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

[smorrissey]

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.

There you go:

http://www.cnet.com/news/jon-bon-jovi-steve-jobs-killed-the-music-business/

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/t...-apple-music-store-killed-old-music-6C9633923

and the most hilarious thing is now Apple is also paying for that:

A decade of iTunes singles killed the music industry
Ironically, it could be Apple that is in danger of losing its grip on the music business. Whether or not Apple can maintain its relevance in digital music could very well depend on its ability to transition to the streaming subscription model, which is rapidly adding users.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/25/technology/itunes-music-decline/

So, I don't think so.

 

[afd]

I'm not reading 23 pages of posts so apologies is someone has made this point before. Does TS think that after 3 months her fans will be bored with her music and won't listen once they've started paying for Apple Music? There are still plenty of people that won't pay anything for music/films/telly/books/comics/software and apple is offering her a revenue stream maybe after 3 months that people are likely to pay for and she's complaining about this? I have Spotify Premium and TS isn't on that either, maybe Apple should ban her from iTunes and everyone can get her content from CDs or torrents?

 

[AlbinoPigeon]

But if you think about it... she wasn't getting anything from Apple Music subscriptions before it was a thing. In 3 months time, she will start getting money from Apple Music subscriptions.

How is it putting people out of jobs when they got 0 before and will get 0 for free months and then something?

People understand that streaming music services are temporary - if they stop paying, they stop being able to listen. Is this really going to hurt CD / iTunes sales? Because if people really support one particular artists they might not stump up the subscription fee just to listen to a handful of artists, and instead they will just buy like they always used to.

I basically don't agree that CD / iTunes sales would be impacted as much as the industry fears.

It's because during the free trial, rights holders still need to be paid. So this comes from the labels. That's why indies are saying this will bankrupt them, they can't afford the loss leading like the big labels can. Nothing is free.

 

[FrancoRumors]

I forgot to say this before... Thank god I don't have any chance of hearing 1989 when I subscribe to apple music ... Weird... T Swift still has the rest of her catalogue ready to stream... Maybe she realizes it sucks an no one will listen anyway... Or maybe she wants to rake in all that dough$$?

Either way - she sucks, apple was gracious enough to allow her a shot at being on the apple streaming juggernaut and she blew it hard.

Streaming is the future. Don't fight the future.

Steaming is good. Drink the kool aid.

It's tastes like apples.

 

[joeblough]

the 3mo thing may or may not be excessive, damaging to artists, etc.

but isn't this what artists pay their labels for? their labels negotiated this deal with apple. if they don't like it, they should be mad at their label, not at apple...

 

[smorrissey]

I'm not reading 23 pages of posts so apologies is someone has made this point before.

Come on give them a try!

 

[haydn!]

the 3mo thing may or may not be excessive, damaging to artists, etc.

but isn't this what artists pay their labels for? their labels negotiated this deal with apple. if they don't like it, they should be mad at their label, not at apple...

The smaller, Indie labels haven't been offered the opportunity to negotiate. It's Apple ways' or no way.

 

[captain cadet]

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.

Think about it this way,
You make bread and someone buys one loaf off you a day. it costs you 50p to make and sell it for £1
Then a supermarket says that they want a free three month trial of bread to who ever wants bread
For those days you lose £90 Just on one customer
If there are a hundred loafs that's £9,000!
Also although Music should be heard for a long time, take not of how much you listen for it within the first 3 months and then how much you listen to it after that 3 months.
I bet you there will be a large amount of times you heard it for free... Thats the problem

 

[jeffe]

Apple refusing to pay artist's during this trial just conveys to me that Apple does not value their music or just cannot afford to pay them..

Apple should just pay the artists whatever value their music brings to their service.

 

[AbSoluTc]

The big issue here isn't Apple. It's the music industry. TS is directing her energy to the wrong people. She is also being ironic in all this and I honestly think it's funny. She states basically she has all the money she needs for her band, herself and all that which interprets to "I'm good, I'm not doing it for the money". So who is she doing it for? The little people? What else is she doing for the little people besides writing a letter? How about creating a label that doesn't take 70% of it's profit from the artist? There's a start! I honestly don't know. The music industry is a **** pile honestly.

I use Spotify and it works for me. I'm sorry artists get the shaft but I didn't create the system and have no control over it.

Starting to think this is nothing more than a PR stunt by her/her label to keep her name in the spotlight as long as possible before she fades away like everyone else has before her. It's inevitable and always happens. You can be on top for only so long.

 

[HenryDJP]

I have worked for free a lot in my life and I still do from time to time , as an activist, for just causes, for the unfurtunate refugees etc. when a ridiculously rich company as apple ask people to work for free, then they need to get back to earth. Maybe back in the days when apple was on the brink to bankruptcy this could have been just. Now ehh, someone in the marketing dept. might look for another job.....cause this will backfire. Its just plain stupidity to ask people to work for free. Apple is now a candidate for the "mr. Burns" title of 2015.

Well instead of Apple promoting new artists music helping them to become more noticeable as payment enough I guess the fans can simply go to Bit Torrent and get the music for free to listen to Permanently. Pick your poison.

 

[thekeyring]

I'm not reading 23 pages of posts so apologies is someone has made this point before. Does TS think that after 3 months her fans will be bored with her music and won't listen once they've started paying for Apple Music? There are still plenty of people that won't pay anything for music/films/telly/books/comics/software and apple is offering her a revenue stream maybe after 3 months that people are likely to pay for and she's complaining about this? I have Spotify Premium and TS isn't on that either, maybe Apple should ban her from iTunes and everyone can get her content from CDs or torrents?

I assumed this, too. But her open letter does say that she knows she'll be fine, but she's worried about emerging artists.

It doesn't quite make sense why she hasn't put her music on Apple Music, though.

 

[Karma*Police]

Eddy Cue needs to go. He's accomplished nothing: Siri still sucks, constant outages to Apple network services and no innovation in his department. He likes to brag about owning a Ferrari and on stage he comes off as a complete tool compared to the other, pretty down-to-earth Apple executives.

He thought buying Beats and Jimmy Iovine is going to be some magical thing that saves his ass. I can't believe Cook fell for his BS. Cut the losses, integrate the headphone business and let Cue go along with Jimmy and Dre.

I agree about letting Eddy go. He's clearly the weak link in Apple's software, hardware and services strategy. He was always known as a "maintenance guy" for a reason.

Plus, I think he's made his money and now he's coasting. It happens. Steve recognized it when it happened to Avie Tevanian and Jon Rubenstein and they were eventually let go.

That said, having worked in the media industry for a few years, I have no problem with the 3 month free trial. In fact, the smaller musicians who are struggling have the least to lose and the most to gain from the free exposure. It's the big artists like Taylor that have the most to lose. They're just trying to make this into a David vs Goliath story to try and sway public opinion to gain leverage over Apple in their negotiations.

 

[HenryDJP]

This isn't about a free streaming music service, imho. This is about Apple telling someone they will not be paid for their product even though Apple is using it to promote theirs.

And the only way for Apple to promote their product is to promote artists right, which is what Music is setup to do. Oh there goes your argument.

 

[Peace]

Man I really wish some of you would stop using computer/car analogies.

Computers are not creative. Cars don't think. Humans create. Humans think.

I've been a musician for 50 years. I have played country,jazz,acid rock,blues and a few other genres.

Creativity is just that. It's what comes from the mind not the keyboard.

With that I'd say if you're going to complain about free music streaming for 3 months take it up with the music label . And while you're at it if you wish to link other artists work on your Twitter account like @antonnewcombe does on his twitter account you better be prepared to pay that artist you link because you are getting free publicity from other artists work. Hypocrisy has run rampant in the music industry.

 

[Paradoxally]

I forgot to say this before... Thank god I don't have any chance of hearing 1989 when I subscribe to apple music ... Weird... T Swift still has the rest of her catalogue ready to stream... Maybe she realizes it sucks an no one will listen anyway... Or maybe she wants to rake in all that dough$$?

Either way - she sucks, apple was gracious enough to allow her a shot at being on the apple streaming juggernaut and she blew it hard.

Streaming is the future. Don't fight the future.

Steaming is good. Drink the kool aid.

It's tastes like apples.

Nice try.

 

[HenryDJP]

Clearly this is a bone of contention. Apple should just not have a 3 month trial certainly not initially....maybe later down the road. Surely there has got to be some compromise.

Right so the consumer has to take the hit because of these poor artists...

 

[joeblough]

The smaller, Indie labels haven't been offered the opportunity to negotiate. It's Apple ways' or no way.

again though, it's been stated multiple times that apple's post-trial percentage to the artists is higher than what the other streaming services are paying. the point being that after a while the labels, indie or not, recover the money from the free streaming time, and then some.

apple isn't going to negotiate with a zillion indie labels one-by-one. if those labels want representation then it would make sense for them to "unionize" and have one meta indie-label that comes to the table to negotiate these deals.

taylor swift could not give a rat's ass about all those indie artists. she's doing the same thing the jonestown massacre guy did - trying to get publicity and look like a saint while doing it.

 

[Studioman]

Pretty valid point. I was under the assumption Apple was just eating up the costs for 3 months. We'll see if this picks up more traction and changes anything.

In reality they are. Any promotional CDs promotions ads placed etc have never been paid. In fact the artist are billed for all of this out of their royalties. So, a three month trail that uses Apples infrastructure and bandwidth is a cost they could bill for. Instead they chose to eat the cost and only payout the agreed to percentage. 0 x 70% = 0

 

[ugahairydawgs]

There's no "right" or "wrong" side of this argument. She's right that artists should be paid for their work, but the part that she and many in the music industry seem to not to be able to grasp is the fact that this is an evolving market. The same way artists were hesitant and not understanding the benefit of going digital so too are they about the shift from buying media to licensing it through streaming. A revenue stream needs to exist in order for an artist to be compensated, so in effect she is asking Apple to serve as a welfare system for artists during the free trial period. That's not really practical either.

So what's the good solution to this problem? Heck if I know. I'm sure there are people in this industry far smarter than me that have been trying to figure it out and, so far, this is the best idea they've been able to conjure. Maybe they ultimately ax the three month free trial and make everyone pay from the outset, offering a full refund if done during a particular time.

 

[johngordon]

Not really. Have you listened to her old discography? Way better imo. Speak Now was fantastic.

I have, and liked a lot of it.

1989 is still a great pop record.

 

[HenryDJP]

Apple refusing to pay artist's during this trial just conveys to me that Apple does not value their music or just cannot afford to pay them..

Apple should just pay the artists whatever value their music brings to their service.

Okay but would you be wiling to just sign up with no trial? That way the artists will get compensated. If not then you're doing the same thing you're accusing Apple of. After all, you're the consumer that will be enjoying the music. Shouldn't you pay without a trial?

 

[lazard]

Okay but would you be wiling to just sign up with no trial? That way the artists will get compensated. If not then you're doing the same thing you're accusing Apple of. After all, you're the consumer that will be enjoying the music. Shouldn't you pay without a trial?

All Apple had to do was offer a standard 1 month free trial. The fact is they upped it to 3 months to steal away customers from Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, etc. and are making the artists pick up the tab.

 

[Jrfrost]

Sheesh! She said she's not personally affected, but she's worried about the independent/smaller artists. She's going to make her money either way.

The problem here is that people are generally math challenged, so they can't see that it's entirely possible that most artists will be paid more under Apple's system than they would under another system that pays them throughout the trial period. It all depends on the retention rates. Maybe Apple should offer both as options: 71.5% after the trial period or 70% all the time. If I were an artist, I'd expect this to be successful for Apple (high retention rates) and so I'd choose 71.5% after the trial period.

It takes 12 years to recover the lost income for every subscriber that switches services. Or generate 3 new subscribers who don't currently subscribed to a service for everyone that switches to recover the lost income in 12 months.

But again that's not really the problem, the problem is when current subscribers and people who but there music decide to try the new service free for 3 months and and stop spending for 3 months.

So they go from their current income to something less depending on many people switch or stop buying for 3 months.

J

 

[Dunkrag]

But if people want to keep listening to those albums, add them to playlists etc then they will have to pay monthly eventually, OR buy them in the traditional sense. And they will still be paid via other services like Spotify and rdio.

Money artists got from Apple Music before it was launched: 0
Money artists get after 3 months after Apple Music launch: Actual money

this is rubbish..

It should be
Money artist WOULD HAVE GOT from Spotify - (or any other streaming music service) between July and October 2015 - Actual Money
Money artist now gets from Apple Music between July and October 2015 as a result of cancelled subscription to other services and lack of use from other services due to Apple trial - bugger all..