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

[Paradoxally]

OK - as you're a music snob

I don't see how you can say one is better than the other.

There will be all of the following:

- good country songs
- bad pop songs
- good pop songs
- bad country songs

And a lot of the good pop songs are probably a lot better then the bad country songs.

IMO 1989 is full of great pop songs.

I did say for me. I didn't say "stop listening to crappy pop music and go listen to [insert genre here]". That would be the definition of a snob. I am simply strongly opinionated.

The problem with pop music nowadays it that its too fake and manipulated. Highly processed vocals and autotuned to "perfection" makes music sound great, but then you go watch them live...and it's a disappointment (unless they're lip-syncing, which is common).

There will always be good music and bad music, even though a lot of that is down to subjectivity. However, as a whole, I believe rock, country, R&B, etc...all provide a better musical experience than mainstream pop because autotune isn't as prevalent and it takes talent to actually perform a great live show. Look at Aretha Franklin, Guns n' Roses, Bon Jovi, Blake Shelton, Garth Brooks, Carrie Underwood...I could go on and on. They don't need a computer or lip syncing for them to sound good, whereas when it comes to artists like Meghan Trainor, Iggy Azalea, Maroon 5, etc...not so much.

There is no mainstream band as good as Pink Floyd or even Dire Straits nowadays. Not one. And I bet no current artist will make the next DSOTM.

If people want to listen to those artists, by all means. I just simply think that about 98% of mainstream pop is generic at best and an abomination at worse. It is nowhere near the 80s or 90s quality (not that there weren't bad songs, but way less than today).

But then again I'm not part of generation Z, so I don't see the appeal in today's pop music sans some artists.

 

[HenryDJP]

Failed relationships?

Why the hell is Taylor Swift holding the music world at ransom?

I do get your point but she most certainly isn't that powerful. Spotify let her go and Apple will too.

 

[antmarobel]

Someone must say her there is always Jack Sparrow...

 

[AdonisSMU]

I'm sorry but you're entire posts speaks nothing but your own opinion and not facts. Carrie Underwood's current song on Spotify #25 of the top 40 in country music. I don't even listen her music as I am not a country music fan but I don't have to be one to know who's relevant. She's very relevant. At least she holds true to her craft.

Taylor Swift jumped out of the country bandwagon very shortly after her interaction with Kanye West. But it's okay, go ahead and support FAKE artists because that's what they are when they do what she did. I mean, an ARTIST is a person of craft IMO and not one who just wants a ton of tween Twitter followers and puts out music for the masses just because it's gonna make them instantly rich.

What is her album selling? What is the TEAS? http://www.billboard.com/charts/on-demand-songs for on demand streaming Carry Underwood isnt even Top 25. It combines Spotify streams with the rest.... You are talking to the guy with encyclopedic knowledge of the charts... Yes Carry Underwood was the It girl for awhile but she peaked awhile ago.

 

[diazj3]

I don't listen to Swift's music... but I agree with her. Apple is pulling another greedy douche move here... again.

Do Apple executives, programmers and employees get paid during the trail period? Yes.
Do music label executives get paid during the trail period? Yes.

Apple should pay the artists - trail or not. As simple as that.

I wonder if Apple will respond... I think they should.

Or, will they ignore it and just go Steve Jobs on this one?

 

[Paradoxally]

I don't listen to Swift's music... but I agree with her. Apple is pulling another greedy douche move here... again.

Do Apple executives, programmers and employees get paid during the trail period? Yes.
Do music label executives get paid during the trail period? Yes.

Apple should pay the artists - trail or not. As simple as that.

I wonder if Apple will respond... I think they should.

Or, will they ignore it and just go Steve Jobs on this one?

Who will pay for hosting? Apple.
Who will pay for bandwidth? Apple (well, and you).
Storage? Apple.
Marketing? Apple.

You either like it or not. I think Apple has every right to offer a free trial, artists can agree or disagree with their terms and look elsewhere. But when they come looking for that Apple promo, I'm sure Apple will laugh.

 

[WilliamLondon]

And what does Apple want? Oh right, they're not in it for the cash, they're in it to make the world a better place.

I always knew you were a Taylor Swift fan! It so fits!!

 

[jessedholm]

I've a 6+ 128GBs I don't care about apple music or spotify. I just torrent everything.

THIS!!!! Someone else said Swift needs to back off or people will go back to piracy.....I guess I didn't get the memo stating piracy was a thing of the past.

 

[lazard]

Out of curiosity, and because I genuinely do not know, does Spotify pay artists during their free trial period? Or Tidal? Or any other subscription service?

Spotify pays royalties during free trial.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I have not read the whole thread but what I have read does not address what I see as the two main issues. 1 is that Apple is paying the artists because of the extra fees they get after the trial, for ever. These extra payments come out of Apple's cash pile...

I did the math many pages back. If Apple paid for everyone that might take the free trial, it should work out to about 2.2 Billion dollars or less (I am assuming as many as 100 MILLION people will give this a try, which is a BIG, BIG assumption by itself), much less than they paid for Beats and much less than they make in profit for ONE QUARTER. While $2.2B may seem like a LOT of money, relative to Apple's cash hoard, it is so, so small. They'll probably make more than that in profit THIS month.

After the ONE quarter, those that want to keep the subscription going pay the industry rate, of which about 72% will flow through to the labels and artists. So Apple wouldn't be subsidizing users any longer as those subscribers would be paying their own way. The cash hoard would no longer be tapped for this. In fact, conceptually, this will yield so many paying subscribers that all that new money from Apple taking about 28% right off the top will quickly make up for the up-to-$2.2B one-time marketing expense and then keep piling on forever-after. Assuming a good number choose to pay for the subscription, Apple's profits will simply expand on this service and grow and grow.

The gist of the message here is that for a relatively small amount of money ONCE that Apple could write off as marketing expense (and thus reduce tax liability) they can do what they want to do AND make everyone happy. Instead, they are making the content creators UNhappy because Apple has shifted the cost of these 3 months to them, none of which are sitting on >$200 Billion in the bank, nor making several Billion in profits per month. Those feeling the most pain are worried about a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars per month during the trial but some of us are thinking about them like they are all Taylor Swift and roughly on par with Apple in this "tremendous business venture" that they didn't get to negotiate or even formulate.

If it was Walmart in place of Apple, would we be so quick to condemn the artists? Samsung? Google? Microsoft? But because it's Apple vs. ________ whoever can be put in the blank is the bad guy showing their greed, seeking attention, troll, short-sighted, etc. We're at about 800 posts in this thread. It reads like 90% think Apple is very right and these artists are very wrong. I wonder if it was a Samsung thread, if our convictions would be as strong in favor of Samsung. Conceptually, they should be pretty close given the underlying aspects of this situation. But we all know our view of it would probably flip entirely if this was Samsung Music service vs. the artists.

 

[the8thark]

"THESE ARE NOT THE COMPLAINTS OF A SPOILED, PETULANT CHILD"
Ahem yes they are. I think someone like her should realise that iTunes and Apple Music is not the only way to go. You should diversify your options.

Jimmy Iovine knows what he is doing with Apple music. He's an industry leading expert. Apple Music will not miss Taylor swift.

Also she needs to wake up to music of the time 1900 to 1985. The only way to get your music out was on vinyl (or at the end CD) through a record company who took a huge chunk of the revenue. The producer and artist themselves were paid a pittance. This was one of the big reasons that people wanted to move away from that model of business for the music industry.

If she has all her eggs in the Apple music basket and not elsewhere like other streaming services, physical media
is physical stores, here loss.
And finally, yes people do expect free iPhones. Most people are not paying over $500 outright for their phones. They pay a small outright cost and slowly pay the rest off over the 24 months of their phone contract. You are essentially paying your phone off. In a similar way Taylor Swift should realise that for Apple Music, Jimmy Iovine has it so you start making revenue after the free period, and till that time you have your other revenue streams as I have mentioned above. If all your eggs are in the Apple Music basket, then that's your loss.

New artists should be doing the same. The new artists should have their tracks on iTunes too. So people can purchase them if they want to. Diversification is the name of the game in music these days. You just can't have physic media, you can't just have iTunes, you can't just have streaming services like Pandora, Spotify or Apple Music. You need a combination of them all to survive.

People need to wake up to reality. This is business. If Apple can't get enough content in Apple Music because of it's practices there, then Apple Music will die. That simple. Apple and Jimmy Iovine have a lot of combined experience in the music industry. I seriously would just wait and see how it pans out.
And ignore the rants of one "spoiled petulant child".

 

[buckwheet]

Taylor Swift hates streaming. Considering she's one of a few artists in an era of torrenting that can still sell over a million album the first week it drops....

This is precisely why she, and any artist really, has a right to be unhappy about Apple's free trial period. Very few albums last for more than a few weeks at the top of the charts. In the pop world, being new is everything. If your album happens to "drop" during the trial, you're kinda screwed. (I suppose labels should just be smart about timings of releases during the trial period...)

 

[ximdotro]

I'm sure she needs the money...but also Apple won't make a cent out of the trial period too. Without "free" streams which generate some revenue, people will go back to piracy.. unfortunatelly.

 

[Paradoxally]

If it was Walmart in place of Apple, would we be so quick to condemn the artists? Samsung? Google? Microsoft? But because it's Apple vs. ________ whoever can be put in the blank is the bad guy showing their greed, seeking attention, troll, short-sighted, etc. We're at about 800 posts in this thread. It reads like 90% think Apple is very right and these artists are very wrong. I wonder if it was a Samsung thread, if our convictions would be as strong in favor of Samsung. Conceptually, they should be pretty close given the underlying aspects of this situation. But we all know our view of it would probably flip entirely if this was Samsung Music service vs. the artists.

Well obviously, this is MacRumors, not CopyPasta Forums.

 

[dave2010]

Apple should respond by offering to cover the free trial for lesser known artists. After all, Taylor Swift said she's not worried about herself so all the top artists can just be excluded.

 

[kagharaht]

I listen to Radio, if I like the song I buy it. I also listen to iTunes Radio. If I like the song I also buy it. I'll soon sign up for Apple Music. If I like the song I hear during the free trial period, I'll buy it. If I sign on for monthly use and I like the songs I hear, then I'll buy it. So whats the big deal then? Nothing!

 

[marco114]

Here's the things Talyor Swift isn't considering:

• Apple spent TONS on R&D, Advertising, employee labor, and negotiations to ramp up the service
• Apple has millions of customers with credit cards on file ready to buy
• Apple has brand loyalty
• Apple has millions of devices ready to play their songs.

If the artists just think of all the new customers they will be getting later on.. they should just live with it. It's a cost of doing business. Maybe they can declare a loss on their taxes if it's really that bad. Getting customers accustomed to the service by offering a free trial will get people addicted to using the service.

 

[Rogifan]

Can someone explain exactly what Apple's $3B acquisition of Beats was for? If Jimmy Iovine is supposed to be a music business genius we're not seeing it here. The Apple Music announcement was an unfocused, self indulgent mess and ever since has been a PR nightmare for Apple. How could Cue and Iovine not have all their i's dotted and t's crossed before they launched this thing?!?

 

[Paradoxally]

Can someone explain exactly what Apple's $3B acquisition of Beats was for? If Jimmy Iovine is supposed to be a music business genius we're not seeing it here. The Apple Music announcement was an unfocused, self indulgent mess and ever since has been a PR nightmare for Apple. How could Cue and Iovine not have all their i's dotted and t's crossed before they launched this thing?!?

Cue was an issue. Iovine was a bit awkward presenting the whole thing, but his intentions were good.

 

[lazard]

Here's the things Talyor Swift isn't considering:

• Apple spent TONS on R&D, Advertising, employee labor, and negotiations to ramp up the service
• Apple has millions of customers with credit cards on file ready to buy
• Apple has brand loyalty
• Apple has millions of devices ready to play their songs.

If the artists just think of all the new customers they will be getting later on.. they should just live with it. It's a cost of doing business. Maybe they can declare a loss on their taxes if it's really that bad. Getting customers accustomed to the service by offering a free trial will get people addicted to using the service.

tons of R&D...lol...comment of the day.

 

[aylk]

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.

They're not really good fans of yours if they would do that.

Most of them are not fans, they just like the songs. I much rather listen to the music I like without ads than with them, so if I have an ad free alternative why would I listen to Pandora, XM Radio or free Spotify?

Apple Music is effectively taking away my indirect pay listeners, and asking me to let them use the music I produced for free. That's under the assumption that they will be paying me more later on from direct paying customers if it works out.

The truth is that most of these listeners are not going to subscribe to Apple Music after the three month period, they will be back to whoever lets them listen to music for free, so I'm sacrificing months of income during a record release window for the small amount that I will get from direct paying customers from Apple Music down the road. It's not like Apple is going to be paying significantly more royalties than Spotify or Pandora.

The thing is that I really have no choice. I can refuse to put my music on Apple Music, but that would make no difference because it is not realistic to think that people are going to stay on Spotify or Pandora because of my songs. So yes Apple is being disruptive again, but this time they are only disrupting the livelihoods of independent musicians.

 

[ximdotro]

Here's the things Talyor Swift isn't considering:

• Apple spent TONS on R&D, Advertising, employee labor, and negotiations to ramp up the service
• Apple has millions of customers with credit cards on file ready to buy
• Apple has brand loyalty
• Apple has millions of devices ready to play their songs.

If the artists just think of all the new customers they will be getting later on.. they should just live with it. It's a cost of doing business. Maybe they can declare a loss on their taxes if it's really that bad. Getting customers accustomed to the service by offering a free trial will get people addicted to using the service.

exactly ...It's just that they're not thinking on long terms

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Without "free" streams which generate some revenue, people will go back to piracy.. unfortunatelly.

If that's true, we better hope Apple's plan here fails. Why? Because after 3 months, the free stream from Apple ends and we all have to pay to keep it coming.

Or maybe you are making a case for Spotify which does offer a free, ad-sponsored (or ad subsidized) tier? I don't think that can fly around here either as the collective has already pretty much recast Spotify as the enemy since Apple has decided to roll out a service that directly competes with Spotify. What's interesting there is right after the announcement, we began spinning this idea that Spotify robs the artists of getting paid with their free tier (ignoring that there is an ad-based subsidy in that tier), implying that Apple will take care of the artists. And here lately as this has come out and the artists are calling out for help, we're faulting the artists for wanting to get paid as being greedy, short-sighted, and so on. More simply, Spotify is bad for not taking care of the artists and the artists are bad for not taking care of the artists. Only Apple is good.

Personally, I think neither service is for the "...or I'll just steal it" crowd. Neither can compete with ad-free, free. For that group, apparently music is worthless, often rationalized by putting it to the "evil" and/or "greedy" labels by stealing it rather than paying them and "the artists don't make anything anyway."

 

[crabbo]

Guess the money is better kept within Apple then given to artists who create and deserve rewarding, especially the smaller indie artists.

If the product is so good, why cant Apple treat the royalties as an investment.

Still, someone has to pay for all the crazy R&D Apple is doing to innovate their hardware and software. Apple is like a magic factory lately with all the innovation.

 

[warnerve]

since streaming is so bad, lets just go back to our old ways and download everything for free at piratebay