5 ms·

The free trial is limited to three months, so it's simply false to equate it with 'free' or 'freemium'. Apple is asking labels to offer users access to their m

by gress 11y ago

The free trial is limited to three months, so it's simply false to equate it with 'free' or 'freemium'. Apple is asking labels to offer users access to their music for free during the trial period. I.e. Apple isn't going to subsidize the music during the trials. The real question is - why is beggar's banquet afraid of giving their listeners a 3 month free trial? Are they afraid that people won't want to continue listening to their artists after that?

osi 11y ago
I would surmise that they have data based on plays from other streaming services that suggests that plays for new releases spike around when that release happens. Unless a hit is generated, plays might level off.
Sephiroth87 11y ago
I'm in no way a music industry expert, but I can see a couple of scenarios where this is bad: - an emerging band/small label might need those 3 months of revenue to actually survive, especially if it's their first/only release - people will probably listen after the 3 months, but I can imagine most albums are listened to during the launch window and not much after, so they're be losing most of their money...
w4 11y ago
> The real question is - why is beggar's banquet afraid of giving their listeners a 3 month free trial? Why do you consider it reasonable for Apple to use artists' IP, free, in order to acquire users for Apple's paid services? EDIT: I also suspect that the free trial will create an enormous cash flow crunch for smaller labels when Apple Music releases. Consider the following: Apple Music will become available, for free, to all existing iTunes users for 3 months. You can expect that iTunes music purchases will nosedive after Apple Music's release, at least for those first months. If you're a small indie label, it's likely that losing the lion's share of a full quarter of revenue from one of the largest music stores on earth (never mind the ripple effects on other stores) is going to represent a significant financial hardship. Hence their consternation over mandatory 3 month free streaming.
- gress 11y ago
  > Why do you consider it reasonable for Apple to use artists' IP, free, in order to acquire users for Apple's paid services? I don't and that's a false statement about what's happening. When the free trial ends, payments from the users are split with the artists. Both the artists and Apple benefit from the success of the service. You could equally well say - "why should artists expect to user Apple's IP to market their music for free?"
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    The problem is new releases. If I release an album at the start of the trial people will naturally listen to it a lot for a couple of months and then listen to other stuff - and now I've just lost out on revenue for the biggest selling period for that album (around the release). For the small labels this is enough to put them out of business.
  - w4 11y ago
    > You could equally well say - "why should artists expect to user Apple's IP to market their music for free?" Except that they don't. Apple takes a cut of each payment just like it does on the App Store. "Artists using Apple's IP for free" is not what's going on here - Apple is stating it will not pay artists in an effort to subsidize its user acquisition efforts. If Apple were forgoing its portion of each subscription payment, while still paying artists their portion, no one would be complaining. Let's put it this way: tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will receive unlimited access to all apps on the App Store. Developers will receive a share of each user's subscription payments in proportion to app usage. Apple simultaneously announces a 3 month free trial for all App Store accounts, and states that it will be making no payments to developers during that trial since users are not paying for it. Do you feel that this is a fair arrangement?
  - firstworldman 11y ago
    I think this statement might be among the most profound crystallizations of a certain type of SV mindset that people outside that world find flabbergasting. Marketplaces do not exist without goods to sell. If you were to walk into a record store and mistake the store itself, and not the music, for being the main reason why people visit record stores, and that all of these recording artists are super lucky to be in this awesome store, well... I'd like to meet the person who thinks that, I guess. Maybe.
mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
Rhetorical questions cut both ways: Why is Apple afraid of subsidizing the free trial designed to acquire customers for their streaming service? Are they afraid that people won't want to continue paying for their service after that?
- fpgeek 11y ago
  Apple did not become one of the most profitable companies in the world by paying expenses partners can be convinced to eat instead.
  - oddevan 11y ago
    This. I think Apple is convinced that 3 months is enough time to get customers in the HABIT of using their service such that they'll look at the new $10 charge on their iTunes bill, shrug their shoulders, and go back to listening to music. The whole "no royalties" thing is just Apple playing hardball to try to minimize the cost of the free trial. Personally, I think they should subsidize some of the smaller/indie labels that can't afford the 3-month drop, but that's plan F or even M for Apple.
CPLX 11y ago
I want to know why Apple is afraid of giving me free cell phone service with an unlimited data plan for my iPhone for three months when I buy one at the Apple store. Are they afraid I won't continue to want such a plan after the three months are up?

by gress 11y ago

osi 11y ago

I would surmise that they have data based on plays from other streaming services that suggests that plays for new releases spike around when that release happens. Unless a hit is generated, plays might level off.

Sephiroth87 11y ago

I'm in no way a music industry expert, but I can see a couple of scenarios where this is bad: - an emerging band/small label might need those 3 months of revenue to actually survive, especially if it's their first/only release - people will probably listen after the 3 months, but I can imagine most albums are listened to during the launch window and not much after, so they're be losing most of their money...

w4 11y ago

> The real question is - why is beggar's banquet afraid of giving their listeners a 3 month free trial? Why do you consider it reasonable for Apple to use artists' IP, free, in order to acquire users for Apple's paid services? EDIT: I also suspect that the free trial will create an enormous cash flow crunch for smaller labels when Apple Music releases. Consider the following: Apple Music will become available, for free, to all existing iTunes users for 3 months. You can expect that iTunes music purchases will nosedive after Apple Music's release, at least for those first months. If you're a small indie label, it's likely that losing the lion's share of a full quarter of revenue from one of the largest music stores on earth (never mind the ripple effects on other stores) is going to represent a significant financial hardship. Hence their consternation over mandatory 3 month free streaming.

gress 11y ago
> Why do you consider it reasonable for Apple to use artists' IP, free, in order to acquire users for Apple's paid services? I don't and that's a false statement about what's happening. When the free trial ends, payments from the users are split with the artists. Both the artists and Apple benefit from the success of the service. You could equally well say - "why should artists expect to user Apple's IP to market their music for free?"
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  The problem is new releases. If I release an album at the start of the trial people will naturally listen to it a lot for a couple of months and then listen to other stuff - and now I've just lost out on revenue for the biggest selling period for that album (around the release). For the small labels this is enough to put them out of business.
- w4 11y ago
  > You could equally well say - "why should artists expect to user Apple's IP to market their music for free?" Except that they don't. Apple takes a cut of each payment just like it does on the App Store. "Artists using Apple's IP for free" is not what's going on here - Apple is stating it will not pay artists in an effort to subsidize its user acquisition efforts. If Apple were forgoing its portion of each subscription payment, while still paying artists their portion, no one would be complaining. Let's put it this way: tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will receive unlimited access to all apps on the App Store. Developers will receive a share of each user's subscription payments in proportion to app usage. Apple simultaneously announces a 3 month free trial for all App Store accounts, and states that it will be making no payments to developers during that trial since users are not paying for it. Do you feel that this is a fair arrangement?
- firstworldman 11y ago
  I think this statement might be among the most profound crystallizations of a certain type of SV mindset that people outside that world find flabbergasting. Marketplaces do not exist without goods to sell. If you were to walk into a record store and mistake the store itself, and not the music, for being the main reason why people visit record stores, and that all of these recording artists are super lucky to be in this awesome store, well... I'd like to meet the person who thinks that, I guess. Maybe.

mrgoldenbrown 11y ago

Rhetorical questions cut both ways: Why is Apple afraid of subsidizing the free trial designed to acquire customers for their streaming service? Are they afraid that people won't want to continue paying for their service after that?

fpgeek 11y ago
Apple did not become one of the most profitable companies in the world by paying expenses partners can be convinced to eat instead.
- oddevan 11y ago
  This. I think Apple is convinced that 3 months is enough time to get customers in the HABIT of using their service such that they'll look at the new $10 charge on their iTunes bill, shrug their shoulders, and go back to listening to music. The whole "no royalties" thing is just Apple playing hardball to try to minimize the cost of the free trial. Personally, I think they should subsidize some of the smaller/indie labels that can't afford the 3-month drop, but that's plan F or even M for Apple.

CPLX 11y ago

I want to know why Apple is afraid of giving me free cell phone service with an unlimited data plan for my iPhone for three months when I buy one at the Apple store. Are they afraid I won't continue to want such a plan after the three months are up?