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

[muratime]

Apple is not any store, they created the market, they control it. This is their way to way to get new customers, and make them used to system. If Apple doesn't do such free trial, market will shrink or growth will slow down and at the end all of them will lose money. If Apple starts paying to music family during trial, then Apple can not profit enough to keep their shareholders happy.. Everything has a reason.. But Apple may also consider some percentage of payment during trial.. Taylor is rich because of Apple too.. why she complaints that much.. that will have consequences to all..

 

[johngordon]

Sorry - but we're not talking about Spotify. We're talking about Apple who is entering the market with their product. I'm pretty sure plenty of artists have spoken out against Spotify and their revenue model. I find your side of the argument pretty irrelevant.

At the end of the day - an artist is saying thanks but no thanks. She's entitled to criticize as it directly affects her livelihood. Whether it's .01 or a million bucks - she gets to have a voice in the discussion.

Well, we're talking about subscription streaming services.

I can absolutely see the principle of artists, especially struggling artists being paid.

My point is that the amount of revenue they will be losing as a result of this trial seems to be being grossly exaggerated. A struggling, unknown artist will likely lose out on literally nickels and dimes, making up a tiny fraction of their total income. Whilst there is an argument that they should be paid those nickels and dimes, I don't think there can be much of an argument that they suddenly won't be able to pay their bills.

The discussion about the free trial is separate to any discussion about how much streaming pays out.

 

[alvindarkness]

Yes, but nobody is complaining about that, certainly not Apple, they decided to run their business model that way. The real issue here is why should Apple have to pay if the labels signed a contract?

In reality they shouldnt if the labels were gormless enough to agree. If this didnt become public and their free trial went ahead as previously planned, they would be in a favourable, no loss, position - using other peoples work, at no cost, to establish a foothold in the streaming industry.

On the one hand you cant blame Apple, it was great negotiating after all, and entirely to their benefit. On the other it has overtones of abusing power, and a potential to stain their (want of an) artist friendly image. In the end it's all minutia - Apple have decided to retract the decision to prevent poor publicity, and dare I say, there are lessons here for both Apple and the labels.

 

[Mildredop]

Because Apple is creating a much bigger package than just streaming.

Why don't you answer your own question.

Ok, I will. Yes, Apple are doing it for the money. If there weren't profits to be made, they wouldn't launch Apple Music.

Is Apple really in it for the money? They stand to make a windfall on streaming? Really?

Yes.

Where's the profits at Spotify ?

I can't tell you I'm afraid. But Apple are only entering the market in order to make money. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

I hear CRICKETTS.

Are CRICKETTS a band? Or do you mean you hear crickets?

Because Spotify is losing money -- thank you. So now answer your own question - is Apple in it for the money?

Yes. Apple are in it for the money. THE MONEY. Why else would they do it?

Do you -- I mean you know these FACTS? Out of the .99 cents a song that sold thru iTunes - the cut that goes to the label and or the artist is .69...

I'm a Apple stockholder so trust me when I tell you that Apples services businesses like iTunes sales are a TINY FRACTION of their overall income. Just so your clear Apple is NOT in the content selling business because it dreams of a monopoly on it. Get your facts together. They are launching a streaming service to augment their HARDWARE. Period

So, they're doing it for the money. As I said.

Glad we've cleared that up.

 

[s2mikey]

I'm sure mrs Swift is behind her mortgage payments on mansion #11 of #14 so it's crucial that she gets MORE money. She doesn't care at all about up and coming artists....anyone buying that line is a fool. She's a spoiled brat, greedy, obnoxious b%^*+.

Can't believe Apple listened to her. Who the hell is she anyways? Some lucky brat?

I hope no one subscribes to this stupid music service. YouTube MP3s baby.

 

[johngordon]

Right because with the price of a cookie or candle they're usually charging you the amount it took to make that cookie or candle so they make the compensation for that individual cookie or candle right back when they sell it.

That's not how these artists are compensated. When someone streams their song they get paid like what ? less than half of 1 cent ? Even when someone buys their album alot of these artists are making less than 30 cents on that one physical album being bought at Walmart or wherever.

So accumulation of compensation is very important in that sense. That's why the business model in this particular industry is set up the way it is and why artist would be justified in not wanting their music out there for free.

Yes - its a completely different model - that's precisely why you can't compare the two.

And yes - I fully understand the business model. My main point here is that:

Any loss of earnings of struggling artists is being grossly exaggerated. Even if they had literally tens or even hundreds of streams (unlikely for an unknown / struggling artist), they're only going to lose the equivalent of one or two album sales.

You can certainly argue that that is wrong, and they should be paid for that. You just can't really argue convincingly that they will suddenly be unable to pay bills because of the trial.

Let's say your mother was a exercise instructor, she made exercise videos and sold them. Would you be okay with people in some way shape or form exercising to those videos without properly compensating her for them ? If they just said " Well someone else already paid her and it only took her one time to make the tape so...." How would you feel about a family member being paid unequal to how her work is being used ? If she has 1000 people who used her tape she should be paid for it. Not have only 10 people pay 10 bucks each, the other 990 found a way to get it free of charge and expect your mom to be happy with the $100.

Put it this way - if she had the opportunity to get her exercise videos onto a platform that had 800m account holders who would have access to her videos at the drop of a hat, but the deal was her videos needed to be free for a trial period, then I'd absolutely have no problem with it.

As far as the second part asking about her seemingly contradicting stances is that it's not contradicting at all.

She left Spotify because they had a free tier which consists of the majority of Spotify's customers. Artists are not paid for music that is streamed on Spotify's free tier. Which is why she pulled her music from Spotify.

Now paid services do pay artists per stream. A VERY small percentage but they're still paid. Which is why I can see it mattering to artists that they want to be paid off as many streams they deserve.

More people streaming = less people buying albums.

So I can see why an artists is gonna fight for every penny. It's also not just them that needs to be paid. Producers, song writers, instrumentalists, studio engineers, etc , etc, etc all need to be paid off that small amount as well.

I think it is a contradiction - if she had criticised Apple for the exact same thing as she criticised Spotify for, i.e. the size of the payments, that would be completely different.

But to highlight the trial is different, because it ignores the long term benefit.

For what its worth though - hats off to her for speaking out on something she believes in.

 

[diazj3]

Apple aren't going to change their policies. If you think they will you have a long time to wait. It's as simple as that.

In your eyes, it's wrong.

But your opinions are not universal truth.

Well... maybe not universal, but true enough...

As simple as that. And I didn't have wait long... Not even one day!

See? I told ya... you lost this one.

But in all seriousness, Apple would've been pretty dumb not taking the opportunity T. Swift opened and turn it around. They have the money to easily fix this one and appear to be a less douchy company. Wish they did the right thing to start with... but at least sometimes they listen and rectify.

Cheers!

 

[Mark.]

But if you think about it... she wasn't getting anything from Apple Music subscriptions before it was a thing. In 3 months time, she will start getting money from Apple Music subscriptions.

How is it putting people out of jobs when they got 0 before and will get 0 for free months and then something?

People understand that streaming music services are temporary - if they stop paying, they stop being able to listen. Is this really going to hurt CD / iTunes sales? Because if people really support one particular artists they might not stump up the subscription fee just to listen to a handful of artists, and instead they will just buy like they always used to.

I basically don't agree that CD / iTunes sales would be impacted as much as the industry fears.

Before I start, I would like to highlight that I am aware that Apple have now changed their policy to pay artists during the trial, however I felt the need to respond to this post.

Yes, currently Apple Music does not exist so she is not losing any money directly by Apple Music paying nothing for the first three months and yes, she may well make some additional money if her music features on Apple Music after the trial period is over.

However, from a consumer point of view, what is the motivation to part with money to listen to her music from a competing service when you (and everybody else) can stream it for free for 3 whole months from Apple Music?

If I used Spotify, I would consider cancelling my subscription for those 3 months (at least) and take full advantage of Apple Music for free.

This impact may be a drop in the ocean for Taylor Swift and the like, but the impact of no royalties on a free-to-everyone-for-three-months streaming service could have been catastrophic to smaller artists/labels.

 

[billystlyes]

Historically generous. I can't stop laughing *cough 80 dollar dongle cough*

Historically greedy. At least she had the right letter....

 

[jayisblessed]

She just wants a bigger mansion.

She is dirty!

 

[0098386]

It's a little sad t

I thought forums was for expressing opinions. I stated that it was my personal take. I certainly didn't step on any others that liked her. And why single me out? There are others that have made similar statements. We do have freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech is in regards to the government, this is a privately hosted forum and company who are free to do what they will. I don't know why so many people misinterpret that - but that's just my opinion.
You want me to reply to every single person?
I replied to you in particular because of that large reply, the opinion bit at the end was just a bonus. Do I really need to explain things like this?

 

[SvP]

she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW

Millionaire brats get what they want. Especially if they have millionaire dads. And the worlds rewards the crafted image by thinking its real. Sad.

 

[RammyXX]

Poor Taylor, she surely needs that money.

 

[ErikGrim]

So not only are you stealing, you're proud to boast about it in public.

Imagine if someone stole your iPhone, your iPod and your rMBP.

Then they posted on a forum that they "don't support a corrupt system, they just get their Apple kit for free".

I guess you'd be the first to "like" their post. Oh, you couldn't. They have all of your Apple gear.

Post of the day.

 

[Sheza]

Before I start, I would like to highlight that I am aware that Apple have now changed their policy to pay artists during the trial, however I felt the need to respond to this post.

Yes, currently Apple Music does not exist so she is not losing any money directly by Apple Music paying nothing for the first three months and yes, she may well make some additional money if her music features on Apple Music after the trial period is over.

However, from a consumer point of view, what is the motivation to part with money to listen to her music from a competing service when you (and everybody else) can stream it for free for 3 whole months from Apple Music?

If I used Spotify, I would consider cancelling my subscription for those 3 months (at least) and take full advantage of Apple Music for free.

This impact may be a drop in the ocean for Taylor Swift and the like, but the impact of no royalties on a free-to-everyone-for-three-months streaming service could have been catastrophic to smaller artists/labels.

I personally won't be cancelling my Spotify subscription while I try out the Apple Music trial. Neither should anybody else.

 

[BigInDallas]

Taylor Swift isn't powerful enough to start bullying companies. She better watch her step. Just sayin'.

Well it worked. Apple backed down. So I guess your wrong

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I personally won't be cancelling my Spotify subscription while I try out the Apple Music trial. Neither should anybody else.

Very good.

And when you buy a CD, make sure to get two copies.

When you need a new car, remember to buy two.

 

[AFEPPL]

Well done to Miss Swift, Apple more than desired a black eye over this.
Shameful apple, true colours you don't give a crap about the consumer its all about your profits.

 

[slashlos]

Thank you Apple, if all is as it now sounds, a wise and prudent move.

I myself still prefer to buy music on physical media or iTunes download - for the built-in backups, given my profession, so I'm not affected (?), not a streaming music consumer, but given this reversal I might be.

I'm "old school", my son long supports such services, I've often argued that paying for music outright is voting for the artists, but I feel comforted all the same.

 

[SoAnyway]

Seriously? If you really don't know who she is (and you're not just trolling), how can you even ask #2? She most definitely wrote that letter herself. I believe she was the only artist to have a platinum album (selling over 1 million copies...selling, not streaming) last year, her third platinum in a row. She's one of the few bright spots (financially speaking) in the music industry today. She writes and produces her own music. Love her or hate her (I honestly don't know any of her songs), she's the real deal.

Yes, seriously. I mean, I've heard her name but know absolutely nothing about her or have heard any of her songs. That's what I get for not listening to the radio or mainstream music.

The Top record seller in your country last year, unless you are not american.

I am a United Statesian but I don't pay attention to top record sellers.

 

[SoAnyway]

Do you know what Google is?

Yup, but I only use it to look up stuff I'm interested in.

 

[OllyW]

It doesn't matter though because there's not much chance Apple will be offering to make any payments for the free trial period.

I got that totally wrong but I'm pleased with the outcome.

 

[iConnected]

I got that totally wrong but I'm pleased with the outcome.

Not totally - you said "not much", not "no" chance.

 

[Sheza]

Very good.

And when you buy a CD, make sure to get two copies.

When you need a new car, remember to buy two.

My playlists, and some of my music, will not be available on Apple Music. So...

 

[whsbuss]

Okay Taylor.... just don't get cocky over this win. Remember some day you will be old news.