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
Imagine if Uber decided they were going to let new customers have their first 3 rides free -- but that the drivers who picked up people in their "free trial" would also not get paid. And if the driver refused to pick up "free trial" riders, they wouldn't be allowed to be uber drivers.
Well said.
And you highlight what's so reprehensible about this: Apple will be getting all the glory for the service at the expense of the musicians who actually create all the content.
It shouldn't have taken Taylor Swift's open letter to make Apple see the error of its ways and bring this to the media's attention.
What the hell's going on at Apple?
Except, uber does worse things than that.
http://fusion.net/story/150389/uber...ivers-in-china-who-get-too-close-to-protests/
Shameful that Apple is passing on their customer acquisition cost to the artists.
Taylor Swift is a wolf in sheep's clothing. er or a nightmare dress like a daydream.
This move will bring more people to indie artists. No way would I pay to download an unknown artist, but if I could stream them, maybe I'll give them a shot. That way I can stop being a conformist and drink my PBR while listening to some hipster eclectic music..
Listen up. She's NOT talking about herself but rather supporting the Indie musicians who are getting a start. She saw through Apple's BS and is calling them out on it. The view of Apple making the world a better place is nothing but "emotional marketing" garbage.
It would be like Apple requiring you to work for them without a paycheck for three months on trial. Would that sound legit? Hell no. It's them that should be footing the bill. After all, it is their infrastructure they're putting the money down and they need to pay the artists, no matter what.
I suspect they gifted Pharrell Williams with a gold Apple Watch that's worth about $20K, since they're supposedly a 'loss leader' but can't afford to pay the artists on Apple Music during the 3 month trial, then there is absolutely something wrong with the picture here.
Wow. Math is a mystery to you, isn't it? Drivers have costs per ride, and they don't get paid in perpetuity for giving a ride. Now, if I could join Uber, get paid nothing for 3 months and then get paid a higher rate than Uber drivers are currently paid, and get that rate for the rest of my life, without needing to drive anymore... sign me up!
I have no sympathy for Swift's millions or Apple's millions or the unmentioned millions of the Record companies are are also not getting paid. But it's important to remember that Apple is also not getting paid and the physical systems used to perform the streaming tasks do in fact require money to operate and maintain. My guess is that on a 3-month trial period, Apple is the one player likely t loose the most money.
Why is it okay for Apple to have half the worlds cash but Taylor Swift making money is somehow obscene?
All of these artist who have a problem with the free trial should be talking to their labels. They are the ones who made the deal with Apple.
Three months is a pretty long time for a free trial but if someone uses Apple Music for all that time and enjoys it, I think they would be more likely to start paying for it rather than losing something they've grown accustom to using for the past 90 days. Then the artists will start getting paid.
It's like the logic "you have to spend money to make money". Loosing a bit of money now means more money down to road. Plus it's not like during the 3 month trial all other sources of income will cease for artists. There are still download sales, CD sales, and other streaming services. It's not as though everyone is going to switch the way they pay for music all at once.
Three months is a pretty long time for a free trial but if someone uses Apple Music for all that time and enjoys it, I think they would be more likely to start paying for it rather than losing something they've grown accustom to using for the past 90 days. Then the artists will start getting paid.
It's like the logic "you have to spend money to make money". Loosing a bit of money now means more money down to road. Plus it's not like during the 3 month trial all other sources of income will cease for artists. There are still download sales, CD sales, and other streaming services. It's not as though everyone is going to switch the way they pay for music all at once.
Look, I'm going to say I MUST be getting old because I'm confused as hell about Apple's music offerings. I currently buy music on iTunes. I also have something that allows me to access my Apple music through the cloud. I'm happy with that, even though I don't know the name of that "product." Then I discovered Google play allows me to listen to "stations" (commercial free) and even download the song I'm listening too, and the entire album if I like. Is that what Beats 1 is going to be?
So I'll buy music, have a yearly subscription that allows me to access my music in the cloud (so it doesn't have to be on the device I'm using), have a station that plays new music with a monthly subscription that allows me to put the song on my device if I like it, or download the entire album to the device, but if I stop paying the monthly subscription, this songs won't work anymore? Or will they? If they will stay can I download those songs to my other devices (because of that unnamed Apple product I have that allows it)?
Does it even look like I know what I am talking about? Can we understand the confusion?
So I'll buy music, have a yearly subscription that allows me to access my music in the cloud (so it doesn't have to be on the device I'm using), have a station that plays new music with a monthly subscription that allows me to put the song on my device if I like it, or download the entire album to the device, but if I stop paying the monthly subscription, this songs won't work anymore? Or will they? If they will stay can I download those songs to my other devices (because of that unnamed Apple product I have that allows it)?
Does it even look like I know what I am talking about? Can we understand the confusion?
If it's not about herself, why did she refuse to include her latest album on apple music?
In mentioning 28% and 72% in my previous post, I was referring to the revenue to be generated after the trial period ends. I'm not sure why you got that so wrong.
And if Apple subsidized this free trial Spotify, Rdio, Pandora etc. plus DOJ and EU would perfectly ok with it? Give me a break.
These artists need to get with it. The reason streaming is popular is because no one is making good enough music that people want to pay for. Why should I pay $10 for an album when there's only one or two good songs on it and the rest is filler?
These artists need to get with it. The reason streaming is popular is because no one is making good enough music that people want to pay for. Why should I pay $10 for an album when there's only one or two good songs on it and the rest is filler?
I don't listen to her music, but if she refused to include her latest album on Apple Music, it was probably because right after Iovine's keynote presentation revealing the free trial with his disturbing screeching voice, she must've realized they were doing something wrong and decided to pull out.
Apple music is the new "radio" when I was little and Marconi and Tesla were fighting this all out trying to figure out ways to monetize "radio"...what is old is what is new.
As I got older
When I used to hear music on the radio and then I wanted to buy it. So I went and bought these round disks with grooves in them in a thing called a "record store"...life was good.
Then they invented a thing called a tapedeck they didn't build it directly into radios for a while because artists (labels) were worried about getting ripped off. I still bought retail music tapes from places like TapeWorld
Then came the magical CD, no burners for years (PS they could have been almost a 0 day thing) as Sony was worried about its catalog. Then out came the burners...and I still bought retail music CD's at places like CD World.
Then came Satellite radio, I paid for it and found it to be useful and my music catalog expanded. My only gripe was that I couldn't mark and download an artist immediately.
Then came the streaming services, all it did was expand my catalog because now I could easily listen to a song and if I liked it, one or two clicks later I could own it, use it on multiple devices (legally), and it was of generally a higher quality and it was SO easy to do.
When Apple Music comes out in full force, I will get my free three months, pay my $14.99 a month and prolly buy even more music via iTunes.
As I got older
When I used to hear music on the radio and then I wanted to buy it. So I went and bought these round disks with grooves in them in a thing called a "record store"...life was good.
Then they invented a thing called a tapedeck they didn't build it directly into radios for a while because artists (labels) were worried about getting ripped off. I still bought retail music tapes from places like TapeWorld
Then came the magical CD, no burners for years (PS they could have been almost a 0 day thing) as Sony was worried about its catalog. Then out came the burners...and I still bought retail music CD's at places like CD World.
Then came Satellite radio, I paid for it and found it to be useful and my music catalog expanded. My only gripe was that I couldn't mark and download an artist immediately.
Then came the streaming services, all it did was expand my catalog because now I could easily listen to a song and if I liked it, one or two clicks later I could own it, use it on multiple devices (legally), and it was of generally a higher quality and it was SO easy to do.
When Apple Music comes out in full force, I will get my free three months, pay my $14.99 a month and prolly buy even more music via iTunes.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm not arguing against future benefits. I'm arguing that there is a better way for Apple to handle the short-term situation. That's what Swift is trying to say too. I don't give a hoot about Swift or her music, but I appreciate the point she's trying to make here. In the short-term, starving artists are being asked to starve that much more. Apple could easily remedy this issue by "looking out for the artists" by spending just a tiny bit of money as part of making this new part of their business go.
That the artists will make more money later is TERRIFIC. But they are worried about the next 3-months bills, not the bills 3+ months from now. Apple could consider this a positive PR expense and then spin how they look out of the artists for doing so. Instead, the working choice is less-than-ideal from a PR perspective. Sure, we HERE will be quick to jump on anyone or anything seeming to work against whatever Apple wants to say or do. But those who can actually "think different" aren't as quick to see that Apple is always right in all things. If I was them I'd fix this by spending a little marketing/PR money and then spinning how we look out for the artists. Not only would that put this issue to bed, it would also put a great deal of pressure on streaming competitors to try to show how their models also look out for the artists. And the struggle in that would offer a great point (perceived or not) of distinction to push people moral "we want the artists to get paid" buttons to switch to Apple's option.
But what do I know? Apparently, Apple is already doing this exactly right and the artists griping about not being paid in the near term are just greedy, attention-seeking, short-sighted, naive, _____________, etc.
YOU listen up sir. This Indie crap is getting ridiculous. So many people on here pretend to be so concerned about Indie artists that they don't even know in order to use it as an attack against Apple. Taylor Swift used that as leverage. Plain and simple. And regardless of all of that WE as Consumers will have to pay if Apple has to pay. But by all means, go ahead and support the "cause" because the cause will cause YOU to be the one required to pay upfront with no Trial.