3 ms·
Presumably, the labels are responsible, not Apple. Apple represents Apple's interests, while the labels are supposed to represent the artists'. Though in practi
by 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 agoThe 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 agoTo 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...