4 ms·
By your logic, Apple should pay for the music and give it away free since they are the ones who will benefit. But that means that if revenues rise as a result
by gress 11y ago
By your logic, Apple should pay for the music and give it away free since they are the ones who will benefit.
But that means that if revenues rise as a result of the new service, Apple should keep all the extra profit rather than sharing it with the artists.
Is that what you really want?
- logician76 11y agoApple wants to give it away for free, not the artists. Apple needs the artists, hence they need to pay. Revenue rising with the new service will eat into the other revenue streams from sales. Subscription revenue has already been proven to be laughable with Spotify. Saying that Apple gets to keep all the extra profit because they paid the artists during arbitrary terms set by Apple is incredibly short sighted, as the profit you speak of means profit to Apple, but a loss to the music industry.
- KingMob 11y ago> Subscription revenue has already been proven to be laughable with Spotify. True, but that's because the labels keep the vast majority of Spotify's payout.
- gress 11y agoThis is simply false. Apple's deal shares more revenue with the artists than any other service. Therefore if users adopt Apple Music, the artists will get more in aggregate. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-after-you-pay-for-a-month-of-apple-music http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a... My point is not that I believe that Apple should keep the excess profit. It's that if Apple's service increases the overalls profit for the artists it's reasonable that they should share in the costs of marketing. Otherwise the artists are double dipping.
- logician76 11y agoArtists are double dipping? Boy I hope you don't run into an artist who knows that you just said this...
- gress 11y agoAn artist like Taylor swift, you mean, worth $300M?