Sidebar Sidebar
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

My whole thing is this: The record labels agreed to it. Artists don't usually own their music. If I post my phone on eBay for $1,000,000 and somebody buys it, how is it my fault that they took a bad deal. Apple is always going to try to get the most they can. Record labels aren't going to agree to something if they don't think it will eventually make them more money. My understanding is that Apple is paying them a higher royalty than the rest of the streaming industry in exchange for the free trial period. If they don't like it then they don't have to take the deal. Swift is upset because she's worried about people not missing her music and listening to other artists on Apple Music.

That being said, Apple could have fostered a lot of good will by eating the cost—or at least part of it—during the trial period. Furthermore 60 days should be plenty of time for a trial which would reduce the costs even more.
 
gijoeinla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not every artist is Taylor Swift or Metallica. Not every label is "multi-million" dollar labels. Stop living in a dream. Most artists struggle. Not all artists sell a million albums. In fact, very few.

Need to separate the "industry" from the "artist."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and chukronos
1100 comments - is she releasing the new iPad Maxi?

It's called business $wifty, you reek of greed. I get it, but suck it up. I and loads of other freelancing artists have to every day. You certainly wouldn't have sold the units you have without iTunes.
 
Tork said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um is your goal number for Apple 1 billion subscribers? That isn't going to happen.
I think you moved a decimal point.
 
webpoet73 said:
Not every artist is Taylor Swift or Metallica. Not every label is "multi-million" dollar labels. Stop living in a dream. Most artists struggle. Not all artists sell a million albums. In fact, very few.

Need to separate the "industry" from the "artist."
Click to expand...

Not everybody is Lars! thanks God!
 
fullauto said:
1100 comments - is she releasing the new iPad Maxi?

It's called business $wifty, you reek of greed. I get it, but suck it up. I and loads of other freelancing artists have to every day. You certainly wouldn't have sold the units you have without iTunes.
Click to expand...
Oh the hypocrisy
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigInDallas
psylence2k said:
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.
Click to expand...
She's not taking a stand for what she believes, she's taking a stand for her own pocket. If she really wants to help out the small artists, she wouldn't have pulled her music out of spotify and refuse to put it on apple music.
 
JXShine said:
She's not taking a stand for what she believes, she's taking a stand for her own pocket. If she really wants to help out the small artists, she wouldn't have pulled her music out of spotify and refuse to put it on apple music.
Click to expand...


She said there's alot of small indie artists who she personally knows who feel the exact same way she does but can't take the same stance. So when she's taking the stand they also want to take how is she not helping their cause ?

Do you know her team of producers, writers, etc ? Those are also all artists smaller than her who weren't getting paid by Spotify's free tier or Apple Music's free trials.

There have also been alot of other unrelated relatively small time artists who have expressed displeasure with these practices.
 
macduke said:
My whole thing is this: The record labels agreed to it. Artists don't usually own their music. If I post my phone on eBay for $1,000,000 and somebody buys it, how is it my fault that they took a bad deal. Apple is always going to try to get the most they can. Record labels aren't going to agree to something if they don't think it will eventually make them more money. My understanding is that Apple is paying them a higher royalty than the rest of the streaming industry in exchange for the free trial period. If they don't like it then they don't have to take the deal. Swift is upset because she's worried about people not missing her music and listening to other artists on Apple Music.

That being said, Apple could have fostered a lot of good will by eating the cost—or at least part of it—during the trial period. Furthermore 60 days should be plenty of time for a trial which would reduce the costs even more.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, she is not speaking for herself but in support of the independent artists that do own their music. There are plenty of artists on iTunes that publish their own music, on their own label. Many, if not most do not make much on sales as it is.
 
What would be really amazing is seeing Taylor taking all her music from Apple, i'm sure many artists will follow...
 
JXShine said:
His opinion is as good as any of ours. If apple starts paying the artists during the trial period, they can potentially get in trouble with the DOJ over antitrust issues.
Click to expand...
Never thought about the DOJ getting involved if Apple were to pay the labels during the 90 days. EXCELLENT point, sir/madam.
 
psylence2k said:
She said there's alot of small indie artists who she personally knows who feel the exact same way she does but can't take the same stance. So when she's taking the stand they also want to take how is she not helping their cause ?

Do you know her team of producers, writers, etc ? Those are also all artists smaller than her who weren't getting paid by Spotify's free tier or Apple Music's free trials.
Click to expand...
ok look, those small artists weren't going to get ANY exposure without these streaming services.
If apple is paying them a rate that's 3% higher than industry average after the trial period, what's the problem? People forget that apple is paying for the server costs, promotion of the service, and software development. (and no, it doesn't matter if they are rich.)
There's always costs associated with any form of business. If a local pizza store wants to attract customers, they stand at the door and offer free samples.
Unless of course, these artists are so insecure and know that their "music" aren't interesting to people after the second time they listen to it.
 
samcraig said:
Oh the hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Not really. They both benefit each other. She brings Apple customers, Apple sells her music. U2 gave away actual mp3's, a whole album full. Radiohead, Moby the same. You can't even burn these Apple Music tracks..

It's 3 months.. I'm sure she'll survive and I'm sure Apple will pay her (label) royalties from part of the monthly subscription fee after the 3 months. Let her listeners listen - if it's quality and/or over hyped they will buy it anyway..

It's all just another opportunity for media attention. 10 points to her management.
 
smorrissey said:
or Apple will just pay....pretty simple. It will start an Apple hate movement...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps you are just a blind taylor fanboy
The amount of money apple makes from selling taylor's music is so insignificant compared to the amount of money taylor will lose if all her music gets torrented instead of being sold on the iTunes store.
 
soupcan said:
Streaming music is slowly killing the music industry with these trial periods and ad-supported "free" streams. I'm glad she decided to speak out in the open about it, now I hope more artists do the same.
Click to expand...

No its not. Taylor sold double plat albums even before streaming . Bad terrible music is killing the music industry not streaming. artist are making millions and millions!

Swift should be ashamed of herself. She is filthy rich complaining over 3 months. She doesn't even see revenue from streaming, her label coups it all


misterpip said:
haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate....
Click to expand...


haha good one!
 
JXShine said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps you are just a blind taylor fanboy
The amount of money apple makes from selling taylor's music is so insignificant compared to the amount of money taylor will lose if all her music gets torrented instead of being sold on the iTunes store.
Click to expand...

or perhaps you are just a blind Apple fanboy...:eek:
I'm not sure about that only both parts know their numbers. Torrents are SO out of fashion perhaps not for movies but for music you just use Spotify free currently and problem solved.
 
Abazigal said:
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.
Click to expand...

for clarity, where are you getting this from or who are you arguing against? responders in this thread or in response to something in the original post? or something else?

Abazigal said:
I certainly didn't see anyone raise a stink with spotify.
Click to expand...
taylor swift did ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back