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

[TechZeke]

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?

You buy the one or two songs you like from iTunes? This is 2015, not 2000 where you had to buy the whole CD.

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.

Sorry Pilgrim, but it's hopeless. Nobody is going to bother to read the article and her letter. Sad, but this the internet and Macrumors for you.

 

[Martinez74]

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 talk about it like these 3 months will be much harder than it already is for fledgling musicians and indie artists. They are already getting screwed over by current model. It's not like artists are making out like bandits and Apple is about to starve them for 3-months. Apple is simply demoing their products to prospective buyers. If people embrace the service and sign-up in droves like Apple hopes, everybody wins. I don't the trial period, while unusually long, is a bad thing.

 

[OllyW]

Why should I pay $10 for an album when there's only one or two good songs on it and the rest is filler?

Who is making you pay $10 for the album? If you only like one or two songs on the album you can buy them off iTunes and it's been that way for the last 12 years.

 

[HenryDJP]

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.

Uh, I think I've been saying that in every single one of my posts. You obviously missed that. That's exactly my point. Why should I have to pay for a service upfront that I don't even know is reliable or offers what I need in a streaming service? But like I said sir go right ahead and pay upfront. Nobody is stopping you.

Funny how people here will shout out against Apple when prices go up and the consumer has to pay. Now people here pretend that the artists are more important than their own bank account.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

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.

And in addition to that stupid U2 deal, Apple can apparently afford to give out gold $10,000 Apple Watches to celebrities months before the hoi-polloi, but can't afford to pay musicians for their music.

 

[Rogifan]

Swift does get paid from streaming services. Folks are going to switch over to Apple Music during the trial service so there will be less streaming on, for example, Pandora, where Swift is paid. I as customer will be getting Swift's songs streamed to me, but she will not get paid for three months. It is as simple as that.

She clearly is ready to support Apple Music, for various reasons, not the least of which she is super rich and can easily take the hit. But she is speaking up for other folks who are living closer to paycheck to paycheck and who are going to see smaller checks from iTunes and other streaming services for the next three months.

Also Apple is using the content to build Apple's service. Why does the very rich Apple company need that content donated for three months? You haven't addressed that point. Though in some ways the answer is easy, it saves Apple money to get the content donated for free for a few months. And also most of the content comes from the big labels and this is indirectly how Apple is getting the big labels to chip in some cost for building this service out.

Do you really think that many people paying for Spotify or Rdio or whatever are going to cancel their subscription for 3 months just because Apple is offering a free trial? I'm a paying Spotify subscriber. I have tons of playlists and 1,000+ songs cached for offline listening. No way am I going to try and re-create that in Apple Music just because of their free trial.

And yeah Apple can afford to subsidize this free trial. Heck they could probably afford a 6 month free trial. But if Apple did that then they'd be investigated for unfair and uncompetitive practices and everyone would be complaining about Apple using their massive war chest to put Spotify and others out of business.

 

[macsrcool1234]

Streaming music is slowly killing the music industry with these trial periods and ad-supported "free" streams. I'm glad she decided to speak out in the open about it, now I hope more artists do the same.

How else does music discovery work?

 

[Wreckus]

I have to agree with Taylor Swift. There's no need to offer a 3 month free trial and the artists should be compensated from apple for those 3 months.

But I probably don't have to worry since its probably won't be available in Canada anytime soon (iTunes radio part 2...canada gets screwed again).

 

[Steviejobz]

While I agree with her overall argument she needs to balance these demands with the fact that prior to Apple, people were downloading music for free (Napster, etc). Apple made it "cool" for young people to pay for music again.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

Taylor Swift no one is going to pay for your plastic surgeries and no one cares about how a guy dumps you, no wonder she can not keep a guy more than one day.

 

[N4v4rmind]

Everyone willing to work 3 months for free.....raise your hand.

Kudos to Taylor Swift for speaking on behalf of the independents, artist, producers, etc. who don't have the clout she has.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Do you really think that many people paying for Spotify or Rdio or whatever are going to cancel their subscription for 3 months just because Apple is offering a free trial?

Worked for me.

 

[usarioclave]

"Taylor Swift is incredibly successful, and can afford not to take payments during the trial period."

Well actually, how much money are we talking about here? The spotify paid tier subsidizes the free tier. In Apple's model, there is no free tier subsidy. How much would it cost to subsidize the free tier?

Apple's business model is not to subsidize artists. If the labels don't like the lack of free tier payments, they don't have to join. They'll just miss the potentially large (but probably small) pot of gold on the other side of the free tier.

It'd be easy enough for a label to do the math, if they could actually do math.

 

[slam5]

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.

Apple isn't the largest company in the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2015

 

[Rogifan]

You buy the one or two songs you like from iTunes? This is 2015, not 2000 where you had to buy the whole CD.



Sorry Pilgrim, but it's hopeless. Nobody is going to bother to read the article and her letter. Sad, but this the internet and Macrumors for you.

Why should I buy it when I can rent it. Most stuff I like right now I'll probably be sick of a couple months from now. I pay for classics I know I'll never get sick of. Like I paid for all the Beatles albums. And Led Zeppelin.

 

[cmaier]

What's a "Taylor Swift?"

 

[stewy]

And who saved the music industry's ass 10 years ago?

I guess after 10 years they're tired of paying the artists.

 

[pubwvj]

Apple really needs to write off the cost as part of their marketing plan and pay the producers/singers/etc. This three months free is Apple's advertising cost and should not be shouldered by the performers.


Reply to This

 

[Gav2k]

That's your opinion, don't state it like a fact

Apparently it's an opinion shared by many others!

 

[Rogifan]

Who is making you pay $10 for the album? If you only like one or two songs on the album you can buy them off iTunes and it's been that way for the last 12 years.

The point is, this is why we got to where we are. Crap music that people don't want to pay for. I rent music because there's very little new music that's worth keeping. Instead of blaming Apple for music's ills we should be blaming record companies and especially clear channel/iHeartRadio or whatever it's called these days.

 

[Zxxv]

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.

Nobody is working. They've already done the work. Their work is simply being displayed by apple for them so others/us/me/you/we can discover it.

Anyway I thought starving artists were used to performing for free to get noticed? Isn't that how they start out?

 

[HenryDJP]

Apple isn't the largest company in the world?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2015

Not the richest. Maybe you should read what was written.

 

[Rogifan]

I have to agree with Taylor Swift. There's no need to offer a 3 month free trial and the artists should be compensated from apple for those 3 months.

But I probably don't have to worry since its probably won't be available in Canada anytime soon (iTunes radio part 2...canada gets screwed again).

Apple is offering a 3 month trial because they don't think 1 month is enough to showcase their "human curation" model. Sure they could subsidize it, and subsidize it for longer than 3 months if they wanted to but I doubt anti-trust regulators would look too favorably on that.

 

[Levelut]

Hello everyone,

Let me try a different point of view.

When Apple developed iTunes they created a platform where artists could post their music and pay Apple a fee when their albums or songs were actually sold. So, for example if I create an album and it sells 0 dollars, Apple is giving me the service of having my songs on their servers for free.

Now, Apple has all this information on their servers and artists are actually the ones who "pay" Apple for the service of having their music there, not the other way around. The purchase may be made through iTunes, and Apple may be the one distributing the money, but that is almost like saying that the credit card company pays a business money instead of the customer being the one who pays.

So, to make my point. I don't understand why Apple would not be allowed to use this content, that they store "for free", in an attempt to increase sales and revenue for themselves and the artists, whom have filled iTunes with their music.

Lastly I do want to say that being a business owner I understand that no income for three months is terrible and strains the cash flow horribly, but if it is an incentive to raise sales in the long run, then just suck it up and push through. I get it that some artists believe they should receive compensation, but what about all those artists who maybe sell nothing during those months? or better yet, those songs that no one listens to in those 3 months. Do you actually think they deserve something for just having their cover in Apple Music?

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Levelut

 

[HenryDJP]

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.

Well maybe YOU haven't been reading because it's been stated nowhere that Apple is paying the artists during the 3 month trial.