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

[HenryDJP]

I couldn't care less about apple music policy, I spend my money in concerts, where the artist get the money and music is real. I don't give a **** about tailor swift, I do care about those independent labes tried to **** up.

Apple is not apple anymore, apple now is like a good microsoft, but more closed and more capitalist than microsfot never was.

"historically progressive and generous company."

Yes, historically, but not anymore.

Haha, you're kidding right? I've been an Apple customer for over 17 years. I can't remember a day when they've been generous. I can go down a laundry list of their "generosity" over the past 17 years.
Big difference is Microsoft created a monopoly. Apple has never done that because their customers have always had "choice".

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I was rather blasé about music until I became friends with a local musician.

He was one of those local acts that played his butt off all around the region, and around the world, and was struggling to put food on his family.

He would go and do gigs and shows, and have people actually steal his CD's. He basically made next to nothing off the CD's, and yet people would rip them off. Or they would tell their friends to not buy a CD for themselves, they could just copy the one that they just bought.

He gave me a new view of the music business, and I became angry and frustrated at what I saw as the music labels, the whole industry, feeding off of the artists.

It sucks... And to have their work declared the property of the label due to some obscure verbiage in some bill in congress, is the height of obnoxiousness.

And to have Apple play stalker by telling an act that Apple 'can make you a star', but first we have to steal your stuff for three months is just nasty. If they don't want to pay the artists for their work, they shouldn't be giving it away. They don't own it after all...

The lack of respect is amazing, and the hubris too...

 

[Noble Actual]

I wouldn't stream her music if she paid me. Talentless moron.

What is it about all these egotistical "artists" jumping on the hate Apple Music bandwaggon, lets hear them complain when the royalties kick in and Spotify has to remove their freeloaders tier to stay afloat. Oh wait, they won't. They'll be happy to take our money then.

Who has more ego and class?

Swift who wrote a professional open letter to Apple stating why while it wouldn't hurt her, it would hurt her fellow indie musicians or a 12 year old boy named LucasEVille posting on an Apple fanboy site straight up calling her a moron?

Sorry, but the Apple fanboyism has just exceeded basic human decency.

 

[byke]

It's not that easy physical sales are almost dead, yeah i know still count for 50% of the sales but its not that easy to find physical stuff anymore specially catalog stuff.

Yes, but what has that got to do with Apple?
Either artists join up or not - if they don't like it, then they don't need to do it.
Apple can not be held responsible for physical sales.

 

[dusk007]

Why do the music producers have to bear the costs?

Apple is entering the streaming music business. Whenever you enter a new market there is a cost associated with it. They offer a free trial to attract users, away from other streaming service. That trial should be an investment on Apple's side because it is a feature that makes Apple's service more attractive. The music producers should have no interest in which service pays them their fees, they should not have to pay for a feature that makes this specific service more attractive.
If Apple's was the only service, it could be argued for but there are already plenty. Apple is coming late to the streaming party and they offer a generous 3 month trial. Market entry should cost Apple not the music industry and they can really afford it too.

Honestly I can totally understand swifts position there. I don't miss her music on spotify though, but I would also not miss spotifys free service. She is gorgeous but I don't watch music, I listen to it - I am werid that way - and there is plenty of other music I like more.

 

[Lacasse]

Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Taylor Swift. It's wrong that Apple is expecting artists to essentially make all their music free for 3 months. They should be compensated during the trial period or pull their music from it until the trial is concluded.

The truth is that their music is already free. This is a means to actually promote the payment for music streaming services. Example, I download the occasional song. However, if someone provides me with a better solution, then I'll sign up.

Also, what's the difference between this and SiriusXm? Most cars have a free trial period. Nothing different with this.

 

[Macronym]

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.

Still doesn't make sense. Apple invested money and time to create all of this (infrastructure and clientele), or do you think it just fell from the sky? Then, they need money to run it. That is what the subscription fee and the percentage off the sales are for. So, you don't have an issue with Apple investing the money and running the service for free for 3 months, but you do with the artists not getting paid? Looks like a double standard.

Moreover, you cannot simply separate things and say "Apple doesn't make it's [sic] money from those things. They make their money by selling hardware". It is a package. You take away the eco-system and the sales drop. It all affects sales..

 

[Lolito]

the three month trial is for free, but people who will pay potentially, will pay after three months, and people who will not pay, will not pay, so they give for free something, to people that would not pay otherwise, so they are not loosing money, they don't give food, they are giving for free the rights to reproudce a non phisical good to people who would not pay if it was not for free.

 

[McCool71]

I think Taylor Swift has a valid point - and it great that such a currently popular artist (yes, she is - no matter if you like her music or not) speaks out.

For her personally it probably wouldn't matter much when it comes to money - she could retire tomorrow and live a very comfortable life without ever releasing any more music I guess. The principle is the key here.

The sales curve (and very likely streaming will largely follow the same pattern) for new album releases are usually that they sell the highest number they will *ever* sell the first couple of weeks after release. After that the sales drop very fast.

Imagine a new artist having a breakthrough single or album the next couple of months - and he/she never ever reaches those highs again during the career, which most new breakthrough artists never do. At the same time the potentially biggest free music trial the world has ever seen is going on for three months - and the artist gets nothing from that. I fully understand that a lot of artists would take issue with this. The same goes for established artists with new releases around the corner - I would surely hold it back a few months on Apple Music if that was me.

 

[HenryDJP]

Somebody or somebodies wrote this for her.

It's unrealistic to ask Apple to waive the 3 month free trial after announcing it.

She's just trying to exercise how powerful she thinks she is, when she truly isn't. Most likely it's her record label that is pushing her to do this. If she really cared about Indie artists she would've made a stance over this on her Twitter page months ago when she pulled out of Spotify. This isn't about Indie Artists, this is about HER. Using the Indie Artists as a front is an easy way to make Apple respond after the public cries foul on Apple.

 

[smorrissey]

Yes, but what has that got to do with Apple?
Either artists join up or not - if they don't like it, then they don't need to do it.
Apple can not be held responsible for physical sales.

That's the problem they DO need streaming services now. They can't afford saying no to them.

Of course Apple has to do with the decline of physical sales, if you don't want to blame them directly let's say technology in general is the culprit in part, which is ok by me. we need to evolve.

 

[Soni Sanjay]

I can't believe artists are this stupid... Why can't they get Apple is their last chance at actually making money...

So, so stupid.

 

[richman555]

I understand the concern, if I think about a hit song's lifecycle. A hit song can take the airwaves by storm and in 3 months time (lets just say over a summer period), by the end of this period it is winding down and only at this point is an artist making money. Not at the height but on its turndown.

There are a lot of '1 hit wonder' acts out there so they have to make the money when the opportunity is there.

This only happens though if Joe consumer signs up at exactly the beginning of this period.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Without "free" streams (which generate some revenue at least) people would just go back to piracy, which provides better quality anyway.

This is an excellent point. Realistically, as unfortunate as it is, there are really not many alternatives for the music industry at this point. On the one side you habe piracy, which is free, gives full and complete permanent access as its a download, and can easily provide the very best quality there is. On the other hand you have legitimate digital sales via iTunes, etc. Here you usually can't get the very highest quality, but you can have "permanent" access. That last digital realm is streaming, or as I like to think of it, Music as a Service. Here you have no ownership, and the quality is equally not up to the same standard as physical media or piracy, but for a low monthly fee you have open access to a vast library of music - much larger than one could otherwise afford - for as long as you continue your subscription.

The long and short of it is, streaming is what the music industry has left. Digital downloads alone would lose to Piracy. Free ad-supported streaming services don't pay enough to the industry. Paid streaming services have a chance if they provide enough perceived value to the customer, and they provide more money to the industry. The music industry actually needs Apple Music to succeed, their vested interest is even higher than Apple's here. The 3 month trial is probably the only way to get enough users to try and eventually stick with Apple's paid service over other's free service. Should Apple be paying out during the 3 month trial period? That is one way to look at it, but on the other hand the music industry has more at stake here than Apple. If Apple succeed in making paid services standard for the industry, the Music Industry itself gains much more than Apple does. Maybe it makes sense then that they help bear the costs of the launch?

 

[water0nmars]

Apple isn't a record label. They don't own music. They cut deals with the people that are and do. Unless the artists own their own labels or own the music that Apple would be streaming for "free", why exactly is Apple the problem? They may not like the deal that Apple cut with the labels but they did cut it with the labels. You have a problem artists? Be your own label or talk to the one you're under.

 

[smorrissey]

I like Taylor but i don't see her becoming more important and trascendent than Madonna in the future. Taylor will fade away as Britney Speard did. She can make demands like that right now? yes of course she can, let's see how much that will last. I don't know you guys but Gaga who was HUGE like 7 year ago (before Taylor) now she's already fading away...

 

[Digital Skunk]

So here we have two greedy entitles doing battle. It's not like propped up Taylor Swift isn't making gobs of money, and it's not like she doesn't stand to make even more.

On the same side Apple could just take a hit and pay the artists for the 3 months, but seriously people like Swift shouldn't be the poster child for it.

 

[kayloh20]

The truth is that their music is already free. This is a means to actually promote the payment for music streaming services. Example, I download the occasional song. However, if someone provides me with a better solution, then I'll sign up.

Also, what's the difference between this and SiriusXm? Most cars have a free trial period. Nothing different with this.

Except...does SiriusXM pay for any music that they stream during the trial? It's possible that the company has an agreement with the music labels that covers the cost of music played during the free trial. Remember, Taylor isn't talking about getting rid of the trial, rather that the artists get compensated by Apple during the trial.

 

[scottsjack]

Good for Taylor. Like her music or not she is reported to be a good businesswoman. Between yet another revenue stream, wrist jewelry and Beats (http://www.newser.com/story/208604/beats-by-dre-a-premium-product-look-again.html) what has happened to Apple? It certainly is not the Apple of just a couple of years ago. So sad.

 

[noles1983]

Swift sold out to pop music because she couldn't make money in country. Her music sucks, as is the case most "artists". Personally I'm tired of her whining all the GD time.

 

[smorrissey]

Swift sold out to pop music because she couldn't make money in country. Her music sucks, as is the case most "artists". Personally I'm tired of her whining all the GD time.

Perhaps but she's a beauty, a real one.

 

[lazard]

Apple has to tread lightly here. If they cover the cost of the 3 month trial by paying the labels and artists, they open themselves up to a U.S. DOJ investigation.

I believe that Spotify also does not pay the artists/labels during their free trial period. If Apple were to pay and gain access to Taylor Swift and other holdouts, they would be accused of anti-competitive behavior.

wrong

A Spotify spokesperson, Jonathan Prince, told Re/Code that Spotify pays record labels for every stream on its platform, even if it’s streamed during a free trial or on Spotify’s ad-supported free tier. That may not be the case on songs that are streamed on Apple Music’s free radio stations

 

[HenryDJP]

Why do the music producers have to bear the costs?

Apple is entering the streaming music business. Whenever you enter a new market there is a cost associated with it. They offer a free trial to attract users, away from other streaming service. That trial should be an investment on Apple's side because it is a feature that makes Apple's service more attractive.

You do realize that Apple, Spotify or anyone else just hosting the music and making sure the streams run without hiccups during a trial period is of high cost. You however could simply pay for the subscription upfront. That way those poor music producers won't have to absorb the costs. You're getting what you want and everyone else gets what they want.
Let me guess, you don't want to do that though? That's too logical and too fair.

 

[Sheza]

Yep, I figured as much. From a person who would rather put the expense on someone else for their personal enjoyment....

It's that I didn't understand the way you phrased your post. Perhaps rephrase?

 

[ftaok]

How would that be "anti-competitive"? Offering to pay during the trial period would be a very competitive move.

Because Spotify also does not pay artists during the subscriber's free trial. If Apple were to pay during the free trial to gain access to Swift (and others), then Spotify would have to as well.

Then let's take it another step. If Apple were to pay 2x the royalty, then all othe services would have to as well, or they would lose content.

Since Apple has $$$ and Spotify doesn't, Spotify would be crushed and Apple would be the only service left standing.

The DOJ has a court appointed monitor stationed in apple's HQ looking for crap like this to bust them on.

Edit - apparently, Spotify does pay during the free trial.