First of all, "hundreds of million users" won't be singing up to Apple Music. Spotify, by far the largest streaming music service provider has 20 million paid users and 55 million free users. More importantly, Spotify has paid 3 billion U.S. Dollars to rights holders since the beginning. This number is larger than the cost of providing the service aka Spotify is bleeding the red ink aka they are loosing money. What more does the GREEDY labels want?!? For some reasons record labels are always crying like the bitches they are. Get on with the program of tap out if you can't handle it. You are vampires trying to suck out all the money even before its there. It's me me me, squeeze the money out of the service providers, customers and the artists no matter what... Guess what, labels are starting to look like the dinosaurs they are. Music production doesn't require capital of hundreds of millions of dollars like film and television per production does. Therefore, in modern music distribution the labels are starting to look like the unnecessary middle man / relic trying to profit without making any contribution.
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.
UK Indie Labels Say Apple Music Free Trial Could 'Literally Put People Out of Business'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually many places have 2 weeks training for no salary because well, that's how it is and in the end its worth it. Also if you don't like it you can go somewhere else. 2 weeks on a personal level is no different than 3 months at the corporate level. Same principal. Only these labels and artists are still making money during that 3 month period whereas the individual training for free isn't.
Not really the same thing at all. And what are these labels doing about Spotify, which presumably gives these labels' music away for free anyway. Are they not on Spotify either. Are they not interested in getting more exposure. Furthermore, why should they get the higher rate after three months if they don't participate in the free trial.
But they would only be getting "huge, huge, huge amounts of streams" because it's free. If there was no free trial, or no streaming service to begin with, they wouldn't be getting "huge, huge, huge amounts of streams". They would be getting ignored, for the most part.
Come on it's Apple. A LOT more people are going to hear their songs and these artists will benefit from it once the trial period is over. From a business standpoint, Apple tries to create a new platform to sell music to a much larger population and the music industry is likely to benefit from it again after ITunes (was ITunes created by Apple, too?). During this transition, Apple has spent lots of money and effort doing it and seems like the only thing some indie labels/small music companies can do is focusing on their arts and getting paid. They should see the big picture and view this as an investment opportunity. Apple Music can be a success and make them more money in the long run. If they can't even survive in three months due to a temporary reduction of their revenue maybe they should get a loan or find a part time job.
Where this math falls apart is assuming that one stream equals one download.
In my house, we may purchase a CD, and rip it to MP3, and the kids will listen to the album hundreds of times between them. The same would likely hold for downloads. (Remember that you purchase it once and it lasts forever. A streaming system will generate a constant trickle of revenue.)
So a more fair comparison may be 10-20K downloads to 1M streams.
Additionally, in speaking to recording artists I know, the best that they have received is 18%, and that's only once the advance (used for marketing, legal, etc) is paid off. I suspect you would be lucky to find many artists outside of the multi-platinum sellers who receive anything close to 30%.
So ....
1M streams x $0.005 = $5000
10K d/l @ $0.99 x 70% x 18% = $1247.40 (even 20K d/l @ 36% is only $4989.60, no better despite doubling the number of downloads and the artists percentage).
Given the choice, I would always opt for the subscription (in this case, the streaming) model.
Unless of course I was in a dinosaur industry and recognized that I served no purpose relative to what I was receiving, in which case I would want the money asap in case my job didn't exist later....
The difference being of course that here the monetisation model is completely different. You pay a flat rate for Apple Music and don't need to pay anything extra to try new music, and the maker of that music still gets paid.
I don't think this is the issue indies claim to have, actually. They are trying to imply that they have to get by for 3 months with zero revenues, as though Apple Music is not an additional revenue source, but rather the only revenue source as of June 30th, and all other distribution channels cease to exist on the launch of Apple Music.
Finally - someone who gets it!
I would actually hypothesise that your estimate of the ratio of streams to downloads is actually conservative as well.
Good post.
Apple don't care who they have to step on or put out of business they never have.
I have no issue with the service itself, but Apple should be the ones funding the experiment for 3 months not the independent artists. Take the hit, pay the artists and move on.
The studios have wanted to remove physical media for a long time. They want pay per use as they make more money that way - this has been known since the 80s.
I have no issue with the service itself, but Apple should be the ones funding the experiment for 3 months not the independent artists. Take the hit, pay the artists and move on.
The studios have wanted to remove physical media for a long time. They want pay per use as they make more money that way - this has been known since the 80s.
Last edited:
Anton Newcombe, frontman of The Brian Jonestown Massacre has accused Apple of using strong arm tactics and threatening to remove his music from the iTunes Store if the band doesn't sign up to Apple Music.
This is worrying if true.
Brian Jonestown Massacre's Anton Newcombe to Apple Music: '**** These Satanic Corporations'
(Warning, strong language NSFW)
This is worrying if true.
Brian Jonestown Massacre's Anton Newcombe to Apple Music: '**** These Satanic Corporations'
(Warning, strong language NSFW)
Last edited:
At the end of the day, it's business. If the terms that are being posed to them are unacceptable, they are free to take their music elsewhere. These bands and musicians rub their hands with glee since Apple ecosystem allows them access to hundreds of millions of pairs of eyes and ears. However, when Apple tries to tweak the house rules to benefit Apple in a particular way, "OMG!!! Apple are the worst company ever!!! How dare they!!??".This is worrying if true.
I agree that artists should be free to decide whether or not they sign up to this new service but they shouldn't be blackmailed with a ban from iTunes if they decide to not allow their music to be streamed.
Are they going to ban big artists like the Beatles and AC/DC from iTunes if they refuse to sign up to Apple Music or are they just attempting to bully smaller artists?
Paying radio station to play your music was, and still is illegal. The point is that artists would be willing to pay to have their music played on traditional radio, just to be heard and recognized.
Artists and labels are at the very bottom of the music food chain when it comes to terrestrial radio. For decades they received zero dollars for music played over the air, which believe it or not, they didn't mind, because they were the only way they could be heard, and that sparked sales.
The only people who actually earned anything were the songwriters and music publishers, which means if an artist is singing a song written by somebody else, neither the artist or the label gets a cent. Since the artist and label ultimately benefitted from the airplay, there was never a movement to change that until recently.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/17/musicians-radio-royalties/2829099/
So, to clarify my point, I'm saying that artists and labels never made any money from music played over the radio, but they never complained that they lost money because of it either.
If you formed a garage band on your own independent label, and I told you I couldn't get Pandora, iHeartRadio and Apple to play your music because nobody knew who you were, you'd have a hard time selling your music.
These artists are lucky anyone is willing to take a chance on them to give them airplay. Otherwise they would stick to playing nothing but artists that have a proven track record. After all, subscribers (including paid and trial) didn't seek them out.
It's not a ban, because they can come back if they decide to play by the rules. With Apple, an all-inclusive ecosystem is part of the brand appeal. Let's not forget that they (artists) will still get money if people buy their albums through iTunes during that streaming trial, so it's not like the tap will be turned off completely.
And big bands like Beatles and AC/DC have no interest in refusing to sign up for Apple Music. They can stomach it for 3 months, after which it will be an additional source of revenue. And if Apple is going to start giving preferential treatment to smaller artists, where does it stop?
Most rumours seem to be suggesting the Beatles and AC/DC will be among the big name holdouts who won't be signed up to Apple Music when it launches. Apple have said there will be over 30 million songs available to stream from launch but there are over 43 million songs currently available in the iTunes Store. Will they kick out those extra 13 million songs from iTunes because the artists have not signed up to Apple's all-inclusive ecosystem?
It is a ban, since they can't come back unless they play by the rules.
It doesn't seem like it's that hard to figure out. If someone is getting free unlimited streaming for three months, are they likely to buy much if any music during that time? Or at least any music that's included in that free streaming? If a huge number of people join the free trial it does seem pretty likely that it could put a sizeable dent in music sales.
If I were an artist or label, I definitely wouldn't want to release a new album during the first three months this is available. And at least for indie labels or artists that are self released, if I was going to participate at all I'd definitely want to wait at least three months to join. There will still be people doing the three month trial starting later, but as time goes on that number will be smaller than the initial rush.
You're ignoring the fact that songwriters HAVE been paid for radio airplay for decades. And the numbers are significantly higher than those for streaming.
If I were an artist or label, I definitely wouldn't want to release a new album during the first three months this is available. And at least for indie labels or artists that are self released, if I was going to participate at all I'd definitely want to wait at least three months to join. There will still be people doing the three month trial starting later, but as time goes on that number will be smaller than the initial rush.
You're ignoring the fact that songwriters HAVE been paid for radio airplay for decades. And the numbers are significantly higher than those for streaming.
Nobody will be making more money because they're on Apple Music. Even with millions of listens, streaming royalties are peanuts.
That would be exactly the right time I would want to release a single, which would be more likely to hit higher sales due to the slow down in released tracks by these indie labels who are apparently going to all cease to exist when this additional source of income starts with a free trial.
Good luck with that. Regardless of what else is released at that time, I'm not sure how you think you're going to make money by having tons of people stream it for free, which will likely decrease sales as well.
The indies should all say no, then when the 3 months free has finished join the program.
Why should they take all the risks and hit in the pocket. No ones going to take the free streams and then go out and buy the download too. So the artist are directly funding this out of their own pockets for the first 3 months - apple should fund it and do the right thing, pay the artists for the use of their material.
Why should they take all the risks and hit in the pocket. No ones going to take the free streams and then go out and buy the download too. So the artist are directly funding this out of their own pockets for the first 3 months - apple should fund it and do the right thing, pay the artists for the use of their material.
Note I said a single not an album. Radio plays and exposure as well as the normal income from single sales ready for my album that comes out, oh about three months after September.
Lol, whilst I'm glad you've come to your senses.... it's worth noting that the ONLY reason your post garnered a response from me is because I couldn't handle your snide and pompous "some people are so clueless" comment. It annoys me when people put out their paltry opinion as fact, then sneer at others... like you did. Thus.... my attitude & lack of respect for you. Make sense? You get what you give. Want polite conversation? Give it to others! Want to get smacked down a few notches? Come on here with your nose in the air, pretending your opinion is the only one & insulting the intelligence of those that disagree with you.
We can have a do over though... just PLEASE, in the future restrain from that type of antagonizing insulting commentary, yeah?