5 ms·

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 com

by 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.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      Except they do have something to lose if they put it on. They will have a lower profit if listeners that would subscribe to another paying service or buy their music switch to Apple streaming.
      - threeseed 11y ago
        > They will have a lower profit You have zero evidence of this. We don't know and may not know for a number of years whether Apple Music is more profitable for artists (or not) than competitor services.
        lhc- 11y ago
        We know for a fact that its going to be less profitable for at least three months, unless they were already making zero dollars.
- acyacy 11y ago
  What would you tell Youtube or Soundcloud? They also foot the bill. Apple is placing the value of artists work at $0 in a bid gain market share. It should be them who incurs the full cost not the artist. When the music is offered on free, the prime beneficiary is Apple.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. It's really weird that you specify "developing the software" as a real cost, but not "developing the music".
  - jws 11y ago
    The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.
    - luma 11y ago
      So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.
      - tdkl 11y ago
        > So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. Except first features downloading and owning it and the other streaming rights through certain period of time.
      - donarb 11y ago
        Apple is giving away three months of its software and servers for the streaming service. After the 3 month period, both Apple and the label/artist get paid.
      - jws 11y ago
        Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry… In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system. Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them. Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets. About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  I get the typical arguments that things being available free might not affect sales - but in this case I think they'll see a direct impact. I think they'll get a pretty large amount of trial users simply by advertising it in iTunes - oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead? Other than Android they have a lot of music use cases supported, free of charge - why would you buy? I honestly don't know how much this will affect sales but Apple are certainly in a position to push users away from those sales and toward the free service.
  - kalleboo 11y ago
    > oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead I think it was Eddy Cue who said specifically in an interview that they will not do this. Edit: from the Guardian He also denies a recent report that Apple is planning to aggressively promote its new streaming service to people buying albums on the iTunes Store. “That’s the wrong way to look at it. You shouldn’t take a customer who’s buying an album, who’s happy buying an album, and try to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong,” he says. “But we don’t have to, and we shouldn’t try to kill the iTunes Store or kill people that are buying music. If you’re happy buying a few albums a year and that’s the way you’d like to continue doing it … but if we can help you discover some new artists or some new albums through Connect or through listening to Beats 1 radio, great.”
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also creating marketing materials online and off. This is all for a usually small time period when a new album will sell. And when streaming (which generally makes them next to nothing) will hit its peak. All these costs are front loaded and then there's a usually short time period where the band hopes to make this money back. During this time, the band is spending additional money and time doing marketing and promotion as well. Apple's deal is a raw one for these artists as they'll lose a good chunk of revenue during that small time period. And it will leech purchases away from iTunes as well. I can guarantee that Apple will have prominent notices within iTunes about which albums are available on Apple Music and suggest that would-be purchasers sign up. Plus there's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes if they don't agree to stream for free on Apple Music. And the fact that these artists can't just decide to sell the music themselves on their website to iOS users because, thanks to Apple's carefully-designed walled garden, iOS users can't download music from the web or 3rd party apps and add it to their music library like they can on Android.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    > There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes. Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. > iOS users can't download music from the web Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      > Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this. > Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes. Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Android. On Android, I can download a song while out on the go from anywhere I want and add it to my music library. Every app can add music, every app can play music. Can you do that on iOS... or do you have to go back to your home computer, add the song to your computer, add it to your iTunes library and then sync it to your iPhone/iPad? The last time I helped a friend do this, this is what we had to do.
- Dwolb 11y ago
  I think you haven't quantified the artists' opportunity costs. The idea is a customer may swap a streaming service which pays artists for Apple's streaming service which doesn't pay artists. Therefore artists may be losing money they otherwise would have typically made.
- ethagknight 11y ago
  Apple's enormous cost in launching the service is the best counterpoint I've read. 3 month free trial means no revenue for Apple too. Apple is certainly in a better position than most to endure atartup risk through trial. There's another point being overlooked regarding how music is consumed: music is listened to repeatedly over months, and the free trial is no different than a promotional period. Artists, even indies, will still receive income from the myriad other services, and will soon receive a better rate from Apple. Distribution is an enormous service to the artists, and it's value shouldn't be overlooked. That being said Taylor Swift has every right to pass on Apple's offer, and it's great for the recording industry to have a major check/balance like Swift. Unrelated, but interested to see if artists will ever abandon the labels and go direct to distribution. I'm sure labels provide more value than people want to acknowledge. Edit: formatting

by 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.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    Except they do have something to lose if they put it on. They will have a lower profit if listeners that would subscribe to another paying service or buy their music switch to Apple streaming.
    - threeseed 11y ago
      > They will have a lower profit You have zero evidence of this. We don't know and may not know for a number of years whether Apple Music is more profitable for artists (or not) than competitor services.
      - lhc- 11y ago
        We know for a fact that its going to be less profitable for at least three months, unless they were already making zero dollars.
acyacy 11y ago
What would you tell Youtube or Soundcloud? They also foot the bill. Apple is placing the value of artists work at $0 in a bid gain market share. It should be them who incurs the full cost not the artist. When the music is offered on free, the prime beneficiary is Apple.
vacri 11y ago
> Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. It's really weird that you specify "developing the software" as a real cost, but not "developing the music".
- jws 11y ago
  The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.
  - luma 11y ago
    So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.
    - tdkl 11y ago
      > So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. Except first features downloading and owning it and the other streaming rights through certain period of time.
    - donarb 11y ago
      Apple is giving away three months of its software and servers for the streaming service. After the 3 month period, both Apple and the label/artist get paid.
    - jws 11y ago
      Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry… In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system. Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them. Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets. About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.
mcintyre1994 11y ago
I get the typical arguments that things being available free might not affect sales - but in this case I think they'll see a direct impact. I think they'll get a pretty large amount of trial users simply by advertising it in iTunes - oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead? Other than Android they have a lot of music use cases supported, free of charge - why would you buy? I honestly don't know how much this will affect sales but Apple are certainly in a position to push users away from those sales and toward the free service.
- kalleboo 11y ago
  > oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead I think it was Eddy Cue who said specifically in an interview that they will not do this. Edit: from the Guardian He also denies a recent report that Apple is planning to aggressively promote its new streaming service to people buying albums on the iTunes Store. “That’s the wrong way to look at it. You shouldn’t take a customer who’s buying an album, who’s happy buying an album, and try to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong,” he says. “But we don’t have to, and we shouldn’t try to kill the iTunes Store or kill people that are buying music. If you’re happy buying a few albums a year and that’s the way you’d like to continue doing it … but if we can help you discover some new artists or some new albums through Connect or through listening to Beats 1 radio, great.”
JohnTHaller 11y ago
I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also creating marketing materials online and off. This is all for a usually small time period when a new album will sell. And when streaming (which generally makes them next to nothing) will hit its peak. All these costs are front loaded and then there's a usually short time period where the band hopes to make this money back. During this time, the band is spending additional money and time doing marketing and promotion as well. Apple's deal is a raw one for these artists as they'll lose a good chunk of revenue during that small time period. And it will leech purchases away from iTunes as well. I can guarantee that Apple will have prominent notices within iTunes about which albums are available on Apple Music and suggest that would-be purchasers sign up. Plus there's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes if they don't agree to stream for free on Apple Music. And the fact that these artists can't just decide to sell the music themselves on their website to iOS users because, thanks to Apple's carefully-designed walled garden, iOS users can't download music from the web or 3rd party apps and add it to their music library like they can on Android.
- threeseed 11y ago
  > There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes. Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. > iOS users can't download music from the web Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    > Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this. > Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes. Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Android. On Android, I can download a song while out on the go from anywhere I want and add it to my music library. Every app can add music, every app can play music. Can you do that on iOS... or do you have to go back to your home computer, add the song to your computer, add it to your iTunes library and then sync it to your iPhone/iPad? The last time I helped a friend do this, this is what we had to do.
Dwolb 11y ago
I think you haven't quantified the artists' opportunity costs. The idea is a customer may swap a streaming service which pays artists for Apple's streaming service which doesn't pay artists. Therefore artists may be losing money they otherwise would have typically made.
ethagknight 11y ago
Apple's enormous cost in launching the service is the best counterpoint I've read. 3 month free trial means no revenue for Apple too. Apple is certainly in a better position than most to endure atartup risk through trial. There's another point being overlooked regarding how music is consumed: music is listened to repeatedly over months, and the free trial is no different than a promotional period. Artists, even indies, will still receive income from the myriad other services, and will soon receive a better rate from Apple. Distribution is an enormous service to the artists, and it's value shouldn't be overlooked. That being said Taylor Swift has every right to pass on Apple's offer, and it's great for the recording industry to have a major check/balance like Swift. Unrelated, but interested to see if artists will ever abandon the labels and go direct to distribution. I'm sure labels provide more value than people want to acknowledge. Edit: formatting