The reply I wish Apple would make: “An Open Letter on Music To Rich Artists, Love Apple
Music, movies and the arts have always been important to me and to Apple’s customers. After much reflection from recent events surrounding ?Music, we've decided to take a step back. We’re going to close the iTunes Store.
There are now many great options out there for consumers to enjoy whatever they want and whenever they want including YouTube and torrenting. And consumers have spoken loud and clear—they're consumers alright. Consumers are unwilling to pay more than what the industry backed models like Spotify and Hulu charge—nothing.
During our proposed 3-month free trial, artists would not make money. But neither would we at Apple. We’re not sure how to make music a workable business if only Apple is expected to pay.
So we think it is time to say no to one more thing so that we can focus on areas where we really can make a difference.
To the many artists out there who leveraged iTunes Store to get famous and then excoriated us and the labels once you became famous—we wish you well, truly. We think there are many profitable models out there for you including SoundCloud and local cafes.
And to our customers we hope you enjoy our hardware and continue to Rip, Mix and Torrent.
Maybe because I have IOS 9 running. I have 8.4 plus 9 running but I can't remember how I signed up. I sent you a few screen shots. It's really beautiful. Did you get them?
Music, movies and the arts have always been important to me and to Apple’s customers. After much reflection from recent events surrounding ?Music, we've decided to take a step back. We’re going to close the iTunes Store.
There are now many great options out there for consumers to enjoy whatever they want and whenever they want including YouTube and torrenting. And consumers have spoken loud and clear—they're consumers alright. Consumers are unwilling to pay more than what the industry backed models like Spotify and Hulu charge—nothing.
During our proposed 3-month free trial, artists would not make money. But neither would we at Apple. We’re not sure how to make music a workable business if only Apple is expected to pay.
So we think it is time to say no to one more thing so that we can focus on areas where we really can make a difference.
To the many artists out there who leveraged iTunes Store to get famous and then excoriated us and the labels once you became famous—we wish you well, truly. We think there are many profitable models out there for you including SoundCloud and local cafes.
And to our customers we hope you enjoy our hardware and continue to Rip, Mix and Torrent.
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?
I don't know. I'm running IOS 9 and 8.4 beta 3 but I don't know which I signed up with. It's really beautiful. I sent you a few screen shots did you get it?
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.
1. She's right, artists aren't getting royalties for three months. Imagine if your workplace offered free samples of its products and won't pay you for three months.
2. Is it? That's odd if it is the case.
3. Swift understands.
So do these other streaming services pay her on their "free trial"? If they don't then why must Apple. It's clear Apple doesn't want another "iBook" mess so they're being cautious but agree with one of the other comments: it's $10. Give people a 7 day trial or no trial at all. I joined but I'm having problems finding stuff I like but I'm strictly classical some trance dance.
I feel if artists like Swift pull their product for the trial then people "checking it out like me" will not see everything that WILL be included after the trial, and cancel. I've been using it for a week or so (I'm running 8.4 and IOS 9 so it was already turned on) and its nice but after my trial will it be much better?
What the **** are you talking about? Music isn't even live yet.
This is how's it's working. After you sign up for the 3 month trial then I went to find her album. To stream her you have to agree to exit the 3 month trial and subscribe on the spot. Otherwise if you don't want to hear her you can keep going in your trial and yes it's up and running through 8.4 beta 3 and on IOS 9. Either that or they let me through as a courtesy because we are a small record company. I'm just kidding about that last part. But that's how Apple must be getting around people who want their money and no trial. I didn't click go ahead on principle so I'm staying in my 3 month trial.
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.
The thing is Apple didn't have to offer a free trial of 3 months. And if they chose 3 because that has the highest conversion rate to paid subscribers then they should be saying that. Get Eddy or Jimmy or Apple PR out there explaining the reason behind the decision and why it was the right decision.
The thing is Apple didn't have to offer a free trial of 3 months. And if they chose 3 because that has the highest conversion rate to paid subscribers then they should be saying that. Get Eddy or Jimmy or Apple PR out there explaining the reason behind the decision and why it was the right decision.
Explain to me how telling people that will lead to a higher conversion rate won't add to cries that Apple is greedy?
Plus, when you tell people how you plan to influence their behaviour, it then tends to be less effective.
1) Swift and others, via their chosen agents the record labels, negotiate higher royalties from Apple than any other streaming system in exchange for a 90 day trial
2) Swift realizes that she can get more $ by delaying an album release on Apple Music until October, when most of the free trials will be over
3) Swift then paints herself as a hero of the underdog, despite the fact that the 90 day trial was freely negotiated between Apple and the musicians via their agents
Now Swift or some of the others may not like the deal the labels got them. If that's the case, they need to fire their labels. But why should Apple be denigrated for following a deal they negotiated in good faith?
The reply I wish Apple would make:
“An Open Letter on Music
To Rich Artists, Love Apple
Music, movies and the arts have always been important to me and to Apple’s customers. After much reflection from recent events surrounding ?Music, we've decided to take a step back. We’re going to close the iTunes Store.
There are now many great options out there for consumers to enjoy whatever they want and whenever they want including YouTube and torrenting. And consumers have spoken loud and clear—they're consumers alright. Consumers are unwilling to pay more than what the industry backed models like Spotify and Hulu charge—nothing.
During our proposed 3-month free trial, artists would not make money. But neither would we at Apple. We’re not sure how to make music a workable business if only Apple is expected to pay.
So we think it is time to say no to one more thing so that we can focus on areas where we really can make a difference.
To the many artists out there who leveraged iTunes Store to get famous and then excoriated us and the labels once you became famous—we wish you well, truly. We think there are many profitable models out there for you including SoundCloud and local cafes.
And to our customers we hope you enjoy our hardware and continue to Rip, Mix and Torrent.
1. She's right, artists aren't getting royalties for three months. Imagine if your workplace offered free samples of its products and won't pay you for three months.
2. Is it? That's odd if it is the case.
3. Swift understands.
Regarding #2, some people like Rene Ritchie are speculating that if Apple did subsidize the 3 month trial it could become an anti-trust issue.
Honestly this Music rollout so far has been a clusterf*ck. The WWDC keynote presentation was a mess. Most people walked away confused how iTunes, iTunes Radio and iTunes Match all worked with Apple Music. They were in the dark about being able to play music offline and if they could transfer playlists from other services. And people don't want to have to read the fine print or some FAQ on apple.com to figure it all out. Also Apple has been coy about what exactly will be available for streaming. As John Gruber wrote on his site today:
Also raises the question of just how many other top-shelf music will not be available on Apple Music when it launches. After the WWDC keynote, I simply could not get a straight answer from anyone at Apple about just how much of the iTunes Music library will be available on Apple Music when it launches. Part of that might be that they’re still negotiating with some labels and top-shelf acts, but I can’t help but suspect part of it is that they know they’re not going to have everything, and they don’t want to talk about that.
Maybe this will all blow over and be much ado about nothing in a few days. But it doesn't make me very confident that Apple spending $3B on Beats was money well spent. Jimmy Iovine of all people should have known there would be a backlash for a 3 month free trial where no record company or artist was being paid.
Do those companies pay for the content used in the free trial period and if so can you cite examples?
Haven't companies always offered free trials at their own expense? AOL didn't somehow provide internet service to its free trial customers for free. Amazon doesn't defer paying shipping expenses or warehouse employee wages when serving Amazon Prime customers during their free trial.
Explain to me how telling people that will lead to a higher conversion rate won't add to cries that Apple is greedy?
Plus, when you tell people how you plan to influence their behaviour, it then tends to be less effective.
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
She'd still whine, it's about money. People don't have common decency anymore.
Of course it's about money. It's about money for Apple too.
Not really. This isn't a moneymaking service for Apple. No one else has made money on streaming, and Apple's not going to make money for some time, if ever. This is about being reasonable with their expenses; Cook has a fiduciary duty to shareholders not to blow cash over the landscape if it can be avoided.
Why doesn't Swift go after the music labels that made the deal? Seems they are the ones that agreed to the trial period in exchange for the higher royalties. And don't say that Apple holds all the cards over the labels either. The music labels won't want another iTunes contract so they wiukd have been the ones playing hardball. Apple is just the higher profile target. If she had a beef write an open letter to the record labels as to why they agreed with this and ask the poor labels to pay the starving artists during this trial period.
Not really. This isn't a moneymaking service for Apple. No one else has made money on streaming, and Apple's not going to make money for some time, if ever. This is about being reasonable with their expenses; Cook has a fiduciary duty to shareholders not to blow cash over the landscape if it can be avoided.
If it's not money making, apple should still pay the royalties. So it's definitely about money.
Comments
“An Open Letter on Music
To Rich Artists, Love Apple
Music, movies and the arts have always been important to me and to Apple’s customers. After much reflection from recent events surrounding ?Music, we've decided to take a step back. We’re going to close the iTunes Store.
There are now many great options out there for consumers to enjoy whatever they want and whenever they want including YouTube and torrenting. And consumers have spoken loud and clear—they're consumers alright. Consumers are unwilling to pay more than what the industry backed models like Spotify and Hulu charge—nothing.
During our proposed 3-month free trial, artists would not make money. But neither would we at Apple. We’re not sure how to make music a workable business if only Apple is expected to pay.
So we think it is time to say no to one more thing so that we can focus on areas where we really can make a difference.
To the many artists out there who leveraged iTunes Store to get famous and then excoriated us and the labels once you became famous—we wish you well, truly. We think there are many profitable models out there for you including SoundCloud and local cafes.
And to our customers we hope you enjoy our hardware and continue to Rip, Mix and Torrent.
Sincerely,
Apple”
The reply I wish Apple would make:
“An Open Letter on Music
To Rich Artists, Love Apple
Music, movies and the arts have always been important to me and to Apple’s customers. After much reflection from recent events surrounding ?Music, we've decided to take a step back. We’re going to close the iTunes Store.
There are now many great options out there for consumers to enjoy whatever they want and whenever they want including YouTube and torrenting. And consumers have spoken loud and clear—they're consumers alright. Consumers are unwilling to pay more than what the industry backed models like Spotify and Hulu charge—nothing.
During our proposed 3-month free trial, artists would not make money. But neither would we at Apple. We’re not sure how to make music a workable business if only Apple is expected to pay.
So we think it is time to say no to one more thing so that we can focus on areas where we really can make a difference.
To the many artists out there who leveraged iTunes Store to get famous and then excoriated us and the labels once you became famous—we wish you well, truly. We think there are many profitable models out there for you including SoundCloud and local cafes.
And to our customers we hope you enjoy our hardware and continue to Rip, Mix and Torrent.
Sincerely,
Apple”
You should post more often.
I don't know. I'm running IOS 9 and 8.4 beta 3 but I don't know which I signed up with. It's really beautiful. I sent you a few screen shots did you get it?
1. She's right, artists aren't getting royalties for three months. Imagine if your workplace offered free samples of its products and won't pay you for three months.
2. Is it? That's odd if it is the case.
3. Swift understands.
The thing is Apple didn't have to offer a free trial of 3 months. And if they chose 3 because that has the highest conversion rate to paid subscribers then they should be saying that. Get Eddy or Jimmy or Apple PR out there explaining the reason behind the decision and why it was the right decision.
The thing is Apple didn't have to offer a free trial of 3 months. And if they chose 3 because that has the highest conversion rate to paid subscribers then they should be saying that. Get Eddy or Jimmy or Apple PR out there explaining the reason behind the decision and why it was the right decision.
Explain to me how telling people that will lead to a higher conversion rate won't add to cries that Apple is greedy?
Plus, when you tell people how you plan to influence their behaviour, it then tends to be less effective.
Dang. If only.
Regarding #2, some people like Rene Ritchie are speculating that if Apple did subsidize the 3 month trial it could become an anti-trust issue.
Honestly this Music rollout so far has been a clusterf*ck. The WWDC keynote presentation was a mess. Most people walked away confused how iTunes, iTunes Radio and iTunes Match all worked with Apple Music. They were in the dark about being able to play music offline and if they could transfer playlists from other services. And people don't want to have to read the fine print or some FAQ on apple.com to figure it all out. Also Apple has been coy about what exactly will be available for streaming. As John Gruber wrote on his site today:
Maybe this will all blow over and be much ado about nothing in a few days. But it doesn't make me very confident that Apple spending $3B on Beats was money well spent. Jimmy Iovine of all people should have known there would be a backlash for a 3 month free trial where no record company or artist was being paid.
Do those companies pay for the content used in the free trial period and if so can you cite examples?
Haven't companies always offered free trials at their own expense? AOL didn't somehow provide internet service to its free trial customers for free. Amazon doesn't defer paying shipping expenses or warehouse employee wages when serving Amazon Prime customers during their free trial.
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
She'd still whine, it's about money. People don't have common decency anymore.
Of course it's about money. It's about money for Apple too.
Of course it's about money. It's about money for Apple too.
Not really. This isn't a moneymaking service for Apple. No one else has made money on streaming, and Apple's not going to make money for some time, if ever. This is about being reasonable with their expenses; Cook has a fiduciary duty to shareholders not to blow cash over the landscape if it can be avoided.
Here's a music exec's comments: https://storify.com/ethank/father-s-day-and-taylor-swift-with-a-side-of-apple
If it's not money making, apple should still pay the royalties. So it's definitely about money.