That's exactly what I am waiting to see (maybe she already decided I have't read the latest yet, I've been on the beach incommunicado). It would the gracious thing for her to do now IMHO. I just don't think Tim planned that out come, should it happen, as part of some clever scheme as others here have suggested. I don't doubt Jimmy planned the 90 days free and not paying talent and has likely been over ruled here by Tim though. That's the back story I find most fascinating in all this. If Tim did step in and make the final decision that is one heck of a strike against Jimmy's new role right out of the gate.
The thing is it doesn't make sense.
Jimmy, Dre and Reznor trying to appear as the 3 Musician Saviors against Label Tyranny... and then pulling money out if their flock's pockets at the drop if a hat? If anything this has accountant penny-pinching written all over it, and we all know that Tim is the best penny-pincher of them all. I've maintained for years now that due to TC being the best COO (logistics and purchasing) of all time in any industry, was/is a huge reason why Apple is as financially successful as they are today.
The funniest back-story of all is whether Jimmy, Eddy or all of those involved are snickering at this very moment, and secretly saying, "I told him this wasn't gonna fly this time around" about Tim's or the accounting departments insistance on cost accountability above common sense.
Nobody can tell me that Jimmy and Co. didn't have a clue how the labels and artists were going to react... because they would've reacted the very same ways themselves if they weren't now working for Apple. Maybe Eddy was clueless because he's had the upperhand too long in this stuff.
So Apple pays money for s free trial in which it makes none while the artists do nothing but reap the rewards.
Sounds fair...
Apple already gave the artists s bigger cut than competing services to help compensate for the longer trial.
Surprised they caved to such foolishness.
Everyone thinks that because Apple has been diligent to save money that they must therefore need to spend it.
The artists have done all the work before the tune goes live. When does the song writer write the song? When does the artist(s) record the song? If you are an independent then the studio had to be paid upfront.
So yeah they are all just sitting around reaping the rewards and getting rich.
They are working on their next project and hoping to make enough to pay the bills. Most are not getting rich. Most are just getting by. They do it because it's what they love to do.
Jimmy, Dre and Reznor trying to appear as the 3 Musician Saviors against Label Tyranny... and then pulling money out if their flock's pockets at the drop if a hat? If anything this has accountant penny-pinching written all over it, and we all know that Tim is the best penny-pincher of them all. I've maintained for years now that due to TC being the best COO (logistics and purchasing) of all time in any industry, was/is a huge reason why Apple is as financially successful as they are today.
The funniest back-story of all is whether Jimmy, Eddy or all of those involved are snickering at this very moment, and secretly saying, "I told him this wasn't gonna fly this time around" about Tim's or the accounting departments insistance on cost accountability above common sense.
Nobody can tell me that Jimmy and Co. didn't have a clue how the labels and artists were going to react... because they would've reacted the very same ways themselves if they weren't now working for Apple. Maybe Eddy was clueless because he's had the upperhand too long in this stuff.
If this was just penny pinching by the accountants or Tim Cook wearing his COO hat how do you explain giving away U2's latest album for free. That was estimated to cost Apple several hundred million.
This entire site is filled with mysoginistic, degenerative douchebags who denegrate artists. It's not surprising Steve always thought these sites were pond scum. And yes he did as we all used to agree going back to the days of NeXT.
It's funny to read this site sometimes. Practically everyone was against Apple and for the artists on this one issue. You have around 10-15 of you on this site that are on Apple's side and think it's OK to rob the artists from money. Yes, Rob as in steal money from them. That's what this is. I'm glad Apple lost this one fight. And now because I said something against Apple, even tho the majority agree with my same thought process about this issue, I'm going to get attacked. You don't always have to agree with Apple, you're allowed to have your own mind.
So Eddy Cue and Trent Reznor speak for the music community but Billy Corgan does not? And Eddy Cue has indie artists backs because of a tweet?
Eddy Cue has been in countless negotiations with artists/labels for years. He knows infinitely more about the business side of the music industry than Corgan ever could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirLance99
It's funny to read this site sometimes. Practically everyone was against Apple and for the artists on this one issue. You have around 10-15 of you on this site that are on Apple's side and think it's OK to rob the artists from money. Yes, Rob as in steal money from them. That's what this is. I'm glad Apple lost this one fight. And now because I said something against Apple, even tho the majority agree with my same thought process about this issue, I'm going to get attacked. You don't always have to agree with Apple, you're allowed to have your own mind.
No, you get attacked for saying stupid things (and over a long period of time before Apple Music was ever announced).
Wow CNBC is trotting out lots of artists today. Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue was just on and claimed negotiations with Apple have been going on for 12 days and Taylor Swifts open letter was kind of the final straw that pushed Apple over the edge. He also mentioned how the 90 day free trial was good for Apple but not the artists. Again just listening to him makes me wonder how Apple could have been so tone deaf on this. They were telling artists to work for free for 3 months with the *potential* of getting a higher payout in the future but of course that's not a for sure thing. Apple can't guarantee that most people doing the free month free trial will become paid subscribers. Most likely a lot of them will go back to "free" Spotify or Pandora. They'll put up with ads in order to not have to spend $10 a month.
Eddy Cue has been in countless negotiations with artists/labels for years. He knows infinitely more about the business side of the music industry than Corgan ever could.
Well what ever he learned over all those years he was sure clueless this time. And I don't care what he knows about the business, one shout out to "indie" artists on Twitter doesn't mean he's got their back. It's just diffusing a bad PR situation.
Eddy Cue has been in countless negotiations with artists/labels for years. He knows infinitely more about the business side of the music industry than Corgan ever could.
No, you get attacked for saying stupid things (and over a long period of time before Apple Music was ever announced).
Like this whole fiasco being a ploy to get taylor swift on board? Like its a ploy to avoid doj interest? Like artists should just suck up the costs of the free preview?
I've heard some silly shit during my time in these boards, and elsewhere for that matter, but this is the cream that rises to the top.
Sent from my iPhone. No really. Sent from my iPhone. It is possible to be critical of Apple and still own their products.
I think Apple could have handled this much better, but the original deal with probably more fair than was discussed by the pundits
- Apple has invested and will invest, I'm sure, hundreds of millions into this venture, so they too have taken a large financial risk. Asking the artists to pony up to the bar for three months is not unreasonable.
- The paradigm shift - moving to a paid only model - is of greater benefit to all the artists than the Spotify model (so is our outsider understanding anyway). thant the three months of missing revenue. Any discourse on the news that I've heard really doesn't mention this....
- Apple isn't making money during the trial period. IT IS FREE. Another simple point that the media give little significance. This is not unimportant, unless you take the POV that because Apple has a lot of cash they should be expected to make poor financial decisions...
- Apple increased payouts to the labels. Does the media make note of this?
Apple needed to be more out in front highlighting what they were investing and improving, with the approach that all parties benefit - Apple, the consumer, and the artist. I know AI readers are mostly aware of these points , but from a PR perspective, this never really was out there when Swift did her public end run.
The artists bigger issue is likely with what they get from the labels. Apple can't control that, though artists could go commando and sign with Apple directly...
Wow CNBC is trotting out lots of artists today. Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue was just on and claimed negotiations with Apple have been going on for 12 days and Taylor Swifts open letter was kind of the final straw that pushed Apple over the edge. He also mentioned how the 90 day free trial was good for Apple but not the artists. Again just listening to him makes me wonder how Apple could have been so tone deaf on this. They were telling artists to work for free for 3 months with the *potential* of getting a higher payout in the future but of course that's not a for sure thing. Apple can't guarantee that most people doing the free month free trial will become paid subscribers. Most likely a lot of them will go back to "free" Spotify or Pandora. They'll put up with ads in order to not have to spend $10 a month.
So then let the artist choose to remove their music from the free tier of Spotify. I don't understand their POV. They have an opportunity to benefit from a paid only streaming model, which is more affordable for families than Spotify, on the most popular platform in the world. If it doesn't "catch on", well Apple loses too. And if the artists want to let a free their service exist, than stop bitching.
Artists have a vested interest in contributing to make a paid only model work.. that's were they're being quite short sighted
The point of Apple Music was to provide a curated service. Their intent was to bring in artists and have them build playlists and promote other new artists and increase the knowledge of music that is out there. This is where we are at now with all media - there is so much media of all forms out there that people are overwhelmed with choices, so the next step in media is to figure out how to guide people to better content than just what everyone else listens to.
The current automated streaming services do so based primarily upon popularity of the masses - and the systems can be gamed because of the anonymity. By bringing in curators, Apple is putting a face on the people that are making the suggestions. This is what Apple Music is about.
The irony of this is that they were attacked on this by Taylor Swift, a major label artist, who as far as I can tell, has not done a heck of a lot to move ahead the careers of emerging artists (and fwiw, I am a fan, especially of her new 1989 album) but who has shown a very good knack at self promotion (after all, instead of being the sweet young neophyte, most fans don't realize that she comes from a rich finance family who had the wherewithal to pull up stakes and move to Nashville to further their daughter's career.)
Part of the cost of running Apple Music I have to think would be in compensating curators to bring new artists and new music to the platform. This is the independent portion of Apple Music.
That said, this is still a business. It still has to work within the margins of profit and loss. While it may seem as though Apple is penalizing artists by not paying them during the trial period, if they are paying people to curate and find new artists, this move by Taylor Swift could mean less money available to compensate the curators, and less exposure for anyone other than the major artists that the public is already trained and manipulated to listen to.
So then let the artist choose to remove their music from the free tier of Spotify. I don't understand their POV. They have an opportunity to benefit from a paid only streaming model, which is more affordable for families than Spotify, on the most popular platform in the world. If it doesn't "catch on", well Apple loses too. And if the artists want to let a free their service exist, than stop bitching.
Artists have a vested interest in contributing to make a paid only model work.. that's were they're being quite short sighted
I agree whole heartedly with this. Apple may have misstepped (intentionally or non-intentionally) by not being willing to pay artist royalties for 3 months, but they have still been the friendliest corporation to artists. If Apple Music fails, the artists that would have been getting royalties after the first 3 months will receive nothing, or will have to try to negotiate with other corporations that have generally not been as friendly as Apple.
I don't think that Apple Music will fail, so the artists probably have nothing to worry about, but most should probably talk to the artists who weren't able to make money or gain any exposure before Apple entered the music business with iTunes to find out how much money they made ... short term and long term ... and how much money they lost to piracy where no one got paid ...
So then let the artist choose to remove their music from the free tier of Spotify. I don't understand their POV. They have an opportunity to benefit from a paid only streaming model, which is more affordable for families than Spotify, on the most popular platform in the world. If it doesn't "catch on", well Apple loses too. And if the artists want to let a free their service exist, than stop bitching.
Artists have a vested interest in contributing to make a paid only model work.. that's were they're being quite short sighted
Their POV is they want to be paid and if Apple wants to offer a promotional free trial it should come out of Apple's pockets.
Comments
The thing is it doesn't make sense.
Jimmy, Dre and Reznor trying to appear as the 3 Musician Saviors against Label Tyranny... and then pulling money out if their flock's pockets at the drop if a hat? If anything this has accountant penny-pinching written all over it, and we all know that Tim is the best penny-pincher of them all. I've maintained for years now that due to TC being the best COO (logistics and purchasing) of all time in any industry, was/is a huge reason why Apple is as financially successful as they are today.
The funniest back-story of all is whether Jimmy, Eddy or all of those involved are snickering at this very moment, and secretly saying, "I told him this wasn't gonna fly this time around" about Tim's or the accounting departments insistance on cost accountability above common sense.
Nobody can tell me that Jimmy and Co. didn't have a clue how the labels and artists were going to react... because they would've reacted the very same ways themselves if they weren't now working for Apple. Maybe Eddy was clueless because he's had the upperhand too long in this stuff.
The artists have done all the work before the tune goes live. When does the song writer write the song? When does the artist(s) record the song? If you are an independent then the studio had to be paid upfront.
So yeah they are all just sitting around reaping the rewards and getting rich.
They are working on their next project and hoping to make enough to pay the bills. Most are not getting rich. Most are just getting by. They do it because it's what they love to do.
If this was just penny pinching by the accountants or Tim Cook wearing his COO hat how do you explain giving away U2's latest album for free. That was estimated to cost Apple several hundred million.
Completely uncalled for to call her that. Grow up.
Seriously? That's really pathetic.
So Eddy Cue and Trent Reznor speak for the music community but Billy Corgan does not? And Eddy Cue has indie artists backs because of a tweet?
Eddy Cue has been in countless negotiations with artists/labels for years. He knows infinitely more about the business side of the music industry than Corgan ever could.
It's funny to read this site sometimes. Practically everyone was against Apple and for the artists on this one issue. You have around 10-15 of you on this site that are on Apple's side and think it's OK to rob the artists from money. Yes, Rob as in steal money from them. That's what this is. I'm glad Apple lost this one fight. And now because I said something against Apple, even tho the majority agree with my same thought process about this issue, I'm going to get attacked. You don't always have to agree with Apple, you're allowed to have your own mind.
No, you get attacked for saying stupid things (and over a long period of time before Apple Music was ever announced).
Wow.
FM Radio was always a free service and artists were still paid royalties.
Good to see Apple do the right thing, even if they have to be coerced, shamed, and manipulated into it.
FM Radio was not a free service ... you paid for it by listening to advertisements.
Well what ever he learned over all those years he was sure clueless this time. And I don't care what he knows about the business, one shout out to "indie" artists on Twitter doesn't mean he's got their back. It's just diffusing a bad PR situation.
I've heard some silly shit during my time in these boards, and elsewhere for that matter, but this is the cream that rises to the top.
Sent from my iPhone. No really. Sent from my iPhone. It is possible to be critical of Apple and still own their products.
I think Apple could have handled this much better, but the original deal with probably more fair than was discussed by the pundits
- Apple has invested and will invest, I'm sure, hundreds of millions into this venture, so they too have taken a large financial risk. Asking the artists to pony up to the bar for three months is not unreasonable.
- The paradigm shift - moving to a paid only model - is of greater benefit to all the artists than the Spotify model (so is our outsider understanding anyway). thant the three months of missing revenue. Any discourse on the news that I've heard really doesn't mention this....
- Apple isn't making money during the trial period. IT IS FREE. Another simple point that the media give little significance. This is not unimportant, unless you take the POV that because Apple has a lot of cash they should be expected to make poor financial decisions...
- Apple increased payouts to the labels. Does the media make note of this?
Apple needed to be more out in front highlighting what they were investing and improving, with the approach that all parties benefit - Apple, the consumer, and the artist. I know AI readers are mostly aware of these points , but from a PR perspective, this never really was out there when Swift did her public end run.
The artists bigger issue is likely with what they get from the labels. Apple can't control that, though artists could go commando and sign with Apple directly...
Wow CNBC is trotting out lots of artists today. Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue was just on and claimed negotiations with Apple have been going on for 12 days and Taylor Swifts open letter was kind of the final straw that pushed Apple over the edge. He also mentioned how the 90 day free trial was good for Apple but not the artists. Again just listening to him makes me wonder how Apple could have been so tone deaf on this. They were telling artists to work for free for 3 months with the *potential* of getting a higher payout in the future but of course that's not a for sure thing. Apple can't guarantee that most people doing the free month free trial will become paid subscribers. Most likely a lot of them will go back to "free" Spotify or Pandora. They'll put up with ads in order to not have to spend $10 a month.
So then let the artist choose to remove their music from the free tier of Spotify. I don't understand their POV. They have an opportunity to benefit from a paid only streaming model, which is more affordable for families than Spotify, on the most popular platform in the world. If it doesn't "catch on", well Apple loses too. And if the artists want to let a free their service exist, than stop bitching.
Artists have a vested interest in contributing to make a paid only model work.. that's were they're being quite short sighted
The point of Apple Music was to provide a curated service. Their intent was to bring in artists and have them build playlists and promote other new artists and increase the knowledge of music that is out there. This is where we are at now with all media - there is so much media of all forms out there that people are overwhelmed with choices, so the next step in media is to figure out how to guide people to better content than just what everyone else listens to.
The current automated streaming services do so based primarily upon popularity of the masses - and the systems can be gamed because of the anonymity. By bringing in curators, Apple is putting a face on the people that are making the suggestions. This is what Apple Music is about.
The irony of this is that they were attacked on this by Taylor Swift, a major label artist, who as far as I can tell, has not done a heck of a lot to move ahead the careers of emerging artists (and fwiw, I am a fan, especially of her new 1989 album) but who has shown a very good knack at self promotion (after all, instead of being the sweet young neophyte, most fans don't realize that she comes from a rich finance family who had the wherewithal to pull up stakes and move to Nashville to further their daughter's career.)
Part of the cost of running Apple Music I have to think would be in compensating curators to bring new artists and new music to the platform. This is the independent portion of Apple Music.
That said, this is still a business. It still has to work within the margins of profit and loss. While it may seem as though Apple is penalizing artists by not paying them during the trial period, if they are paying people to curate and find new artists, this move by Taylor Swift could mean less money available to compensate the curators, and less exposure for anyone other than the major artists that the public is already trained and manipulated to listen to.
So then let the artist choose to remove their music from the free tier of Spotify. I don't understand their POV. They have an opportunity to benefit from a paid only streaming model, which is more affordable for families than Spotify, on the most popular platform in the world. If it doesn't "catch on", well Apple loses too. And if the artists want to let a free their service exist, than stop bitching.
Artists have a vested interest in contributing to make a paid only model work.. that's were they're being quite short sighted
I agree whole heartedly with this. Apple may have misstepped (intentionally or non-intentionally) by not being willing to pay artist royalties for 3 months, but they have still been the friendliest corporation to artists. If Apple Music fails, the artists that would have been getting royalties after the first 3 months will receive nothing, or will have to try to negotiate with other corporations that have generally not been as friendly as Apple.
I don't think that Apple Music will fail, so the artists probably have nothing to worry about, but most should probably talk to the artists who weren't able to make money or gain any exposure before Apple entered the music business with iTunes to find out how much money they made ... short term and long term ... and how much money they lost to piracy where no one got paid ...
Their POV is they want to be paid and if Apple wants to offer a promotional free trial it should come out of Apple's pockets.