Apple will pay the royalties for the 3 months after negotiating a large contingency of artists [including Taylor] sign on and you'll see a huge bounce in the stock.
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.
AOL offered free trials of its own service. Amazon offers free trials of Prime. Apple gives away free copies of its own software.
Amazon also gives away others' content, including Android apps. And when it does, it pays nothing to the developer.
Apple paid U2 for the rights to "give away" its album. Big difference!
However, if Apple enters the streaming market by paying labels to give out unpaid access to Apple Music subscribers, it becomes an antitrust issue.
And as you might recall, Apple is under extreme scrutiny by the FTC, which previously claimed Apple "set prices" of ebooks when it introduced color, interactive iBooks that cost slightly more than Amzon's dumping of loss leader b&w kindle ebooks (which were paid for by Amazon at wholesale rates higher than it resold them for).
Because Apple lives in a bizarro land where the U.S. Govt. hassles it over bullshit while ignoring or wrist-slapping serious wrongdoing by its competitors (from flat out fraud to illegal drug sales to IP theft), it can't do everything it would like to do, sometimes for less than obvious reasons.
Spotify currently pays 0.6 to 0.84 cents per stream played, so it's not a matter of Apple not being able to afford paying labels for a free trial period. Labels are already making nothing from streaming. The issue is Apple entering a market and killing all competition with a free service period, after which it could ostensibly raise rates under its new monopoly.
Apple paying labels a half cent per stream for 90 days doesn't address the real issue here. The "argument" that Apple is being cheap is really just too simpleminded.
So they're gutless and caved. Typical. I'd have ridden it out, this will blow over in a few days like every other faux outrage.
Expect the stock to drop sharply tomorrow, this will be a dent in the bottom line.
Still think she deserves no marketing help from Apple whatsoever from here on out; no iTunes front page feature, nothing.
They're not gutless. They created a lot of vibe for doing this. Pay attention and see what is happening. Apple Music will bring Independent Artists to a whole new model, where they can remain independent and make a lot of money, without any Music Cartel.
Apple Music will do the Music what the iPhone is doing to the Telecommunications industry. The difference being that Apple is removing the need for an actual Record Label to market and brand your music.
They're not gutless. They created a lot of vibe for doing this. Pay attention and see what is happening. Apple Music will bring Independent Artists to a whole new model, where they can remain independent and make a lot of money, without any Music Cartel.
Apple Music will do the Music what the iPhone is doing to the Telecommunications industry. The difference being that Apple is removing the need for an actual Record Label to market and brand your music.
This is a total cave. The fire got just a bit hot and they gave in.
This Apple would have just recalled the iPhone 4 instead of calling Antennagate out for what it was.
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.
AOL barely exists anymore. It imploded. Those costs would have been absorbed as cost of marketing.
Amazon didn't negotiate a contract with its employees to absorb the free trial costs and the employees would have only benefitted indirectly anyway. It is possible that Amazon has derived a discount from FedEx or UPS for increasing its total shipment volume, though Amazon would have absorbed the trial costs otherwise as marketing.
The difference here is that Apple has structured its marketing costs for the 3 month trial into its negotiations, and the major labels have agreed to that. Taylor Swift, Indy labels, and any others who are not attached to the major labels are involved in separate negotiations, and she and some others have not agreed to the trial terms, or otherwise are still negotiating.
I'm guessing that it is Apple's position that it is a shared burden between the labels, artists and itself to provide the 3 month trial. I see nothing wrong with that as long as Indies and individual artists have the option of either opting out of the trial, or otherwise having a contract in place to begin after the trial is finished.
Edit:
Mea Culpa.
Gee, I guess I called that wrong when I said that Apple would change its trial terms prior to the trial period starting.
Now let the rumors begin that this was all "planned" to gain even more exposure for Apple Music...
So they're gutless and caved. Typical. I'd have ridden it out, this will blow over in a few days like every other faux outrage.
Expect the stock to drop sharply tomorrow, this will be a dent in the bottom line.
Still think she deserves no marketing help from Apple whatsoever from here on out; no iTunes front page feature, nothing.
This is one of my problems with Tim Cook's Apple: the fact they can't stand behind a position and are often times reversing themselves. It's happened with the App Store where things get rejected (that maybe shouldn't have in the first place) and then after an outcry from the developer community Apple reverses course. Same thing happened with the AltConf where Apple initially said no to them streaming WWDC keynote but once again after complaints reversed themselves. The reversals might be the right thing to do but it makes you question Apple's original stance.
So my question here is, was Apple intending to pay artists/labels during this free trial all along and if so why was the media reporting otherwise and artists thinking otherwise? And if Apple wasn't intending to do so and had legitimate reasons for not doing so why are they caving now? Why wasn't this all worked out before the free trial was announced? This just looks like Apple caving to Taylor Swift and makes one wonder if Apple really thought all of this through. Same thing with that U2 promotion last year. Was there no one at Apple who thought not all consumers would be OK with Apple placing a U2 album in their iTunes library as though they purchased it, especially those who have automatic downloads turned on? i certainly don't have a lot of confidence in Jimmy Iovine and especially Eddy Cue right now. Perhaps the reason we don't have a new Apple TV yet is because Eddy's not the great negotiator he's made out to be. Maybe Steve Jobs really was the one who had to close the deals in the end.
So does this mean a lot more artists than Taylor Swift and some indie bands were saying no to Apple Music?
Maybe. We know nothing about what Apple was telling artists and vice versa. For all we know that they are still negotiating. I personally think this is an excellent move since customers still get 3 months free trial and the artists are happy. Beside, Apple can afford this.
Maybe. We know nothing about what Apple was telling artists and vice versa. For all we know that they are still negotiating. I personally think this is an excellent move since customers still get 3 months free trial and the artists are happy. Beside, Apple can afford this.
I'm seeing tweets speculating that this was a big PR stunt by Apple. I have a hard time believing that. It certainly isn't good PR when the biggest company in the world is caving to Taylor Swift.
That's not a good attitude to have. Because people will keep saying that as justification, until one day Apple suddenly can't afford it.
People here always complain that Apple should spend their money on something useful on the long term. This seems to be the best investment right now. Do you prefer Apple give this money to shareholders instead?
If they can afford it and it is a good long term investment then why not spend the money. Beside this is actually short term spending for long term gain. Sounds like good deal to me.
Maybe Swift sees the long-term picture. Apple is giving away the service for free to promote it to users. What if spotify, pandora, google and whoever comes along want to promote their service the same way. Should the artists shrug there shoulders every time and say "oh, looks like I am not getting paid again by... for a couple of months." Ridiculous. If Apple wants to use their music they have to pay. Period. If they don't pay I see a class-action law suit filed in 10, 9, 8,...
This may also be the reason why Apple Music starts only in a few countries at first. Too much legal trouble to launch it globally.
I'm seeing tweets speculating that this was a big PR stunt by Apple. I have a hard time believing that. It certainly isn't good PR when the biggest company in the world is caving to Taylor Swift.
Before this announcement people thought Apple is big greedy company trying to use its power to squeeze the little poor artists. You cannot satisfy everyone. Like I said, it is win-win for everyone. Customers still get three months trail. Apple gets bigger collection. The artists get paid for their work. Why is this s bad thing?!
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.
Only partially correct. Yes, Apple may not expect to make money with the service. But it will benefit Apples ecosystem. If they were not expecting anything out of it they would not have bought Beats for 3 billion Dollars.
This is one of my problems with Tim Cook's Apple: the fact they can't stand behind a position and are often times reversing themselves. It's happened with the App Store where things get rejected (that maybe shouldn't have in the first place) and then after an outcry from the developer community Apple reverses course. Same thing happened with the AltConf where Apple initially said no to them streaming WWDC keynote but once again after complaints reversed themselves. The reversals might be the right thing to do but it makes you question Apple's original stance.
So my question here is, was Apple intending to pay artists/labels during this free trial all along and if so why was the media reporting otherwise and artists thinking otherwise? And if Apple wasn't intending to do so and had legitimate reasons for not doing so why are they caving now? Why wasn't this all worked out before the free trial was announced? This just looks like Apple caving to Taylor Swift and makes one wonder if Apple really thought all of this through. Same thing with that U2 promotion last year. Was there no one at Apple who thought not all consumers would be OK with Apple placing a U2 album in their iTunes library as though they purchased it, especially those who have automatic downloads turned on? i certainly don't have a lot of confidence in Jimmy Iovine and especially Eddy Cue right now. Perhaps the reason we don't have a new Apple TV yet is because Eddy's not the great negotiator he's made out to be. Maybe Steve Jobs really was the one who had to close the deals in the end.
I agree with some of that, but while Steve Jobs's Apple was a great negotiator and impossible to say 'no' to, Tim Cook's Apple stands up for values. Antennagate was surely just the media complaining and Steve probably had it right when he told them how it was, but Tim Cook's Apple came out and apologized when Apple Maps didn't function as it obviously should have. People hold Apple to a higher standard than other companies, and Apple deserves this. They've earned it. Both Steve Jobs's Apple and Tim Cook's Apple have at least earned that. While it sucks because they always get picked on, Apple is about striving for perfection. Yes, sometimes (okay, most of the time) what the media says about Apple is complete bull and has no relevance, but sometimes they at least get the idea that things could always be better. Isn't that the Apple mindset? A central philosophy?
And with Maps something was inferior. In Tim Cook's words Apple fell short to provide the best products in the world. I doubt Steve Jobs would have apologized for that. Yes it portrays weakness, at least in one sense of the word. But in another sense we are seeing Tim once again stand up for what he believes in. Human values are an important part of what makes Apple great today, at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts. Not to mention when Maps failed and Scott Forstall didn't sign the letter and that was the last straw for him, we got iOS 7, where Jony and Craig were given more control then ever before. Look what they created together.
He also thinks hard about things and reevaluates decisions that people under him have made. What if the decision wasn't the right one? He has the power to overturn them and he does. The app rules are one example. AltCon is another: What was the issue with them streaming the Keynote?
Now don't get me wrong, I liked the Apple that was defiant and made it's partners fear it. As Adam Lashinsky said in Inside Apple, "Overwhelm Friends, Dominate Foes." That nature worked very well, but so does this new Tim Cook nature. It's definitely quite different, but innovation is most certainly flowing at an incredible rate through Tim's Apple.
I will say I can't defend the U2 album. I like U2, but I can't justify the forced giveaway.
As for Eddy Cue, I don't know. I don't know all about Apple's original plans but it seems that they have definitely changed their mind. I agree that they should have made it that way in the first place. Please note that I am a major Apple fan and developer who attended WWDC this year and saw Apple Music announced, but I commend Taylor for reminding Apple what they have stood for all along. Apple made a decision not to pay even indie artists for a free trial to a platform that includes Connect, a place where even those starting out in their bedroom can post music and be discovered.
And yes now people will think that Apple has suddenly given in to Taylor Swift (and perhaps they have), and more people will try to break through Apple's final words on issues, but this is simply a consequence of making decisions according to Apple's core beliefs.
As Steve Jobs enforced, it is the core beliefs that set Apple apart. And Tim Cook's Apple adds some core beliefs to the one Jobs set forth. Surely this will only propel Apple forward.
Comments
AOL offered free trials of its own service. Amazon offers free trials of Prime. Apple gives away free copies of its own software.
Amazon also gives away others' content, including Android apps. And when it does, it pays nothing to the developer.
Apple paid U2 for the rights to "give away" its album. Big difference!
However, if Apple enters the streaming market by paying labels to give out unpaid access to Apple Music subscribers, it becomes an antitrust issue.
And as you might recall, Apple is under extreme scrutiny by the FTC, which previously claimed Apple "set prices" of ebooks when it introduced color, interactive iBooks that cost slightly more than Amzon's dumping of loss leader b&w kindle ebooks (which were paid for by Amazon at wholesale rates higher than it resold them for).
Because Apple lives in a bizarro land where the U.S. Govt. hassles it over bullshit while ignoring or wrist-slapping serious wrongdoing by its competitors (from flat out fraud to illegal drug sales to IP theft), it can't do everything it would like to do, sometimes for less than obvious reasons.
Spotify currently pays 0.6 to 0.84 cents per stream played, so it's not a matter of Apple not being able to afford paying labels for a free trial period. Labels are already making nothing from streaming. The issue is Apple entering a market and killing all competition with a free service period, after which it could ostensibly raise rates under its new monopoly.
Apple paying labels a half cent per stream for 90 days doesn't address the real issue here. The "argument" that Apple is being cheap is really just too simpleminded.
Eddy Cue just announced on Twitter that Apple will pay the artists during the Free Trial period.
So they're gutless and caved. Typical. I'd have ridden it out, this will blow over in a few days like every other faux outrage.
Expect the stock to drop sharply tomorrow, this will be a dent in the bottom line.
Still think she deserves no marketing help from Apple whatsoever from here on out; no iTunes front page feature, nothing.
They're not gutless. They created a lot of vibe for doing this. Pay attention and see what is happening. Apple Music will bring Independent Artists to a whole new model, where they can remain independent and make a lot of money, without any Music Cartel.
Apple Music will do the Music what the iPhone is doing to the Telecommunications industry. The difference being that Apple is removing the need for an actual Record Label to market and brand your music.
They're not gutless. They created a lot of vibe for doing this. Pay attention and see what is happening. Apple Music will bring Independent Artists to a whole new model, where they can remain independent and make a lot of money, without any Music Cartel.
Apple Music will do the Music what the iPhone is doing to the Telecommunications industry. The difference being that Apple is removing the need for an actual Record Label to market and brand your music.
This is a total cave. The fire got just a bit hot and they gave in.
This Apple would have just recalled the iPhone 4 instead of calling Antennagate out for what it was.
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.
AOL barely exists anymore. It imploded. Those costs would have been absorbed as cost of marketing.
Amazon didn't negotiate a contract with its employees to absorb the free trial costs and the employees would have only benefitted indirectly anyway. It is possible that Amazon has derived a discount from FedEx or UPS for increasing its total shipment volume, though Amazon would have absorbed the trial costs otherwise as marketing.
The difference here is that Apple has structured its marketing costs for the 3 month trial into its negotiations, and the major labels have agreed to that. Taylor Swift, Indy labels, and any others who are not attached to the major labels are involved in separate negotiations, and she and some others have not agreed to the trial terms, or otherwise are still negotiating.
I'm guessing that it is Apple's position that it is a shared burden between the labels, artists and itself to provide the 3 month trial. I see nothing wrong with that as long as Indies and individual artists have the option of either opting out of the trial, or otherwise having a contract in place to begin after the trial is finished.
Edit:
Mea Culpa.
Gee, I guess I called that wrong when I said that Apple would change its trial terms prior to the trial period starting.
Now let the rumors begin that this was all "planned" to gain even more exposure for Apple Music...
Eddy Cue just announced on Twitter that Apple will pay the artists during the Free Trial period.
Hmm. This is interesting…
This is one of my problems with Tim Cook's Apple: the fact they can't stand behind a position and are often times reversing themselves. It's happened with the App Store where things get rejected (that maybe shouldn't have in the first place) and then after an outcry from the developer community Apple reverses course. Same thing happened with the AltConf where Apple initially said no to them streaming WWDC keynote but once again after complaints reversed themselves. The reversals might be the right thing to do but it makes you question Apple's original stance.
So my question here is, was Apple intending to pay artists/labels during this free trial all along and if so why was the media reporting otherwise and artists thinking otherwise? And if Apple wasn't intending to do so and had legitimate reasons for not doing so why are they caving now? Why wasn't this all worked out before the free trial was announced? This just looks like Apple caving to Taylor Swift and makes one wonder if Apple really thought all of this through. Same thing with that U2 promotion last year. Was there no one at Apple who thought not all consumers would be OK with Apple placing a U2 album in their iTunes library as though they purchased it, especially those who have automatic downloads turned on? i certainly don't have a lot of confidence in Jimmy Iovine and especially Eddy Cue right now. Perhaps the reason we don't have a new Apple TV yet is because Eddy's not the great negotiator he's made out to be. Maybe Steve Jobs really was the one who had to close the deals in the end.
It is not about having guts. Apple Music need the artists for people to subscribe to the service. It is that simple.
So does this mean a lot more artists than Taylor Swift and some indie bands were saying no to Apple Music?
Maybe. We know nothing about what Apple was telling artists and vice versa. For all we know that they are still negotiating. I personally think this is an excellent move since customers still get 3 months free trial and the artists are happy. Beside, Apple can afford this.
Beside, Apple can afford this.
That's not a good attitude to have. Because people will keep saying that as justification, until one day Apple suddenly can't afford it.
I'm seeing tweets speculating that this was a big PR stunt by Apple. I have a hard time believing that. It certainly isn't good PR when the biggest company in the world is caving to Taylor Swift.
People here always complain that Apple should spend their money on something useful on the long term. This seems to be the best investment right now. Do you prefer Apple give this money to shareholders instead?
If they can afford it and it is a good long term investment then why not spend the money. Beside this is actually short term spending for long term gain. Sounds like good deal to me.
Maybe Swift sees the long-term picture. Apple is giving away the service for free to promote it to users. What if spotify, pandora, google and whoever comes along want to promote their service the same way. Should the artists shrug there shoulders every time and say "oh, looks like I am not getting paid again by... for a couple of months." Ridiculous. If Apple wants to use their music they have to pay. Period. If they don't pay I see a class-action law suit filed in 10, 9, 8,...
This may also be the reason why Apple Music starts only in a few countries at first. Too much legal trouble to launch it globally.
Before this announcement people thought Apple is big greedy company trying to use its power to squeeze the little poor artists. You cannot satisfy everyone. Like I said, it is win-win for everyone. Customers still get three months trail. Apple gets bigger collection. The artists get paid for their work. Why is this s bad thing?!
Bottom line is; none of us know what the details of this deal were previously, and we don't know what the details are now.
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.
Only partially correct. Yes, Apple may not expect to make money with the service. But it will benefit Apples ecosystem. If they were not expecting anything out of it they would not have bought Beats for 3 billion Dollars.
This is one of my problems with Tim Cook's Apple: the fact they can't stand behind a position and are often times reversing themselves. It's happened with the App Store where things get rejected (that maybe shouldn't have in the first place) and then after an outcry from the developer community Apple reverses course. Same thing happened with the AltConf where Apple initially said no to them streaming WWDC keynote but once again after complaints reversed themselves. The reversals might be the right thing to do but it makes you question Apple's original stance.
So my question here is, was Apple intending to pay artists/labels during this free trial all along and if so why was the media reporting otherwise and artists thinking otherwise? And if Apple wasn't intending to do so and had legitimate reasons for not doing so why are they caving now? Why wasn't this all worked out before the free trial was announced? This just looks like Apple caving to Taylor Swift and makes one wonder if Apple really thought all of this through. Same thing with that U2 promotion last year. Was there no one at Apple who thought not all consumers would be OK with Apple placing a U2 album in their iTunes library as though they purchased it, especially those who have automatic downloads turned on? i certainly don't have a lot of confidence in Jimmy Iovine and especially Eddy Cue right now. Perhaps the reason we don't have a new Apple TV yet is because Eddy's not the great negotiator he's made out to be. Maybe Steve Jobs really was the one who had to close the deals in the end.
I agree with some of that, but while Steve Jobs's Apple was a great negotiator and impossible to say 'no' to, Tim Cook's Apple stands up for values. Antennagate was surely just the media complaining and Steve probably had it right when he told them how it was, but Tim Cook's Apple came out and apologized when Apple Maps didn't function as it obviously should have. People hold Apple to a higher standard than other companies, and Apple deserves this. They've earned it. Both Steve Jobs's Apple and Tim Cook's Apple have at least earned that. While it sucks because they always get picked on, Apple is about striving for perfection. Yes, sometimes (okay, most of the time) what the media says about Apple is complete bull and has no relevance, but sometimes they at least get the idea that things could always be better. Isn't that the Apple mindset? A central philosophy?
And with Maps something was inferior. In Tim Cook's words Apple fell short to provide the best products in the world. I doubt Steve Jobs would have apologized for that. Yes it portrays weakness, at least in one sense of the word. But in another sense we are seeing Tim once again stand up for what he believes in. Human values are an important part of what makes Apple great today, at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts. Not to mention when Maps failed and Scott Forstall didn't sign the letter and that was the last straw for him, we got iOS 7, where Jony and Craig were given more control then ever before. Look what they created together.
He also thinks hard about things and reevaluates decisions that people under him have made. What if the decision wasn't the right one? He has the power to overturn them and he does. The app rules are one example. AltCon is another: What was the issue with them streaming the Keynote?
Now don't get me wrong, I liked the Apple that was defiant and made it's partners fear it. As Adam Lashinsky said in Inside Apple, "Overwhelm Friends, Dominate Foes." That nature worked very well, but so does this new Tim Cook nature. It's definitely quite different, but innovation is most certainly flowing at an incredible rate through Tim's Apple.
I will say I can't defend the U2 album. I like U2, but I can't justify the forced giveaway.
As for Eddy Cue, I don't know. I don't know all about Apple's original plans but it seems that they have definitely changed their mind. I agree that they should have made it that way in the first place. Please note that I am a major Apple fan and developer who attended WWDC this year and saw Apple Music announced, but I commend Taylor for reminding Apple what they have stood for all along. Apple made a decision not to pay even indie artists for a free trial to a platform that includes Connect, a place where even those starting out in their bedroom can post music and be discovered.
And yes now people will think that Apple has suddenly given in to Taylor Swift (and perhaps they have), and more people will try to break through Apple's final words on issues, but this is simply a consequence of making decisions according to Apple's core beliefs.
As Steve Jobs enforced, it is the core beliefs that set Apple apart. And Tim Cook's Apple adds some core beliefs to the one Jobs set forth. Surely this will only propel Apple forward.