3 ms·
> 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 st
by 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 agoLet'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.