17 ms·

To Apple, Love Taylor

• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• ixtli 11y ago
  In 215 comments no one that I could find has mentioned that, while well-intentioned, this post comes off as somewhat disingenuous because Apple does not deal directly with the artists. The entire (pretty well-written) thing doesn't mention _at all_ that the majority of musicians do not deal directly with distributors. Think about it: how are Apple/Google/Spotify/Amazon going to deal directly with 10 million individuals? The answer is that they don't. I think anyone can agree that Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on, the people who are directly responsible for not compensating the artists are, rather conspicuously, left out of this rant.
  • donarb 11y ago
    Exactly. And my question is forget the digital part of it. How did this work in the days of records and CDs when promotional copies were given away? Sure most went to radio stations for airplay, but others were given away. Did the artist get any money for those copies or was that part of the record companies' marketing budget?
    • spullara 11y ago
      The artists paid for those copies themselves when they paid back the record companies for marketing.
  • michaelcampbell 11y ago
    > Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on How are they making money on the free trial, during the trial?
    • aleem 11y ago
      (1) subscriber acquisition and (2) neutralising the competition. AOL for example printed and gave away for free, millions of CDs with free dialup access, spending as much as $35 on SAC (Subscriber Acquisition Cost) [1]: > How much did it cost AOL to distribute all those CDs back in the 1990s? > > Steve Case, co-founder and former chief executive officer and chairman of America Online: > > At that time I believe the average subscriber life was about 25 months and revenue was about $350 so we spent about $35 to acquire subscribers. As we were able to lower the cost of disks/trial/etc we were able to ramp up marketing. (Plus, we knew Microsoft was coming and it was never going to be easier or cheaper to get market share.) When we went public in 1992 we had less than 200,000 subscribers; a decade later the number was in the 25 million range. That helped drive our market capitalization up from $70 million at the time of the IPO to $150 billion when we decided to combine with Time Warner to accelerate our transition to broadband and diversify our revenue mix. [1]: http://www.quora.com/How-much-did-it-cost-AOL-to-distribute-all-those-CDs-back-in-the-1990s
  • bluthru 11y ago
    >I think anyone can agree that Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on Apple AND the music industry are losing money during the 3 months, but they both stand to gain money after that. Apple has invested a lot of money in creating the service and running it for free for the trial period.
    • ixtli 11y ago
      They are making artists pay for their user acquisition. I still call that profiting off of someone else's work without compensating them.
• robspychala 11y ago
  this sucks but it's not a new technique music clubs of 15 years ago didn't pay artists for your "12 free CDs" either
  • TIM2014 11y ago
    made me think about those old BMG (i think it was) music clubs were you could purchase 12 CDs for 3 cents, and all you had to do is buy x amount of CDs per year. Wonder if the artist got paid for those.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• IBM 11y ago
  Apple made their response to this a few days ago in this Recode article. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-after-you-pay-for-a-month-of-apple-music/ http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a... >Apple won’t pay music owners anything for the songs that are streamed during Apple Music’s three-month trial period, a bone of contention with music labels during negotiations for the new service. But Kondrk says Apple’s payouts are a few percentage points higher than the industry standard, in part to account for the lengthy trial period; most paid subscription services offer a free one-month trial. I wonder if all of these complaints would go away if Apple said they weren't going to offer higher payouts overall but would pay during the free-trial?
  • cwyers 11y ago
    That's disingenuous; other streaming services pay for streams by free users.
    • IBM 11y ago
      What's disingenuous about it? If Apple said that they'd pay during the free-trial but went back to the same industry standard rates would any of these artists still be complaining? I don't think so, they stand to benefit more overall from a service that will offer them higher payouts than the payment they get during the free-trial. The artists/labels complaining would obviously prefer that Apple offer the higher payout AND pay them during the trial, but that's why this is nothing more than a business negotiation being played out in public. The fact is that Apple is paying for music during the free-trial, in higher and on-going payments.
  • themartorana 11y ago
    "Higher payouts" appear to be 71 (US) and 73% (rest of the world) vs. 70% from Spotify [0] (and likely very similar from other streaming services). 1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-statement-apple-music-three-month-free-trial http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...
• billdhn 11y ago
  FU Pay Me!
• haydenchambers 11y ago
  I don't understand why a company with such a professed love of music and simultaneously so much in the bank can't back its own product and a) pay artists for that three month period and b) offer the service at cost going forward.
• sarreph 11y ago
  > These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. I am starting to doubt that Taylor Swift really is as 'representative' as she wishes to portray, and not simply greedy, considering the extent to which she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams (e.g. Spotify).
  • jeffehobbs 11y ago
    That is literally her choice to make, as it's her name and her work that's being sold here. And good for her (and her management team, and her management team's management team) for making it.
  • mbrock 11y ago
    She's a startup.
  • fenomas 11y ago
    > ..she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams Like someone running a business you mean?
  • Coding_Cat 11y ago
    Well, the same argument of "This is a terrible thing for up-an-coming (or niche) artists" could be made against Spotify's business model. And slightly off-topic, I fail to see how anyone could call any of this the complaints of a spoiled child even if she would flat out say "fuck you, pay me". Are you not allowed to ask for your dues if you're rich already?
  • AndrewDucker 11y ago
    She avoids Spotify because they wouldn't let her music be only available for paying users. Basically, she refuses to be ad-supported, or give her music away.
    • mhenr18 11y ago
      Doesn't that logic mean she should pull her music from all radio stations?
    • 11y ago
• gavanwoolery 11y ago
  Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so this move does not surprise me. $0.02
  • hahainternet 11y ago
    > In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run So, Apple should pay for it, rather than attempting to enforce themselves as a middleman who takes only profit as they have done in every other sphere.
    • Dylan16807 11y ago
      On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists. Making Apple's revenue be directly tied to artist revenue makes a lot of sense.
      • hahainternet 11y ago
        > On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists. How? The trials would still be free. Nothing would change for the consumer, therefore you couldn't argue that.
        • Dylan16807 11y ago
          Let's have a hypothetical scenario with simplified numbers. The trial distributes $20M in music and leads to $10M more in customers after a year. Half the revenue goes to Apple, half to the artists. If Apple doesn't pay the artists for the trial, then they run the trial and get $5M extra profit. The artists get $5M extra profit. The audience gets more music. Everyone wins. If Apple pays the artists for the trial, they see that it will cost them $10M licensing to get back a mere $5M. They don't run the trial. Nobody wins. Edit: fixed the numbers
• hahainternet 11y ago
  Both sides of this disagreement are hilariously petty. Both desperate to hold on to every last penny they can get hold of. The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.
  • JoeAnzalone 11y ago
    Did you not read the whole post or do you just not believe her? > This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt.
    • synaesthesisx 11y ago
      Considering she's 25 and her net worth is north of $300mil...I don't think the money is relevant to her
    • hahainternet 11y ago
      I don't believe her. She wasn't some struggling songwriter desperately touring with a band. It's just guff.
• 1stop 11y ago
  So Apple run a loss-leader... where they don't incur the loss, and just get the lead. Scum.
  • Dylan16807 11y ago
    Any definition of loss that says Apple suffers none would also say that the artists suffer none. Likewise, any lead Apple gets here is shared with the artists. This is rude to force on artists without asking, but only because they're not asking. It's not scummy.
    • yincrash 11y ago
      Except the loss-leader is being used to steal users from other streaming radio services that _are_ currently paying labels & artists. So any users that switches from Spotify to Apple for example is a user that was paying artists but is now not for 3 months.
  • logicallee 11y ago
    That analogy would apply if the loss got people in the door, but they bought SOMETHING ELSE that ensured profits. For example, in this case if free music got them onto Apple's platform (loss) where they then bought a bunch of apps (unrelated to music and the source of profit). For anyone who doesn't know, a loss leader is something advertised like bread for 50 cents or something, where the store loses money on each and every sale. It's a customer acquisition cost, and the goal of this is to "lead" with the loss, get people in the store, and there they will buy not only bread but anything else they need at the time, at normal market prices. Normal market prices give enough profit to offset the loss taken on the "lead." This works because people don't just go to a store and buy the one marked-down item and nothing else. (Or more specifically the extra profit for people who buy other things after only coming in due to the loss leader, covers the loss on them, and on everyone who only gets the loss leader.)
    • 1stop 11y ago
      That's a specific (but common) use of the loss-leader strategy, but not the definition. The strategy itself is to sell something at a loss, to get a lead/marketshare/conversion.
• dombili 11y ago
  Not sure I understand this argument. Shouldn't she complain about the record companies rather than Apple? It's not like Apple's making money during that free 3 month period.
  • izacus 11y ago
    What do the records company have to do with Apple demanding that she gives away her songs for free to stay on iTunes music service?
    • ikeboy 11y ago
      That's only to join Apple Music, not to stay on iTunes.
    • dombili 11y ago
      In deals like this, service providers don't have the upper hand, content providers do. Apple wouldn't have been able to offer free 3 month trial if record companies wouldn't have agreed to it. Maybe I'm misinformed, but did Apple come out and say that if she doesn't put her albums on its streaming service, she'd be off iTunes music service? Why on earth would they do that? It'd be a PR nightmare for them and they'd lose money.
      • icebraining 11y ago
        Anton Newcombe claimed[1] the Apple rep threaten to kick him off iTunes if he didn't agree to join Music, but Apple has since denied it. [1] https://twitter.com/antonnewcombe/status/611122009007882240 https://twitter.com/antonnewcombe/status/611122009007882240
• mnx 11y ago
  It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.
  • x5n1 11y ago
    It's okay, the notice is in your e-mail inbox and your music is already online... If you don't like it, write them an e-mail, put: "2 legit 2 quit" in the subject line. /s
  • jws 11y ago
    This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN. Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months. Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. Three kinds of customers will try the service: People who buy their music: these will either become long term subscribers or not like the service and buy the songs they want anyway. Perhaps slightly delayed. People who currently freeload: no loss for the trial. Possible huge win if they subscribe. People using another streaming service: this is where the labels might actually give something. If a customer cancels their existing service while trying Apple's that will reduce the label's take by up to ~25% for the year. Month alignment and a comparison period will both drop this. I suspect the third category is not the target audience. A small loss on service switchers is worth the big win for the labels in converting freeloaders to customers.
    • sanswork 11y ago
      The labels and artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist. Apple built a service that wouldn't exist without the content. The content would still exist on other services without Apple though.
      • chii 11y ago
        > artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist. no one is arguing that their costs don't exist, but that they have nothing to lose to put it on. It's not like the artist will somehow have a lower cost by _not_ putting it up.
• b1zguy 11y ago
  I must say, Swift is a pretty good writer; yet this perception is warped by my surprise to be honest. I guess I'll go looking out for more of her written works when I next have a free moment to make a better judgement.
  • x5n1 11y ago
    Taylor did not write that... at least I don't think that she did.
    • morganvachon 11y ago
      You'd be surprised. I'm not a fan of her music (if I had kids they probably would be) but she's very hands-on with her image and if it's on her tumblr page, she wrote it. I respect her as a person and from what I've seen she's very intelligent and articulate.
      • x5n1 11y ago
        She's also a multi-millionare. I doubt she has time for this and it's managed by her company, pr, and/or lawyers.
        • Someone 11y ago
          By that logic, Jobs didn't write http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ or his "thoughts on music" (which seem to have disappeared from Apple.com), either.
          • vacri 11y ago
            There was a time when people used to calculate how much money would have to be lying on the ground for it to be worth Bill Gates' time to simply stop, lean down, and pick it up...
            • 11y ago
• sanswork 11y ago
  3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.
  • nemik 11y ago
    From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilemma http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists. Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own money. So in this case they really might be too poor to make this deal work otherwise. Good for Taylor Swift to stand up to this kind of crap.
    • briandear 11y ago
      Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.
      • logicchains 11y ago
        US taxes contribute more to violent deaths and unnecessary punishments/imprisonments per dollar than taxes paid in most other countries. The US spends a greater proportion of GDP on "defense" than almost all other Western countries, so a tax dollar paid in the US is more likely to contribute to "defense" and less likely to contribute to education, healthcare or whatnot than a tax dollar paid in e.g. Sweden or Holland. Similarly, the US has 25% of the world's prison population yet only 5% of its total population, so necessarily spends a relatively higher percentage of tax dollars on incarceration. There are actually people who do everything they can to minimise their tax liability in order to reduce the money spent on things they consider unjust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance. Every dollar not paid in US tax is a dollar that won't contribute to blowing up people in the Middle East who have the misfortune of being in proximity to suspected terrorists (tens of thousands of people over the past decade) [1]. Similarly, every dollar not paid in US tax is a dollar that won't be spent putting poor people in prison for smoking a weed that causes less violence in a decade than alcohol causes in a day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war...
• pablovidal85 11y ago
  What stops her from joining after the 3 month trial period?
  • Heliosmaster 11y ago
    Everyone who signs up has 3 months free trial from that day, not that the first 3 months of the service (since it goes live) are free for everyone.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • pablovidal85 11y ago
      Still, she could join in once a desired number of users finished their trial period and started paying.
• kbrwn 11y ago
  Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment that musicians currently expect (imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!) but if that was the norm I don't think many would just agree to put their app on the appstore for 3 months without payment.
  • CPLX 11y ago
    > imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app If software developers were compensated for their creative output the way musicians are there wouldn't be so many software developers. I had a really innovative startup idea once where I planned to have developers work for years to create hit software products that made many people's life better and then get into a crappy van and travel the country to do 90 minute demos of their product for a few hundred dollars. But only if they had a genuinely successful product mind you, obviously being merely competent at software development meant you didn't get paid at all, you had to actually amass significant numbers of fans of your products willing to come to these demos. Never did figure out why I didn't get more developers interested in the platform.
  • unfamiliar 11y ago
    > imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app! Honestly, $10 a month to use every app sounds pretty good for me, bad for developers.
    • mmorris 11y ago
      It depends on how much uptake you get, doesn't it? For example, I spend less than $10/mo on apps (and for that matter, music too). If that's the case for enough users who get the new deal, this would be a net gain for developers. I think that's why you get developers(/musicians) to agree to it.
• unfamiliar 11y ago
  I agree with everything she said... but she didn't answer the question she posed at the start: why is she withholding 1989, (and not any of her other albums), and what does that have to do with the 3 month trial? If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span.
  • sanswork 11y ago
    She probably is withholding the rest like on Spotify but people typically only care about the newest album. Alternatively maybe it's to stop them from being able to promote their service as being the only one with 1989 on it?
  • m_fayer 11y ago
    The one album can be seen as her token of protest without going as far as shunning the service as a whole. So, this is probably a carefully calibrated objection, and we're not privy to the details of why she did it this way and not some other way.
  • vacri 11y ago
    There may be pre-existing contractual obligations that make it harder to pull the back catalogue.
    • dublinben 11y ago
      Or she and her label recognize that the back catalog is not as valuable as the latest album. Giving away access to the back catalog on free streaming services will act to develop fans, and increase purchases of the new album. This new album that is not available on free streaming services.
  • sangnoir 11y ago
    > If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span Because Apple will not allow her to do so. It is not 3 universal calendar month: every user gets 3 months free when they start a subscription, depending on when they sign up for the service. Artist cannot opt-out of the free-service tier catalog and just go with the paid users. So Taylor Swift is withholding her music because she won't get paid for all the listens by users in their first 3 months.
• yincrash 11y ago
  Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304
  • Steko 11y ago
    I'll suggest this is all a fairly straightforward negotiation ploy. Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? I'd suggest since there is no money at stake in the first 3 months they are holding out to pressure for slightly better terms (and a couple headlines never hurt sales) and then will jump on in 3 months once the money is actually flowing. You'll note that there will always be many people in the 3 month free trial, Swift isn't threatening to hold her album out forever (or her other music!) to stop the supposed bad business model, just for the 3 launch months when guaranteed revenue zero. Kudos to these artists for knowing where their leverage is and using it though! Apple has a couple options: (1) just eat it, prolly what happens. (2) they can pay up a bit but the big labels would be steamed at getting a worse deal than independents so that isn't happening. (3) pay everyone a little bit more for the launch months. This might happen but the clock is ticking. (4) they can make these artists sit out longer than the initial 3 months. That compromises the quality of their service though. Still they might do it, hoping it would pressure them to signing up for the release. (5) they could weight the streaming for awhile so that holdout artists appear less than they might normally. I expect this might happen but if they do this hopefully be done openly ("we're rewarding our launch partners"). (6) go back in time and do a 3 month beta rollout so money is at stake when you do the big rollout with the new phone.
    • rorykoehler 11y ago
      What makes sense for the major labels doesn't necessarily make sense for the artist. Major labels have billions in net worth and have invested heavily in the stock/equity of companies such as Apple, Spotify etc etc. They could care less about the royalty pennies that drip out the bottom to feed the artists. They're getting rich on equity. The independents on the other hand don't have this luxury.
• whonut 11y ago
  The Apple Music free trial thing is shitty but Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here. Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming services. It strikes me as similar to the situation with people only buying games that are on Steam. Consumers love the convenience of a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator. Tough one.
  • opcvx 11y ago
    Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming services. Did you read the post where she explains what is her goal for doing this? Here is the relevant part: This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
    • sbarre 11y ago
      Do you really believe that? Or is that maybe carefully crafted language to fend off the parent's valid argument? Plenty of creators currently put their music on Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Youtube and more, and get exposure that way without getting paid. The choice is really up to the artist. I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to? I don't know.. btw not saying I have the answer here, but as parent said, the current landscape doesn't really line up with her argument much.
• ehosca 11y ago
  does Taylor Swift herself have full autonomy over determining how/when her music can be played?
  • ixtli 11y ago
    I just posted about this at the top level, but thank you for being a critical thinker: Taylor Swift _may_ deal directly with a distributer but only because she's mega-ultra-super successful. 99% of musicians use third parties to get their music to distributors. You do not do deals directly with Spotify: you sign up with ASCAP and tell them the gist of where you want your music.
  • ricardobeat 11y ago
    That is a great question that I'm also curious to hear the answer. She seems to be signed with Universal, how come does she have fine-grained control over her publishing rights unlike most other artists? Or are these actually moves by the labels using her to earn sympathy from the public?
    • w4 11y ago
      It's pretty likely she was able to negotiate control over her rights that most artists don't have, since she's one of the few remaining artists that actually sells records: http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2014/11/05/361577726/taylor-swift-platinum-party-of-one http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2014/11/05/361577726/t...
    • Tomte 11y ago
      Ultra successful acts like Taylor Swift certainly don't just sign some standard contract the record label gives to them, but negotiate every single clause in it, using extremely competent and experienced managers and lawyers. That's what distinguishes Taylor Swift from 95 percent of acts who maybe negotiate a little thing here and there, but are mostly happy to get signed.
    • dagw 11y ago
      She seems to be signed with Universal No, she's signed with an indie label called Big Machine Records. Big Machine Records has a distribution deal with Universal.
• owly 11y ago
  Taylor can easily get on radio playlists. Unknown artists cannot. They CAN get on Apple music, spotify, etc. There's no way to get known beyond local clubs without the free exposure.
  • nevi-me 11y ago
    Yes, unknown artists can't, but the point is that they are going 3 months without income. There have been many local one-hit-wonders in my country, make a decent album with one or two 'hit' singles, and never get enough money to stay afloat. Hence the one-hit-wonder bit. If it took me 6 months of no income to produce an album, then as I release it I go 3 months with no income (assuming that Apple is the only streaming service, and that people choose to stream instead of buy). By the time the 3 months are over, people have moved on to something else. This hurts me as I don't recover my expenses. Taylor mentioned that she can support herself, team, etc. The unknown mostly can't, so the trial hurts them.
• pearjuice 11y ago
  Given the volume cap of Apple and the formulas they can pop out stating "after three months of free use, x users will convert into paying users resulting in y revenu and z profit for you" to record labels, all it boils down is record labels willing to believe Apple their predictions and whether they are happy with that y in return of 3 months of upfront payment.
• contentfairplay 11y ago
  And they say Apple cares about artists and content creators...
• raverbashing 11y ago
  Oh why are we peddling to whining by people who have too much money and airtime already?
  • m_fayer 11y ago
    Because they're powerful and can make excellent allies if they so choose.
• tehwebguy 11y ago
  If you don't need the promotion hold your music off for 3 months. If you do, go for it. Problem solved? Maybe there was some sort exclusivity thing but it doesn't make sense that artists would have to take it or leave it now. Also, someone with her streaming numbers is basically the only kind of artist that would even care. Streaming royalties are really low unless you have really huge numbers so while she stands to potentially lose significant revenue in 3 months tons of artists won't.
  • joe5150 11y ago
    It's difficult to know for sure but reasonable to assume that at least some of the people streaming for free would have bought the album instead.
• BillFranklin 11y ago
  This isn't the first time Apple has screwed over independent/small content producers (HN 1682 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1896189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1896189
• jokoon 11y ago
  It's a sales move of apple to get people to use their product, and immediately make it paying to get new subscribers. It's crazy how the industry leaders are so prevalent compared to the people they employ.
• amandahugnkiss1 11y ago
  I think T-Swift just needs to "Shake it off, Shake it off..."
• sauere 11y ago
  > Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. It is safe to assume that max. 10% of the subscribers will be in this 3 month trial. You will make money from the other 90%. Also, just a little industry insight: Taylor makes $1.5m+ at each concert, plus travel, hotel, technical rider. I have a very hard time understanding all this cry baby talk.
  • paukiatwee 11y ago
    > This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. Did you read the whole article?
    • sauere 11y ago
      Yes. That point simply is not valid. As i said, that new artist will be losing 10% at max.
      • k-mcgrady 11y ago
        And when you're making very, very little money, that 10% could be very important.
  • zymhan 11y ago
    You have any data to support that? And if that's true, then Apple should be taking the hit up front, not the artists. Your last point is just irrelevant and unnecessary.
    • sauere 11y ago
      I worked in the live music industry and have a pretty good idea of these numbers. But you can just google up some leaked booking agreements (The Smoking Gun has some pdfs). Yes, obviously a lot of people must be paid from that fee (crew, management, band...), but it is still shitload of cash.
• wodenokoto 11y ago
  I believe that Netflix pays content providers for the views on their 1 free month.
• kristianc 11y ago
  Apple Music's big problem is that the service itself offers nothing new - most of the people that are going to paid for paid music will use Spotify already, and getting them to switch will be hard. I suspect that Apple knows that the take up for the three month free trial will be huge, but that conversion to paid will be a much harder row to hoe. This is all about Apple not wanting to foot the bill if and when people switch back to what they were doing already (Spotify, YouTube) without paying Apple a dime.
  • madeofpalk 11y ago
    > Apple Music's big problem is that the service itself offers nothing new. Eh. Apple Music is mediocre and that's ok. It's instantly going to be the default music player on hundreds of millions of iPhones overnight. At worst, they're going to get the same usage as Spotify.
    • kristianc 11y ago
      I'd suggest that most of the people that want to pay to stream music through their iPhones already use Spotify - the rest use YouTube and pay nothing. Apple pushing the labels to nix Spotify's freemium tier was no accident. Mediocre service + paid + Apple brand = no longer good enough.
  • RexRollman 11y ago
    None of the streaming services (including existing services Rdio and Spotify) offer anything unique. In my opinion, the only thing the truly separates them is catalogue size.
    • kristianc 11y ago
      Spotify has a freemium tier that converts extraordinarily well.
  • threeseed 11y ago
    Apple Music does offer a number of features over Spotify: a) Siri. With the existing Music app I can tell Siri to play a particular artist or playlist. I would expect far deeper integration. b) Watch. The Music app is native, has a glance. c) Desktop. Spotify client on the desktop is slow and clunky. iTunes on the Mac is anything but.
• didymospl 11y ago
  Apple even named a programming language after her and she still refuses to cooperate
  • taylorwho 11y ago
    They created a language called 'whiny'?
  • vonklaus 11y ago
    Although ridiculous, this comment was a nice break from some of the other vitriolic comments ITT.
• happywolf 11y ago
  My thought is Apple can offer opt-in for artists who wish to get unpaid during the trial period. Some artists would want to get some exposures instead of cash. For those who want to get paid from the start, their work will only be available to paying customers. I don't see this is a major change to be made by Apple, and it is a win-win.
  • comboy 11y ago
    Apple knows exactly how opt-in works (majority stick with defaults + status quo bias). The service wouldn't make very good impression when you can't find most of artists. (Still of course I agree that they should cover the cost not artists)
• japhyr 11y ago
  I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
  • biturd 11y ago
    They gove away their OS and a ton of solid near business class apps in some cases. They do this to get people to buy hardware. She said she supports herself on tours, five more music away, you should get more people at her tours. Same for the new band, you don't get discovered on the radio, 5K and they will play your song, it's that easy. Never works. Play shows for 5 - 10 years, you may make it, or be coached and molded like Taylor, that Canadian Kid, and the ret of them.
    • spinchange 11y ago
      Can I use their OS or apps on anything I don't buy from them first? Apple doesn't "give away" anything for free.
      • donarb 11y ago
        Sure, go to eBay or Craigslist and buy a used Mac. Then go to apple.com and download their latest OS for free. Can't do that with a PC/Windows.
        • apricot 11y ago
          Windows updates (from 7 or 8 to 10) will be free, too, according to Microsoft.
  • fauigerzigerk 11y ago
    It's the weakest part of her argument though as iPhones have a unit cost whereas digital copies of her music do not. But I think she is very right to refuse to pay for a scheme that is supposed to increase Apple's market share and not hers.
• mpg33 11y ago
  I get the free trial.. but not paying the artists? really? This feels very high and mighty of Apple. Hate to break it to you Apple but you are not changing the music industry like you did with iTunes. Streaming music services have been around for years. This isn't some revolutionary new product that artists just have to be on board with. There are other options.
• tvvocold 11y ago
  Here is why apple sold Taylor for free: Taylor is Swift; Swift is free; So Taylor is free too.
• outericky 11y ago
  Out of curiosity, and on a similar note, is Spotify not paying artists during their "3 months for $0.99 promotional period"? I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent. I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.
  • themartorana 11y ago
    With the market cap and war chest they have, it's incredibly disappointing that Apple expects artists to bear the brunt of Apple's business decision. For every Taylor Swift there are thousands of artists just scraping by (and thousands more hoping to reach "just scraping by.") I lose a decent amount of respect for Apple with this call. (And Taylor Swift is hardly the first artist to express disappointment and/or outrage at this "decision" by Apple.)
    • msh 11y ago
      Do you think the labels don't have a war chest? Most of the big artists are not independents but part of a mega corp label.
  • mcintyre1994 11y ago
    I'm not sure about your Spotify question, but I believe Taylor Swift pulled all her music from there because they wouldn't agree to making it paid only (referring to their freemium offering and not the trial there). I think that's why beyond this she has so much respect for Apple's offering - they're obviously already an important player and artists want paid - and only paid, streaming.
    • krisdol 11y ago
      Honestly from the point of view it's pretty good for consumers. Making her album paid-only would have improved the conversion-to-premium rate, whereas making her album free increases active users. I guess they opted for more users, maybe to look more attractive for more funding?
• bedhead 11y ago
  What is fundamentally wrong with a model that essentially works as, "You make money when we make money"? Meanwhile, both sides are contributing resources to the trial - musicians the content, Apple the back-end and a gazillion users. Seems like a pretty fair deal with aligned interests. Apple does not have a moral obligation to use this as a loss leader just because they make a lot of money while many musicians don't...this isn't a charity. Taylor Swift is a blowhard. I'm tired of her holier-than-thou rhetoric that she's just speaking up on half of other musicians. Yeah right...my bs detector is going bonkers. This is about Taylor Swift (and the idiots involved in the laughable TIDAL) maximizing her earnings, which is perfectly fine. But spare me the music industry's equivalent of "won't someone think of the children?!"
• issa 11y ago
  This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible. This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.
  • achamayou 11y ago
    It was, until one of the biggest "little people" started writing on her tumblr how she would have none of it.
  • nugget 11y ago
    At the same time artists (especially indies) have a significant interest in Apple succeeding. If Spotify dominates the market to the exclusion of all others, they will have no pressure to keep artist revenue share competitive. Best case for artists is a multitude of streaming services all competing for the most appealing inventory.
    • rtpg 11y ago
      There is the third option that rarely gets discussed. No subscription service succeeding in dominating the market entirely. Alternatively, a two-track system, where subscription services are consistently behind on popular hits, and artists hit record services first.
  • WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    They planned on the backlash too because they get free advertising from some big names in music...but they'll still move forward with the 3-month royalty-free period because most artists will simply roll over.
  • Alphasite_ 11y ago
    There is a counterpoint to this whole thing, apple doesn't have a free tier, which is to the artists benefit.
    • issa 11y ago
      It doesn't matter. Think about this for any other profession. This is the big business version of the craigslist ad asking a graphic designer to work for free "for the exposure".
• zmk_ 11y ago
  What Apple does is simply reprehensible. They say that since they will automatically switch everyone to the new service they are not willing to pay for them. People defending them would be pissed if Google did that with All Access. All services offer free trials and they all pay for the plays the get, and Google even has an offer for 60 days. Apple is rich and it should pay for the mistake of stalling and being a late comer.
• toddmorey 11y ago
  Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected Interesting that free trials periods are entirely unavailable to developers in the app store but mandatory for musicians.
  • zacwest 11y ago
    Apple disallows apps whose only purpose is one of beta, demo, trial or test. You are more than allowed to set up a trial period then charge an in-app purchase/subscription to continue using the service.
• Fargren 11y ago
  I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'd like to see more of). Intellectual property wasn't a thing for most of human history. If you performed a song in public, anyone who heard it could write it down and perform it or do whatever they wanted to do with it. If you released something to the public, it belonged to the public, and legally that was that. And art still happened. Great art. The idea that whoever made something owns it (and I really think it's absurd to own an idea) means that everyone else loses out. And I don't see how that can be good, even for the owner.
  • taylorwho 11y ago
    Taylor who? And why should we care about her so-called muzak?
  • tehwalrus 11y ago
    This is about free access to a set of highly engineered content, which is not just a back catalogue you are trying to milk but your current latest creation. We do not think that software engineers should be prohibited from charging for copies of their software: neither do we think that musicians should be prohibited for getting paid for their music. Yes, people will continue to make art for free, because they love doing it. No, that has nothing to do with whether people are (implicitly) banned from charging for their art/labour if they want to.
    • Fargren 11y ago
      Most software engineers (employees) are paid for crafting their software, not for having crafted in the past. That's exactly what I advocate for. We absolutely should pay people for working! I'm saying that those who distribute should be compensated for the distribution, and those who craft should be compensated for the crafting. And everyone should be free to do either, to the best of their abilities.
• j42 11y ago
  Can anyone explain the intent here? It seems like a ridiculous decision by Apple any way I look at it... and I'm an active opponent of the major labels & right-holder organizations. If Apple is trying to shift to a user-subscription model and pay the labels (ultimately, artists) net-90, that's great, however it's obvious to anyone who's run a bootstrapped business that an unforeseen, 90 day break in cash flow can be an unrecoverable setback. Not for big labels. They can weather the storm (though precedent dictates they'll pass as much of this cost on to their artists as legally possible). The financial situation of end content creators and smaller studios is far more variable. Some will be fine. Others (especially those with content scheduled for release within this 3-month window) could be completely overwhelmed. This simply consolidates more market power into the hands of currently-large labels, and generates ill will toward Apple elsewhere. Why would a company that seems to want to attract self-publishers into its walled garden not find a structured solution to bridge the gap? I'm all for forcing artists to stream their music (I'm looking at you, Taylor Swift), because I see how that can ultimately make everyone more money. Arbitrarily disrupting cash flow, though, in order to run an experiment and offload your acquisition costs is a pretty offensive, and surprising move by a company with hundreds of billions in fungible assets.
• pmorici 11y ago
  Everyone discussing this seems to take as fact that this is going to take away revenue from some other music distribution channel. In fact it could just as easily increase music consumption on the whole. If it does increase total royalties then it makes sense for the artists share the costs of promoting it through the 3 month free trial. It's almost certainly not in Apple's interest to cannibalize their existing iTunes sales for the streaming service.
• w4 11y ago
  For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > 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. I, personally, would ditch iOS development for Android in a heartbeat if that happened. I can't blame musicians for having a similar reaction.
  • taylorwho 11y ago
    The only thing swift about her "music" is how quickly/swiftly listeners turn off when her wailing comes on. And Taylor? Pah! She needs a tailor - have you seen some the crummy outfits she wears?
  • pmorici 11y ago
    That sounds like an amazing offer. who wouldn't want to trade a one time free or 99 cent payment for recurring revenue.
    • sanswork 11y ago
      Well you have to split that $10/month with all the other apps that the user accessed that month(on average). So it's quite likely that your somewhat successful app wouldn't even reach the 99 cents anymore let alone 99 cents per user.
      • w4 11y ago
        Right - and now further imagine that your app is actually making decent money before the introduction of the subscription model (like Taylor Swift does off records). How pleased with this arrangement are you going to be? I'd posit not very.
• jpgvm 11y ago
  Though this might seem a raw deal for artists I think it should be considered that the artists (and record labels etc) are effectively business partners with Apple. What they are really doing here is asking the other side of the partnership to participate in the loss leader effort. Apple provides the platform development + storage and delivery infrastructure, the artists provide the content. When you consider it as a partnership it doesn't seem so reprehensible, they are both forgoing income to secure future recurring income. I think what people are upset about is the fact Apple has a big war chest when many artists do not. Fundamentally this isn't really Apple's fault though, likely this deal was brokered by their biggest partners - huge record labels. Huge record labels also have big war chests and are probably fine with the arrangement. It makes good business sense if you are a record label or Apple, less so if you are an independent artist but maybe not no sense at all, I don't know what exposure is worth. Unfortunately Apple can't create a 2 tier system where they have the big record labels foot the cost of the indie artists nor can their ignore the obvious good business sense of the loss leader approach.
• pinaceae 11y ago
  overall, it is interesting to see pure market forces at play here. revenues with computer games and movies are going up, revenue with music is going down. the consumer does not value music that much, plus there is so much musical content which further depresses value. the historic anomaly of high priced musical reproduction/media is over. back to normal.
• malisper 11y ago
  Why is everyone complaining about the deal? Did Apple force all of the artists into it or did the record companies? Either way, the problem doesn't come from the terms of the deal, it comes from why the deal was made.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• gdubs 11y ago
  Couple of thoughts here: 1) If you're an indie artist and you can afford to opt-out of Apple Music on principle, then clearly you can afford to opt-in for the three free months. Either way you're not making money from Apple Music. If you opt-in, you make more money in the long-term. If you opt-out, you continue to earn from your current streaming and downloads. 2) If you think that Apple Music will be so earth-shatteringly successful from day one that it will destroy your business -- then your business model is razor thin and completely unsustainable.
  • jacalata 11y ago
    How does (1) apply? Are there indie artists who are opting out?
    • gdubs 11y ago
      A lot of it is all posturing right now, but there has been news of indie labels considering boycotting Apple Music, for instance: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_...
• adam12 11y ago
  Apple needs to loosen their purse strings and give back a little. I can't believe I'm standing up for the music industry, but Apple wouldn't be half the company they are today without music.
• dperfect 11y ago
  As others point out, it doesn't make much sense for Apple to attempt this (not paying content producers during a 3-month trial) for the sake of money alone - they have the cash (even if subject to high taxes) to pay for a loss leader like this. If that's not the primary motivation, I can think of two alternatives: 1. Apple lacks confidence in rolling this out - they don't even know if they'd make back their money using a loss leader of this magnitude. They don't feel that the service alone has any meaningful advantage over the competition, so they feel a need to compensate with an extraordinarily long trial period, and they're willing to abuse some of their market power to strong-arm content producers into (hopefully) covering the bill. As a tiny part of their overall business strategy, they are unwilling to make any large bets on it, regardless of their ability to cover a loss. - or - 2. (probably more likely) Apple is so myopically over-confident that they believe this service will disrupt the music industry in the same way the App Store changed software distribution. They honestly feel that they are creating a new market here, not trying to steal market share from other streaming services. Consequently, they don't feel a need to justify covering any expense to content producers because in Apple's mind, content producers will give anything for the privilege of existing on Apple's revolutionary new service. This would represent a new opportunity for revenue above and beyond what the music industry has already come to expect.
  • IBM 11y ago
    The case for the latter is extremely strong despite how you've framed it. Apple Music will overnight be on an install base of 700-800 million iOS devices plus Macs (and available on Android and on iTunes on Windows). That combined with the fact that Apple's customers have regularly shown they are willing to pay for apps/services/media makes it extremely likely that this service is going to rapidly expand the market for streaming customers in a short period of time. It's been reported that Apple's goal is a 100 million customers for Apple Music, that's 5 times the number of paid customers Spotify has.
    • dperfect 11y ago
      Good points. Still though, I'm not sure install base alone will expand the overall market significantly, at least not quickly. Everyone I know with those devices already spends money on music in some form (subscription-based or digital downloads), or simply wouldn't pay for music at any price (they will milk the trial periods though). I anticipate many will switch to Apple Music, but that will be a switch, not a new form of spending. Also keep in mind that parents may be willing to spend $.99 here and there for their kids' apps (which adds up fast, but not in a way that feels obvious), whereas few will be happy to sign up for a recurring subscription without at least weighing it against the well-known competition.
• ccvannorman 11y ago
  Taylor et. al. don't seem to understand. Apple controls the marketplace and is a legal monopoly, owning the software AND hardware. If you don't like what Apple does, tough luck. Whining about it has never amounted to anything and nobody is going to replace them. Long live the King. [ now picture me killing myself by slitting my throat with an Air ]
  • hagbarth 11y ago
    Taylor doesn't seem to care at all - "[...] can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows."
• JesperRavn 11y ago
  In theory, negotiations over royalties would be simply bargaining over some number, like a percentage of revenue or dollar value per song played. In practice, it involves all sorts of weird deals like this free trial. But ultimately, this is just about how much money musicians get for their music. It is no different to negotiations that determine the price of steel or wool. The only reason that these deals attract so much publicity is that people like musicians because they are so cool and beautiful. When people have a cool head, most can see that this is a matter between the musicians and the company, and no one else has a practical or ethical reason to be involved.
• petrbela 11y ago
  The "deal" is first of all unfair to Spotify, Rdio and other competitors who still have to pay royalties during their free trial. On one hand, the music industry tries to get higher revenue on every front but then agrees to something that has essentially one goal in mind, to kill off any competitive streaming market, which will eventually lead to them being solely dependent on Apple. Interestingly enough, all major labels have stake in Spotify (not sure about the exact number but around 20-30% in total). Why do they now apply different rules, I don't know. Unless of course Apple demanded not to pay any royalties, in which case the music industry is really hopeless (again). The cry for "we love you Apple but pretty please, we gave you all our music, would you mind paying us" just confirms that. They feel being robbed in an era for which they've been long overdue with a business model, don't know what to do, and look up to big brother to save them. I love Apple's products, their marketing is brilliant, and they cleverly use all their power to make the most money out of anything. But they're getting more and more hungry and arrogant every year. Microsoft, anyone?
• tdeang 11y ago
  "we don't ask you for free iphones" it's something
• jmilloy 11y ago
  Presumably, the labels are responsible, not Apple. Apple represents Apple's interests, while the labels are supposed to represent the artists'. Though in practice, the labels probably represent their own. So, presumably, the labels have decided that offering their content for free to Apple for 3 months will result in more revenue in the future, just as Apple has. Surely any artist understands the idea of giving away their music in order to build a paying fan base in the future. Ultimately, any artists who lose a significant chunk of income due to these 3-month trials and never see increased income after the trials should be upset with their label's failure to represent them well. Then again, isn't that to be expected as an artist? Your label encourages you to give CDs away, or tour at a loss, and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't? Isn't this the same idea? It sounds to me like a worthwhile risk. How many people were going to buy your debut album or come see a show and choose not to because they used their iTunes streaming account? Versus how many people easily stream (and pay for) you music 3 months later because they got hooked on iTunes streaming?
  • cwyers 11y ago
    The problem here is that there's more than one label. Well, that's one problem. But the larger labels are more readily able to absorb this kind of hit than the smaller ones. Another problem is Apple is threatening removal from the iTunes music store for nonparticipants. So it's not just that labels think they can make more money in the future if they agree, Apple is threatening to cut off their sales right now if they don't agree. Another problem is that this is the same Apple that is pressuring record labels to cut off the free tier on Spotify, which labels get compensated for at the same rate as paid streams, because it "devalues the music." As if this doesn't. Apple has a dominant market position in high-end smartphones (they make 90% of all smartphone profits) and they are using this to leverage other markets in ways that make Steve Ballmer look like Winnie the Pooh. They already tried to engage in ebook price fixing, now they are trying to bully Spotify out of existence.
    • glhaynes 11y ago
      To my knowledge, the only claim that Apple is threatening to remove music from purchase comes from this one guy ranting on Twitter and it was specifically denied by Apple. Doesn't mean Apple's telling the truth, of course, but it seems likely that Newcombe didn't have a full grasp of the situation. http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/report-apple-threatens-to-remove-bands-music-from-itunes-if-they-dont-agree-to-new-royalty-policy/ http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/report-apple-threatens...
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• ojosilva 11y ago
  My wife is a musician and we have this argument all the time. She's not a recording artist or anything, but she does complain of abuse in the deals her different bands and groups get at venues. And I say, that's supply-demand, that's the way business is done, how much is the venue getting out of the concert? How can you compete when there's so much people playing for free or on much lower cuts? What can you do if the end-customer prefer not to pay cover charges or see the value in live music? etc. etc. It's a music business after all. So Taylor Swift's plead is pathetic, "Thankfully... I can support myself," deceiving "by playing shows" [1] and even condescending, "This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut... who works tirelessly." Oh, come on! You don't agree with the terms of the deal, so you pulled out. Fine. Now your fans who are going to try this new service won't have access to your latest album. That's the price of your decision. To me that's fair game, show a little muscle to your distributors, maybe get a better deal. Now, please don't try to spin this as some social injustice towards creative people. Just because you're an artist it doesn't mean you're immune to market laws. Taylor Swift is a billion-dollar business. Stop treating music fans like we're stupid. [1] "Swift had sold over 40 million albums, 130 million single downloads and was one of the top five music artists with the highest worldwide digital sales" -- http://www.ifpi.org/news/Taylor-Swift-named-IFPI-global-recording-artists-of-2014 http://www.ifpi.org/news/Taylor-Swift-named-IFPI-global-reco...
• nether 11y ago
  taytay
• intrasight 11y ago
  Make great music. Give it away for free (or streaming, which is near the same). Charge a lot for live concerts. I'd just assumed that musicians would have figured that out by now.
  • StringyBob 11y ago
    The 'free' bit has already happened for a lot of artists (income is gone). The second part 'charge a lot for live music' is happening - those who can are try to compensate (i.e. make a living). Having just paid over $100 for a concert ticket, I don't think live music becoming only the preserve of the rich helps.
    • intrasight 11y ago
      I expect that we will soon see some "hybrid" approaches. VR/AR tech comes to mind. I would have liked to have seen the Stones last night, but $200-400 for a ticket was more than I could justify. But if I could watch in comfort from my home holodeck, then I'd certainly have been willing to pay $50.
• Keyframe 11y ago
  It makes sense. Apple is launching a service for their own profit motives. Service is new and has no traction, they need a marketing move to build traction. One of those moves is a free trial with other people's IP. Those people will, presumably, profit as well from the service once it gains traction. In the meantime, Apple - the initiator and owner of said service, asks other people to foot the marketing bill for their own business. Which wouldn't be an odd proposition if a) it was a service first of its kind in a non-crowded space and b) some types of IP in this sector is time sensitive (airplay on pop hits is measured in months after launch and drops off, like games) c) apple is loaded with cash
• dizzyviolet 11y ago
  I respect this woman more every time I hear about her in the news. I'm glad to see a huge player try to stand up for others like that. It's remarkable considering she clearly understands she could end up helping someone that takes a sale from her.
• macarthy12 11y ago
  How much you paying to publish on tumblr Taylor?
• naveenspark 11y ago
  Taylor Swift is signed to Big Machine Records (BMLG). Big Machine Records is distributed by Universal Music Group (UMG). I am sure BMLG/UMG received a sizable advance from Apple in exchange for streaming rights for their master recordings. UMG probably negotiated an even higher advance in exchange for permission to launch the 3 month free campaign. UMG / BMLG should be sharing this advance payment with their artists. Taylor knows this so a good question to ask is: What % of the advance is Taylor receiving? The answer is probably none because most artists receive nothing from these advance payments. Even the hugely successful ones. So why is Taylor writing this letter? She is extremely smart and has a brilliant team of advisors around her so she knows about the advance that Apple already paid UMG. While posting this letter fits into the general discourse regarding underpayments to artists from streaming services, behind the scenes she is likely negotiating her own, separate, significant advance from Apple. I would do the same if I were her.
  • paulkon 11y ago
    Yep, that's what it looks like.
  • tajen 11y ago
    And why do we not hear about the other huge artists? (rhetorical question)
  • ChiperSoft 11y ago
    I suspect her ability to refuse apple the right to stream her album is also a product of her success. I doubt smaller artists have that right in their agreements.
• tommoor 11y ago
  If only the labels had 5 years ago put a reasonable music licensing system in place for the digital world... we might now have a burgeoning ecosystem of startups and niche music services competing to provide a great customer experience instead of a couple of giants.
• giancarlostoro 11y ago
  I guess I was the only one who thought this was going to be Taylor Swift complaining that they named a programming language after her (before reading this) and putting a trademark on her last name (or something similarly silly).
• headShrinker 11y ago
  For anyone suggesting that Taylor is not greedy, most artists don't get the majority of the money from airplay, the record labels do. Apple's move is to cut record labels massive control grip on the market, not to rip off the artist. Taylor Swift is in a very unique positions to have a very lucrative record deal with her label. Most artists don't, that's why you are hearing from her and not others. It was the same situation with Metallica and Napster. They got the majority of the money from their record sales. Most artists are just interested in the massive distribution these platforms offer, so when a relatively small act shows up in your town you might have heard of them. The live show is were most acts make any money anyway. Many years ago, I recorded a number of albums with different bands. On average, for every $10 album sold, I would get 10 cents, paid to me after the label recoups costs. When you aren't Taylor Swift, that is the deal most artist are offered through a record label.
  • ddebernardy 11y ago
    Curious to understand... what's the point of getting 1% of any sale of something that wouldn't be there to sell in the first place had you not created it? I find it really hard to believe that labels guarantee you'll get over 100 times the amount of sales that you'd get without them. Do they?
    • headShrinker 11y ago
      I don't know that I completely understand your question... The point is to create something. Your other question, the label guarantees nothing... Often after recording and publishing the artist is left in debt to the label for all expenses, the label then charges exorbitant rates for studio, legal, duplication, and doesn't pay a dime to the artist till the money is recouped. Often artist who don't sell enough albums are left in debt to the label and then summarily dropped. Most of the time after only one album. Swift is abviously far beyond this status and can command a massive sway when it comes to crafting her new contracts.
• merb 11y ago
  Why so many people blame apple? For the beloved Tayloer? Or for the beloved Music industry? I still don't get it. Today's music pretty much sucks, I mean the artists mostly didn't even make their own music, they just buy the text and everything. Most music of today costs way less than it costed years before and still isn't that great, it's just for the masses and yet artists are crying cause they get not enough? Huh 10 $ per month is a lot especially when you think about it, a normal person won't buy an album every month which costs nearly 10 $ per month.. Also why should an artist live with a single hit for his whole life? That makes no sense. People in this business don't live in the reality, I mean more and more films happen to be on streaming platforms, yet a film costs way more to produce than music and still you pay the same price for netflix / amazon instant video / etc than for a music streaming service. Also why does an album online costs as much as an album inside the store?? Thats way out of reality. People should stop buying everything from labels, artists, just to show them what they do today is not funny anymore. P.S.: And i don't get it why she has so many fans. Hell her music is way worse than a lot of pop music I listened so far. Why can't we have great artists today? Nobody remembers the good old days of The Who, Queen, Redbone, Blue Swede, etc.. Too bad what happens to music these days..
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• vonklaus 11y ago
  No one seems to have said this yet, but I wonder if Apple has done the following math: expected negative value of bad pr = NPR loss of customers from artists pulling songs = CUS Cost of running PR Campaigns combating these stories = PR Cost of paying artists for 3 month trial = TRIAL Other forgotten costs = COSTS If(NPR + CUS + PR) is greater than (TRIAL + COSTS) they should just pay the artists and make this go away. Obviously this is a very simplified example, but I wonder if Apple has done this sort of appraisal. I suspect they have.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• PaulHuber 11y ago
  Damn, I hate Apple. And Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon. Oh yeah, they want to make the world a better place, those sneaky bastards.
• conradev 11y ago
  > I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries. > ... just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field > ... we admire and respect Apple so much. > I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been... > I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. Taylor's post reminds me strongly of this article by Eli Schiff: "Wilcox's flattery is not accidental. It was essential that Wilcox mentioned his qualification as an Apple fanatic, because that is, of course, the pre-requisite for saying anything remotely unfavorable about Apple." – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256014
  • prawn 11y ago
    Was going to post the same. Her points obviously stand regardless, but this is an epic example of "I love Apple, but..." There's almost more gushing than criticism.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• Tycho 11y ago
  Obviously Apple can afford to pay money out to the recording artists and labels for the free trial if they wanted to, but I wonder if the decision not to is related to setting a precedent. Like if they were to compensate all the artists $X per day of availability then that would be a sort of legal benchmark that could come back to haunt them.
  • anigbrowl 11y ago
    Of course. They['re trying to shift risk onto the creator. Now in fairness, Apple has put a lot of capital at risk by building the streaming infrastructure and so on for the service to work reliably and be considered a 'world class' product like their other offerings. On the other hand. Apple is arguably sitting on top of the world's largest cash pile so the ratio of capital-at-risk relative to their capital cushion is a lot different from that of 99% of musicians.
• stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing Does she really think that she works for every digital copy of a recording? Or that there is a relation between the work needed to produce a recording and the number of copies she sells?
• TIM2014 11y ago
  Lets pretend for a second that it's not that the artist is NOT getting paid for 3 months, but they (Apple) are delaying their payment for 3 months. The 3 months Free is to entice people into subscribing to Apple Music, and the more people that end up scribing the better. I think at the end of the day (or end of 3 months) more people will have subscribed to Apple Music then before and the artist will be making more money. Personally i think the real winners are the record labels who seem to get the lions share of the money. Also when Goole Music was released it was free for a limited time... did they pay artist/record labels?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  • w4 11y ago
    > don't forget that in apple music people only can listen for the sone they liked once and can not select a song they want to play, thus forcing them to purchase if they really like the song What? This isn't in the least bit accurate for Apple Music. That was the deal with Apple Radio, not the new service being discussed here. EDIT: I guess he deleted his comment once he realized his mistake.
• curyous 11y ago
  I'm still kinda surprised that artists expect to get paid when they're not performing. Anything they get from Apple Music's sort of service is a bonus.
• wooyi 11y ago
  Is software free trial similar to this? Don't we, as developers, give our software for free in either a freemium or free trial business models? One freemium tool I'm involved in only monetizes 2-3% of our users... But it's a model that works as far as marketing goes.. Not saying you shouldn't pay artists but isn't this another form of marketing to users? In the end, it's win-win. Apple gets more users, artists gets more listens...
• halo 11y ago
  I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been antitrust action over this. Apple are trying to leverage one monopoly (iTunes Music Store for digital music sales) to gain a monopoly in another market (music streaming) by forcing unreasonable terms. I guess this is also a reflection of the lack of political will for antitrust action. In my view, Apple has long been on thin ground with regards tying but there seems to be a lack of political will to use competition law.
• wting 11y ago
  Unfortunately Taylor does something similar with concert photographers (grants Taylor unlimited usage with a large scope, severely restricts photographers' usage): https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/ https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-h...
• danmaz74 11y ago
  3 months free is a way for Apple to promote its service against its competitors, and they need to do this promotion because they're late-comers. There is nothing to gain for the creators of music in getting more people to use Apple streaming service instead of Spotify or Google, so, why should they finance Apple's promotion?
  • girvo 11y ago
    > There is nothing to gain for the creators of music in getting more people to use Apple streaming service instead of Spotify or Google Are you sure? Because Apple are promising to pay higher royalties. That sure seems like not nothing to me. Now, I pass no judgement on whether the financial calculus works out for 3 months of free usage, but to be honest saying there's "nothing to gain" is being dishonest.
• aercolino 11y ago
  I find it difficult no to love this young girl.
• shawn-butler 11y ago
  “We don’t ask you for free iPhones,” she added. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.” Funny, her best line and I would wager she hasn't paid for an iPhone or any consumer electronics (or any branded good for that matter) in years if ever given her family history. I find her use of the royal "we" arrogant. I really do not understand the issue. What Apple is creating is a unified platform for exposure to music and musicians not just a streaming music service. With Connect artists take their fans into their lifestyle and the creative process to gain traction / engagement. A "free trial" is exactly the kind of thing that would induce consumers to use it away from the hodgepodge networks out there now, all of which Swift, Inc seems to use exorbitantly to prop up her brand (web, mobile app, fb, twitter, instagram, tumblr, vine, ....) but which is next to impossible for an indie artist to maintain on his/her own. I can understand why the economic return on her investment in Apple Music may not be in Swift Inc's best interest but not the community she is appointing herself to represent. Seems like a no-brainer to me and also an opportunity for someone here to create some tools to create and maintain a presence on Connect for artists ready to go with content when it launches.
• brisance 11y ago
  Before everyone brings out the pitchforks, I feel we may not have the full picture. According to her tumblr post, it's unclear if it's non-payment or deferred payment for streaming her songs during the three month trial period.
• zxcvcxz 11y ago
  Apple should keep the free trial, but pay revenue only to artists who aren't multi-millionaires or extremely popular. Then when Taylor still refuses to let iTunes sell her music she'll be seen for what she really is.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • simplexion 11y ago
    It seems people dislike the truth of your comment.
• smil 11y ago
  Apple should just pay royalties out of their own, enormous pockets of $172B (our whatever it was) for the first three months, just not charge users. Then there wouldn't be a problem. What they're doing now is just strong-arming weaker parties to create a platform that will increase their own power even more.
• vijayr 11y ago
  Are there any SaaS services that take care of hosting, selling, billing etc that small bands can use? May be the SaaS app can take 10% of the sales or something like that (like udemy, but for music)? If there are, what are the reasons the smaller bands aren't using them? If at the end, Apple/Google/Amazon/Microsoft replace the record labels and become the new overlords of music, then nothing much has changed, right?
• kgarten 11y ago
  hmm ... seems Taylor Swift is not much better: https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/ https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-h...
• tempodox 11y ago
  Apple put themselves in a comfortable spot here. They generously offer a trial period, but then they make sure someone else pays for it (the artists). And the people paying the costs don't even have a say in it, except the obvious “my way or the highway” choice of using Apple at all. Fascinating how Apple can make every cent of cash end up in their own register, but the people paying for this optimisation are the “partners” in the middle between Apple & the consumer.