I think Apple is fronting a lot of cost to build a new service that seems to pay better than most.
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
I think Apple is fronting a lot of cost to build a new service that seems to pay better than most.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Re-read the WHOLE post. She's not making a case for herself. She's apparently trying to flex her leadership position as a very successful artist who can afford to take the potential hit on behalf of the countless small, poor, starving artists who can't. A few days ago, one of those also got a rumor thread trying to make a similar case. Best I know they are very much down at the starving artist end of the pool. How did we take their input? Apple was right there too and they are wrong.
With them we can't spin all of the "spoiled rich brat", "mansions", etc stuff being spun here against Swift but they too are just as wrong. Go see the nearly 400-post thread yourself: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ic-deals-with-itunes-removal-threats.1893578/
I know that is probably the case but the big influx of people signing up for the trial will be in the period just after it is launched. It doesn't matter though because there's not much chance Apple will be offering to make any payments for the free trial period.
Really, Sheza? Then if you support artists being paid for their work, then why do you support Apple's three month free trial while not paying the musicians? You contradicted yourself.
Two, it's called " pro bono " work. Designers or creatives still do not work for free but only if they do 'pro bono' for one cause they care about or certain projects. It is still unethical to do 'on spec' work. You should know better than that.
You're the one who's got this notion that Apple can't do no wrong. They did the wrong thing in not offering compensation and should do so despite the free trial.
And lastly, no lawyer ever works for free. Ever. You sign the contract, you put the money down before the lawyer does the work.
It's funny watching people do the mental gymnastics required to side with Apple on this.
They have an obscene amount of cash and don't want to pay the artists what they're due.
They have an obscene amount of cash and don't want to pay the artists what they're due.
I just love all the "SUPPORTERS" here of M$ Taylor $wift. Go right ahead you guys and be happy to PAY from day one. You do realize that Apple will not pay artists during the trial period so if they decide to pay from day one, So Will the Consumer.
That girl should feel fortunate to have a career with her no talent a$$. It was only a few short years ago nobody ever heard of her and now she's acting like the queen. Hello Taylor? You're only famous because tween girls find you appealing because of your cutesy boyfriend-bashing songs and not because you are a true artist. Nothing but a SELLOUT. She started out as a Country "Singer" and when she and her record company recognized that they real money was in pop music she jumped off the western band wagon and went Pop. Now she has everything and still wants more. Artists like her will fall down at some point soon and I hope she does.
So for all the supporters of her shenanigans just know this will hurt US, the Consumer, because if she gets what she wants the consumer will have to pay from the start.
That girl should feel fortunate to have a career with her no talent a$$. It was only a few short years ago nobody ever heard of her and now she's acting like the queen. Hello Taylor? You're only famous because tween girls find you appealing because of your cutesy boyfriend-bashing songs and not because you are a true artist. Nothing but a SELLOUT. She started out as a Country "Singer" and when she and her record company recognized that they real money was in pop music she jumped off the western band wagon and went Pop. Now she has everything and still wants more. Artists like her will fall down at some point soon and I hope she does.
So for all the supporters of her shenanigans just know this will hurt US, the Consumer, because if she gets what she wants the consumer will have to pay from the start.
Imagine you get a tax break and your employer says: "Great! You can afford to make less money, so I'm going to cut your pay." Sound good?
You're asking Apple to subsidize the whole thing, and you're forgetting that after three months the pay rate is higher!
And after Apples woo all these millions of subscribers and get's their 28% share from it, who gets the remaining 72% of the millions or possibly billions generated from this? Listen to yourself for a second.
The truth is that artists needs this Apple music, they need to anything that would drive up music subscription. 3 month free trial is small price to pay if it can deliver the industry from the throes of the Ad supported streaming model. Linda Perry (music writer) only got paid $300 for a song that was played millions of times on Pandora. Ad support music streaming is artist worst nightmare.
Because the streaming service *replaces* purchasing. If you can stream it, why would you also buy it?
Three months is long enough for someone to... discover a song, fall in love with it, play it all the time, get sick of it and stop listening to it. With Apple's current setup for Apple Music, the artist/publisher pays for the music. Not Apple or the listeners.
A free trial is probably critical if Apple Music is going to succeed, but why should only the artists pay for it? The artists *and* Apple benefit from the success of Apple Music, so they should share the risk. Something like Apple pays 50% of the normal rate during the free trial would be good. Actually, the long-term success of Apple Music is probably better for Apple than the artists, so Apple should probably pay more than 50%.
Listen to yourself! There is no 72%. There's not even a 28%! Those three months are free. What part of "free" don't you understand?
I haven't read all the responses in this this thread but I read the article and her points are all more than valid here. For everyone saying she'll be back to rolling in it after 90 days, blah blah reconsider that response when she clearly states that she CAN go easily 3 months without pay from Apple but for most artists, writers, producers, etc that's a serious amount of time without compensation.
For a living I'm a recording engineer and record producer. I have a deeply vested interest in Apple Music not just from a consumer standpoint but as Taylor Swift stated if Apple gets this right there's a great chance it'll revolutionize the streaming industry and in doing so help to get the industry back on its feet. As a matter of fact if labels can get streaming right and pay out correctly, etc the music industry will be have more money than it ever has (1980's hair metal band budgets anyone?)
So she's talking about and taking a stance for people like me. Let me break it down for anyone that for some reason thinks Taylor (or any of us in this industry) is being a greedy bitch for wanting to get paid for her work...
I own royalties on bodies of work I've done, produced, help write, etc. that means every time one of those bodies of work is played on the radio, TV, movie, bought on iTunes, etc it's reported and I'm paid quarterly. It's great! Well for some reason Apple thinks that for 3 months it can neglect to pay me for that work. I won't go into details about how much 90 days of those royalties could add up to for me but it's definitely unsettling to think that Apple isn't willing to pay me for 3 months money I'm entitled to and furthermore that's actually making their service work...with music being avaliable on it.
Most of you here I'm sure have jobs that you get a paycheck at. Imagine your boss decided for 90 days they're going to have a new accounting system where you unfortunately won't be able to get paid and there won't be any retroactive payment but you still have to provide your work and show up on time so the company can pay for new said accounting system. Make no mistake this is the exact scenario happening here.
Given, royalties aren't my sole income from the industry (far from it) and I'll of course still be recieving my royalty payment from other outlets but the fact remains what they're doing here in order to launch their new platform is wrong and it's rubbing us music industry folks who they should be trying to appease the wrong way.
I'm sorry but if you have any other opinion of Apple's stance here you're wrong and the facts I laid out about should help you to realize it. If you don't want to listen to Taylor Swift because you think she can't relate to us commoners on a forum then listen to me, a commoner on this forum saying the same thing. Thank you.
For a living I'm a recording engineer and record producer. I have a deeply vested interest in Apple Music not just from a consumer standpoint but as Taylor Swift stated if Apple gets this right there's a great chance it'll revolutionize the streaming industry and in doing so help to get the industry back on its feet. As a matter of fact if labels can get streaming right and pay out correctly, etc the music industry will be have more money than it ever has (1980's hair metal band budgets anyone?)
So she's talking about and taking a stance for people like me. Let me break it down for anyone that for some reason thinks Taylor (or any of us in this industry) is being a greedy bitch for wanting to get paid for her work...
I own royalties on bodies of work I've done, produced, help write, etc. that means every time one of those bodies of work is played on the radio, TV, movie, bought on iTunes, etc it's reported and I'm paid quarterly. It's great! Well for some reason Apple thinks that for 3 months it can neglect to pay me for that work. I won't go into details about how much 90 days of those royalties could add up to for me but it's definitely unsettling to think that Apple isn't willing to pay me for 3 months money I'm entitled to and furthermore that's actually making their service work...with music being avaliable on it.
Most of you here I'm sure have jobs that you get a paycheck at. Imagine your boss decided for 90 days they're going to have a new accounting system where you unfortunately won't be able to get paid and there won't be any retroactive payment but you still have to provide your work and show up on time so the company can pay for new said accounting system. Make no mistake this is the exact scenario happening here.
Given, royalties aren't my sole income from the industry (far from it) and I'll of course still be recieving my royalty payment from other outlets but the fact remains what they're doing here in order to launch their new platform is wrong and it's rubbing us music industry folks who they should be trying to appease the wrong way.
I'm sorry but if you have any other opinion of Apple's stance here you're wrong and the facts I laid out about should help you to realize it. If you don't want to listen to Taylor Swift because you think she can't relate to us commoners on a forum then listen to me, a commoner on this forum saying the same thing. Thank you.
What's so funny? They own the music. They control what happens to the music. If you're complaining about something that's being done with the music it's obviously up to the people who are in control of it.
Thank you, could not have said it better. Apple offers a platform for small artists to gain exposure and the ability to promote their music. Much like any business, there's upfront costs that you just have to suck it up yourself.
And are overpaid many times more than they are worth. Today's pop artists become millionaires their first year in the business. It's all about the amount Twitter followers and not about their craft.
I understand Taylor's point in the short term, but long term, if 3 months of a trail ends up converting a lot of new people into paying for the service after the trail is over, then all the new subscribers will end up making up the difference for that 3 month period plus artists will be earning more money than they would have otherwise from that point forward.
I think what people need to realize is there is a trade off. Apple realizes people aren't just going to subscribe not knowing what the service is like or what it has to offer, so they want to give people a trail period. While I understand the artists point of view short term during the trail period, if it brings a ton of new people to pay after that, they benefit in the long run and quite possibly earn more revenue in the long run. Something Taylor doesn't seem to take into consideration.
So it's a pick your poison situation. My opinion is Taylor is only thinking short term, not the benefits of long term.
I think what people need to realize is there is a trade off. Apple realizes people aren't just going to subscribe not knowing what the service is like or what it has to offer, so they want to give people a trail period. While I understand the artists point of view short term during the trail period, if it brings a ton of new people to pay after that, they benefit in the long run and quite possibly earn more revenue in the long run. Something Taylor doesn't seem to take into consideration.
So it's a pick your poison situation. My opinion is Taylor is only thinking short term, not the benefits of long term.
Yea, exactly. Consumers have options for streaming services already, and Spotify is quite good. Apple wants to cash in on streaming popularity, and is using a 3 month trial to lure customers in. Why should artists pay for this?
There's no money to be made by anyone during the 3 month free trial period. That's not a debate. read again.
Try reading the article next time.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's the point though. Apple is starting a streaming business. Marketing costs should come out of pocket.
This negative PR would go away if Apple would take a tiny bit of it's cash hoard and foot the bill. Apparently, the starving artists can get fed at about $10/month, out of which about $7 of it actually flows through to them and their labels. Apple's investment would be about $7 per free trial user for only 3 months. If that's 100M people- which would be a huge number- it would cost Apple less than they paid for Beats... and, like with your business, since that would be a marketing cost, Apple would write it off reducing their tax liability too (just like you did).
Instead, Apple is passing that expense on to the content creators by cutting their revenues during the trial. Do they really have a say in that? Maybe? Barely? We can spin how they can just pull their music from the service and so on but who wants to step on the 64,000LB gorilla's toes. Even Swift in this message is treading pretty lightly, making a plea for the starving end of the pool while praising Apple in many ways. Now picture being a virtual nobody. Do you dare take a stand against Apple? Certainly not with this crowd as you can easily view both ends of that artists spectrum between this thread and this one: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ic-deals-with-itunes-removal-threats.1893578/
You think Taylor is really "speaking up for the small artists"? who are you kidding.
It's all about buying herself a bigger mansion. Why did she pull out of spotify again?