4 ms·

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

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
        > They don't run the trial. Nobody wins. Their competitors win. The artists make out the same or better. Apple isn't the only player on the market, even though they act that way.
- gavanwoolery 11y ago
  I agree - Apple should pay for it, but I don't think they will unless this causes some uproar (which it could).
bhickey 11y ago
> Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." There's a difference between not charging the end user and not paying the supplier.
- gavanwoolery 11y ago
  Good point :)
on_and_off 11y ago
In your comparison, the dealer has to pay the cost of this free sample, not the drug producer. Offering several weeks/months for free is nothing new in the music streaming industry but usually the service is the one that has to swallow that cost.
gavanwoolery 11y ago
Additional note - I'm not condoning this behavior, just saying that it does not surprise me :)

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
      > They don't run the trial. Nobody wins. Their competitors win. The artists make out the same or better. Apple isn't the only player on the market, even though they act that way.
gavanwoolery 11y ago
I agree - Apple should pay for it, but I don't think they will unless this causes some uproar (which it could).

bhickey 11y ago

> Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." There's a difference between not charging the end user and not paying the supplier.

gavanwoolery 11y ago
Good point :)

on_and_off 11y ago

In your comparison, the dealer has to pay the cost of this free sample, not the drug producer. Offering several weeks/months for free is nothing new in the music streaming industry but usually the service is the one that has to swallow that cost.

gavanwoolery 11y ago

Additional note - I'm not condoning this behavior, just saying that it does not surprise me :)