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

[Sheza]

That is simply not true. They get paid now via services like Spotify. When people switch to Apple Music during the free trial period, then these payments will go away. So it is not going from "nothing to something" but from "something to less and back to something". Some artists can't afford that "less" period.

Amazing how few people understand that here. The math is so unbelievably basic.

I'm not gonna stop paying for Spotify while I use the Apple Music trial. Apple Music might not have the music I listen to. All my playlists won't be over there.

For other reasons (student discount not applying to Apple Music) I won't be stopping Spotify premium any time soon.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Go Taylor. I will not sign up for Apple Music !

 

[gnipgnop]

The point that people are missing is that Apple won't make a cent out of the trial period too. It's like a joint effort with the studios to get more people on board and make more money later.

On the contrary, the free trial period is a selling point for Apple devices. And if Apple or anyone else really believed that Apple Music is guaranteed to be a boon for everyone involved, why not pay the royalties? The fact that they're not paying is a bit of a give away that Apple itself isn't really convinced they've got it right.

 

[Sheza]

This is a flawed logic. You are assuming that people who will be listening to Apple Music paid nothing to any service prior.

What if a new subscriber stops buying songs on iTunes as a result?

I highly doubt that most new subscribers were not paying a penny in some form prior to Apple Music.

People buy songs to own them, don't they? You don't own music that you stream.
As an individual I can do one of three things:
a) Pirate the music to own it
b) Subscribe to a subscription service to temporarily listen to the music
c) Buy the music to own, via iTunes or CD or vinyl or whatever

If you've stuck with c this long, I don't see (pun not intended) how you're going to suddenly start pursuing a different option.

But streaming services draw people away from piracy. It's psychological. I want to listen to this one song from this new album, but I don't want the rest of the album. I could buy the song on iTunes but then I get one song in my library from a larger album, and it looks terrible, and restricted. I'd rather pirate the whole album or subscribe to get the whole album even if I don't like the other songs. It might not be logical but since when did humans operate logically all the time?

Apple creating a seamless streaming service may draw even more people away from piracy. But I don't think it will draw masses of people away from buying CDs and music on iTunes to own, if they've been doing it for ages.

 

[sirdir]

Heard crickets chirping after reading this.
That's weird because it's 9:00 am EST

Oh! Use my music! But don't forget sending me large checks in 3 months.

 

[TallManNY]

I agree that Apple should pay artists during the three month free trial. My question though is, what's the difference between this and Spotify, iheartradio and Pandoda's free services? Do artists get paid anything for those?

The streaming services that are supported by ads (and hence are free) do pay the artists/labels to use their songs. The issue is that they pay them very little and claim that they can't pay more because the ad revenue is very small. The services probably can't pay more because the ad revenue is small. But this is the long term issue, if the ad revenue isn't large enough to pay for the content, then the artists and some labels want to remove their content.

I don't know what the services who offer one week or so trial periods of their premium services do.

 

[1JJJ]

So you just "steal" everything?

and pc games too.

 

[Sheza]

Reading the replies here it's obvious that people still don't see 'music' as a real product. And we can probably add 'movies', 'photographs' and 'written content' to that list.

Sure you can decide you'll offer a service as a 'loss leader' for 3 months. Sure you can decide to offer free trials for a new service you dreamt up. And (in the case of Apple News) you can choose to offer up other people's written articles through a new app you created.

But you simply can't do that by giving away other people's products for free. Or writing them that you're entering into a publishing agreement unless they say otherwise!

That, and the fact that this is the world's richest company we're talking about, all makes it a bit sad. At least Jobs had some idea about karma. Greedy b*****ds.

Apple should pay, totally.

But the music labels negotiated this deal. If Swifty is so upset, she should leave her label.

 

[Martinez74]

We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no co

I agree that Apple should pay artists during the three month free trial. My question though is, what's the difference between this and Spotify, iheartradio and Pandoda's free services? Do artists get paid anything for those?

Why on earth should Apple Pay for free trial period? That's not how a business is run no matter how rich you are. It's not a charity business.
A trial period is what it is, a trial period. It's either it is there or it is not there. It's designed to entice potential customers. If it is successful, everyone would benefit including the Artists so why should Apple bear the cost of this promotional period? Besides, alternative music platforms for artists isn't very attractive, to be honest.

 

[gnipgnop]

Blanketly labelling anyone who uses torrent software a criminal demonstrates morbid ignorance.

No, it's fair to generalize torrent use as being illegal. Look at the annual Top 10 lists for torrented movies, music, games etc...how often do you see releases that were intended to be distributed for free?

 

[Sheza]

Regarding artists not asking for free music, perhaps Apple could offer a few free things to artists in exchange for free music for three months.

#1 - Free macs with Logic, Final Cut, and everything else Apple has for pro software.
#2 - Free monitors.
#3 - Free iTunes Connect accounts.

The idea being, here, we'll cover some of the costs of producing music, in exchange, we can use your music without paying you for a few months.

That would be the good, kind thing for Apple to do to show that they really care about music - both artist and listener - with their Apple Music push. But it's so much of a hassle that they won't do it.

 

[gnipgnop]

Why on earth should Apple Pay for free trial period? ....It's designed to entice potential customers

You just answered the "why on earth" question for why they should pay. It's a selling point for their own products.

 

[robertcoogan]

Taylor Swift and anyone else who thinks Apple is sticking it to them certainly have a right to their opinion. But they don't have a right to the facts:

Ok. fair enough, let's review:

Apple is paying a ton to host and stream their content and taking the loss on that. Does Taylor think that actually has zero cost? Does she think the 25-30% that Apple keeps from her music goes straight to the bottom line? What about transaction costs and management? Those people are just as real as some poor roadie or soundman.

Ok, Apple is not "taking a loss" on music. Not making money on the streaming music isn't a loss since if Apple gets people to pay for its service over Spotify or other streaming music services, people will end up buying more Apple products so they can get/maintain access to that service if they like it enough. So they still end up making money.

iTunes since the beginning was a break even for Apple's part. The AppStore is what made Apple's "iTunes" business profitable.

...and here you contradicted yourself...

Sorry to break it to you musicians, you never have been more than a pittance of a contributor to Apple's success since the iPhone took over the iPod./QUOTE]

Okay...back to the first point. More artists on iTunes, or Apple Music, and more people buy Apple products to maintain access to those products. Think of the smaller, independent musicians and bands who actually count on online music sales to help them earn money. They have a valid point, they need to ensure that revenue stream stays steady, so they can...well...PAY BILLS. Not everyone is a multi-millionaire big-time musician. Show some heart for those who actually count on the access Apple and other services provide to earn a living and continue doing something that they obviously love.

Which can brings me to the big point This whole streaming thing has never been worth the effort and loss of focus on Apple's part. The fact that Apple wasted time at all the music industry should be thankful. I can't believe the money they've wasted on Jimmy and Dre and the nauseating deal making and handholding the entertainment industry requires. I would have let them flail in their own filth and wonder why the masses won't throw a couple bits in their guitar cases.

You might want to rethink how you present an argument. Your incredulity here just comes off as so much trolling.

 

[TallManNY]

People buy songs to own them, don't they? You don't own music that you stream.
As an individual I can do one of three things:
a) Pirate the music to own it
b) Subscribe to a subscription service to temporarily listen to the music
c) Buy the music to own, via iTunes or CD or vinyl or whatever

If you've stuck with c this long, I don't see (pun not intended) how you're going to suddenly start pursuing a different option.

But streaming services draw people away from piracy. It's psychological. I want to listen to this one song from this new album, but I don't want the rest of the album. I could buy the song on iTunes but then I get one song in my library from a larger album, and it looks terrible, and restricted. I'd rather pirate the whole album or subscribe to get the whole album even if I don't like the other songs. It might not be logical but since when did humans operate logically all the time?

Apple creating a seamless streaming service may draw even more people away from piracy. But I don't think it will draw masses of people away from buying CDs and music on iTunes to own, if they've been doing it for ages.

You are probably right that Apple thinks the move from A to B is going to be the biggest effect. But Indies are most worried about the move in B from Spotify and Pandora which are paying them to Apple Music which won't pay them for three months. That is a long time for a struggling artist.

Also, many folks think that a really good streaming service will move folks from C to B. Certainly we will all try Apple Music. It will push to our phones and there will probably be a notification. If you've tried Beats, it is a pretty good service. I suspect Apple Music will be even better. There is a good chance this is going to impact the music industry in a big way.

 

[ginkobiloba]

What does Britney Spears think?

She thinks ?


And +1 for Swift, even though i don't care about her music.

 

[MarkNY]

Not sure how the contracts are structured, but I presume streaming royalties are a function of # of customers who stream a particular song. Apple will have tons of people who just sign up for the free period and then quit, and thus it makes no sense that Apple *should* have to pay for all those trial streams. Perhaps there should be no trial period, but I'm sure everyone did the math and figured it was worth in the long-run. You know, that's one of the main functions of banks: smoothing out revenue flows. Less today, more tomorrow -- banks will lend you money.

Actually, all of this is nothing but a disgraceful shakedown attempt of a company with deep pockets.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Eddy Cue needs to go. He's accomplished nothing: Siri still sucks, constant outages to Apple network services and no innovation in his department. He likes to brag about owning a Ferrari and on stage he comes off as a complete tool compared to the other, pretty down-to-earth Apple executives.

He thought buying Beats and Jimmy Iovine is going to be some magical thing that saves his ass. I can't believe Cook fell for his BS. Cut the losses, integrate the headphone business and let Cue go along with Jimmy and Dre.

I bet you were one of those that said the same about Tim Cook, too. Oops. Fact - the on stage personas are a gag. Fact - none of us on any web forum have the slightest clue how well these guys do their jobs at Apple. None. We are completely in the dark.

 

[CTHarrryH]

Sorry no sympathy for her - as stated other times - if people have downloaded or added to their streams etc. she will get paid after the three months for those ongoing streams. I'm sure she will decide to change her mind after the three months are up and guess who will be and look greedy then.
Why should Apple give some thing when they aren't getting paid for it - it isn't greed on the part of Apple - they pay when they get paid - sounds what it should be. Whey should I pay when I'm not getting paid.
As for new artists - this provides them an opportunity to be heard and if they are any good people will keep their music and they will get paid - it provides them an opportunity they wouldn't get otherwise.
Sorry Taylor - you are the one who looks very greedy to me with both Apple and other services - sorry the millions you make aren't enough for you.
If you don't want to stream then people will just illegally copy your music and share it - to me that is the real money loss for artists.

 

[Martinez74]

You just answered the "why on earth" question for why they should pay. It's a selling point for their own products.

Wrong!
If it is a selling point for Apple's own product, then why are they offering it on Android? And by the why the music, which is really the product is here, doesn't belong to Apple. They are only providing a platform to market it. If it is successful, the label and the musicians get more than 70% of the revenue.

 

[KanosWRX]

Fist of all, **** Taylor Swift, you have no idea what streaming media is. Now, I do agree apply should not say music is free and force bands/artists not to be paid, that's just stupid. But I will say, just because Apple is doing this, its not like the person listening to the music this way would have listened to it at all otherwise. Or in my case I have spotify and sure ill try out Apple music and see how it works. But in the mean time it will at least get some recognition to artists and maybe people will find new music they like that they didn't know about before. So its not a total loss on the artists parts I don't think. Especially not Taylor Swift. If she is so concerned about everyone involved in her music, she could easily pay their salaries for those three months!! Artists like her get paid to much to begin with so I could care less what she says or thinks!

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I'm not taking sides, but on the one hand, Apple *can* afford to support the artists during the 3 month trial period. On the other hand, Apple Music isn't the only service to sell your music. As a matter of fact, it didn't even exist until now, so all these indie artist claiming they'll starve because of the free trial period, what were you doing BEFORE Apple Music? Hopefully, artists are diversifying their sales efforts, and really, the three month trial period is sort of free advertising. If people like your music, they WILL listen after the 3 months, and maybe even buy it on iTunes or other service.

While it's pretty cheap of Apple to do this (not surprising lately from the richest company in the world), on the other hand, artists have many other avenues to generate revenue. The entire world isn't going to switch to Apple Music overnight.

 

[springsup]

As someone who has worked with someone in the indie music industry and my one of my main customers being an artist, I can completely agree with Taylor Swift for once. Its a huge blow as many people won't get paid a single penny for this! As many people will be using he Apple music for free from June, any album released from July to October, none of those artists will be paid for what they what could be streamed a billion times!
People like Taylor can manage that but my friend and customer cannot cope with that - I will lose business also as they wont be able to pay my bills.
I understand a small start up doing this, but the worlds richest company? Can't it afford losing some money on trying to get this service going?
This is not a Problem for Taylor Swift and big bands, but its for the indie artists and the teenager artists in their bed rooms - working all night on a song!
And that to me is why I'm pleased Taylor has put her foot down and said no and that's also why I will still pay for Spotify.

So why not join the service in a few months time, when the amount of users on their trial period will be lower?

The 3-month free trial works out fine for indie musicians too, if you assume that the fraction of users in the trial period will be small. That won't be the case at launch, but that's a one-time event. As time goes on, a higher percentage will be paying listeners and the free listeners will be a small but acceptable cost of doing business.

That will happen. Even if Apple Music is a flop. Those trials will eventually expire and the only listeners left will be whoever is paying for the service.

 

[sirdir]

Ok. fair enough, let's review:



Ok, Apple is not "taking a loss" on music. Not making money on the streaming music isn't a loss since if Apple gets people to pay for its service over Spotify or other streaming music services, people will end up buying more Apple products so they can get/maintain access to that service if they like it enough. So they still end up making money.

You can also use Apple Music on Windows and soon even on Android. And even if people buy Apple products they pay for the product and not for the music. Apple is still paying for its infrastructure and traffic, whereas the artists will start getting paid 3 months later, without actually investing a cent.

 

[Shirasaki]

and pc games too.

All in all, when talking about profit, nothing is valuable except profit itself, and more often, profit = money.
I used to pirate PC games either. Now with Steams, I start purchasing games I can afford.
I now start support favourite albums from iTunes, within the ability to afford.
Although I still download contents over the web.
I sometimes doubt how much money have been transferred to artists, not platform owners, such as iTunes.
Piracy is illegal, but it opens my eyes and allows me to know another world.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

I feel so bad for you that understanding such a rather short article is too difficult for you. Perhaps Macrumors should be using shorter words like "gov", "ppl" and "lulz" to make it easier for you to understand? I guess pictograms might also help, yes?

I understand everything about the article. But to be honest artist make enough money to be complaining about she was complaining about in the article.

As far what i said earlier apparently you are the one which is not the bright one. Since you couldn't figure I was being humorous. Also, sorry that you aren't smart enough to understand what acronyms are. Perhaps Apple has an app to help you with that