Yeah poor Spotify and their FREE tier. LOL. Apple doesn't have the better anything. Even their PR team flubbed this obvious charade.
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 to Stream Top-Selling Album '1989' on Apple Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, everyone stayed on script. It was definitely a well planned and orchestrated PR coup for Apple and TS. Of course this doesn't really say anything about whether Apple Music will be a more compelling product than the current competition, but we'll start figuring that out next week I suppose.
Way to be a Spotify fanboy and spin.
Apple has one of the biggest artists of today on their service and spotify doesn't. Way to spin. Try being more objective and not so obvious.
It may not be a big deal for avg consumers, but it is for Swift and the music industry.
Swift has 140 millions fan on social networks (FB,Twitter) alone and I'm sure there are much more casual non fans listeners.
On Spotify, just one of her songs from her latest album (Shake it off/1989?) was streaming 12-13 million per week before she yanked it. That album alone she has at least 4 big singles. This was when Spotify had less than 15 paid and 50 million ad-supported customers.
When Apple opens their free trial service to their existing 800 million account holders AND all of the Android users the number of streams for her latest album alone can reach many many times this per week. If her fans listens to her latest album even once a week, thats hundreds of millions of streams (that is, a magnitude higher than the Spotify numbers). Spotify (which publishes their streaming total each week) say that Swift was on track to reach $6 million a year it was pulled (and her album was release only in late October!).
Her distributor (Universal) may have a hand in this, but also remember that Swift owns her own label which retained most of the music rights. It's a big deal for her and other big artists like her.
Let's look at some facts
Some months ago (was it last year, I have no idea, I don't follow pop music) TS pulls out of Spotify in a massive public hissy fit
Earlier this week TS has a hissy fit at Apple
Next day Apple says, "Sure, Taylor, we hear ya. Ours bad"
The following day
"Since changing course, Apple Music has signed over 20,000 indie labels through deals with licensing groups Beggars Group and Merlin"
"Apple Music has signed two major indie music rights holders Beggars Group and Merlin Network, which represent over 20,000 indie labels and distributors, reports Billboard. The licensing agencies agreed to sign up for Apple Music after Apple changed course and agreed to pay artists on a per-stream basis during the streaming music service's three-month trial period. "
Then another day later:
"Taylor Swift to Stream Top-Selling Album '1989' on Apple Music"
It's kind of obvious that Apple approached TS a long time ago and orchestrated this. Is anyone going to believe that these indie labels deals just happened all thanks to TS and benevolent Apple? These guys all got into their private planes, as soon as Eddy tweeted, and had a coke party and everything was fine? In a few hours?
Ok.
Those were different times in music - when people actually bought Albums.
Taylor Swift's 1989 has sold more than any album in the past 12 years.
But, don't sway from your agenda - make sure you stick to it regardless of facts.
All this is pathetic i bought 1989 deluxe cd because i follow Taylor since her first album, 1989 is NOT a great album, it's not bad either just another album.
Guys guys, you have it all wrong. Last year Apple introduced the Swift programming language. Since then they've been a bit frustrated that the top search results for Swift point to Taylor Swift.
So one Apple Music service and a fracas (thanks Jeremy Clarkson) with Taylor Swift later, SEO problem solved.
So one Apple Music service and a fracas (thanks Jeremy Clarkson) with Taylor Swift later, SEO problem solved.
I don't know, but she must have a team of writers, musicians, managers, etc all getting some cut, plus the overhead from music video production, stylists, choreographers, plane tickets, office space, phone bills, catering, hotels, etc. it's gotta add up to be a lot. Fortunately she has plenty of income streams from performances, appearances, endorsements, etc. to pay for all of that.
Qobuz deserves to have it also for lossless streaming and not only for HD download, maybe it's their decision.
This is 2015 when albums barely sell! Back then, people actually bought albums and they stayed on the charts. Nowadays, good luck with your album staying in the Top 10 after a few weeks.
So, yes, it's unreal for today's standard.
Nope, just saying spotify will do just fine without the album . Apple having 1989 will not result in a mass exodus from spotify
Oh, ok, that definitely sounds far less bizarre than your original claim
. (I don't think any single album could be a Spotify killer either, Spotify is too big right now to be "killed" anyway)
I understand all that, but I am still not seeing research and development. I fear that your post insulted what those words mean.
Yet, no one on this forum spouting hate and disrespect for Taylor Swift has made a platinum album. I also wonder if half the people even listened to the rest of album beyond "Shake it off".
I did like her 1989 album myself, but I am by no means a 'fan'. However, the constant hate and disrespect from those who haven't accomplish half the stuff she's done get's old, fast.
When I come to MR I prefer to read more about Apple stuff like this:
Than about some flash in the pan nonsense like this:
"Oh no you din'nt!"
Back in 2003, Apple introduced iTunes for Windows. You can argue they did it to make the iTunes music store cross-platform, and that it was a product in of itself. But really, it was to drive more iPod sales, which in turn drove more Mac sales. Those hardware sale goals they accomplished perfectly with the Windows release.
The same strategy is unfolding here. Apple Music is a cross-platform feature - but it is nonetheless designed to drive iPhone, iPad, and Mac sales. The experience will be, without a doubt, richer on Apple devices as compared to Android/Windows. Also, just because it will be compatible with third-party devices doesn't mean it's not a feature designed to drive hardware sales. If anything, the fact that SmartTVs or high-end wifi-enabled home-theater equipment might support it is more an incentive for someone to buy an Apple phone or computer.
Just like iTunes did back in 2003, Apple Music will give Android users and Windows users a little taste of what it is to be in the Apple ecosystem, a taste designed to get them on board in the long term.
Keep in mind that her big album was released on Oct 27, 2014 and she pulled her entire catalog on Nov 3, 2014.
Are you sure about that?
Adele's 21 has sold over 30 million copies, I don't think 1989 has sold anywhere near that many.
Okay, so let's just say everything you're saying is 100% correct. What's wrong with Apple's methods or their indirect attempt at getting their products into the hands of many? They are in business to sell their product. Who can blame them? Do you honestly think Microsoft makes Mac Office to keep people on Macs? That's why Office for Windows has always (and still is) been more feature rich than the Mac version. Google dumb's down maps for iOS to get people to switch to Android.
She got paid $440,000 but the label got the other $1.5Million. The problem is the record label. They take all the profit. Artists need to stop relying on record labels. I would sign a 1 maybe 2 year deal with a label and after they put the juice into my marketing campaign to make me a star i'd leave or renegotiate after my deal is up to make sure I get more of the profit from sales.
This is simply taylor and apple threading the needle in order to win over as many apple music subscribers as possible. Brilliant!