Apple would be good for their record/career then isn't that is a choice they should make. It should not be influenced by some 3rd party distribution company threatening them. Exclusives are a way of life. How is this any different than the producer of a television show giving an exclusive to HBO to distribute their product? Or a movie being distributed by AMC vs. Lowes ... According to you all TV shows should be available on all networks.

Nah, that's not how this works, take your childish strawman elsewhere.

 

[rdlink]

As Apple learned the hard way, going thermonuclear is not good business.

That remains to be seen. And this isn't thermonuclear. It's petty and passive aggressive.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Because here in the Uk we tend to let Apple get away with a lot also after we voted to leave the EU we just don't care

This is nonsense. I guess console exclusive video games should also be illegal? They're timed exclusives anyway, just a couple of weeks in most cases. Artists already hated Spotify before Apple Music came along...

 

[1498032]

That remains to be seen. And this isn't thermonuclear. It's petty and passive aggressive.

You heard it here first, folks. Standing up for consumers is petty and passive aggressive.

MacRumors mods - can I print off this thread and use it as the script for my new multi-camera sitcom, "This Is Exactly Why Everyone Hates Apple Users"?

 

[Dave245]

This is nonsense. I guess console exclusive video games should also be illegal? They're timed exclusives anyway, just a couple of weeks in most cases. Artists already hated Spotify before Apple Music came along...

Relax I was joking

 

[Gasu E.]

Spotify is unquestionably in the right here. Platform exclusives are despicable and some of the most egregiously anti-consumer behavior we see today. Any fight against it should be applauded.

I can't imagine what's wrong with music exclusives of the type we are seeing. In streaming TV, I can subscribe to Netflix, HBO, Amazon, Hulu. I can subscribe to some, all, or none of these. They all have exclusive content, and there's no expectation that all content will be available to all services. If I like content on two of these, I can subscribe to two of them.

Now in the music case, exclusives are very limited. The exclusive deals generally hold for just a week or two, after which the music is available on all services. That's much more limited than in TV, where exclusiveness can last for months, years, or forever.

Why is this such a problem in the music business that you can't wait two weeks; or that you aren't willing to pay for both services if you just can't wait?

 

[Michael Goff]

You heard it here first, folks. Standing up for consumers is petty and passive aggressive.

MacRumors mods - can I print off this thread and use it as the script for my new multi-camera sitcom, "This Is Exactly Why Everyone Hates Apple Users"?

Making music harder to find is standing up for consumers? Weird.

 

[shk718]

Please tell me how they can achieve this nebulous goal of "having a better product" when they don't have the cash to bribe artists to artificially limit the availability of their music.

You people are utterly childish and transparent fanboys. Exclusives hurt no one but YOU. Stop defending this awful behavior just because it helps Apple.
[doublepost=1472239047][/doublepost]

Nah, that's not how this works, take your childish strawman elsewhere.

I haven't called you any names - so, exactly who is the child? that was a rhetorical question - no need to respond.

 

[rdlink]

How are these exclusives not the subject of investigation by the authorities - especially in Europe?

Last time I checked, concocting a monopoly out of a naturally competitive market was illegal in the UK.

You're not even close to understanding the legal aspects of this, or even the meaning of monopoly for that matter.

 

[1498032]

I can't imagine what's wrong with music exclusives of the type we are seeing.

Then you're being blinded by fanboyism. EVEN THE CEO OF UNIVERSAL understands that exclusives are bad for the market and bad for consumers. How in the world can't you?

 

[CFreymarc]

The beat goes on.

 

[1498032]

I haven't called you any names - so, exactly who is the child? that was a rhetorical question - no need to respond.

Big words from the guy who can't participate in a discussion without resorting to dishonest strawman arguments.

 

[Michael Goff]

Then you're being blinded by fanboyism. EVEN THE CEO OF UNIVERSAL understands that exclusives are bad for the market and bad for consumers. How in the world can't you?

No, Universal doesn't care about the consumer. This is all about money, I'm telling you.

 

[apolloa]

It was more of a joke but I feel like if we can afford a brand new iPhone at the price of £700 then we can afford it when they put the price by another £30-£50.

More like 70 or 80 I would think and you must have money burning a hole in your pocket? your the perfect consumer haha.

 

[DMH0630]

Because here in the Uk we tend to let Apple get away with a lot also after we voted to leave the EU we just don't care

What exactly is wrong with an artist agreeing to an exclusive for more money?

This is like advertising: in exchange for extra money someone gets a special spot. Also this exclusive doesn't include a can't stream the content anywhere else, it just means for the extra money they get an exclusive period just like stores used to do with special game editions.

 

[Gasu E.]

No, they are preventing artists from having their cake and eating it too. If an artist wants to hurt Spotify by artificially limiting the availability of their work, Spotify will do the same.

That seems bass-ackwards. The artists want to get more money, which they can do by granting a temporary exclusive.

If you actually think artists "want to hurt Spotify", what is Spotify doing to these artists that makes them want to hurt Spotify back?

 

[djcerla]

But that's all just unsupported feelings, not what actually took place. What really happened is that Samsung was branded a copycat and the iPhone turned Apple into the most successful company in the world. Samsung stuff was never seen as just as good as Apple except among the pundits. They couldn't outsell the iPhone in the premium market at half the price.

That's indeed all factually correct.

But what was the tangible advantage Apple had from the trial? The damages are almost chump change for Apple, and the trial was a major distraction for the management, not worth it for sure.

Samsung hit their all time high share price yesterday, so the "copycat" tag had little negative effect (in my opinion, the trial was a huge positive for Samsung, solidifying their position as Apple's only competitor).

 

[1498032]

No, Universal doesn't care about the consumer. This is all about money, I'm telling you.

Universal "cares" about the consumer because this is a rare case in which their interests overlap. Consumers want music available on all platforms. The labels want to make money from as many platforms as possible.