Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

[Macronym]

Because Apple doesn't make it's money from those things. They make their money by selling hardware. Everything else is in support of that goal. Software development, server farms, App Store, Apple Music, etc. etc.

That doesn't make much sense.

 

[XboxMySocks]

I know, but what I say is adding any adjective before this noun.

OH hahahah okay, that makes sense.

 

[westrock2000]

I could buy a used Taylor Swift CD at Half Priced Books. I could listen to that song 20 times a day for 20 years. Taylor Swift would never get a single penny from my enjoyment of her "property". And it would be neither illegal or immoral.

 

[Paradoxally]

When are her 15 minutes up? Her music isn't good enough to be able to throw that much weight around. The next teenie bopper will roll around and she'll end up a 'what ever happened to...' story in a few years.

This is Taylor Swift, not Lindsay Lohan. You have the wrong girl.

 

[DogHouseDub]

Historically progressive and generous? I just LOL'd.

Towards music and artists, yes. Maybe not generous, but at least fair. Apple has set the standard for how to pay artists for their work. 70% of revenue goes right back to the artist. Now we know, as long suspected, that it was Mr. Jobs pulling those strings. It apparently takes someone with an appreciation of art to prevent the $$first douchebags from running the whole thing into the ground.

 

[alexgowers]

she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW

Love or hate her she is right! Don't offer a free 3 month trial then pass on the costs of such an offer that helps you sell your service without compensating all the people who made the content! I personally would boycott it if i were an artist just like swift. at least until either apple pays regardless of their offer or until the free period is not longer offered.

It's not right. A free trial doesn't mean no profits for content providers and I'm sure apple will be having a lawsuit very shortly about this from music industry peeps.

 

[thekeyring]

All I keep thinking is: It's not a free tier. It's a free trial. It doesn't devalue music like one could argue Spotify's free trial does.

Adobe couldn't pay it's developers if it gave it's software away for free, but it can still afford to offer a 30 day free trial.

If I listen to Taylor Swift's new music during my 3 month free trial, then don't sign up for Apple Music, I've got something for nothing. But that's it. 3 months and I'm out in the cold again. If I want her music I either have to pay, or buy albums on iTunes.

If 100% of Taylor Swifts income stops for 3 months, while her fans enjoy their Apple Music trail, it will pickup again afterwards - they'll carry on buying her albums like they do now, or pay for Apple Music and she can earn revenue through that.

She's worth $200 Million according to Forbes, so it's not like she'll starve in the interim.

Edit: That said, Apple gives it's software away for free, because the money it makes from hardware covers the cost. Apple could offer to pay artists what they would otherwise earn during the 3 month free trial. Or at least a percentage of that.

 

[Martinez74]

No I'm making a business argument... using simple business math. Any other company PAYS for content created by others and then can price it up or down (to as little as free). Many do that very thing. Apple is flexing it's market-dominating muscles here to pass the bill to someone else. Who? The artists & labels are taking the bulk of the hit here for Apple to make this a success. Why? Because Apple is basically the 64,000 LB gorilla in this.

Even an artist as accomplished as Swift- love her or hate her- is treading pretty lightly with this message, and still, we are spinning her as the villain here. If you read the whole message literally, you should be able to see that she's not really making a case for herself but for the starving artists far from sharing her own situation. A day or two ago another music-creating artist seemingly at the other end of the success spectrum was also trying to bring attention to this, and they too were the greedy, naive, stupid, attention-seeking villain:https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ic-deals-with-itunes-removal-threats.1893578/ (nearly 400 posts, most leaning strongly one way).

No surprise at either around here where Apple is always right (for most of us), but still, I suggest we go back to the first post, substitute Apple with Samsung, Google or Microsoft (as if it was Indy artist pay vs. those corporations) and see if the general sentiment of this thread would be the same. Conceptually, we should feel exactly the same per the greedy, attention-seeking, "buy later they'll make money", etc arguments being slung around in this thread. However, I feel certain, that our view of this very same thing would be different if anyone but Apple was the referenced company.

You are still not making a business argument. Apple built what it believes is an important music application on the most important device - the smartphone. Apple also feels that the best way to draw people in is my offering a lengthy trial period plus a generous family share plan. If Apple's plan is successful, everyone will benefit. over 70% of the $10 paid by millions of users will go to the industry. Why should Apple alone bear the cost of promoting it? If your answer is: because they have boat load of money, then you are not making a business argument.
If the Artists feel that apple is being unfair, then they have other alternatives to go to. IMO, 3 month free trial shouldn't be a deal breaker for anyone. The continued growth of the dominant streaming model (ad supported play of entire artist catalogs) spells doom for the music industry if it continues unchecked. Apple music may be able to check that trend.

 

[MacAndMic]

Typical big company move, no monetary risk to them when it comes to the product's trial.

If you could start a company based off of not having to pay suppliers, you could make a boat load too but in the real world, business does not work like that.

Apple needs to wake up and see past their world and dig deeper to get back to real world practices

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Eddy Cue needs to go. He's accomplished nothing: Siri still sucks, constant outages to Apple network services and no innovation in his department. He likes to brag about owning a Ferrari and on stage he comes off as a complete tool compared to the other, pretty down-to-earth Apple executives.

He thought buying Beats and Jimmy Iovine is going to be some magical thing that saves his ass. I can't believe Cook fell for his BS. Cut the losses, integrate the headphone business and let Cue go along with Jimmy and Dre.

Oh I agree with this sentiment. He used to be good at his job over the years but then, it all got to his head when Cook became CEO and got lazy. I think Cook is also part of the problem and should go along with him. The way Cue carried himself on stage was ridiculous and unprofessional acting like a 'cool bro' hugging his execs like it's a party.

I think the headphone business should be dumped and Apple needs to either develop its own headphones or partner up with a more reputed business that knows its stuff in that sector.

 

[Aragornii]

Is Taylor Swift really that dumb? So in a year she will receive X dollars from Apple Music, but in year 1 she will receive 9/12 X as Apple offers a discount to entice people to use the system. We're supposed to think this is such a terrible and horrific thing that she needs to write an open letter complaining about it?

 

[trife]

I don't understand how anyone can argue with her. If you use someone's work/art, they deserve to be paid for that usage. It's as simple as that.

I don't care how little or how much artists get paid for streams. The fact remains that it is their work that is being heard, thus they have rights to compensation.

For some reason I thought Apple was just going to eat the costs for 3 months and pay the artists like there wasn't a free trial going on. But to use their work for 3 months and NOT compensate them? That's downright dirty, IMO. I'd like to see some of you who don't take issue with this miss 3 months worth of paychecks that you're owed. You guys would flip your sh*t.

 

[ohio.emt]

Yes I agree that artiest should be paid for their work.

I think though that they would be better off with the 3 months of exposure then getting paid for Apple Music for the first 3 months. From what I've always understood artiest make hardly nothing from music sales, but from concerts and merchandising. Even with no free trial I don't see indie artiest making much money if any off streaming. Probably the only way to make much from streaming is to be artiest, song writer, producer, and manager all in one.

 

[Small White Car]

Never ceases to amaze me how you'll defend every awful thing Apple does.

Apple didn't do this. The music labels did.

So ok, I'm defending the music labels who are, yes, crappy. But at least accuse me of what I actually did, not something you made up.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What everyone is missing is that this is all about getting people HOOKED on a PAID service.

Right now all of the artists are up in arms about the tiny amount they make from ad-supported services like Spotify... yet they don't want to take steps like this to correct it.

Apple rightly knows that they will actually generate MORE revenue for themselves and the artists if they do this free trial... because it's going to get so many more people to use a PAID service.

I really hate how artists can't understand even a little bit about macro economics and just want to yell and scream about how they "don't get theirs"...

Artists are not arguing against any part of what you just offered, they simply would like to make some money during the 3-month trial period from this too. What they are saying is "how about Apple pays the bill during the free trial Apple wants to offer?" That way the economics works well for everyone. In the Apple vs. Spotify threads, we tended to spin hard how Apple looks out for the artists as part of trying to make Spotify look like the villain in those threads. Here's the artists trying to help us see that maybe Apple is not doing all it can for the artists. Instead of hearing them, we're now spinning them as the villains.

The easy fix here is for Apple to pay the bill for the 3 months. If I want to throw a big party in my town and offer free lobster dinners for everyone who attends, I could try to get the fisherman to fish for free, the chefs to prepare it for free, the servers to serve it for free, etc. Or I could still offer a free lobster dinner by paying the "creators" myself and then getting to serve up my free lobster dinner. Everybody's happy.

In this situation, NOT everybody's happy. The most obvious party to just pay for those "lobsters" is the company likely to benefit most from this marketing promotion. Instead, that company is passing the bill to the (mostly) poor fisherman & chefs... under the premise that we'll get the partiers addicted to lobster and the fisherman & chefs can make more money later. It doesn't matter if one of the poorest fisherman (see the thread from a day or two ago) or the richest fisherman (Swift) sounds the alarm, they are all wrong for wanting to be paid because Apple is always right and should get whatever it wants in all things.

When Apple moves into the space that pays us our incomes and wants to do something that would press us to work for a few months for free, we should be so quick to support Apple's wants at our own expense, per some of these very same rationalizations.

 

[gnipgnop]

The thing is, the 3 month free trial isn't in the least bit outrageous to anyone with even an elementary level of business acumen. Why do you think have the majors have all agreed to this and aren't complaining in the media? You think they're in the business of wanting to lose money? Of course not; unlike some people who are only able to think about the short term, they recognise that the 3 month free trial is a necessary investment for them to secure and maximise a future revenue flow, over an extended period of time.

Was iTunes Radio a runaway hit? No. So perhaps Apple isn't really as confident about Apple Music as some people make it out to be. Perhaps that's the real reason they're not wanting to pay royalties for such an extended free trial? That they're not sure they've really got it right? And that, of course, is a very good reason for the smaller artists to be concerned about loss of revenue from royalties. Apple already has strike one against it with iTunes Radio, so why should smaller artists be totally confident about swing number two?

 

[CaTOAGU]

Whilst I can understand Taylor Swifts and others position on this, I don't agree with it in this case.

The free trial is just that a trial. Once that period is over either a user pays in perpetuity to access the music or they don't and they have no access to the music. There is no long term free tier. For this reason I don't think that Apple are devaluing the music, on the contrary because of the increased royalties they'll pay once someone subscribes they are trying to increase the value in the long term. So whilst the stance of Taylor and others is understandable, it is, possibly, short sighted.

 

[cwt1nospam]

So you wouldn't mind working for free for three months?

Oh, and FYI: She's trying to defend indies.

If you're going to pay me more than I'm making now, and pay me that higher rate well into the future with no further effort from me, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

It doesn't matter what she's trying to do if her understanding of basic arithmetic is wrong.

 

[TRICKorDEVICE]

she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW

She comes off as greedy to me...

 

[wovel]

Apple has not entered negotiations with any of the independent labels. They have worked out the details with the major labels and just sent the independents a contract for Apple Music at very short notice, expecting them to sign up on their terms without asking any questions. They have also bypassed the trade associations that represent the independent labels and are only dealing direct with each label, which is diluting their collective strength even though combined their output makes up over 30% of all music sales.

It's no surprise they are upset at the way Apple has gone about this.

Those details give a much different perspective on the story. I assumed that the indie artists were all just shockingly bad at business. It appears Apple has chosen to go around the people many of them would trust to figure this out for them.

It is clear that many of these artists don't understand much about what is really happening during the 3 month trial with their music. Apple has put themselves in a position where they have to explain it thousands of times. In reality the free trial does cost Apple money, it does promote their service and it does pro,one yen artists. It does not cost the artists anything at all and it in no way devalues their product. Their product isn't available without paying them after the trial is over.

Is it really just her new album that won't be on the service? If all of the others are still there that means Apple music has a lot more Taylor Swift on it than Spotify.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

But if people want to keep listening to those albums, add them to playlists etc then they will have to pay monthly eventually, OR buy them in the traditional sense. And they will still be paid via other services like Spotify and rdio.

Money artists got from Apple Music before it was launched: 0
Money artists get after 3 months after Apple Music launch: Actual money

Wrong.

That would be like you asking a lawyer, doctor, film-maker, architect, graphic designer, and so on to work for free for three months without payment. That is unethical. Period. I know for a fact because I work in the creative industry and we don't do art for free.

Ever heard of working on-spec? Here's a good example of this: http://www.nospec.com/why-spec-work-is-bad

What Apple is doing is cheap and wrong. If Apple wants to offer a free trial, they should still compensate the artists or music developers no matter what from the get-go.

 

[Acidskies]

But if you think about it... she wasn't getting anything from Apple Music subscriptions before it was a thing. In 3 months time, she will start getting money from Apple Music subscriptions.

How is it putting people out of jobs when they got 0 before and will get 0 for free months and then something?

People understand that streaming music services are temporary - if they stop paying, they stop being able to listen. Is this really going to hurt CD / iTunes sales? Because if people really support one particular artists they might not stump up the subscription fee just to listen to a handful of artists, and instead they will just buy like they always used to.

I basically don't agree that CD / iTunes sales would be impacted as much as the industry fears.

I guess you could argue that if people are using apples free trial, they aren't using an alternative service that is paying its artists.

 

[Zxxv]

Those bands aren't being asked to work for 3 months for free. They are being given 3 months of promotion by apple for free.

Maybe apple should start charging these bands for promoting their work?

One of the biggest places to display your body of work. Fees start from 99c for a lifetime membership (i.e. big bands already established) through to $9999999,9999999 per month (for small bands who are not yet established)

*yes apple I am available to work for you

 

[thekeyring]

There does seem to be 3 solutions to this:

1. Apple should allow artists to opt-in to the free trial. Though this will devalue the free trial, because it won't be "full" Apple Music. So probably a bad idea.

2. Artists like Taylor Swift should suck it up. You're worth millions of dollars and a few months of reduced revenue won't hurt you.

3. Apple should cover the cost of the free trial: Pay artists as if the customers are paying. You're worth billions of dollars and it won't hurt you, either!

Currently, option 3 looks like the best model. Even if it means Android users don't get the free trial (so Apple doesn't completely lose money because of them).

 

[wovel]

So you wouldn't mind working for free for three months?

Oh, and FYI: She's trying to defend indies.

This silly comparison gets old. They are not working for free for three months. They are doing no additional work. They are letting their fans enjoy their music for a few months for free (and at no cost) so they can capture a higher royalty for the next 5 years or whatever the contract length is. If I go build your house for free for 3 months, that is working for free. I get nothing ever and you get something you can keep. This is just good business.