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
It might be its service but the utilities won't be 100% for Apple...so artist should face the truth, things are not for free...
The double standards are real. Watch how many people here will sign up next week for AM.
The problem is many artists don’t have the luxury of saying no, because they’re signed to, let’s say WBR. Not all artists are millionaires. Many of them are small regional artists which are signed to WBR’s regional office. And they can’t do s**t about WBR’s decision.
The fact that Apple is also not making profit in those 3 months is not valid for me. It’s their service, their risk. Why should they also put my money on the table when I don’t want to take the risk?
Then struggling artists, the ones the concern is supposed to be all about, will lose about $2, but potentially earn more than they otherwise would have if Apple Music didn't launch.
Again, for all the huffing and puffing, when you actually plug some numbers into any of this, it doesn't hold much water.
No. Because people who would prefer to listen to music for free rather than buy the album are already listening for free on Spotify. Difference here is that those people won't be able to listen to the album for free forever on Apple Music like they can on Spotify.
How much revenue does a typical struggling artist typically make from streaming in 3 months?
Yeah its pretty complex, so far i can't give my support to any of them (not that they need it either LOL).
Both parts only know their game.
Where I come from some dealers will actually give you a week long test drive if it's not an in-demand model.
I'm pretty sure most car makers are pretty familiar to car buyers and they know roughly what to expect when they go out and test drive a car. Netflix, Spotify and most other streaming services have ether trial or free versions of their services. The only difference is that Apple went with a trial longer than the usual month.
Trust the fact that she did this for self promotion and nothing more. Notice how many posts, over 1000 now, are about her. If this was truly about the needs of Indie artists she would've named a bunch of them to help them out. She didn't. She just mentioned Indie artists to gain leverage . She did this to promote herself and I'll bet she was pushed by her record label. You can also trust the fact that she doesn't have your best interest at heart like you have hers.
What you're saying probably also happened when Spotify came around, then Google Music, etc. History has a tendency of repeating itself.
Potentially alot of them could be furious, they just can't do anything about it.
The majority of artists didn't make that decision, their label did because the label owns their music, they dont. Nobody had to call the majority these artists because they're not the ones who own their music or make that decision.
Taylor Swift is on a small indie label where she is by far the biggest star and probably makes them 90% of their money so she is in a very unique situation where she has the type of clout where if she wants something done her label will usually oblige to it.
Artists signed to major labels can't do that. Which is why she states she's taking a stand for those who can't.
Utilities won't be 100% for Apple after the 3 month trial either...yeah its their service but utilities those are shared..
I read the first two pages of comments and part of this one.
I can't sit here all night reading 37.5 pages when I already know the results. 25% hate Apple, 25% hate Taylor Swift, all the rest just posted here because they confuse wisdom with seeing their screen name in public. Oh, and two people will find a way to make this about Beats, while twelve respondents will try to twist it into a Bose thing...
As I read it, this policy of Apple's does seem to be discriminating. It discriminates against all artists who are artists now, and it doesn't discriminate against people who might not form their band or release their recordings for another 3 months.
So can artists just say "skip it" until September?
On the flip side of that, I've heard some entrepreneurs say that they've never made so much money in their lives as they did when they started giving things away for free. Promotions, drawings, giveaways, contests, gifting in a charity drawing, etc. It builds goodwill (or something), and generates interest...which often translates into increased revenue. You can't have profit without first bringing in revenue.
I can't sit here all night reading 37.5 pages when I already know the results. 25% hate Apple, 25% hate Taylor Swift, all the rest just posted here because they confuse wisdom with seeing their screen name in public. Oh, and two people will find a way to make this about Beats, while twelve respondents will try to twist it into a Bose thing...
As I read it, this policy of Apple's does seem to be discriminating. It discriminates against all artists who are artists now, and it doesn't discriminate against people who might not form their band or release their recordings for another 3 months.
So can artists just say "skip it" until September?
On the flip side of that, I've heard some entrepreneurs say that they've never made so much money in their lives as they did when they started giving things away for free. Promotions, drawings, giveaways, contests, gifting in a charity drawing, etc. It builds goodwill (or something), and generates interest...which often translates into increased revenue. You can't have profit without first bringing in revenue.
But those artists won't dare go against their label, or they will likely just terminate their contract. Swift has freedom, as you said, they don't. That's not gonna change even with her letter.
In your previous post all you talked about were the record companies. I won't go into the fact that today more than ever artists are putting out records on their own, with their own money without the backing of a label at all. There are several revenue streams for music artists, one of which is PUBLISHING. Publishing royalties are a huge part of income for any artist - these are independent from songs or records sold. These are paid out each time a song is played on the radio, TV, in a movie, a commercial or streamed.
So, what most people don't understand in this thread is that no artists will be paid any writer's/publishing royalties on anything streamed for 3 months. It's pretty crappy really as Apple can way more than afford it.
I think a great solution and compromise for all involved would be to give the free trial to all but retroactively pay all royalties based on subscribers that sign up with Apple Music once the trail is over. It's not perfect but it is certainly better than paying the artists nothing.
I would be shocked if the dollar amount of the royalties was over $500 million for the 3 month trial period. As we know, that is less than pocket change for Apple to do the right thing here.
These are indie bands and indie publishers she's standing up for here. They aren't comparable to the big labels Swift is likely signed up on.
Its entirely subjective, but I don't think its band at all - its choice full of insanely catchy pop songs.
Time out. Here she is in a clip with a British DJ miming Blank Space:
I respect you opinion but disagree. Neither of us know her. She’s controversial in a way that half of the people love her and half do not believe a single word she says. I’m kinda in the middle. Skeptical but not hateful towards her. At least people are talking about it. We’ll see if other artists join in.
She's not wrong. This is the business she is in and has a vested interest. You can not agree with her, but that doesn't make her wrong. Nor does anything she wrote warrant comments about how much much she's earned doing her job. She's entitled to every penny. And no - she doesn't need this "issue" to be relevant. I'm pretty sure she's very much in the spotlight without it. And I'm not even a TS fan. But wow are some of the comments in this thread so off base. Enlightening... but off base.
Last week it was all about how great Apple Music was because Taylor Swift was on the platform. This week, Taylor swift is garbage because she criticises Apple
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you?
Last edited by a moderator:
And apple is giving 3 months free to the consumer so you don't have to pay a premium to see if you like service or not. And they are a bully? If you want them to pay the artists apple will request that you pay a premium. They are not anybody's friend. If they pay then the consumer pays. What's more important to you, your wallet or the recording artist that doesn't even know you're alive?
Its still not like that for a couple of reasons.
For every candle or cookie sold, that candle or cookie has to be made.
This is not the case with a digital music file. Its not as though the artist makes 100 copies of the file, and when they have all been streamed they have to spend time making another 100 copies.
As I said way back at the start of the thread, her stance here contradicts her earlier stance with Spotify.
Her stance with Spotify was that struggling artists make virtually no money from streaming.
Her stance with Apple Music is that struggling artists are losing out on significant revenue.
So which is it? Virtually no money, or significant revenue?
If her argument about Spotify is the case, then with Apple Music those same artists are losing just three months worth of virtually no money.