And if Apple subsidized this for 3 months the DOJ and EU would have no issues with that and no one would be complaining that it's unfair and anti-competitive as Spotify, Rdio, Pandora etc. don't have Apple's massive war chest?
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
Because in that case your previous post makes no sense. We know where that money goes.
Let's take your analogy to the logical next step. How about if Uber decided that their drivers will be paid from radio ads played during the drive rather than from the rider's own pocket. And this would be in perpetuity not just for a trial period. How many drivers do you think Uber will still have today???
Last edited:
Anyways, I wasn't talking to you in the first place.
what's so hard to understand here? after the trial period, if successful, there'll be millions of people paying millions in subscription fees of which 72% goes to the industry.
Yeah I don't know...it is still a cost to be leveraged against those providing content.
Apple is building a service that will make it yet easier still to buy music, because if you REALLY like an artist you don't slog through all the other BS to get to their song, you hear it and then buy it. (I guess some pirate it)
So I think a free three months of potentially no royalties against the hard cash Apple is fronting for the building the service that delivers content is a pretty good deal.
She's right. Apple is offering a free trial for it's own purpose, which is to attract customers, and that should NOT come out of the artist's cut. Taylor Swift can afford it, but many working musicians can't.
This thread is filled with people who didn't read the article, didn't read her letter, and are totally making an ass out of themselves.
So many people are also resorting to Ad Hominem which only makes them look worse.
Anyhow, I completely agree. I was also under the impression Apple was still paying out during those 3 months; just like how Cook gave a $100 million deal with Bono to give U2's new album out for free.
I'd like to see the people bashing her for being "greedy" (apart from actually reading what she said) go and work their asses off for 3 months and not get paid a dime and be all happy about it.
Apple are a multi-billion dollars company. I'm not even sure if they've become the first trillion dollars company in the world or not yet, but they're pretty close to it. They can pay the artists providing content for their new product while they get people to subscribe as they offer the product for free.
The prospect of great revenues in 3 months does not mean artists have to be stifled on the short term, just because Apple can.
Ultimately, streaming services will not be everyone's cup of tea. Those that pirate music will still do so anyway, but it still doesn't mean that a streaming service should be free or provide next to no compensation to artists just because it's starting off or because the alternative is worse.
Also, a 90 days trial is too long. A month would've been enough in my opinion.
Apple are a multi-billion dollars company. I'm not even sure if they've become the first trillion dollars company in the world or not yet, but they're pretty close to it. They can pay the artists providing content for their new product while they get people to subscribe as they offer the product for free.
The prospect of great revenues in 3 months does not mean artists have to be stifled on the short term, just because Apple can.
Ultimately, streaming services will not be everyone's cup of tea. Those that pirate music will still do so anyway, but it still doesn't mean that a streaming service should be free or provide next to no compensation to artists just because it's starting off or because the alternative is worse.
Also, a 90 days trial is too long. A month would've been enough in my opinion.
Not a single person is defending the worlds richest company because it certainly isn't Apple. Maybe you should read up on your financial reports. Some people here are smart enough to realize that if Apple pays then the consumer will pay. When has Apple ever been widely generous? Never. And if Taylor Swift is so concerned about the Indie Artists (which I call BS since she's nothing but a sellout) then have Apple pay the Indie Artists instead of her. I wonder if she'll go for that??? Hmmm.
I agree about Cue and Beats and I think the initial rollout of Apple Music has been a disaster. But these artists are just shooting themselves in the foot. Apple's providing another avenue for people to be able to access their music and perhaps become paid subscribers which will provide another income stream for these artists. Think about all the people who don't currently pay for streaming or CDs who might sign up for Apple Music after this 3 month trial. Get with the 21st century musicians. Oh and maybe start making music people would actually want to pay for.
Actually, it's a mutually beneficial thing. Attracting customers to the platform allows small artists to gain the exposure that they wouldn't otherwise have. See the 3 month trial as a "promotional cost", then it makes a lot of sense.
Exactly. People seem to think that the artists should be grateful for Apple providing this potential new revenue stream but what they don't seem to grasp is that Apple couldn't have this service without the content.
Sounds like consumer entitlement for free. Your viewpoint is exactly what's wrong with today's world.
I support indie artists and not just music but also in the visual arts and also indie game creators. Do YOU think they make games for free?
The world runs on money, not vapor. Do you think your mechanic fixes the car for free? The doctor? The carpenter? A film maker?
If Apple has to pay up, then they have to pay up. And so do you.
If Taylor Swift is so "concerned" about the Indie artists then Apple can simply pay the Indie artists and not her. Bet she'll go for that in a heartbeat. 
It isn't about affording it, it is about equity stakes in future potential earning.
Think of Apple and the Artists as partners in a deal that will make both of them money. Both have to bring something to the table to make the deal work... Apple is bringing the tech and the artist has the content...both are valuable one is a hard cash investment (Apple's tech and bandwidth) and the artist is bringing a softer tangible, the content. Remember most of the content has been bought and paid for many times over (even with the indy artists)...but the bandwidth costs...those are ever increasing.
I don't get it. I mean, I understand being sour over people having access to your art, and not being compensated. But is there some exclusivity clause in the apple contact?
Won't artists still make $$ from physical sales, iTunes, and other streaming service royalties?
Seems like opting out of apples service is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. After 3 months, your in the room with a HUGE customer base.
Won't artists still make $$ from physical sales, iTunes, and other streaming service royalties?
Seems like opting out of apples service is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. After 3 months, your in the room with a HUGE customer base.