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
Unlike Apple, Spotify pays royalties during said trial
Unlike Spotify, apple doesn't need the artists as much as the artists need apple.
Adding one more thing. I think most of these musicians are making arguments on par with old RIAA math - e.g. thinking that everyone who uses a free trial would have otherwise bought an album - and that's total BS. I can however see that there's argument to be made for cannibalization of sales by people on the trial program. Going back to that 1BB approximate number of iOS devices worldwide, if everyone jumps on board that's a significant number of people but no where near a majority of the world's population. We can start segmenting and refining based upon single people with multiple devices and that there's a higher probability of poverty with people who don't have an iPhone than do etc... but for argument's sake let's shoot high and say 25% of potential music buyers world wide will be on the trial program. that's a very big hit to revenue for 3 months but that's not dropping to zero by any means. If I had a big project slated to drop in that timeframe I'd hold back the release and not get caught up with the initial frenzy of trial memberships but for someone who is working off of residual sales today I would think the healthy businesses could absorb it. Painful yes, out of business no, long term payoff worth while.
Nice to see her speaking up about this. But at the same time, doesn't she get pissed if you're covering one of her songs? Does she not like it if you take a photo of her and sell said photo?
because canceling a subscription in which you've built a library for a week or two is a lot easier than canceling a 3 month build.
I think this is a key point. How many more paying subscribers is Apple going to generate by having this long trial? If we're talking like 20% more, then it sounds like everyone wins and makes more money in the long run. If it's like 1% more, then Taylor Swift is probably right.because canceling a subscription in which you've built a library for a week is a lot easier than canceling a 3 month build.
and what are they dictating now according to you? torrents? sorry to tell you but those are almost 20 years old....
Taylor Swift a whiny idiot? got it kid, got it, see ya!
I have a problem with the entire "situation" here. Artists sign contracts with record labels and producers to distribute, market and develop their talent, in the hope of increasing sales. The Artist signs over certain rights as part of this contract. if the record label decides that the contract with a distribution outlet such as Apple is what is in their (and their client's best interest) it is most likely not within the rights of the client to deny that. Record labels could have forced (negotiated) Apple to pay for the 3 month trial, they didn't. Apple could have reduced the length of the trial, they didn't. So even if all parties are not "happy" about it that is what they all agreed to do.
If you are an indie artist on a label and have to eat the streams on the 3 month trial, I feel for you. However you legally agreed to it either by proxy with your record label or directly by allowing Apple to distribute your music. You could ask your label to opt out, let me know how that goes.
As for Taylor's decision to not provide her album for the new streaming service. Good for her, however if she thinks it is going to make one iota of difference she is sorely mistaken. She is one of the fortunate artists that most people that want to listen to her album actually BUY it. And unfortunately in the long run, it will only hurt the indie artists if they choose to try to withhold their product from the largest distribution system in the world.
For all "media" distribution entities. Music, Movies, Television, Books, Software, ETC all "data" based intellectual property. The future is for massive libraries of this information to exist and subscribers to "buy in" for access. The revolution is slow, the legal issues are extensive, but in the long run it is where all end customer consumable IP will end up.
If you are an indie artist on a label and have to eat the streams on the 3 month trial, I feel for you. However you legally agreed to it either by proxy with your record label or directly by allowing Apple to distribute your music. You could ask your label to opt out, let me know how that goes.
As for Taylor's decision to not provide her album for the new streaming service. Good for her, however if she thinks it is going to make one iota of difference she is sorely mistaken. She is one of the fortunate artists that most people that want to listen to her album actually BUY it. And unfortunately in the long run, it will only hurt the indie artists if they choose to try to withhold their product from the largest distribution system in the world.
For all "media" distribution entities. Music, Movies, Television, Books, Software, ETC all "data" based intellectual property. The future is for massive libraries of this information to exist and subscribers to "buy in" for access. The revolution is slow, the legal issues are extensive, but in the long run it is where all end customer consumable IP will end up.
You do realise not all artists are millionaires? And 3 months without being payed for all the work you have done....I would like to see you do that!!!
Finally showing your true nature with that last sentence eh.
You are entitled to your opinion, but if you are gonna state something as a fact, back it up with statistics.
Taylor swift isn't going to win this, sooner or later she will give up.
I've never said they were dead, they are just not as relevant as before at least for catalog music. Sure you can find the latest new releases like transcoded Taylor Swift torrents if you are fine with that.
You proposed spotify as an easier alternative to get music than torrents, but Taytay's music is not on spotify, so stop dodging the question, where else can I get her music that is more convenient than torrenting?
Is there really a difference between you downloading the music illegally vs. Apple giving it out for free during 3 month slots? There is no guarantee that people will continue on with the service which means artist will get nothing. And there is no guarantee that people will buy the music after listening to it for 3 months. I wonder how would developers feel if Apple opens up the app store for 3 months no charge and no compensation to developers.
I thought people were playing favorites with Apple vs Samsung on this website. The comments here really show people's true colors. Wake up people; these are artist protecting their life's work and I don't see how this is even debatable. Apple is the richest company on the freaking planet. They should pay artist play time during this trial.
Last edited:
Not really, because they will be getting less income from people who buy on itunes, and apples compeitions when people go over to apple for those 3 months. it bad for those 3 months full stop.
I'm sure Apple has already done the math as to what the take rate will be on the subscription based on a 1 month free trial and a 3 month free trial (and probably other amounts of free trials). They figured the biggest upside would come with a 3 month free trial and a $9.95 per month subscription rate. Free for three months to get the user invested in the service, and a high enough subscription rate to make money for the company as well as the labels and the artists. They've probably already crunched the numbers and estimated how many users will bite on the free trial, and how many of them will continue the service once the trial has ended. The numbers had to be attractive enough to get the labels to sign on to the deal.
That being said, Apple is flush with free cash. The decent thing to do (for all artists, big and small, corporate and indie) would be to pay the royalties out for the first three months. I think Apple got in way over their heads trying to get into the music streaming business with people who didn't know a whole lot about streaming to begin with. I can see Iovine being shown the door after this fiasco.
If I download a demo, time-limited trial version of a software, there's also no guarantee that I will purchase the software. If apple can offer a user-friendly service, coupled with talented musician's excellent contents, people will sign up.
Your comparison with the app store is flawed. Apple is paying the artists 73% after the trial period and artists have the choice to not be part of apple music but continue to sell music through other means. iOS developers get 70% and can only distribute their iOS apps through the app store.
No one is holding a gun to those artists' heads, don't like it? don't sign up for it. Again, apple's wealth has nothing to do with this. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you need to host free parties for your entire community does it?
I don't own any TS albums. I am not a fan of her music. BUT....
as a 20 something business person, she is very, very impressive. And she has a big enough market presence to potentially apply influence on Apple and their streaming music business model. Actually, I hope she does make Apple change it policy: It's only fair.
as a 20 something business person, she is very, very impressive. And she has a big enough market presence to potentially apply influence on Apple and their streaming music business model. Actually, I hope she does make Apple change it policy: It's only fair.
Sucks if Apple pays, sucks if Apple doesn't pay. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So the long-term gains don't matter? If those "small artists" depend so much on whatever insignificant amount of money they were making from spotify...etc to the point that they can't take a 3-month financial hit for more future gains, then they shouldve reconsidered their career choices. They chose to be in this industry, they should very well know the risks.
Good luck with that. The service is launching in 10 days, a pop artist that's going to be irrelevant in a few years isn't going to make apple change its mind.
On the flip side I hope Apple drops her from iTunes and tells her to F-off.
Apple is free to give lifetime trials to us all. Just pay the artists. Simple. Use the music, pay the piper. The idea that Apple isn't making money on the music so they don't need to pay anyone is insane. So if I buy ingredients to make 100 wedding cakes and nobody gets married in three months, do I still owe for the ingredients even though I sold no cakes? Of course I do and of course Apple is being filthy greedy again. Only the great Apple developers are keeping me in this ecosystem right now. It's nothing that Cupertino is doing unfortunately.
The artist are so short sided. Ok so you don't get paid the first month but you keep getting paid after that for eternity! The free trial helps rope in more people to actually keep the service and help pay you more for eternity! Come on see the big picture down the road.