If he were the richest company in the industry when he came to your originally would you given him extremely low pricing, taking the profit hit yourself? It would not have been necessary to his survival in that case.
You're hardly offering a comparable case. Apple is hurting for nothing. Both you and your customer apparently were.
We were both startups, Indies if you will. That's my problem with this whole brouhaha. It's the Indies who should be taking risks, not looking for a payout when Apple isn't seeing it either with the trial. But of course, "exposure" and all that has no value.
At any rate, it looks like Apple will stick to its business model. Good for them.
In any event I won't be surprised at all if Apple changes course. They'd receive more praise from musicians for paying royalties during the free period. Instead they're getting uncustomary bad PR from them. This isn't the typical Apple I perceive them as being.
HG's point is that Apple should match Google's terms. The great, magnanimous, Google...
I don't know about HG's point but if Sirius does one of their free two-week (or is it 10 day) promos, as they do a couple times a year for previous subscribers, there's no indication that the music owners/performers don't get paid. When HBO or Showtime runs a free preview weekend or week there's no indication the movie owners/performers don't get paid. Can you think of other paid/premium streaming music providers or paid/premium movie channels who expect the content to be provided to them for free to get more subscribers and thus more money in the service providers pockets? I can't but then again none of them are as powerful as Apple either. I guess good on them for having the pull.
In reality it ends up as less about money anyway. At the end of the day it's probably not going to make a big difference except possibly in perception. Apple will save a few million and still make theirs and on a lesser scale so will the bigger artists. It won't much matter financially really for the independent not-often-played little guys so nothing game-changing if they lose out on that $5 or less they might have received. Keep those day jobs.
So? They're not getting paid for 3 months in exchange for a larger payout later on. Why is everyone focused on the 3 months free, and not the years to come? Or the fact the Apple Music subscriber share is destined to surpass all other streaming services for number of users (and therefore, money made)?
Spotify is in 68 countries. Google is in 58. Pandora is only in 3. Apple Music will be over 100 at launch. It took years for Spotify (for example) to get to 68 countries. Meaning artists weren't gettng paid much at all in the beginning since they had limited availability. Couple that with 71.5% and it's clear the most money to be made is with Apple Music.
And, the bottom line, everyone has AGREED to these terms with Apple, save for a very small number of highly vocal, not too intelligent whiny ass bitches. Why are people listening to their lies? Oh right, because Apple.
All I'm saying is that you don't open a store, make everything free for 3 months and not pay your suppliers. Unless they agree not to get paid. Which is what's happened.
The only one who's whiny here is you. Because Apple.
Next, being worry about a 3 month free peroid is short sited, however, when most music suchs so bad these days which most people do not listen to it more than a month or two it sound like this Band realize no one will pay otherwise since they would have moved on the next new things.
How is that short sighted? Most of these bands will not be able to use that 3 months to promote tours, due to their size. On Apple's end it benefits them to commoditize these bands. Apple should in fact just balance their fee schedule to account for trial periods, which I think they'll do now. They already backed off from the previous plan according to the newest articles.
In any event I won't be surprised at all if Apple changes course. They'd receive more praise from musicians for paying royalties during the free period. Instead they're getting uncustomary bad PR from them. This isn't the typical Apple I perceive them as being.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
How about..."Hey, I like that song" "click", thank you for purchasing that album. Streaming is not the only way they make money. They can have all the money they earn through sales off iTunes during that period so it is not the complete void it is made out to be. Signing up is optional isn't it????
Comments
If he were the richest company in the industry when he came to your originally would you given him extremely low pricing, taking the profit hit yourself? It would not have been necessary to his survival in that case.
You're hardly offering a comparable case. Apple is hurting for nothing. Both you and your customer apparently were.
We were both startups, Indies if you will. That's my problem with this whole brouhaha. It's the Indies who should be taking risks, not looking for a payout when Apple isn't seeing it either with the trial. But of course, "exposure" and all that has no value.
At any rate, it looks like Apple will stick to its business model. Good for them.
In any event I won't be surprised at all if Apple changes course. They'd receive more praise from musicians for paying royalties during the free period. Instead they're getting uncustomary bad PR from them. This isn't the typical Apple I perceive them as being.
Their business plan?
In any event I won't be surprised at all if Apple changes course.
I stated business model, not business plan. One is not necessarily the other.
Well, you have no more than eight days to go for that change of course. Me, I think that it is a done deal as is.
HG's point is that Apple should match Google's terms. The great, magnanimous, Google...
In reality it ends up as less about money anyway. At the end of the day it's probably not going to make a big difference except possibly in perception. Apple will save a few million and still make theirs and on a lesser scale so will the bigger artists. It won't much matter financially really for the independent not-often-played little guys so nothing game-changing if they lose out on that $5 or less they might have received. Keep those day jobs.
The only one who's whiny here is you. Because Apple.
Although I gotta admit, "Business Acumen and the MBAs" would be a great name for a rock band.
Next, being worry about a 3 month free peroid is short sited, however, when most music suchs so bad these days which most people do not listen to it more than a month or two it sound like this Band realize no one will pay otherwise since they would have moved on the next new things.
How is that short sighted? Most of these bands will not be able to use that 3 months to promote tours, due to their size. On Apple's end it benefits them to commoditize these bands. Apple should in fact just balance their fee schedule to account for trial periods, which I think they'll do now. They already backed off from the previous plan according to the newest articles.
...and just a day later Apple does change course. Kudos to them for recognizing their judgement error so quickly and correcting it. Well done Apple.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
How about..."Hey, I like that song" "click", thank you for purchasing that album. Streaming is not the only way they make money. They can have all the money they earn through sales off iTunes during that period so it is not the complete void it is made out to be. Signing up is optional isn't it????