Sidebar Sidebar
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

SarcasticJoe said:
I can understand where these people are coming from, but I do have to disagree with them.

It's not like you have to pay for a car before you get to test drive it and this is just the same idea. Letting people have a taste of the service before committing to subscribing to it.
Click to expand...
This is quite a bit different from test driving a car. People know what Apple is and know what streaming is. This isn't some new market we are talking about here. This is an established market and there are low switching costs between Spotify and Apple. Artists giving away songs for free should be their doing not Apple's. You didn't see Apple starting off iTunes with a freemium try it for 3 months free model. No people had to pay immediately.
 
Martinez74 said:
Why on earth should Apple Pay for free trial period? That's not how a business is run no matter how rich you are. It's not a charity business.
A trial period is what it is, a trial period. It's either it is there or it is not there. It's designed to entice potential customers. If it is successful, everyone would benefit including the Artists so why should Apple bear the cost of this promotional period? Besides, alternative music platforms for artists isn't very attractive, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Ah, so if the the restaraunt down your street decides to promote themselves by offering free sandwiches for lunch one day, they should in turn demand that the suppliers who supply them with the bread and the meat should give it to them for free for that promotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and aylk
Martinez74 said:
Wrong!
If it is a selling point for Apple's own product, then why are they offering it on Android? And by the why the music, which is really the product is here, doesn't belong to Apple. They are only providing a platform to market it. If it is successful, the label and the musicians get more than 70% of the revenue.
Click to expand...
It is CERTAINLY a selling point for their own product - the product is Apple Music streaming service! The fact that they are offering it on Android just means they're trying to sell their product as widely as possible.
 
AdonisSMU said:
This is quite a bit different from test driving a car. People know what Apple is and know what streaming is. This isn't some new market we are talking about here. This is an established market and there are low switching costs between Spotify and Apple. Artists giving away songs for free should be their doing not Apple's. You didn't see Apple starting off iTunes with a freemium try it for 3 months free model. No people had to pay immediately.
Click to expand...

Do people not know what are car is or what it does without test driving it? :p
 
sualpine said:
Pretty sure the company that saved the music industry understands this issue more than someone who brags about being born in 1989.
Click to expand...

Who saved the music industry? Apple? don't make laugh, they saved their own pockets.

Jobs DID save Apple for sure....
 
johngordon said:
Exactly this.

No financial benefit to Apple or the artists during the trial.

No financial benefit to Apple after the trial that doesn't also involve financial benefit to the artists.
Click to expand...

But. What gives Apple the right to decide that artists should just give up their income for three months?

SarcasticJoe said:
It's not like you have to pay for a car before you get to test drive it and this is just the same idea. Letting people have a taste of the service before committing to subscribing to it.
Click to expand...

Pretty bad analogy, considering the garage offering test drives still paid the manufacturer for the car... and will still make money when they sell the car on at a later date as a cut price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
smorrissey said:
Who saved the music industry? Apple? don't make laugh, they saved their own pockets.
Click to expand...
Just because they profited from the iPod does not change the fact that iTunes did, objectively, save the music industry. The truth does not care about your opinion.
 
maflynn said:
So apple is basically giving away someone else's work and you're saying that its ok for the folks not get paid. If they'll reap millions then they can add their work after the free trial

Free trials usually work by having the author give away the product for a period of time, not some third party unwilling to pay the actual content creators.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I don't get. How could anyone argue with this? One thing I don't understand is how apple can just open their entire iTunes catalog for steaming. Aren't steaming rights with artists a separate part of a contract than just having your content hosted for purchase in iTunes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and aylk
SarcasticJoe said:
I can understand where these people are coming from, but I do have to disagree with them.

It's not like you have to pay for a car before you get to test drive it and this is just the same idea. Letting people have a taste of the service before committing to subscribing to it.
Click to expand...

you test drive a car for a couple of miles. Apple's 3 month free trial is akin to a dealer letting a prospective buyer test drive a car for a week.
 
sualpine said:
Just because they profited from the iPod does not change the fact that iTunes did, objectively, save the music industry. The truth does not care about your opinion.
Click to expand...

they profited from the ipod? only? iphones doesn't count? no, they also got a big piece of cake from the music industry. rights!

No mate that's your truth, they haven't saved anything, they only changed the model, at least they played a big part on that.
 
cmaier said:
If the artists don't like it, they should negotiate better deals with the studios who are making these deals on their "behalf."
Click to expand...

That's the issue for the artists who are not signed to the major labels. The independent labels have not been invited to paticipate in the negotiations and feel that the deals have been forced upon them at very short notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
captain cadet said:
As someone who has worked with someone in the indie music industry and my one of my main customers being an artist, I can completely agree with Taylor Swift for once. Its a huge blow as many people won't get paid a single penny for this! As many people will be using he Apple music for free from June, any album released from July to October, none of those artists will be paid for what they what could be streamed a billion times!
People like Taylor can manage that but my friend and customer cannot cope with that - I will lose business also as they wont be able to pay my bills.
I understand a small start up doing this, but the worlds richest company? Can't it afford losing some money on trying to get this service going?
This is not a Problem for Taylor Swift and big bands, but its for the indie artists and the teenager artists in their bed rooms - working all night on a song!
And that to me is why I'm pleased Taylor has put her foot down and said no and that's also why I will still pay for Spotify.
Click to expand...

A good song doesn't die in 3 months. i still listen to 70s music and listen to them often, even one hit wonders have life much more than 3months. If these artist write songs that die in 3 months, then i don't think who to blame.

I also agree that Apple is pretty well to do company that can pay, but why they should? i would've understood if they were earning money in that 3 months and still not paying the artist anything. Its a new collaboration of artists and company to revolutionise the way people listen to music.

Also, every other means of earning from music for an artist is still there. Its not apple is saying to stop selling CD, stop selling online, stop performing, stop making any kinds of sale, just give your stuff for free for 3months and sit in your bedroom. All those means of earning is still there, Apple music is one more new stream of revenue that Apple is exploring and wants to let people try it for free for 3 months. I don't see whats the loss. Like someone pointed out earlier, artists are not earning from Pre Apple Music and they won't be earning anything post Apple music for 3months, but i see them earning post 3 months for Apple music.

I don't want anyone to be harmed monetarily but i still don't understand the issue here.
 
smorrissey said:
they profited from the ipod? only? no, they also get a big piece of cake from the music industry.

No mate that's your truth, they haven't saved anything, they only changed the model, at least they played a big part on that.
Click to expand...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204002304576629463753783594
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/feb/13/theobserver.observerbusiness15
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...rammy_accepted_by_apple_itunes_chief_eddy_cue

And they are about to do it again.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/07/s...top-the-bleeding-and-save-the-music-industry/

Your opinion is incorrect. :)
 
Sheza said:
A fair point made here. But I think music should be more about the fans and, you know, the music. Rather than digital files that you pay money for. Yes, artists should be paid fairly for their work. But that's the thing - fairly. Do they really love their job creating music just because of the music, when they're worth millions? Or do they just want to get by and make people happy with their music?
Click to expand...
But to get the music out there, it costs a lot of money! There is not much money left and this will result it hardly any money in it for 3 months.
 
""We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.""

The irony of that statement is that she gets a free iPhone just for Merchandising purposes from Apple...
Almost all high profile artists do and I HIGHLY DOUBT she doesn't grab one.

In any case I don't know what is the biggie? 1989 is by far her most boring album, Perhaps is selling like pancakes but crap music usually do..
 
AdonisSMU said:
Not really artists are always evolving. Just because you do one genre doesn't mean you shouldn't crossover and do other genres. That is what keeps thing creative and interesting and innovative. artists like software companies have to be willing to innovate and go outside of themselves.
Click to expand...
Give me a break! Artists crossing over is not the same as Artists selling out. She's a sellout. She doesn't even do country music anymore. That's how she into the business. She just put in the garbage can when she realize the real money is elsewhere.
See, I give credit and respect to artists like Carrie Underwood who stayed true to her roots. While she adds a hint of pop to some of her songs she is a true country artist and has not ended up on the pop radio channels.
 
Sheza said:
If I can find alternative employment that does pay me instantly, I will. So Taylor can opt to leave her label that negotiated the deal with Apple. Indie artists can do likewise.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem. There is no alternative employment during this period. The people that currently listen to my music on ad supported services are going to flock to the ad-free free service. That leaves me without any music income for three months and missing the window of opportunity of the record release. I'll be paying Apple's free trial with the two years I spent producing my record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back