8 ms·

Apple Says “We Hear You Taylor Swift”, Will Pay Musicians During Free Trial

136 points by 666_howitzer 11y ago

tostitos1979 11y ago
Fantastic! What's next? How about paying software engineers during full day interviews?
- kevcampb 11y ago
  Maybe they can look at fixing my #staingate screen.
- amelius 11y ago
  How about just disclosing app and music sales statistics, so everybody can make an informed decision about whether to produce for the platform or not.
- JonnieCache 11y ago
  Some people do actually do that.
- kincardine 11y ago
  I was paid during the final round of interviews for the job I currently have.
- mseebach 11y ago
  Yes, let's make sure the bar to get someone onsite is even higher, so employers have to rely even more on the signal they collected before ever having met the candidate in person.
- nemo 11y ago
  More like a 90 day interview.
- hyperbovine 11y ago
  How about asking? All I ever hear about is how it's never been more of a seller's market for software engineering talent.
noobermin 11y ago
Well, even given the variety of opinions in the discussion yesterday, I think most people will be happy here. Apple did the right thing, at the very least, for good PR purposes.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Right on. If we blame them for poor decisions, it's rather mean to then blow off the righting of that wrong. Kudos where they are due. Maybe it is for PR purposes, but at least the outcome is positive. Thanks, Apple.
  - BenjiSujang 11y ago
    Agreed, but I wouldn't go as far as to thank Apple. And of course it's for PR purposes. All large companies are sneaky.
oddevan 11y ago
I totally get the major labels making the 1.5% increase/3-month trial concession; but after nearly every independent artist I pay attention to basically said they couldn't/wouldn't make the same concession, I'm glad Apple relented. I want one of these services to at least act like they appreciate the value of music. Myself, I've never made enough off that one rap CD to recoup the cost of sending it to CD Baby, so I've got NO skin in this fight. :)
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Eh, 1.5% extra for a 3 month trial with no royalties was utterly contemptual and only appealing to those who couldn't do math: 100/1.5 = 66.67 x 3 months = 200 months to recoup the lost royalties. For a music streaming service, looking to recoup your lost royalties after almost 17 YEARS (and only getting 1.5% extra at that) is laughable.
  - Joky 11y ago
    It looks to me like this reasoning is laughable. It looks like the same reasoning as when the major are counting every single pirated song as a "missing sale". Like if it would have translated in a sale otherwise... The three months free period is intended to make the amount of paid customer bigger after the three months, so you have to account for that (and you don't). I don't know what is the predicted impact of the three months on the subscription numbers, but let's imagine you would have a two times faster market penetration. After a year you would have 3 months free and then 9 months with double amount royalties, compared to 12 months single royalties.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      So you do make a valid point, but I think your estimation of the impact is vastly overrated, too. Number of users who will pay for Apple Music with no trial or a 1 month trial (as per Spotify, Rdio, et al) = x, Number of users who would not pay for Apple Music with no trial but will after a 3 month free trial = 2x? Doubtful. I think the order of magnitude in people for whom the three month trial is in the order of single digit percentages, at most (because I'm sure other music services have A/B tested this). "1 month vs 3 month trial" is not revolutionary nor out of left field, and I can guarantee if the there was a 100% increase in customer base by Spotify offering a three month trial, they would be doing that right now.
kincardine 11y ago
So, without making a judgement call on this actual decision. It amazes me that no one saw this type of reaction from artists (and the generally pro-artist consumer base) coming when the overall business plan was created. And that the concession was made so quickly...
- jimmy0x52 11y ago
  Gee it's almost like it was a PR stunt.
  - kincardine 11y ago
    That's what I meant to imply.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  ...and now there's tons of free media that Swift's latest album will be on Apple Music (and not on Spotify)! I think this is a bit too much of a bank shot to have been planned ahead of time, but nice work by Eddy Cue and Apple PR to acquire and then cash in this bargaining chip in probably the most effective way possible.
  - matthewmcg 11y ago
    "Bank shot" +"Eddie Cue" = nice billiards pun!
- smackfu 11y ago
  Apple got the labels to agree to the deal already, why would they care about the artists?
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    They only got the major labels - not the indies.
zxcvcxz 11y ago
What Apple should do is pay only the bottom 90% of artists and when someone downloads free music from one of the top grossing 10% of artists, the would-be revenue should be re-distributed to the bottom 90% during the users free trial. Taylor said herself that it wasn't about her, but about small artists trying to break through. I'd like to see her put her money where her mouth is, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.
- philjackson 11y ago
  She implied it wasn't just about her. She deserves to be paid for her work too, and has done the other artists a big favour. edit: Why is so much focus on the celeb. anyway? Shouldn't we be focused on the fact Apple was willing to completely screw artists for 3 months?
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of downloads are only from the top 10% of artists. I believe swift was sincere when she said that this isn't about multi-millionaires, but about unknown artists trying to make a living. By redistributing her income (only for the users first three months of course) she and other artists could really help the ones who are struggling, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  Or they could just promote the up-and-comers more aggressively. Instead of a redistribution of wealth (which would be talent agnostic) go for a redistribution of coverage. Also, if revenue was diverted completely from top artists to everyone else, what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? (Other than as a loss-leader for live shows and a "giving back to the community" sort of charitable thing) Either way I doubt Apple Music would take off if they told the top artists that they were going to full Robin Hood on them.
  - 11y ago
SchizoDuckie 11y ago
Musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and it's fixed the next day. App developers and content producers get emailed 'we are taking more out of your cut' or 'if you don't want us to show ads near your content, reply to this email with "opt out"'
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kincardine 11y ago
  It's not that musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and get it fixed the next day, it's that unicorn musicians can - like Taylor Swift.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    Apple Gets: Credit for throwing artists a bone. / Extended publicity for their new music service. / Credit for pleasing TS who has a lot of fans who would also be good customers for Apple TS Gets: Publicity / Sales for her new album / Credit for sticking up for artists Seems like a win-win for both parties. I doubt the revenue lost would have been significant. Anyone have numbers?
    - kincardine 11y ago
      Oh, absolutely. This is freebie PR for everyone involved. What I meant to imply is that the PR is only valuable because it is a musician with the brand value (and public presence) of Taylor Swift. And, what I mean by that is that if smaller brand musicians complained (as I think would have been inevitable) nothing would change until a larger brand also complained (which would also have been inevitable).
      - d_theorist 11y ago
        It seems like you're assuming this was reactive? Seems far more likely that this exchange was orchestrated between Apple and TS.
Yuioup 11y ago
I don't understand why everybody is reporting this as "Taylor Swift". Shouldn't it be "Taylor Swift's Management" or "Taylor Swift's Lawyers". She obviously didn't plan this.
- Keyframe 11y ago
  Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. It doesn't matter. Naming is correct, since it's a brand. Same like POTUS - President did this, president said that... when in reality his staff did and said and he ok'd.
  - Yuioup 11y ago
    Yeah ok. I agree. Taylor Swift is indeed a brand.
- adamlett 11y ago
  Why is that obvious? It seems quite insulting to presume that people don't speak for themselves.
- nailer 11y ago
  She published it on her tumblr under her own name and seemingly in her own voice.
- smackfu 11y ago
  The letter was written in the first person, on her Tumblr blog.
FreakyT 11y ago
Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed in this. The music industry has long been using bullying to get what they want, and this is no exception to that rule. The sooner every traditional media company goes out of business, the better the situation will be for everyone -- listeners and artists.
- BenjiSujang 11y ago
  And Apple, Google, Microsoft are much more philantrophic than the music companies ... Of course not, they're worse as they gain more control. Best for customers and artists is good competition.
- Marazan 11y ago
  I know, imagine wanting to get paid for the work they produce. What utter scumbags. I presume you work for free?
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > The music industry has long been using bullying to get what they want, and this is no exception to that rule. I don't think Apple's negotiators are giving free puppies and flowers when they negotiate either.
- GrumpyBen 11y ago
  You're disappointed because Apple will pay artists to broadcast their music. Care to explain why?
laumars 11y ago
Is Apple paying the artists, or the record labels? And if the latter, how much money would actually end up in the artists pockets?
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Presumably it's paying the rights-holders, whoever they happen to be (i.e. usually labels). How would you expect it to work?
  - laumars 11y ago
    The way you described, but the articles keep referring to the artists and sadly once the labels take their cut there really wouldn't be much left of the artists.
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      Well, sadly, no-one is going to pay artists unless they're the rights holders.
BenjiSujang 11y ago
Only few things prevent greedy companies from pushing further and further. Bad PR is one of them. I don't care about Tayler Swift, but I think the behaviour of the big players are extremly questionable.
spanishcow 11y ago
Looks like a publicity stunt...
- BenjiSujang 11y ago
  Yeah, but landed on the roof. The damage to Apple is done.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    "Damage" being a ton of publicity and PR about their new streaming service? I wish I could be so "damaged".
6stringmerc 11y ago
Huh, well how about that. In my last comments on the subject I postulated that Apple could easily afford the money to pay artists/labels during that period. Apparently they could not afford to not pay, image wise. Not sure if it sounds more cynical or stereotypical on my part, but I'd guess that there's a lot of overlap between Taylor Swift fans and Apple's target market. Good move in the long run for Apple, and in the short term they get to play it off like collaboration. I don't see it as anything but a disagreement between two juggernauts, The Taylor Swift Corporate Entertainment Empire Wordwide (TM) and Apple's Jimmy Iovene Music Experience (TM), but I'll take my pennies and keep on truckin'.
brisance 11y ago
Some professional photographer is calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy. http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/ http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-...
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  Isn't that apples to oranges? I would think it goes like this: I want to have pictures taken of me during a performance. But I cannot take pictures of myself while performing. So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. They are my pictures. I don't care that you took them, I don't care WHO took them. They are mine because I paid you to take them for me. Just like when an app developer makes an app on their own, they get to reap the rewards. If someone pays you to create an app for them, don't complain when it takes off and you don't get paid royalties on top of that. You also don't get to sell that app again on the side.
  - goatforce5 11y ago
    > So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. She isn't paying them. This is for press photographers who want to go to her concert and take pictures of her performing.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      I won't pretend to understand the exact business model, but it sounds like this is an entirely different can of worms. Unless there is a lot more clarification, I don't see why this is an issue, though. The few people I know who have photographed a concert in some professional capacity have done so for someone else on a paid contract. Usually the performer or the venue... it's kind of like a wedding photographer in that sense (in my mind, at least) and I'd be appalled if a wedding photographer started making a fuss because he doesn't own the rights to the pictures. Of course, if Swift (or the venue) is not paying the photographers (and she isn't), then clearly there must be some financial motivation for them to go do this anyways, at which point you gotta weigh the pros and cons of taking pictures you won't own the rights to...
pinaceae 11y ago
this was a BRILLIANT pr orchestration. blogs, articles, etc all over the globe were written about apple music, for free. would have been far more expensive to buy all that airtime than this little scandal. so taylor swift gets more publicity, apple music is now an established brand name, everyone and their dog knows about their pricing model - holy shit. hats off to the apple team, playing the outrage-piano like no other.
- doppp 11y ago
  This. It's highly unlikely that some SVP would respond so swiftly (no pun intended) to a pop star.
  - kincardine 11y ago
    I think it's more unlikely that a change in business model would happen so quickly. Given public presence and the way they are steering Apple Music, the personal response - regardless of planning - is less surprising.
    - crusso 11y ago
      I would give the edge to this being a PR ploy, but then again, I'm sure that Apple had different financial models on the table when they were building this product. They might have been going with the "shared risk" model of free up front play, but bigger payouts to the artists on the subscriptions - but still had their "Apple takes the risk" on the front end, then payouts are smaller on the back end. Then when artists grumbled about the shared risk model, they kicked in with the alternative model.
    - jusben1369 11y ago
      I think both of you might be over-estimating what's required to say "Ok actually we're going to meter free trials too just like paid accounts and pay out royalties equally irrespective of account type" Technology wouldn't be difficult and cash isn't an issue.
  - tptacek 11y ago
vonklaus 11y ago
Yesterday, I made the comment that there has to be a negative value of this PR and the infrastructure to combat it. IF the value to just capitulating and paying these artists earns them more goodwill, more artists, and in turn more subscribers/profit it is an easy trade. I am sure some actuary /ies must have run the numbers and figured this out.
ristin 11y ago
Yeah Really Brilliant
JohnGB 11y ago
Am I then only one that noticed that they didn't say they would be paying the same during the free trial as after the free trial. They could be paying a flat $0.01 fee to each artist regardless of plays, and everything Apple has said would still apply. I want to know "how much" they will be paying.
- smackfu 11y ago
  Yeah, that's the rub. Their normal payout is a percentage of revenue, so if there is no revenue...
- mightykan 11y ago
  "It can’t be at the same rate that Apple is paying them after free users become subscribers, since Apple is paying out a percentage of revenue once subscribers start paying. Instead, he says, Apple will pay rights holders on a per-stream basis, the amount of which he won’t disclose.” [1] [1]: http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-swift-for-free-streams-after-all/ http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-s...
vbezhenar 11y ago
It's obvious that it was planned from the beginning. It's not possible to do such decisions "on the fly" for Apple monster. There are billions of dollars involved in such a decision. Well played, Apple, I must admit. What I wonder is how do they prevent me from regging new account every 3 monthes? Why would I pay them a single cent if I can spend few minutes once a 3 months and listen to their library for free?
- donjh 11y ago
  It will be tightly coupled to your AppleID I'm sure. For everyday iOS users, the act of re-registering your device to a new AppleID would be too involved to be worth it. For users on other devices, though, I'm not sure what Apple could do to prevent this.
slackstation 11y ago
Has anyone actually read Taylor Swift's post? She praises Apple and basically says that this one small area, isn't great. This isn't exactly a total take-down and I wouldn't be surprised if this was orchestrated. Even if it isn't. It's the kind of deep PR/Advertising that you rarely get the chance to pay for, let alone afford. And the cost of almost negligible in comparison. Even then, they have a "special" rate during those first three months. Apple is a beast at making money.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Praising someone greatly and then making one tiny suggestion is a standard method to give criticism. It is also most effective in being taken seriously.
pluckytree 11y ago
Although this is rumored, it seems highly plausible: Had the contracts they signed with the labels included paying royalties, they would be giving away a product far below cost for 3 months. Spotify and friends could file a complaint that this is anti-competitive behavior. It could be argued that Apple used its financial power to lose money for three months to thwart real competition in the market. Amazon was accused of doing this will digital books by selling them all below cost, although ironically Apple was the one that got in trouble. What happens now is unclear. Can Apple argue they didn’t intend to be anti-competitive from the beginning or will people go after them anyways. I suspect the latter is guaranteed.
seasoup 11y ago
Is Apple's royalty structure set up so that if I pay $10/month and I listen to just Justin Bieber, then Justin Bieber gets the royalties from that $10, or is my 1,000 Justin Bieber plays added onto the plays of everyone else and royalties averaged out evenly? If it's the latter, this change doesn't impact Apple economically, it just adjusts the payouts percentages.
- smackfu 11y ago
  Here's the contract: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/17/fk-it-heres-the-entire-apple-music-contract-for-indies http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/17/fk-it-h... Subscription service stuff is at the end. I assume they will be changing this section: "Fees for Trials and Comp Accounts. For the sake of clarity, for Trial Users, and for Comp Accounts that ITUNES provides on a gratis basis, no license or royalty fees, including Fees, will be due to COMPANY."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
dang 11y ago
Related discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009.

136 points by 666_howitzer 11y ago

tostitos1979 11y ago

Fantastic! What's next? How about paying software engineers during full day interviews?

kevcampb 11y ago
Maybe they can look at fixing my #staingate screen.
amelius 11y ago
How about just disclosing app and music sales statistics, so everybody can make an informed decision about whether to produce for the platform or not.
JonnieCache 11y ago
Some people do actually do that.
kincardine 11y ago
I was paid during the final round of interviews for the job I currently have.
mseebach 11y ago
Yes, let's make sure the bar to get someone onsite is even higher, so employers have to rely even more on the signal they collected before ever having met the candidate in person.
nemo 11y ago
More like a 90 day interview.
hyperbovine 11y ago
How about asking? All I ever hear about is how it's never been more of a seller's market for software engineering talent.

noobermin 11y ago

Well, even given the variety of opinions in the discussion yesterday, I think most people will be happy here. Apple did the right thing, at the very least, for good PR purposes.

themartorana 11y ago
Right on. If we blame them for poor decisions, it's rather mean to then blow off the righting of that wrong. Kudos where they are due. Maybe it is for PR purposes, but at least the outcome is positive. Thanks, Apple.
- BenjiSujang 11y ago
  Agreed, but I wouldn't go as far as to thank Apple. And of course it's for PR purposes. All large companies are sneaky.

oddevan 11y ago

I totally get the major labels making the 1.5% increase/3-month trial concession; but after nearly every independent artist I pay attention to basically said they couldn't/wouldn't make the same concession, I'm glad Apple relented. I want one of these services to at least act like they appreciate the value of music. Myself, I've never made enough off that one rap CD to recoup the cost of sending it to CD Baby, so I've got NO skin in this fight. :)

FireBeyond 11y ago
Eh, 1.5% extra for a 3 month trial with no royalties was utterly contemptual and only appealing to those who couldn't do math: 100/1.5 = 66.67 x 3 months = 200 months to recoup the lost royalties. For a music streaming service, looking to recoup your lost royalties after almost 17 YEARS (and only getting 1.5% extra at that) is laughable.
- Joky 11y ago
  It looks to me like this reasoning is laughable. It looks like the same reasoning as when the major are counting every single pirated song as a "missing sale". Like if it would have translated in a sale otherwise... The three months free period is intended to make the amount of paid customer bigger after the three months, so you have to account for that (and you don't). I don't know what is the predicted impact of the three months on the subscription numbers, but let's imagine you would have a two times faster market penetration. After a year you would have 3 months free and then 9 months with double amount royalties, compared to 12 months single royalties.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    So you do make a valid point, but I think your estimation of the impact is vastly overrated, too. Number of users who will pay for Apple Music with no trial or a 1 month trial (as per Spotify, Rdio, et al) = x, Number of users who would not pay for Apple Music with no trial but will after a 3 month free trial = 2x? Doubtful. I think the order of magnitude in people for whom the three month trial is in the order of single digit percentages, at most (because I'm sure other music services have A/B tested this). "1 month vs 3 month trial" is not revolutionary nor out of left field, and I can guarantee if the there was a 100% increase in customer base by Spotify offering a three month trial, they would be doing that right now.

kincardine 11y ago

So, without making a judgement call on this actual decision. It amazes me that no one saw this type of reaction from artists (and the generally pro-artist consumer base) coming when the overall business plan was created. And that the concession was made so quickly...

jimmy0x52 11y ago
Gee it's almost like it was a PR stunt.
- kincardine 11y ago
  That's what I meant to imply.
twoodfin 11y ago
...and now there's tons of free media that Swift's latest album will be on Apple Music (and not on Spotify)! I think this is a bit too much of a bank shot to have been planned ahead of time, but nice work by Eddy Cue and Apple PR to acquire and then cash in this bargaining chip in probably the most effective way possible.
- matthewmcg 11y ago
  "Bank shot" +"Eddie Cue" = nice billiards pun!
smackfu 11y ago
Apple got the labels to agree to the deal already, why would they care about the artists?
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  They only got the major labels - not the indies.

zxcvcxz 11y ago

What Apple should do is pay only the bottom 90% of artists and when someone downloads free music from one of the top grossing 10% of artists, the would-be revenue should be re-distributed to the bottom 90% during the users free trial. Taylor said herself that it wasn't about her, but about small artists trying to break through. I'd like to see her put her money where her mouth is, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.

philjackson 11y ago
She implied it wasn't just about her. She deserves to be paid for her work too, and has done the other artists a big favour. edit: Why is so much focus on the celeb. anyway? Shouldn't we be focused on the fact Apple was willing to completely screw artists for 3 months?
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of downloads are only from the top 10% of artists. I believe swift was sincere when she said that this isn't about multi-millionaires, but about unknown artists trying to make a living. By redistributing her income (only for the users first three months of course) she and other artists could really help the ones who are struggling, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.
mfoy_ 11y ago
Or they could just promote the up-and-comers more aggressively. Instead of a redistribution of wealth (which would be talent agnostic) go for a redistribution of coverage. Also, if revenue was diverted completely from top artists to everyone else, what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? (Other than as a loss-leader for live shows and a "giving back to the community" sort of charitable thing) Either way I doubt Apple Music would take off if they told the top artists that they were going to full Robin Hood on them.
- 11y ago

SchizoDuckie 11y ago

Musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and it's fixed the next day. App developers and content producers get emailed 'we are taking more out of your cut' or 'if you don't want us to show ads near your content, reply to this email with "opt out"'

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kincardine 11y ago
It's not that musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and get it fixed the next day, it's that unicorn musicians can - like Taylor Swift.
- josefresco 11y ago
  Apple Gets: Credit for throwing artists a bone. / Extended publicity for their new music service. / Credit for pleasing TS who has a lot of fans who would also be good customers for Apple TS Gets: Publicity / Sales for her new album / Credit for sticking up for artists Seems like a win-win for both parties. I doubt the revenue lost would have been significant. Anyone have numbers?
  - kincardine 11y ago
    Oh, absolutely. This is freebie PR for everyone involved. What I meant to imply is that the PR is only valuable because it is a musician with the brand value (and public presence) of Taylor Swift. And, what I mean by that is that if smaller brand musicians complained (as I think would have been inevitable) nothing would change until a larger brand also complained (which would also have been inevitable).
    - d_theorist 11y ago
      It seems like you're assuming this was reactive? Seems far more likely that this exchange was orchestrated between Apple and TS.

Yuioup 11y ago

I don't understand why everybody is reporting this as "Taylor Swift". Shouldn't it be "Taylor Swift's Management" or "Taylor Swift's Lawyers". She obviously didn't plan this.

Keyframe 11y ago
Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. It doesn't matter. Naming is correct, since it's a brand. Same like POTUS - President did this, president said that... when in reality his staff did and said and he ok'd.
- Yuioup 11y ago
  Yeah ok. I agree. Taylor Swift is indeed a brand.
adamlett 11y ago
Why is that obvious? It seems quite insulting to presume that people don't speak for themselves.
nailer 11y ago
She published it on her tumblr under her own name and seemingly in her own voice.
smackfu 11y ago
The letter was written in the first person, on her Tumblr blog.

FreakyT 11y ago

Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed in this. The music industry has long been using bullying to get what they want, and this is no exception to that rule. The sooner every traditional media company goes out of business, the better the situation will be for everyone -- listeners and artists.

BenjiSujang 11y ago
And Apple, Google, Microsoft are much more philantrophic than the music companies ... Of course not, they're worse as they gain more control. Best for customers and artists is good competition.
Marazan 11y ago
I know, imagine wanting to get paid for the work they produce. What utter scumbags. I presume you work for free?
ceejayoz 11y ago
> The music industry has long been using bullying to get what they want, and this is no exception to that rule. I don't think Apple's negotiators are giving free puppies and flowers when they negotiate either.
GrumpyBen 11y ago
You're disappointed because Apple will pay artists to broadcast their music. Care to explain why?

laumars 11y ago

Is Apple paying the artists, or the record labels? And if the latter, how much money would actually end up in the artists pockets?

Tloewald 11y ago
Presumably it's paying the rights-holders, whoever they happen to be (i.e. usually labels). How would you expect it to work?
- laumars 11y ago
  The way you described, but the articles keep referring to the artists and sadly once the labels take their cut there really wouldn't be much left of the artists.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    Well, sadly, no-one is going to pay artists unless they're the rights holders.

BenjiSujang 11y ago

Only few things prevent greedy companies from pushing further and further. Bad PR is one of them. I don't care about Tayler Swift, but I think the behaviour of the big players are extremly questionable.

spanishcow 11y ago

Looks like a publicity stunt...

BenjiSujang 11y ago
Yeah, but landed on the roof. The damage to Apple is done.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  "Damage" being a ton of publicity and PR about their new streaming service? I wish I could be so "damaged".

6stringmerc 11y ago

Huh, well how about that. In my last comments on the subject I postulated that Apple could easily afford the money to pay artists/labels during that period. Apparently they could not afford to not pay, image wise. Not sure if it sounds more cynical or stereotypical on my part, but I'd guess that there's a lot of overlap between Taylor Swift fans and Apple's target market. Good move in the long run for Apple, and in the short term they get to play it off like collaboration. I don't see it as anything but a disagreement between two juggernauts, The Taylor Swift Corporate Entertainment Empire Wordwide (TM) and Apple's Jimmy Iovene Music Experience (TM), but I'll take my pennies and keep on truckin'.

brisance 11y ago

Some professional photographer is calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy. http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/ http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-...

mfoy_ 11y ago
Isn't that apples to oranges? I would think it goes like this: I want to have pictures taken of me during a performance. But I cannot take pictures of myself while performing. So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. They are my pictures. I don't care that you took them, I don't care WHO took them. They are mine because I paid you to take them for me. Just like when an app developer makes an app on their own, they get to reap the rewards. If someone pays you to create an app for them, don't complain when it takes off and you don't get paid royalties on top of that. You also don't get to sell that app again on the side.
- goatforce5 11y ago
  > So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. She isn't paying them. This is for press photographers who want to go to her concert and take pictures of her performing.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I won't pretend to understand the exact business model, but it sounds like this is an entirely different can of worms. Unless there is a lot more clarification, I don't see why this is an issue, though. The few people I know who have photographed a concert in some professional capacity have done so for someone else on a paid contract. Usually the performer or the venue... it's kind of like a wedding photographer in that sense (in my mind, at least) and I'd be appalled if a wedding photographer started making a fuss because he doesn't own the rights to the pictures. Of course, if Swift (or the venue) is not paying the photographers (and she isn't), then clearly there must be some financial motivation for them to go do this anyways, at which point you gotta weigh the pros and cons of taking pictures you won't own the rights to...

pinaceae 11y ago

this was a BRILLIANT pr orchestration. blogs, articles, etc all over the globe were written about apple music, for free. would have been far more expensive to buy all that airtime than this little scandal. so taylor swift gets more publicity, apple music is now an established brand name, everyone and their dog knows about their pricing model - holy shit. hats off to the apple team, playing the outrage-piano like no other.

doppp 11y ago
This. It's highly unlikely that some SVP would respond so swiftly (no pun intended) to a pop star.
- kincardine 11y ago
  I think it's more unlikely that a change in business model would happen so quickly. Given public presence and the way they are steering Apple Music, the personal response - regardless of planning - is less surprising.
  - crusso 11y ago
    I would give the edge to this being a PR ploy, but then again, I'm sure that Apple had different financial models on the table when they were building this product. They might have been going with the "shared risk" model of free up front play, but bigger payouts to the artists on the subscriptions - but still had their "Apple takes the risk" on the front end, then payouts are smaller on the back end. Then when artists grumbled about the shared risk model, they kicked in with the alternative model.
  - jusben1369 11y ago
    I think both of you might be over-estimating what's required to say "Ok actually we're going to meter free trials too just like paid accounts and pay out royalties equally irrespective of account type" Technology wouldn't be difficult and cash isn't an issue.
- tptacek 11y ago

vonklaus 11y ago

Yesterday, I made the comment that there has to be a negative value of this PR and the infrastructure to combat it. IF the value to just capitulating and paying these artists earns them more goodwill, more artists, and in turn more subscribers/profit it is an easy trade. I am sure some actuary /ies must have run the numbers and figured this out.

ristin 11y ago

Yeah Really Brilliant

JohnGB 11y ago

Am I then only one that noticed that they didn't say they would be paying the same during the free trial as after the free trial. They could be paying a flat $0.01 fee to each artist regardless of plays, and everything Apple has said would still apply. I want to know "how much" they will be paying.

smackfu 11y ago
Yeah, that's the rub. Their normal payout is a percentage of revenue, so if there is no revenue...
mightykan 11y ago
"It can’t be at the same rate that Apple is paying them after free users become subscribers, since Apple is paying out a percentage of revenue once subscribers start paying. Instead, he says, Apple will pay rights holders on a per-stream basis, the amount of which he won’t disclose.” [1] [1]: http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-swift-for-free-streams-after-all/ http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-s...

vbezhenar 11y ago

It's obvious that it was planned from the beginning. It's not possible to do such decisions "on the fly" for Apple monster. There are billions of dollars involved in such a decision. Well played, Apple, I must admit. What I wonder is how do they prevent me from regging new account every 3 monthes? Why would I pay them a single cent if I can spend few minutes once a 3 months and listen to their library for free?

donjh 11y ago
It will be tightly coupled to your AppleID I'm sure. For everyday iOS users, the act of re-registering your device to a new AppleID would be too involved to be worth it. For users on other devices, though, I'm not sure what Apple could do to prevent this.

slackstation 11y ago

Has anyone actually read Taylor Swift's post? She praises Apple and basically says that this one small area, isn't great. This isn't exactly a total take-down and I wouldn't be surprised if this was orchestrated. Even if it isn't. It's the kind of deep PR/Advertising that you rarely get the chance to pay for, let alone afford. And the cost of almost negligible in comparison. Even then, they have a "special" rate during those first three months. Apple is a beast at making money.

kelukelugames 11y ago
Praising someone greatly and then making one tiny suggestion is a standard method to give criticism. It is also most effective in being taken seriously.

pluckytree 11y ago

Although this is rumored, it seems highly plausible: Had the contracts they signed with the labels included paying royalties, they would be giving away a product far below cost for 3 months. Spotify and friends could file a complaint that this is anti-competitive behavior. It could be argued that Apple used its financial power to lose money for three months to thwart real competition in the market. Amazon was accused of doing this will digital books by selling them all below cost, although ironically Apple was the one that got in trouble. What happens now is unclear. Can Apple argue they didn’t intend to be anti-competitive from the beginning or will people go after them anyways. I suspect the latter is guaranteed.

seasoup 11y ago

Is Apple's royalty structure set up so that if I pay $10/month and I listen to just Justin Bieber, then Justin Bieber gets the royalties from that $10, or is my 1,000 Justin Bieber plays added onto the plays of everyone else and royalties averaged out evenly? If it's the latter, this change doesn't impact Apple economically, it just adjusts the payouts percentages.

smackfu 11y ago
Here's the contract: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/17/fk-it-heres-the-entire-apple-music-contract-for-indies http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/17/fk-it-h... Subscription service stuff is at the end. I assume they will be changing this section: "Fees for Trials and Comp Accounts. For the sake of clarity, for Trial Users, and for Comp Accounts that ITUNES provides on a gratis basis, no license or royalty fees, including Fees, will be due to COMPANY."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

dang 11y ago

Related discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009.