Taylor Swift to Stream Top-Selling Album '1989' on Apple Music

[HenryDJP]

Still, for Apple, the hardware is their business. This is why Apple Music can be so good. Apple doesn't need it to be profitable per se. If it is profitable, great win-win! If the Apple Music revenue just covers costs, good! If Apple Music revenue doesn't cover costs and is a loss, not so bad so long as Apple Music makes Apple's hardware more appealing to buy than the same money spent on pure marketing. Without this pressure to have to make a profit, but rather treating it as a feature to drive consumer demand for iPhones, Apple Music might actually be very good for consumers.

Noted. Point well taken and respected.

 

[TechZeke]

It's gigantic. The streaming industry is young and it's all about mindshare at this point. Apple is now the leader, and they have not even introduced their service yet.

From a business perspective, this has turned into a win-win for Apple. They got some extra PR from Taylor Swift, and now they have exclusive access to one of the biggest Albums of the decade for their streaming service. This is a stab in the heart for Spotify.

 

[bbeagle]

Crisis averted. Now, who is Taylor Swift?

You need to get out a bit. It's like saying, 'Now, who is Harrison Ford?'

 

[bbeagle]

From a business perspective, this has turned into a win-win for Apple. They got some extra PR from Taylor Swift, and now they have exclusive access to one of the biggest Albums of the decade for their streaming service. This is a stab in the heart for Spotify.

Spotify just got eaten by Apple.

 

[Sharkey311]

From a business perspective, this has turned into a win-win for Apple. They got some extra PR from Taylor Swift, and now they have exclusive access to one of the biggest Albums of the past 2 years for their streaming service. This is a stab in the heart for Spotify.

FTFY

 

[Gasu E.]

I scrolled through the discussion, and didn't find the answer to the below:

On iTunes Radio, I can listen to Taylor Swift and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Apple Music, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Apple will pay out 71.5%.

On Spotify, I could listen to Taylor Swift (until she pulled her music) and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Spotify, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Spotify will pay out 70%.

So, a difference of 1.5% makes Apple great, but Spotify horrible, for the musician?

(I know that each of Apple and Spotify have their special offers, but I guess they both pay the musicians during that period. Apple was planning to NOT pay, which is why they offered the 1.5% extra, I believe.)

Did I miss something?

Yes. iTunes Radio doesn't work anything like you imply. On Spotify you get to pick the songs you want to hear; on iTunes radio an algorithm picks the songs, based on your tastes. Spotify is a streaming alternative to song purchase; iTunes radio is just a highly customized form of radio. Paid Spotify is not the major problem; the ad-supported alternative is, as it is too directly competitive with purchased music, except with miniscule payments to the musicians.

 

[paul4339]

From a business perspective, this has turned into a win-win for Apple. They got some extra PR from Taylor Swift, and now they have exclusive access to one of the biggest Albums of the decade for their streaming service. This is a stab in the heart for Spotify.

good point actually. I think Swift's audience is more concentrated on the younger crowds... likely the exactly the market that Apple wants to 'convert' to a new ways of listening to and paying for music. It'll be interesting to see a demographic distribution of the early adopters.

 

[pubwvj]

Well played, Apple & Swift... Well played.

This was done so smoothly and swiftly you would almost wonder if it was all planned.

 

[daftpunker909]

So if the streaming fee Apple pays is similar to Spotify's, why is she suddenly ok with that?
Total PR stunt, but luckily I don't give a damn about this brat

 

[CrazyForApple]

This better be the last time we hear about Taylor Swift. This is just getting annoying.

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't give two flying frogs about Taylor Swift or Apple Music.

 

[paul4339]

So if the streaming fee Apple pays is similar to Spotify's, why is she suddenly ok with that?...

To my understanding it's a bit different. Spotify's free/ad-supported tier pays about 0.14 of a cent per stream. There is no 3-month trial... so many listeners would just stay on this tier and the artist will get paid the same 0.14 of a cent/stream. Some artists are not okay with this.

Apple's 3-month trial period the artist gets paid 0.2 of a cent per stream. But at the end of the period the listener would have to upgrade if they want to keep listening.

In both cases (Spotify & Apple) the upgraded amt paid to the artist is about 0.7 of a cent per stream. (supposedly Apple pays a bit more, but we dont know what the artist's cut of that is)... In the case of Swift, she retained alot of label rights under her own label.. so it could mean a significant difference.

 

[RadioGaGa1984]

Don't like her music? Then don't stream it. But to bash her, is just simply showing your lack of self esteem.

 

[Arndroid]

I 100% agree. She's going to get 0.02 cents per stream during the 3 free month trial. If her music is streamed 4million times she'll make less than $25k. She's getting screwed by the label. The label is trying to make her bigger by putting her name in the mix of everything so she can get PR. She can't pull out of the label and she doesn't have the power to remove herself from streaming services. Thats 100% the label or distributors power. She's just being used to generate PR buzz about it. This whole thing stinks.

She owns her label

 

[MH01]

That's not what I see. I see 3 months for $0.99:
https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/

That's the same deal that reeled me in at New Years - I thought it was a limited time offer; I didn't know it was still going on now, 7 months later.

Ahh I got UK

https://www.spotify.com/uk/

I'd prefer the £.99 for three months, but 2 months free is fine.

 

[MH01]

Don't like her music? Then don't stream it. But to bash her, is just simply showing your lack of self esteem.

I'm actually going to check out the songs on 1989. Never been a fan as such, but hey worth a listen.

 

[MH01]

What a PR stunt this has been. Both parties couldn't have orchestrated it better.

If it ends up being a PR stunt, quite pathetic from all parties involved.

 

[Arndroid]

Yep. and pretty much at the point where anyone who would have purchased it, already has. I don;t buy that this is just a change of heart for her. There is definitely some type of deal with Apple. maybe not for streaming, but for something else

Yeah back in the day I know I would never listen to any song on the radio for a record or cd I owned.

1989 undoubtedly will be one of the most streamed albums on any service not just apple music. This weird idea that people who own albums don't listen to them on streaming service makes no sense.

 

[SvP]

Bam. Now if Apple gets The Beatles onboard with this, I'll drop Spotify like a hot rock.

I don't get this. Why not buy the beatles? It's not like they're going to bring out new albums anytime soon..

 

[SvP]

What a PR stunt this has been. Both parties couldn't have orchestrated it better.

Awfully high risk for a mediocre gain. There's no reason tot suspect a conspiracy here.



never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

 

[mejsric]

Scripted. Nicely done.

 

[Arndroid]

I scrolled through the discussion, and didn't find the answer to the below:

On iTunes Radio, I can listen to Taylor Swift and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Apple Music, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Apple will pay out 71.5%.

On Spotify, I could listen to Taylor Swift (until she pulled her music) and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Spotify, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Spotify will pay out 70%.

So, a difference of 1.5% makes Apple great, but Spotify horrible, for the musician?

(I know that each of Apple and Spotify have their special offers, but I guess they both pay the musicians during that period. Apple was planning to NOT pay, which is why they offered the 1.5% extra, I believe.)

Did I miss something?

Yeah that 85% of Spotify subscribers are on an ad tier that never ends is much worse for the artists.

 

[mejsric]

Spotify just got eaten by Apple.

Looks like Apple got eaten..

 

[dec.]

Scripted. Nicely done.

With all of the smart individuals seeing right through the PR stunt, I cannot give it a higher score than 2.47 tinfoil (aluminium) hats.

 

[bpeeps]

Does this mean we can stop the Taylor Swift posts now?

Yes, two or three posts about Swift on the main page in the last week is difficult to scroll by. While there's been nearly 50 useless posts on Apple Watch, 20 on the Jobs movie, with zero new information. Users stay exaggerating the most.