Sure it does. Apple doesn't make it's money from servers, software development etc., so why should artists chip in to help pay for it? Artists do make money from royalties, so that's the reason for Apple paying. They're not asking Apple to chip in for their wardrobe or musical equipment.
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.
Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure it does. Apple doesn't make it's money from servers, software development etc., so why should artists chip in to help pay for it? Artists do make money from royalties, so that's the reason for Apple paying. They're not asking Apple to chip in for their wardrobe or musical equipment.
Are you kidding me? So Android users won't get what Apple users have? That seems a very bad way to market a cross-platform service.
No way in hell will Apple ever do that. Taylor Swift and her indie bunch can keep crying and complaining all they want.
Apple apparently will pay higher rates for streamed music than competition services. I don't hear any artists complaining about that. I didn't hear Ms Swift say "Apple, I don't want to give you 3 months free so pay me but do it at the lower rate others pay me overtime my song gets streamed." In the end, it is in their long term financial interest for Apple to attract large user base and migrate users of other services so they can reach a broad audience and be paid more than from other streaming services.
I understand the want to make money off of what they wrote, I do the same thing with what I create. Sometimes, however, you have to give up some short term gains for larger long term gains.
Apple isn't forcing any of them to agree to this. They have to decide if it is in their best interests. If they think it isn't, they can pass on Apple's offer and higher payments after 3 months. Apple's isn't freeloading off of them or trying to force them to work for nothing; it's offering them a deal they think will enable them to build a viable business and make everyone more money in the long run.
I understand the want to make money off of what they wrote, I do the same thing with what I create. Sometimes, however, you have to give up some short term gains for larger long term gains.
Apple isn't forcing any of them to agree to this. They have to decide if it is in their best interests. If they think it isn't, they can pass on Apple's offer and higher payments after 3 months. Apple's isn't freeloading off of them or trying to force them to work for nothing; it's offering them a deal they think will enable them to build a viable business and make everyone more money in the long run.
Couldn't agree more. Apple can afford to subsidise it for three months as a loss leader - don't take the mickey out of the artists.
An excellent comment from you, as usual.
As you say, Apple can easily afford to pay the musicians as normal for this trial period, even if 100 million signed up. $2 billion or $3 billion is a drop in the ocean for Apple. Bear in mind that Apple made about $1.5 billion net profit a week in their Christmas quarter. So this might cost them two weeks profit if it's wildly popular!
My goodness, they're sitting on $200 billion cash doing nothing. And they have the nerve to make millions of musicians work for nothing for three months.
It's a crime that Apple are doing nothing with their money. They should either return it to shareholders or invest it fruitfully. Keep a cushion of $100 billion, sure, but put the rest to good use.
Honestly I don't think either is wrong.
Apple can run their business how they want, Artists/records/etc... are free to accept/deny the terms of that service. Apple is trying to have the 3 months free as a market differentiator to bring more people on board, which in the long run could mean more people listening to the music of the artists and hopefully be a bigger long-run pay off. but I certainly see why artists wouldn't like those terms, and Taylor has done just what I would hope those artists would do.
Apple can run their business how they want, Artists/records/etc... are free to accept/deny the terms of that service. Apple is trying to have the 3 months free as a market differentiator to bring more people on board, which in the long run could mean more people listening to the music of the artists and hopefully be a bigger long-run pay off. but I certainly see why artists wouldn't like those terms, and Taylor has done just what I would hope those artists would do.
I doubt it since Apple would enter into contracts with artist before they stream their music so there would be no basis for a suit.
I think you are wrong... because the math is even simpler.
He says money from Apple Music:$0
Since Apple Music is a brand name product, and hasn't existed yet for general consumption, he is precisely right no artist has received money from the product called Apple Music. There is the potential that after 3 months they will receive money, but they just haven't yet because Apple Music isn't a product.
Android users are not getting Apple Music at launch, it's not coming to Android (or Apple TV) until the Autumn.
Confused why everyone is missing this point? The labels must have signed the rights away to stream this music free for three months. Apple did not steal it. Shouldn't this letter be addressed to them?
Or alternatively it would be like asking my lawyer to work for free until the trial (pun not intended) is up, and he wins a higher pay out than if I would have hired him normally. (A bit like Apple Music I suppose) I believe it's called 'no win, no fee' and is very popular.
You work in the creative industry and you don't 'do' art for free? Not even for charities? While I support the idea of artists being paid for their work, your tone is very snobbish. We don't 'do' art for free. Listen to yourself haha.
The 3 month trial is not fixed in time, it's customer-dependent. If I sign up next year I'll still get the trial.
Who is making millions off free trial? who's paying Apple millions during a free trial? Jeez!
Got bad news for you. Apple is NOT in the business of making things for free for you. They're here to nickel and dime you. They don't care what music you listen to as long as they sucker you into a three month trial.
You don't get how the music industry works. People who work in the music industry deserve to be compensated no matter what.
I don't see where the problem is. Apple is partnering with some artists or copyright holders to offer a product. If artists or copyright holders don't like the 3-months promotional period they may just not partner with Apple. Artists contribute with their content, Apple contribute with it's infrastructure, including salaries of all those that have been working and will work on this project. I bet Apple $$$ investment in this project his higher than the $$$ investment of all the other parties.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Believe what you wish. Judge it as you wish. This is not the artists wanting a 3-month free trial, it is Apple. Why? Apple wants to woo paying subscribers anew and many from competing services like Spotify. Why? Mostly to benefit Apple. I'd like 28% of all that subscriber revenue for up to forever.
Look around. DirecTV and Dish offer new subscribers discounted trial periods. Are the artists who make the programming during those periods taking the hit so DirecTV or Dish can avoid the cost of that programming? No, DirecTV and Dish pay the price for the content and then "give it away" to woo more new subscribers to their services. That's the NORMAL way to do this.
What Apple is getting away with here is avoiding the cost by essentially pushing it onto the artists. They will simply not get paid from this service during the trial period. We can spin this as positive as possible- and we are- with stuff like "taking a hit now to make more money in the future" and so on, but they would have the same opportunity to make more money in the future if Apple simply paid the bill behind the scenes to do what Apple is wanting to do.
In Apple cable service "new model" threads one of the biggest arguments for a new TV service offering from Apple is so that we can bypass the greedy middlemen (the cable companies)... so that more of the money can go to the artists that actually make the content. Here Apple is the new middleman and this is a perfect opportunity for our spin to be realized by the "savior of the music industry" who "looks out for the artists". As illustrated in my earlier business math thread, it wouldn't even cost Apple much money at all to foot the entire bill if 100M of us sign up for the trial. Apple would write that expense off as a business marketing expense (just like every other business that buys stuff from creators and then gives it away for a while as a marketing promotion). And yet, we can't see that because it appears that Apple doesn't want to "look out for the artists" during this trial, so we spin all this rationale of why this is the ONE best way for Apple to go. Anyone countering that is WRONG
If you buy stock and the stock goes up in value, have you actually done additional work? No, but you get paid like you did.
Did you even read?
"says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury"