The beneficiaries of this model are the labels/artists, by a more than 70/30 split after the trial. Apple is bringing a tremendous amount to the table to start this, and not collecting revenues during the trial.
The TV analogy make perfect sense, since you are implying the value of something should be dependent upon what someone can afford to pay, not the intrinsic value.
No wonder most of these artists struggle, they are clueless when a reasonable deal is placed before them.
So the buyer is Apple? That makes the TV the music? So in that case the TV should be free because Apple brings more people into the store?
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.
Out of Apple pockets? For service that is designed to conect musicians with their fans aka customers? Please, explain your logic! So Apple is geting 30% out of every subscription fee, that is roughly and less than 2,99$. Then Apple has to take care of the entire service infrastructure, biling, maintances, support and other expenses while artist get paid while sitting in their sofas? This leaves Apple with almost (and probably less than) 1$ net profit per each subscription customer in Apple Music.
The problem of Tylor Swift is that her music may or may not be popular within 3 months, so by the time the free trial period ends, she may get shit, thats her big problem. Artist should focus more on their music, than on the business model of selling music, you know.
So the buyer is Apple? That makes the TV the music? So in that case the TV should be free because Apple brings more people into the store?
To say Apple "has 200 bn" in the bank as a significant reason why they should pay during the free trail is basically endorsing means-based pricing, which is not sensible. Their worth should have no bearing on the intrinsic value of the larger-context proposition, and it seems there is a desire to ignore the significant investment Apple is making. Since artists stand to benefit with a successful Apple Music venture, it is completely reasonable to ask that they throw in and give fans a 3 month trial to get them pumped up.
More fundamentally, a successful Apple Music model could be a very different opportunity for small artists as opposed to struggling under labels.
Great that they've decided to pay people during the 3 month trial period rather than give away there work for free, but I'd still be pretty pissed to be getting a "percentage" of revenue. How about just pay them for what your customers actually used! If a customer ends up using more than you charged them for that's a failure of your business model, not an artists work suddenly becoming less valuable. While maintaining your own profit margin as well is also pretty outrageous.
The one thing people actually want more than anything else is the music. The method of delivery is relatively un-important and will naturally change over time. How about we just fairly pay the people that make the content we want.
There's no such thing as "fair". Everything is subject to negotiation.
To say Apple "has 200 bn" in the bank as a significant reason why they should pay during the free trail is basically endorsing means-based pricing, which is not sensible. Their worth should have no bearing on the intrinsic value of the larger-context proposition, and it seems there is a desire to ignore the significant investment Apple is making. Since artists stand to benefit with a successful Apple Music venture, it is completely reasonable to ask that they throw in and give fans a 3 month trial to get them pumped up.
More fundamentally, a successful Apple Music model could be a very different opportunity for small artists as opposed to struggling under labels.
And at the same time the artists invested in their music and should still receive royalties for those works. To ignore that investment and think artists can write, create, produce, record that music in mere seconds is foolish.
And you're right in what Apple has in the bank shouldn't dictate royalties. However music should not be free so Apple can reap the rewards.
And at the same time the artists invested in their music and should still receive royalties for those works. To ignore that investment and think artists can write, create, produce, record that music in mere seconds is foolish.
And you're right in what Apple has in the bank shouldn't dictate royalties. However music should not be free so Apple can reap the rewards.
What rewards? They are not collecting revenue during the trial...$0.
When they do start collecting revenue, 71% is paid out immediately to the rights holders...
Their POV is they want to be paid and if Apple wants to offer a promotional free trial it should come out of Apple's pockets.
Out of Apple pockets? For service that is designed to conect musicians with their fans aka customers? Please, explain your logic! So Apple is geting 30% out of every subscription fee, that is roughly and less than 2,99$. Then Apple has to take care of the entire service infrastructure, biling, maintances, support and other expenses while artist get paid while sitting in their sofas? This leaves Apple with almost (and probably less than) 1$ net profit per each subscription customer in Apple Music.
The problem of Tylor Swift is that her music may or may not be popular within 3 months, so by the time the free trial period ends, she may get shit, thats her big problem. Artist should focus more on their music, than on the business model of selling music, you know.
Did the musicians ask Apple to build a streaming service? The fans are going to listen to streaming music with or without Apple. Apple wanted in on that game, and developed their own service for their own survival in a changing industry. The fan and the artist are always going to connect, and Apple wants that to happen mostly through them, and for that to happen they should foot the bill for their free trial. IMO they should've started with a reduced subscription fee for early adopters instead of free for everyone.
Apple has gotten free publicity out of this whole thing. It's all over my local news station and all over the web. People who didn't even know of the upcoming service and who definitely don't watch keynote events now know of it. People will try it just on GP (general purpose). Even if you say it's not free because they are paying the artists it's still more than they would have gotten if they had to pay for the publicity. WAY TO TURN THE LEMONS INTO LEMONADE!!
Artists will get some type of payments. They should be happy.
FM Radio was not a free service ... you paid for it by listening to advertisements.
Yes, what do you think Spotify free service is?. The same thing. They get paid from the ad's played using that service. Which you left out of my quote. The artists are bitching about Spotify's free service that's supported by ad's which is the same as AM/FM radio supported by ad's.
Comments
So the buyer is Apple? That makes the TV the music? So in that case the TV should be free because Apple brings more people into the store?
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.
Out of Apple pockets? For service that is designed to conect musicians with their fans aka customers? Please, explain your logic! So Apple is geting 30% out of every subscription fee, that is roughly and less than 2,99$. Then Apple has to take care of the entire service infrastructure, biling, maintances, support and other expenses while artist get paid while sitting in their sofas? This leaves Apple with almost (and probably less than) 1$ net profit per each subscription customer in Apple Music.
The problem of Tylor Swift is that her music may or may not be popular within 3 months, so by the time the free trial period ends, she may get shit, thats her big problem. Artist should focus more on their music, than on the business model of selling music, you know.
So the buyer is Apple? That makes the TV the music? So in that case the TV should be free because Apple brings more people into the store?
To say Apple "has 200 bn" in the bank as a significant reason why they should pay during the free trail is basically endorsing means-based pricing, which is not sensible. Their worth should have no bearing on the intrinsic value of the larger-context proposition, and it seems there is a desire to ignore the significant investment Apple is making. Since artists stand to benefit with a successful Apple Music venture, it is completely reasonable to ask that they throw in and give fans a 3 month trial to get them pumped up.
More fundamentally, a successful Apple Music model could be a very different opportunity for small artists as opposed to struggling under labels.
There's no such thing as "fair". Everything is subject to negotiation.
And at the same time the artists invested in their music and should still receive royalties for those works. To ignore that investment and think artists can write, create, produce, record that music in mere seconds is foolish.
And you're right in what Apple has in the bank shouldn't dictate royalties. However music should not be free so Apple can reap the rewards.
And at the same time the artists invested in their music and should still receive royalties for those works. To ignore that investment and think artists can write, create, produce, record that music in mere seconds is foolish.
And you're right in what Apple has in the bank shouldn't dictate royalties. However music should not be free so Apple can reap the rewards.
What rewards? They are not collecting revenue during the trial...$0.
When they do start collecting revenue, 71% is paid out immediately to the rights holders...
Did the musicians ask Apple to build a streaming service? The fans are going to listen to streaming music with or without Apple. Apple wanted in on that game, and developed their own service for their own survival in a changing industry. The fan and the artist are always going to connect, and Apple wants that to happen mostly through them, and for that to happen they should foot the bill for their free trial. IMO they should've started with a reduced subscription fee for early adopters instead of free for everyone.
It was Apple's choice to offer a free trial. Is Apple also not paying its related employees for the duration of the free trial?
Artists will get some type of payments. They should be happy.
It's a win-win!!
So they are making money. I don't get the "defend Apple at all costs" fanatics who defend Apple even when Apple has changed its position.
Yes, what do you think Spotify free service is?. The same thing. They get paid from the ad's played using that service. Which you left out of my quote. The artists are bitching about Spotify's free service that's supported by ad's which is the same as AM/FM radio supported by ad's.