Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
This whole Music launch seems a bit off and a bit tone deaf. There's obviously some grand reason for the 3 month free trial but to a lot of people it looks like Apple being greedy.
To allow people to try it first of course, it could also be viewed as a pure money grab in which Apple is hoping people will sign up and forget to cancel after the 3 months.
To allow people to try it first of course, it could also be viewed as a pure money grab in which Apple is hoping people will sign up and forget to cancel after the 3 months.
No I meant there's a reason it was 3 months and not the typical 1. Butts right up against the next iPhone launch. Perhaps a new iPod at that event?
She removed her content from services that offered a free tier. That's fine. Apple is the best hope of the music industry for getting paid streaming to really explode. That's what Swift wants.
But since she's not getting everything her way, she's decided to throw a fit.
IMO, no more sweetheart marketing deals (or promotion of any kind) on iTunes for her, let her float on her own.
She's not throwing a fit, she's giving her opinion. Um I think she's doing ok by herself.
This whole Music launch seems a bit off and a bit tone deaf. There's obviously some grand reason for the 3 month free trial but to a lot of people it looks like Apple being greedy.
Conversion rate.
Apple likely did studies and came to the conclusion that a three month trial had a better conversion rate to paid subscriptions than either a one or a two month trial.
If Apple is successful with that conversion, then the Artists, et al, will be well served, but either way, the contracts were structured to create a slight financial benefit beginning after the trial and continuing (I surmise) until at least the next contract date. Hence the higher rate. Any artist can wait three months and enjoy the spoils.
But as these things are, some small number of artists can't see the forest for the tree, and are focussing on the trials potential for royalties, not the future reward.
Of course, Apple is making a play for the most subscribed stream on the internet, so Apple's tack is seen by detractors as unfair to Artists.
To allow people to try it first of course, it could also be viewed as a pure money grab in which Apple is hoping people will sign up and forget to cancel after the 3 months.
No I meant there's a reason it was 3 months and not the typical 1. Butts right up against the next iPhone launch. Perhaps a new iPod at that event?
Good point. My son lost his iPod Touch and I've been holding off buying him a new one with the hopes that Apple makes a new bigger one.
"with no subsidizing assistance from Apple" --> "DELAYED subsidizing assistance from Apple, plus larger total paid sales of the service (which is the goal of any free trial)."
Now, any given artist or label is still free to decline the deal, and is free to take their negotiations public to gain leverage. That's perfectly fair%u2014I'm not siding with Apple OR Swift here.
Just pointing out that Apple DID agree to pay something in return for the 3 free months.
Welp, Apple lost Dalrymple on this one. He says the top 10 execs at Apple should give up their salaries for 3 months to cover the royalties for the artists. Why do I get the feeling the same person who had the boneheaded idea to stick a U2 album in everybody's purchased history was the same person behind this free 3 month trial. Did no one at Apple think for one minute there might be some backlash over this?
And Swift is full of it coz she knows damn well that Apple has paid for the right to do this. Labels don't give music away free. There's a contract in place that permits Apple to do this. Cook & Co are not stupid enough to do something that would expose Apple to a multi-million dollar law suite from the labels. This open letter is nothing more than a publicity stunt and if it's not, then someone needs to sit her down and explain how this business works.
You know Taylor Swift owns her own label, right? So Apple is paying all the other labels but just not Swift?
Love how some people here think that everyone is just like them - Willing to just take any BS apple sends their way. Must really have little self worth to direct this much value by association into an electronics company.
Welp, Apple lost Dalrymple on this one. He says the top 10 execs at Apple should give up their salaries for 3 months to cover the royalties for the artists. Why do I get the feeling the same person who had the boneheaded idea to stick a U2 album in everybody's purchased history was the same person behind this free 3 month trial. Did no one at Apple think for one minute there might be some backlash over this?
There is backlash over everything today; the internet is becoming a cesspool for morons to vomit their manufactured outrage everywhere. Critical thinking is dead.
Antitrust keeps Apple from paying them. And as I commented elsewhere, these artists act like every single person on the planet is going to stop buying music, cancel all streaming services, never attend any concerts, and that all radio stations will just close up shop, all so they can use Apple Music.
That's not going to happen, so again, this is overblown whining.
You know, I have no problem with the 3 month free trial. I think Apple needs to market it better.
Hey look, we want to give our fans 3 months of free service to try the new service out. If you could give us 3 months it would be appreciated, and your music will be featured and centered for the first 3 months of the service, allowing free publicity. During this 3 month period, on Beats 1 we will help you promote new artists, and try to get your music into the hands of as many music lovers as possible.
Of course, if you would like to join the service after the 3 month free service period we understand, and our contract with higher paid per usage that other services are providing.
You should sell it as an opportunity to promote your music. Of course Apple could have also negotiated half pay during the free trial or any number of compromises...and honestly Apple should realize they are coming into the game late, and should be willing to compromise.
Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
Yep. The difference is now Apple's so big and rich everyone run to media when they want something out of Apple.
..and honestly Apple should realize they are coming into the game late, and should be willing to compromise.
Why? Apple holds the high ground here. The industry is going around saying Spotify and others are killing them, and Apple, again, provides the solution. Apple can survive without a streaming service. It and the iTunes Music Store are relatively small portions of the business. iTMS isn't going away, so they'd have been fine just leaving the situation as is. Instead, they've tried to do the right thing here, only to get yet more complaints from whiners.
This isn't going to be a profit generator for Apple. They're doing it as a value add, and they're doing it because they like music; hence why they're paying higher royalty rates than anyone else, as well as allowing artists to bypass labels entirely now.
1) It's actually not as that artist won't get anything for a free trial. Apple offers higher royalties than competition after 90-days free trial. More money but later. So what's the Swift's point? 2) Apple can't pay artist money while offering a free trial because the authorities won't allow it. It's anti-trust regulation. 3) All people who say "Apple should do this, Apple should do that" are expressing only their opinion without understanding how the market (and business) works.
Comments
To allow people to try it first of course, it could also be viewed as a pure money grab in which Apple is hoping people will sign up and forget to cancel after the 3 months.
She's not throwing a fit, she's giving her opinion. Um I think she's doing ok by herself.
This whole Music launch seems a bit off and a bit tone deaf. There's obviously some grand reason for the 3 month free trial but to a lot of people it looks like Apple being greedy.
Conversion rate.
Apple likely did studies and came to the conclusion that a three month trial had a better conversion rate to paid subscriptions than either a one or a two month trial.
If Apple is successful with that conversion, then the Artists, et al, will be well served, but either way, the contracts were structured to create a slight financial benefit beginning after the trial and continuing (I surmise) until at least the next contract date. Hence the higher rate. Any artist can wait three months and enjoy the spoils.
But as these things are, some small number of artists can't see the forest for the tree, and are focussing on the trials potential for royalties, not the future reward.
Of course, Apple is making a play for the most subscribed stream on the internet, so Apple's tack is seen by detractors as unfair to Artists.
Do those companies pay for the content used in the free trial period and if so can you cite examples?
Yes they do, it's part of what they call customer acquisition costs. They also pay for the content used in their ad-supported tiers.
http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-after-you-pay-for-a-month-of-apple-music/
Good point. My son lost his iPod Touch and I've been holding off buying him a new one with the hopes that Apple makes a new bigger one.
"with no subsidizing assistance from Apple" --> "DELAYED subsidizing assistance from Apple, plus larger total paid sales of the service (which is the goal of any free trial)."
See:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/15/more-than-70-of-apple-music-revenues-passed-to-rights-owners-apple-confirms
Now, any given artist or label is still free to decline the deal, and is free to take their negotiations public to gain leverage. That's perfectly fair%u2014I'm not siding with Apple OR Swift here.
Just pointing out that Apple DID agree to pay something in return for the 3 free months.
Her first hit is my favorite.
Welp, Apple lost Dalrymple on this one. He says the top 10 execs at Apple should give up their salaries for 3 months to cover the royalties for the artists. Why do I get the feeling the same person who had the boneheaded idea to stick a U2 album in everybody's purchased history was the same person behind this free 3 month trial. Did no one at Apple think for one minute there might be some backlash over this?
http://www.loopinsight.com/2015/06/21/why-dont-the-top-executives-at-apple-give-up-their-salaries-for-three-months-and-pay-musicians/
The service goes live in 8 days. I've gotten the sign up screen in the 8.4 beta, but it doesn't go anywhere. How did you get it to go through?
Love how some people here think that everyone is just like them - Willing to just take any BS apple sends their way. Must really have little self worth to direct this much value by association into an electronics company.
Welp, Apple lost Dalrymple on this one. He says the top 10 execs at Apple should give up their salaries for 3 months to cover the royalties for the artists. Why do I get the feeling the same person who had the boneheaded idea to stick a U2 album in everybody's purchased history was the same person behind this free 3 month trial. Did no one at Apple think for one minute there might be some backlash over this?
http://www.loopinsight.com/2015/06/21/why-dont-the-top-executives-at-apple-give-up-their-salaries-for-three-months-and-pay-musicians/
There is backlash over everything today; the internet is becoming a cesspool for morons to vomit their manufactured outrage everywhere. Critical thinking is dead.
http://www.imore.com/apple-music-dilemma-who-pays-free-trial
Antitrust keeps Apple from paying them. And as I commented elsewhere, these artists act like every single person on the planet is going to stop buying music, cancel all streaming services, never attend any concerts, and that all radio stations will just close up shop, all so they can use Apple Music.
That's not going to happen, so again, this is overblown whining.
You know, I have no problem with the 3 month free trial. I think Apple needs to market it better.
Hey look, we want to give our fans 3 months of free service to try the new service out. If you could give us 3 months it would be appreciated, and your music will be featured and centered for the first 3 months of the service, allowing free publicity. During this 3 month period, on Beats 1 we will help you promote new artists, and try to get your music into the hands of as many music lovers as possible.
Of course, if you would like to join the service after the 3 month free service period we understand, and our contract with higher paid per usage that other services are providing.
You should sell it as an opportunity to promote your music. Of course Apple could have also negotiated half pay during the free trial or any number of compromises...and honestly Apple should realize they are coming into the game late, and should be willing to compromise.
Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
Yep. The difference is now Apple's so big and rich everyone run to media when they want something out of Apple.
..and honestly Apple should realize they are coming into the game late, and should be willing to compromise.
Why? Apple holds the high ground here. The industry is going around saying Spotify and others are killing them, and Apple, again, provides the solution. Apple can survive without a streaming service. It and the iTunes Music Store are relatively small portions of the business. iTMS isn't going away, so they'd have been fine just leaving the situation as is. Instead, they've tried to do the right thing here, only to get yet more complaints from whiners.
This isn't going to be a profit generator for Apple. They're doing it as a value add, and they're doing it because they like music; hence why they're paying higher royalty rates than anyone else, as well as allowing artists to bypass labels entirely now.
Know what's disappointing? Calling Taylor Swift an "Artist".
I wish there was a "Thumb Down" button for arrogant comments such as this.
2) Apple can't pay artist money while offering a free trial because the authorities won't allow it. It's anti-trust regulation.
3) All people who say "Apple should do this, Apple should do that" are expressing only their opinion without understanding how the market (and business) works.
Did she take "1986" off iTunes???
I'm still looking for Taylor Swift's 1986 album on iTunes, but I can't find it.
Did she take "1986" off iTunes???
Try 1989.