4 ms·

Of course, music works completely differently. I have many albums that I only listened to ten times or so. In the old model, they have still received a fair sha

Of course, music works completely differently. I have many albums that I only listened to ten times or so. In the old model, they have still received a fair share of $10, in the new model, not so much. I can easily understand why artists want to opt out. I am also not sure about Apple's model for the distribution of subscription fees. But e.g. in Spotify's model, it is largely large acts benefitting from indies, rather than the other way around. http://lit.vulf.de/spotify-so-little/ http://lit.vulf.de/spotify-so-little/

StringyBob 11y ago
That link perfectly describes my concern with subscription systems. If Apple distribute the royalties calculated per-user rather than based on (total royalties / total number of listens system wide) I'll move over from spotify, as it will reward the bands I like more than the current system. I like that spotify pays royalties from free accounts, I dislike that I am effectively subsidizing this as a premium user. However, at the moment I am more comfortable with this than apples '3 months no royalties' system. Another interesting point is that for a music subscription services, there is very little keeping users tied to one provider - all I need is the ability to export my playlists. I wonder if spotify's revenue will collapse for 3 months, but if they can be better than apple, they can get it all back 3 months later.
- reagency 11y ago
  You aren't subsidizing anything. You are paying market price for a product. The seller does bizdev how they choose.
  - StringyBob 11y ago
    Technically true. I think for the arts this is something of an unusual case I'd describe more as an emotional than a financial transaction. I'm paying for something that I could easily get (illegally) for free. My allegiance is to the music and musicians, not to apple, spotify or anyone else providing distribution, as such 'supporting the type of music I like' is a very strong selling point, (not strong enough for me to use Tidal though!) I presume Apple are trying to establish differentiation through the 'radio' service, but since the baseline market requirement is the ability to listen to practically anything all-you-can-eat, it'll be hard for them to achieve it there.

StringyBob 11y ago

That link perfectly describes my concern with subscription systems. If Apple distribute the royalties calculated per-user rather than based on (total royalties / total number of listens system wide) I'll move over from spotify, as it will reward the bands I like more than the current system. I like that spotify pays royalties from free accounts, I dislike that I am effectively subsidizing this as a premium user. However, at the moment I am more comfortable with this than apples '3 months no royalties' system. Another interesting point is that for a music subscription services, there is very little keeping users tied to one provider - all I need is the ability to export my playlists. I wonder if spotify's revenue will collapse for 3 months, but if they can be better than apple, they can get it all back 3 months later.

reagency 11y ago
You aren't subsidizing anything. You are paying market price for a product. The seller does bizdev how they choose.
- StringyBob 11y ago
  Technically true. I think for the arts this is something of an unusual case I'd describe more as an emotional than a financial transaction. I'm paying for something that I could easily get (illegally) for free. My allegiance is to the music and musicians, not to apple, spotify or anyone else providing distribution, as such 'supporting the type of music I like' is a very strong selling point, (not strong enough for me to use Tidal though!) I presume Apple are trying to establish differentiation through the 'radio' service, but since the baseline market requirement is the ability to listen to practically anything all-you-can-eat, it'll be hard for them to achieve it there.