10 bucks per month per person divided on hundreds of songs that one listen per month... i don't see tons of money for them..
10 bucks per CD per artist sounded much better...
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
10 bucks per month per person divided on hundreds of songs that one listen per month... i don't see tons of money for them..
10 bucks per CD per artist sounded much better...
I never said she was a savior, she's simply someone taking a stand with what she believes.
Regardless of what "many" said, she never claimed what her rant would or wouldn't definitely do.
Sometimes if you believe something is the right thing to do, you take a stand regardless of what you think the outcome will be. That's called staying true to your values and having character.
How many times in history has someone taken a stand for something that didn't automatically change ? Does that mean people should stop taking stands on what they believe is right unless they know it's gonna change over night ? Really think about how narrow minded that point of view is.
This is just hurting revenue for the music industry in the long run. Lots of people will try out the service, see that a popular album like "1989" isn't on it, and leave....
Consequently, if Apple really does reach their goal number of subscribers, the industry takes in roughly $750m per month just from Apple Music streaming, more than they make now from all revenue streams combined.
Consequently, if Apple really does reach their goal number of subscribers, the industry takes in roughly $750m per month just from Apple Music streaming, more than they make now from all revenue streams combined.
which one are you? and what happens in september?.
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...
[...]
So can artists just say "skip it" until September?
.
^This, but apparently there's nothing they can do about it, there is not a streaming replacement still...
Person said "I steal media because iTunes takes all the money and it probably doesn't go to the artist".
My point was that I keep hearing this sentiment and it is insanely wrong and so damaging to indie artists of all types. Apple pioneered the 70/30 split and there isn't a single digital retailer that doesn't match those numbers.
Giving 30% to Apple to deal with payment processing, delivery or streaming, library management for paid customers, returns, and customer service... Not to mention the incredible free advertising of just being in the iTunes Store (IF you get featured)... This is a great deal for me, the artist... And if I didn't think so, I wouldn't be in the iTunes Store.
Pirates like to take an anti corporation stance and pretend they are sticking it to the big guys. And the labels. And the studios. It just isn't the case. When you remove every barrier and appease a pirate's every wish... They still just steal. They do it because it is free and they don't have to look the artist in the face when they do it. That's it.
I had to hire lawyers to convince my distributors to let me sell my movie the way the pirates wanted it. $5, in the best quality, direct from me, without DRM, and without iTunes etc. To this day, that is BY FAR my least successful distributor. In fact, it has made less than $2,000 and it cost me $15,000 to get the permission to release in this way. It made no dent in piracy whatsoever.
I get passionate when people speak for artists as if they are doing us a favor by boycotting the distribution methods we chose.
Please ignore if duplicate.
--
It seems that the "free" is that Apple won't charge 'cause they won't pay artists during the trail period? Considering the cash flow of artists have - or apparent lack there of, it could be quite a lot artists would have to concede quite a bit. I think we're getting exposure to the dark / harsh side of this business.
Perhaps if Apple would make them "whole" after a trial ended - aka not enrolled, or some other subsidy this might sound better to me, but the nitty gritty of this doesn't sound fair but perhaps that's the reality?
--
It seems that the "free" is that Apple won't charge 'cause they won't pay artists during the trail period? Considering the cash flow of artists have - or apparent lack there of, it could be quite a lot artists would have to concede quite a bit. I think we're getting exposure to the dark / harsh side of this business.
Perhaps if Apple would make them "whole" after a trial ended - aka not enrolled, or some other subsidy this might sound better to me, but the nitty gritty of this doesn't sound fair but perhaps that's the reality?
What's absurd is to make that faulty leap of logic. Apple is not offering to give away their entire music catalog to keep forever, as much as you can download, for three months, hence taking away actual album sales from artists. They are launching a new service that is a bit late to the game and as such, needs a serious kickstart to catch up. All that will happen is that people can test drive the service for three months. The 'cost' to any individual artist is infinitesimally small, whereas all artists stand to gain a significant payback in the long run if Apple can do for the streaming business what the iTunes store did for digital downloads. Every argument I've ever seen against streaming music has always failed to take the long view in calculating revenue, and none more than this drivel.
Cry me a river. I run a business and I have to perform a ton of what's considered pro bono tasks for my potential clients before then even commit to working with me. Even after committing to work with me if they change their minds within 30 days my commissions are paid back. So basically I worked for free.
Does that mean I should change how I do business? No, because I make up for the loss with long-term committed clients. That's the cost of doing business an frankly it's getting sickening how people here are supporting multi millionaire artists that don't give a rats behind that you're defending them.
Bottom line here: Apple thought they were being so clever by getting this 3-month free deal from the music labels, but as this thread shows ... whether you agree with Taylor or not ... this may be a LOT more costly to Apple in terms of brand appeal than if they had just swallowed the pill and paid artists for those 3 months of music.
The PR hit Apple takes from this could be pretty sognificant.
The PR hit Apple takes from this could be pretty sognificant.
People get REALLY mad when Apple gives us things for free!!! Haha! "Apple gave me a free U2 album grrrrrrr." Apple's giving everyone three months of music free, grrrrr."
I'm just playing. Hopefully enough people will pay for the service after the trial to make up for the revenue lost.
I'm just playing. Hopefully enough people will pay for the service after the trial to make up for the revenue lost.
Do you think? most of the people want music for free, they don't care...except U2 of course..that's spam.
Boo hoo? The crux of this isn't whether or not someone on this forum is defending Swift. It's that Swift is defending herself and other artists. Which she has every right to do since she has skin the the game.
It's getting sickening to you in here? Time to back away from the keyboard then. You're obviously way to emotionally invested in this thread if you're "sickened".
Further - I find it amusing that so many are so quick to defend billion dollar corporations (not exclusive to Apple) when THOSE corporations don't give a fig either. And yet... happens every. single. day. here.
Regardless, I feel it is ridiculous to suggest that Apple could or ought to do something simply because it is rich.
If this were Apple back in 2001 with less resources, so they should be exempted if they have less money?
That's a slippery slope however I look at it. There should be one rule applied consistently to all parties. Not "I charge you more because I think you can pay more" nonsense.
If this were Apple back in 2001 with less resources, so they should be exempted if they have less money?
That's a slippery slope however I look at it. There should be one rule applied consistently to all parties. Not "I charge you more because I think you can pay more" nonsense.
Let's talk realities here for a second,
Fact: Digital Music and Physical music sales are going off a cliff downward.
So, if I'm an independent artist that means what very little chance I had to sell my physical or digital music is drying up and fast.
PAID STREAMING however is so far a tiny tiny tiny portion of the overall available market in terms of potential revenue. Get it?
Spotify has been trying to grow its share
What's "absurd" is thinking that creating art is a curse versus choice. I'm a creative director and I chose my line of work. At times it doesn't pay off. At times it does. Since I'm the creator of my work I must sell it to live. I also must pick and chose how and who I sell it to. I don't EVER leave that responsibility to anybody but myself. Apple is indebted to no one. They are creating a platform. It's no different than how I use their computers to create my work. Do they owe me for my success or vice versa? I seriously believe I ore Steve Jobs a debt of gratitude for creating products that taught me my craft and helped create a avenue for me to MAKE MONEY. It's no different here. Stop feeling sorry for a multi billion dollar industry. Trust me record labels aren't suffering and neither are independent artists. In fact they have more avenues than ever to make money thank you. One door closes another one opens.
Which is different from capitalism.
Imagine if I were charged 10 times more for a drink compared to my friend simply because I earn 10 or more times than him. That defeats the whole point of earning more.
To me, it's just double standards. Apple is under fire because the artistes are trying to extract more money. I certainly didn't see anyone raise a stink with spotify.
I see nothing wrong with asking for more money, just don't try to dress up your complaint to make it seem like you care more or are rooting for the common musician or something. It's not that noble.
Well thought out... But I still hold true that this service has one major difference to every service that came before:
It is built right into our music library on our device and it doesn't seem like there will be a good way to ignore it. the iPod evolved into the Music app on our phones and that app just evolved into Apple Music, with 3 out of 4 tabs dedicated to it, whether you are interested in signing up or not.
The 100 million customers are coming from somewhere and it isn't all piracy... Pirates have had quite a while to join Spotify. And Spotify has had a ton of free trials to woo people... Student discounts too.
A very large portion of these Apple Music customers will be coming straight from iTunes Store purchases and sales are going to be affected in a big way.
Why would Apple steal their own customers? Because, if they don't, Spotify eventually will. The losses in paid music may even outweigh the streaming revenue, but it will be better than losing both.
This is similar to release of the iPhone 6 and 6+... It definitely had a negative effect on their iPad sales... But Apple HAD to do it to protect the iPhone against Android.
I hate Taylor Swift, but she's 100% right.
Apple can afford this and it's the right thing to do. I have no idea why they are being so stingy.
Apple can afford this and it's the right thing to do. I have no idea why they are being so stingy.
Not many artists are a multi-millionare in music. There are rare exceptions to the rule. Taylor might be one of those. I am not sure who you listen to, but, I assure that the bands I listen to probably make about the same as a IT guy. These artists do it for the love of the music, not the money. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for their work.