Country music, for me, is better than modern pop music. Autotune is everywhere in pop, not so much in country. Artists like Carrie Underwood are worth 10 pop artists, easily.
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
Country music, for me, is better than modern pop music. Autotune is everywhere in pop, not so much in country. Artists like Carrie Underwood are worth 10 pop artists, easily.
yes I would and so would many others based on the postings here clamoring for Apple music. I've been using subscription services from before Spotify was around. They are awesome.
Anyways, why do I need a trial to enjoy a service so revolutionary?
Can someone explain this issue little more to me, please? I'm little confused why is it such a huge problem.
Here is what I see for now so please correct me or direct me where I need to see things:
1) If a customer joins for free he will only stream music - ie. he will listen to it just like he would if it was on a radio
2) If he then decides to join, the artist will get money (monthly?) from that artist (correct?)
3) If that is the case then the artist will get money
4) If customer doesn't join then the artist won't get any money but the customer probably wouldn't join in the first place so it would be like in point 1) (just listening music on radio)
5) If there is no Apple Music then there is no money for the artist anyway (if we ignore other services for now) and the situation will be the same at least for 3 months
6) How is the ~72% distributed to the artists? Is it split between all the songs that given customer was listening to? If its not, then how?
7) If the customer goes on holiday and doesn't use the service for a whole month then who gets the money?
I see streaming the same way like listening to the radio. It is something that you pay for your household so essentially those 3 months make no difference as if I wasn't listening to new things on a streaming service like apple music then i would i would hear the new songs on radio anyway. As a result, I the customer, would hear that song anyway without any additional cost. Its not like the radios don't play new songs rarely, they play new stuff all the bloody times so even if you hate a song you often can't escape from it.
))
So, what am I missing, please?
Here is what I see for now so please correct me or direct me where I need to see things:
1) If a customer joins for free he will only stream music - ie. he will listen to it just like he would if it was on a radio
2) If he then decides to join, the artist will get money (monthly?) from that artist (correct?)
3) If that is the case then the artist will get money
4) If customer doesn't join then the artist won't get any money but the customer probably wouldn't join in the first place so it would be like in point 1) (just listening music on radio)
5) If there is no Apple Music then there is no money for the artist anyway (if we ignore other services for now) and the situation will be the same at least for 3 months
6) How is the ~72% distributed to the artists? Is it split between all the songs that given customer was listening to? If its not, then how?
7) If the customer goes on holiday and doesn't use the service for a whole month then who gets the money?
I see streaming the same way like listening to the radio. It is something that you pay for your household so essentially those 3 months make no difference as if I wasn't listening to new things on a streaming service like apple music then i would i would hear the new songs on radio anyway. As a result, I the customer, would hear that song anyway without any additional cost. Its not like the radios don't play new songs rarely, they play new stuff all the bloody times so even if you hate a song you often can't escape from it.
))So, what am I missing, please?
Everyone who does.. or stops using it.
Every play that AM gets between July and October that would have previously gone to any other service is money the artist is not getting..
But that's not what you're saying though. You're saying Apple should foot the bill for your listening pleasure during the 3 month trial period. Based on your reply to me it would be more logical if you were posting encouraging others here to pay for a subscription and nix the 3 month trial.
If the independent labels don't like the deal they can reject it. It's the free market at work. It's silly to say it's forced on them. No one is forced to do a deal.
I'm only changing from Spotify to Apple music, only if they offer me a plus (better streaming quality, exclusive bonus songs, etc) if they offer none of them i'm gonna stay with Spotify.
They can't, Apple saved them!
But talking seriously they can't, streaming is here to stay, show me something different then will be talking.
Artist are getting free promotion on a platform that already has the users credit card number. If they are enjoying the service and their music is kept after the trail the artist get paid. As a musician and artist I prefer this over the never ending ad supported trail that truly can cost me money. The payout is a fraction of the paid tier which is a fraction of a sale. In this model there is no incentive to pay, beyond ad free, meaning they can keep a CD forever and never pay a cent. With Apple pay, if they don't pay after 90 days, they would have to buy the it if they want to keep listening.
Why use bread priced at £1 rather than streams at $0.007?
So if one person streams a song about 1,285,000 times the artist will lose £9,000?
Although if an artist is getting streamed that much, they are probably selling enough copies of the track to earn far more than that anyway.
She's right. Artists depend on sales to make a living and to not pay these artists is wrong.
A couple days ago BuzzFeed reported that Taylor Swift's new album, "1989", would not be available to stream on Apple Music, denying the service of one of the best-selling albums of the last two years. Today, Swift penned an open letter to the Cupertino company explaining her decision.
Swift, who calls Apple one of her best partners in selling her music, says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury. She explains that her sentiments about the three-month free trial are echoed by "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much."
She goes on to say that she understands Apple is working toward a goal of paid streaming and that Apple Music could be the first streaming service that "gets it right" in her eyes in regards to artist compensation. However, she also points out that Apple is "astronomically successful" and could afford to pay artists, writers and producers during the three-month free trial. She closes the open letter asking Apple to reconsider its policy.
This isn't the first time Apple has received criticism for not paying labels and artists royalties during the 3-month free trial. Last week, indie labels from the United Kingdom who housed artists like Adele argued that the trial period would "put people out of business". Singer-songwriter Anton Newcombe also spoke out about the policy, claiming the Cupertino company threatened to ban his music from iTunes if he did not accept no royalties during the 3-month free trial. Apple denied the claim.
Apple Music will launch in just under 10 days, going live on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. After the service's free three-month trial it will cost $9.99 per month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families up to 6.
Article Link: Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
Really? Hmm. I don't know what posts you've been reading. Every person I've called out (except for you) about them paying upfront rather than the free subscription is ignoring my replies because deep down they just want to show hatred towards Apple rather than fulfilling the big picture. If they want these artists paid so badly then ditch the freemiums and trials and pay.
That is an excellent point - the fact that people would be happy to pay nothing for three months, but except Apple to pay something.
I suppose Apple could afford to pick up the tab, but that misses the point if its all about the principle.
Can someone explain this issue little more to me, please? I'm little confused why is it such a huge problem.
Here is what I see for now so please correct me or direct me where I need to see things:
1) If a customer joins for free he will only stream music - ie. he will listen to it just like he would if it was on a radio
2) If he then decides to join, the artist will get money (monthly?) from that artist (correct?)
3) If that is the case then the artist will get money
4) If customer doesn't join then the artist won't get any money but the customer probably wouldn't join in the first place so it would be like in point 1) (just listening music on radio)
5) If there is no Apple Music then there is no money for the artist anyway (if we ignore other services for now) and the situation will be the same at least for 3 months
6) How is the ~72% distributed to the artists? Is it split between all the songs that given customer was listening to? If its not, then how?
7) If the customer goes on holiday and doesn't use the service for a whole month then who gets the money?
I see streaming the same way like listening to the radio. It is something that you pay for your household so essentially those 3 months make no difference as if I wasn't listening to new things on a streaming service like apple music then i would i would hear the new songs on radio anyway. As a result, I the customer, would hear that song anyway without any additional cost. Its not like the radios don't play new songs rarely, they play new stuff all the bloody times so even if you hate a song you often can't escape from it.
So, what am I missing, please?
When you listen on the radio the radio station pays royalties
Urgh, the amount of apologists in this thread makes my skin crawl.
There's no way to defend Apple not paying artists for using their content to promote Apple's own service. It's not about 'cancelling the trial', or "Greedy artists' etc. it's about Apple stumping the bill the content creators deserve.
Stop being such tools and realise Apple's pulling a major douche move.
There's no way to defend Apple not paying artists for using their content to promote Apple's own service. It's not about 'cancelling the trial', or "Greedy artists' etc. it's about Apple stumping the bill the content creators deserve.
Stop being such tools and realise Apple's pulling a major douche move.
Carry Underwood hasn't been relevant in ages. Why? She never evolved her music. She's singing the same thing the same way over and over again. No one is here for it. Like Apple an artist can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect people to be interested. Artists need to evolve their craft. If thats selling out to other genre's, so be it. Taylor Swift doesn't have to do what constitutes country music these days because people are here for her more pop sounding music as well. Taylor was also kind of a country pop hybrid.
I don't think she needs money but i'm pretty sure they guys behind her do (music industry) there are huge interests behind.
Also she has a pretty valid point why to give her music for free when Apple is rotten in money lol
In those 3 months she would make 0 while her music catalog would be getting streamed millions of times. It'd actually make her lose even more money, if potential buyers of her album chose to stream it for free instead of buying it.
I can't think of any artist in their right mind embracing the 3 month trial, it'd be as smart of them as tweeting links to torrents of their music. Although they shouldn't really blame Apple, but the labels that agreed on it instead.
Well these are Apple related forums, you know, most of the people are gonna support Apple unconditionally, which is fine, that is completely normal.
Last edited:
I agree, but he is worth the PR by being an example of non-caucasian individual in an executive position. At least that's how he is perceived in this modern business world where social value is a greater asset than ability to foster innovation.
Can someone explain this issue little more to me, please? I'm little confused why is it such a huge problem.
Here is what I see for now so please correct me or direct me where I need to see things:
1) If a customer joins for free he will only stream music - ie. he will listen to it just like he would if it was on a radio
2) If he then decides to join, the artist will get money (monthly?) from that artist (correct?)
3) If that is the case then the artist will get money
4) If customer doesn't join then the artist won't get any money but the customer probably wouldn't join in the first place so it would be like in point 1) (just listening music on radio)
5) If there is no Apple Music then there is no money for the artist anyway (if we ignore other services for now) and the situation will be the same at least for 3 months
6) How is the ~72% distributed to the artists? Is it split between all the songs that given customer was listening to? If its not, then how?
7) If the customer goes on holiday and doesn't use the service for a whole month then who gets the money?
I see streaming the same way like listening to the radio. It is something that you pay for your household so essentially those 3 months make no difference as if I wasn't listening to new things on a streaming service like apple music then i would i would hear the new songs on radio anyway. As a result, I the customer, would hear that song anyway without any additional cost. Its not like the radios don't play new songs rarely, they play new stuff all the bloody times so even if you hate a song you often can't escape from it.
So, what am I missing, please?
Radio pays out, the issue is if people who currently subscribed to a rival service or buy music try this for 3 months and they stop their current subscription or buying music.
This means no income from these months for three months.
J
With Family Sharing, Apple FORCED app developers to give away four extra copies of each app for one sale (5 copies total). If a developer did not agree to the new terms, they could not submit new apps or updates of existing apps. Those terms effectively kicks you out of the store if you don't capitulate.
"No one" (big/significant) said a peep in the software industry because Family Sharing only affected small developers. When small shops go out of business, the big companies (including Apple) reap the rewards from less competition for employees. Family sharing was a direct hostile attack on developers by Apple.
Thanks Ms Swift! Glad to see someone standing up to Apple.
"No one" (big/significant) said a peep in the software industry because Family Sharing only affected small developers. When small shops go out of business, the big companies (including Apple) reap the rewards from less competition for employees. Family sharing was a direct hostile attack on developers by Apple.
Thanks Ms Swift! Glad to see someone standing up to Apple.