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

[definitive]

A three month trial (without paying the artists) was a ridiculous idea, but I get why they're doing it - they want people to spend the three months listening to their service so that they become comfortable with Apple Music, and forget about the one that they were using before. A 14 day trial wouldn't have been enough to make a person forget about using Spotify or similar.

It's a clever tactic, but the artists end up losing out on a good amount of money. Apple should have at least offered a smaller cut of the overall pay to compensate for this.

 

[GuitarDTO]

I love the insinuation I see throughout this thread that "everybody" will torrent music if it weren't for free streaming. In actuality, there are many of us who aren't thieves and don't mind paying artists for content they provide. Be a lamb and stop making assumptions about the general population.

Taylor is spot on with her criticism.

 

[BigInDallas]

I doubt many people care who a self-proclaimed thief does or doesn't trust.

Aren't you special. The Moral police.

 

[flat five]

No need for 3 months free, either you like it or you don't, 14 days/ 1 months max.
Why (I think) Apple is doing 3 months is to work out all the bugs/ network problems they'll have, yet they want Artist to pay for it.

just speculating but..

as far as i can gather, apple was originally trying to strike a deal which had users paying less than $10/month for the service.. say $5-6/month in which case, the trial period would have been much shorter.

the labels weren't going for it and instead settled on maintaining the $10/month fee but allows apple to offer a much longer trial period.

a week or two trial is long enough for a user to decide if they like the actual app/functionality.. 3 months does something different-- it allows a user to build a decent sized library.. that custom library is going to be harder to give up than if the decision were simply about functionality.

 

[Jason83]

So pull all your albums. Nothing of value will be lost. I hope Apple just pulls them all from iTunes, then we'll see how she does without them.

 

[cwt1nospam]

It's called a loss leader... Don't worry you'll be back to pulling in 100's of millions after this terrible trial period.. I hope you can make it until then.

Sheesh! She said she's not personally affected, but she's worried about the independent/smaller artists. She's going to make her money either way.

The problem here is that people are generally math challenged, so they can't see that it's entirely possible that most artists will be paid more under Apple's system than they would under another system that pays them throughout the trial period. It all depends on the retention rates. Maybe Apple should offer both as options: 71.5% after the trial period or 70% all the time. If I were an artist, I'd expect this to be successful for Apple (high retention rates) and so I'd choose 71.5% after the trial period.

 

[Macronym]

Cheeseburgers smell like flimsy.
There. I said something that makes as much sense as you did. Your move, fanboy.

There you go. Great thinking and the "fanboy" was a beautiful addition, it is almost like it means something. As to my move, I would gladly have a discussion, but you will need to do better than that above.

 

[triggercut]

The thing is, the 3 month free trial isn't in the least bit outrageous to anyone with even an elementary level of business acumen. Why do you think have the majors have all agreed to this and aren't complaining in the media? You think they're in the business of wanting to lose money? Of course not; unlike some people who are only able to think about the short term, they recognise that the 3 month free trial is a necessary investment for them to secure and maximise a future revenue flow, over an extended period of time. If Apple Music is done well, it virtually guarantees them a solid source of dependable income for as long as the service lasts. Independents could, and eventually will, of course benefit from this too.

I don't think it's really about that for some artists though. It seems to be an issue that runs as an undercurrent below this outrage over the 3 month free trial thing. What I see happening is that many artists are simply putting an economic value on their work that is completely out of line with the true monetary worth of recorded pop music in 2015. It's understandable given that an artist will pour so much of their time, energy, soul and creativity into creating music. Of course they're going to value it highly, because it has high value to them personally. But the reality is that because music is now easier than it has ever been to consume, create and distribute, it has lost a lot of economic value. These conditions have made things wonderful for people who listen to music because they love music (they have more music to listen to at a lower price than ever before), and it's wonderful for artists who create music because they want to share their creativity with the world (they have a larger, more immediately accessible audience than ever before). I concede that it's maybe not so wonderful for those looking to get in to music to make obscene amounts of money. But this actually seems like a step in the right direction for me.

Streaming is clearly the future of how music is going to be consumed and artists can resist the change all they want, but they're only going to hurt themselves in the long run. To quote one of Steve Jobs all-time favourites...

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

 

[Paradoxally]

a week or two trial is long enough for a user to decide if they like the actual app/functionality.. 3 months does something different-- it allows a user to build a decent sized library.. that custom library is going to be harder to give up than if the decision were simply about functionality.

You're right. This is a genius move by Apple, even making it free! I paid Spotify's 3 month trial, and grew to love it so much that after the 3 months I signed up and still am Premium to this day.

Of course, I'll end up leaving Spotify soon, but they sure reeled me in. Who knows how many people Apple will also do this to?

 

[friedmud]

What everyone is missing is that this is all about getting people HOOKED on a PAID service.

Right now all of the artists are up in arms about the tiny amount they make from ad-supported services like Spotify... yet they don't want to take steps like this to correct it.

Apple rightly knows that they will actually generate MORE revenue for themselves and the artists if they do this free trial... because it's going to get so many more people to use a PAID service.

I really hate how artists can't understand even a little bit about macro economics and just want to yell and scream about how they "don't get theirs"...

 

[Martinez74]

No need for 3 months free, either you like it or you don't, 14 days/ 1 months max.
Why (I think) Apple is doing 3 months is to work out all the bugs/ network problems they'll have, yet they want Artist to pay for it.
I would like their Return policy be changed to 3 months!!!

That doesn't make any sense.
3 months trial, much like what you get from Sat Radio when you buy a new car, is meant to get you completely married to the product, making it almost indispensable. That way, chances of you singing up is much higher.

 

[Paradoxally]

So pull all your albums. Nothing of value will be lost. I hope Apple just pulls them all from iTunes, then we'll see how she does without them.

Well no, Apple isn't Google. That's also a little harsh. She's a problematic woman but she's not the devil incarnate.

 

[jmgregory1]

The other thing that I'm sure Apple has considered and likely has real hard data to support, is that customers who sign up for something with a long trial period are statistically more likely to keep the service going. Some people simply forget to stop it, other's will decide the price is justifiable and some will simply not notice the monthly expense.

I would bet that Apple is showing exactly this data to artists and record companies. What this 3 month trial period ends up being is simply a 90 day delayed payment for many people. Sure, there will be people who try it and stop using it after 90 days, but statistically I'm sure that a majority of people will keep paying and artists will more than make up for the 90 days of non payment.

Of course, I too think that Apple should be footing the bill for the 90 day trial, even if most of the money goes to the big record labels and not the indie artists that seem to be the ones being marketed as those who will be effected most (which I doubt the numbers would back this up). For Apple, this cost could be considered a marketing expense, because that is exactly what it would be.

 

[Speechless]

The thing is, the 3 month free trial isn't in the least bit outrageous to anyone with even an elementary level of business acumen. Why do you think have the majors have all agreed to this and aren't complaining in the media? You think they're in the business of wanting to lose money? Of course not; unlike some people who are only able to think about the short term, they recognise that the 3 month free trial is a necessary investment for them to secure and maximise a future revenue flow, over an extended period of time. If Apple Music is done well, it virtually guarantees them a solid source of dependable income for as long as the service lasts. Independents could, and eventually will, of course benefit from this too.

I don't think it's really about that for some artists though. It seems to be an issue that runs as an undercurrent below this outrage over the 3 month free trial thing. What I see happening is that many artists are simply putting an economic value on their work that is completely out of line with the true monetary worth of recorded pop music in 2015. It's understandable given that an artist will pour so much of their time, energy, soul and creativity into creating music. Of course they're going to value it highly, because it has high value to them personally. But the reality is that because music is now easier than it has ever been to consume, create and distribute, it has lost a lot of economic value. These conditions have made things wonderful for people who listen to music because they love music (they have more music to listen to at a lower price than ever before), and it's wonderful for artists who create music because they want to share their creativity with the world (they have a larger, more immediately accessible audience than ever before). I concede that it's maybe not so wonderful for those looking to get in to music to make obscene amounts of money. But this actually seems like a step in the right direction for me.

Streaming is clearly the future of how music is going to be consumed and artists can resist the change all they want, but they're only going to hurt themselves in the long run. To quote one of Steve Jobs all-time favourites...

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

I ****ing love you.

 

[usamaah]

It's called a loss leader... Don't worry you'll be back to pulling in 100's of millions after this terrible trial period.. I hope you can make it until then.

She said in the letter she'd be fine and she's not writing this for herself but other less successful artists.

 

[iLilana]

A couple days ago BuzzFeed reported that Taylor Swift's new album, "1989", would not be available to stream on Apple Music, denying the service of one of the best-selling albums of the last two years. Today, Swift penned an open letter to the Cupertino company explaining her decision.

Swift, who calls Apple one of her best partners in selling her music, says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury. She explains that her sentiments about the three-month free trial are echoed by "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much."

She goes on to say that she understands Apple is working toward a goal of paid streaming and that Apple Music could be the first streaming service that "gets it right" in her eyes in regards to artist compensation. However, she also points out that Apple is "astronomically successful" and could afford to pay artists, writers and producers during the three-month free trial. She closes the open letter asking Apple to reconsider its policy.
This isn't the first time Apple has received criticism for not paying labels and artists royalties during the 3-month free trial. Last week, indie labels from the United Kingdom who housed artists like Adele argued that the trial period would "put people out of business". Singer-songwriter Anton Newcombe also spoke out about the policy, claiming the Cupertino company threatened to ban his music from iTunes if he did not accept no royalties during the 3-month free trial. Apple denied the claim.

Apple Music will launch in just under 10 days, going live on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. After the service's free three-month trial it will cost $9.99 per month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families up to 6.

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

 

[gnipgnop]

You are not making any sense. How can it be a selling point when the exact same product is made available on competing platforms? Apple software and services are considered as selling point for their products because they are almost always exclusive to Apple, but not apple music. It can't be a selling point for Apple products when the same product is on android. Unless, Apple reduces the features of the android app or makes it cheaper on iOS.

Huh? It doesn't need to be exclusive in order to be a selling point for someone perusing Apple's digital or brick and mortar stores. Apple is promoting the service big-time right now, which would be entirely pointless if they didn't think it was a selling point for their own products.

 

[Martinez74]

Let's go to the math: suppose that Apple's free trial woos 25M (million) to take the trial and Apple wanted to make everyone happy by offering a free trial AND paying for the trial in the background (much like Netflix pays for the content to offer it at $8). 25M times $10/month = $250M/month. 3 month of free trials = $750M. Is that a lot of money? Is that a lot of money for Apple? How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

Let's make the free trial much more successful: 100M free trial users for 3 months. 100M times $10/month = $1B (Billion) per month times 3 months = $3B. How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

And that's not even the real math, as it's including the amount that Apple would be keeping for itself (apparently about 28% or so). Redone: 100M times about $7.20/month = $720M times 3 months = about $2.2B for 3 months. Is $2.2B a lot of money for Apple?

In short, for a relatively tiny portion of the Apple cash hoard (smaller than they paid for Beats), they could just pay the full price of the service for everyone interested in the trial, and it would be almost nothing to Apple. Content creators would get paid, Apple could write it off as a business expense, consumers could try it for 3 months for free.

Furthermore, Apple could get creative and inject some iAds to help pay for the trial and clearly convey that these ads run only for that purpose and would not be included after the free trial ends. This weekend, HBO & Cinemax are running one their free trial weekends. These (what are usually thought of as) commercial-free channels are basically running commercials pitching watchers to sign up for HBO & Cinemax before the free trial ends. Apple could follow that well-established, well-proven lead too to further reduce their own bill during this trial period. HBO & Cinemax are not getting to run movies for free during this period; they are just eating the bill of running the movies as a marketing expense to try to woo more subscribers. Apple could copy this and everyone would be happy.

Instead, Apple, no longer the small, fledgling company it once was... now billed as "the biggest company in the world" or "the most profitable company in the world" or "the most successful company in the world" needs those artists to donate their wares for 3 months so that Apple can try to make even more money. I wonder if, instead of Apple, this thread was about Google or Samsung or Microsoft, would our collective sentiment be so overwhelmingly in favor of those corporations vs. the artists who create the content. (rhetorical)

You are making a moral argument not a business one. Why stop at the 3 month free trial? Sure, Apple could afford to offer free music to everyone in perpetuity, but should they?
Tim cooks is running a for-profit business not a charity.

 

[cwt1nospam]

Cheeseburgers smell like flimsy.

There. I said something that makes as much sense as you did. Your move, fanboy.

No, you didn't.

 

[usamaah]

The thing is, the 3 month free trial isn't in the least bit outrageous to anyone with even an elementary level of business acumen. Why do you think have the majors have all agreed to this and aren't complaining in the media? You think they're in the business of wanting to lose money? Of course not; unlike some people who are only able to think about the short term, they recognise that the 3 month free trial is a necessary investment for them to secure and maximise a future revenue flow, over an extended period of time. If Apple Music is done well, it virtually guarantees them a solid source of dependable income for as long as the service lasts. Independents could, and eventually will, of course benefit from this too.

I don't think it's really about that for some artists though. It seems to be an issue that runs as an undercurrent below this outrage over the 3 month free trial thing. What I see happening is that many artists are simply putting an economic value on their work that is completely out of line with the true monetary worth of recorded pop music in 2015. It's understandable given that an artist will pour so much of their time, energy, soul and creativity into creating music. Of course they're going to value it highly, because it has high value to them personally. But the reality is that because music is now easier than it has ever been to consume, create and distribute, it has lost a lot of economic value. These conditions have made things wonderful for people who listen to music because they love music (they have more music to listen to at a lower price than ever before), and it's wonderful for artists who create music because they want to share their creativity with the world (they have a larger, more immediately accessible audience than ever before). I concede that it's maybe not so wonderful for those looking to get in to music to make obscene amounts of money. But this actually seems like a step in the right direction for me.

Streaming is clearly the future of how music is going to be consumed and artists can resist the change all they want, but they're only going to hurt themselves in the long run. To quote one of Steve Jobs all-time favourites...

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

Doesn't seem like she's against streaming, nor is that other label in UK. It seems they're against the free trial coming at the cost of artists.

This is Apple's streaming service. If they feel it would benefit from 3 months free then sure, they should do it, it's a great tactic. But the argument is that it's Apple's streaming service so Apple should pay for it, not the content creators.

Yes ultimately this will help the content creators, but it's still Apple's service.

And Apple could certainly afford it too.

 

[Lepton]

I think Swift is being short sighted. Three months of free (with no money to Apple or artists) followed by years of pay. The free trial will draw in many subscribers who will then pay for years. Assuming the service is good. Does she feel the service will not be good?

 

[Jason83]

Well no, Apple isn't Google. That's also a little harsh. She's a problematic woman but she's not the devil incarnate.

I just think she has an addiction to breaking up with things. She's moved on from men to businesses and she needs help.

 

[Dargoth]

And what does Apple want? Oh right, they're not in it for the cash, they're in it to make the world a better place.

Well... They're sort of in it for both. If they don't improve the world in some way, they're not going to earn much cash in the long-term. Basic economics.

 

[Dionte]

Hilary Duff, now is your chance to take her place on the front of the iTunes Store.

 

[Tech198]

I salutes the music artists.. Imagine if Spotify did the same thing by not paying artists for a "free trial" or Pandora..

Same thing would happen there too..... So, why should Apple get away with it.... Sometimes Apple has more money then sense i think ..

(ain't that the truth ...)

I guess we'll see on day 1, if there is nothing to play, we'll know.