The headlines won't read that Apple did the right thing; they'll say that Apple caved, and that's what content providers will remember as they walk smiling into negotiations with Cue. If we create a stink, Apple will cave.
That's precisely it. Along with blog entries about a singer's "new-found power." And people do love power.
That's precisely it. Along with blog entries about a singer's "new-found power." And people do love power.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
I understood Apple's argument that the free trial was there to get people in the door so maybe the benefits would be felt later. My disagreement with them is that while they are free to make that loss-leader decision for themselves, it should be up to the rights holders if they want to partake in loss-leading too. Clearly, many did not. As such, it is only sensible that Apple foot the bill. They can afford it and they're playing the long game anyway.
Taylor Swift is the biggest artist in the music industry right now, and one with an uncommonly powerful position for reasons even beyond her world-leading sales. It only makes sense to use that position to negotiate for what she believes in. Apple clearly concluded her position was ultimately reasonable, and capitulating would do more good than harm. It's patently ridiculous to criticise either side for making a case or for choosing not to be belligerent for the sake of it.
Ultimately it is not in Apple's best interests to antagonise music artists. Their decision to compromise in the face of criticism should be applauded. Contrast it with Spotify, who are stubborn and insistent that they know what's best and everyone else - users, artists, labels - are just along for the ride. There is a place for leadership and decisive action, and Apple has shown it in the past such as with iTunes. But Apple [I]also[/I] demonstrated with iTunes then and Apple Music now that compromise is important. Apple capitulated to DRM on iTunes at first not because they agreed, but because they knew they needed to have the labels onside. Here, they are capitulating on the free trial issue because they need the artists on side.
This has resolved satisfactorily for all concerned. This is good news, and it is done. Anyone still complaining and sniping now is badly out of touch with reality.
Do we know what Apple's formula is for streaming payouts?
If they do this the same way they do for iTunes Match Apple will keep around 28.5% of the total revenue for themselves, approx the same as they get now from apps and music sales. The remaining 71.5% will be divided up between labels and songwriters with the former getting over 85% of it . The one part that confuses me a bit is Apple supposedly pays royalties based on "how many times someone accesses your song". If that's accurate then it would seem the 71.5% for the IP owners is being paid out at a variable rate each month depending on how many total tracks were streamed. If not and it's a fixed price per stream then it would be possible for the royalties due to far exceed the monthly subscription price.
If I were to guess at this point the actual amount paid out per stream may be fairly low, in the Spotify neighborhood of a penny or less (perhaps FAR less), but because of volume some of the artists may come out better overall.
Ok you certainly have a weird definition of genius. Do a Google news search and pretty much all the headlines are spinning this as Apple caving to Taylor Swift. They're saying the same thing on CNBC this morning. Yet Swift still hasn't said her latest album will be available on Apple Music. This doesn't make Apple look good it makes them look tone-deaf and makes many people wonder why this wasn't Apple's position from the beginning.
Please, the MSM says Apple is doomed for 15 years. Can't give them any cred.
Left out an important detail. Either way, Swift acted like a petulant child here.
What? Wanting to be paid for her work? Tell you what, if your company gave away free samples, please volunteer to forgo a portion of your wages during that time.
This is why it's hard to argue this was good for Apple in any way. The media spin is that Apple was "owned" by Taylor Swift. It makes Apple look tone deaf on the one hand and weak on the other. Not what they want if they're still in negotiations with content providers for Apple TV.
What a load of crap. There have been numerous times when a celebrity (for example) makes a mistake and then comes back and apologizes for it. After the apology their popularity goes through the roof (within reason, of course, you can't apologize for doing something truly disgusting). You also seem to forget the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press."
This is absolutely a huge win for Apple. They are getting a ridiculous amount of free press for Apple Music, which is now less than 10 days away. NOBODY is talking about their competitors (Spotify). They are giving the impression they made a mistake and are correcting it by helping artists by paying them during the free trial. People LOVE this stuff.
This will do nothing to hurt Apple TV. Quite the opposite, actually. When Apple Music launches, and we see Apple convert untold millions of consumers to their new model for music consumption, it'll give them even more leverage. Nothing the TV industry cronies will hate more than Apple moving an entire industry over to a new model with ease. Something they simply do not have the ability to do themselves while realizing their time is next. Nothing could be worse for the TV industry than a hugely successful Apple Music launch.
Spotify was crapping bricks before. Now they're crapping concrete slabs. Apple Music has ALL the cards in the streaming game now.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
It's closer to 65%, since iTunes accounts for almost 65% of all music sales.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
Won't happen. Did you read Eddy Cue's billboard interview? I did.
Swift also has stated that most of her income is from touring, similar to what other popular artists have said.
I still don't understand why it could be considered anti-trust issues. Apple can make individual agreements with the labels/artists. Unless Apple forces the labels to redo the contracts for other services, it's perfectly legal.
I still don't understand why it could be considered anti-trust issues. Apple can make individual agreements with the labels/artists. Unless Apple forces the labels to redo the contracts for other services, it's perfectly legal.
I don't think it will be a problem unless there were things going on that we've no idea about. From anything I've read I don't see anything that the EU should have an official issue with.
Why so much hate? A musician with a product to sell chose not to enter into a contract with a distributer, and publicly explained why. Whether she's right or wrong, it's her product, and her leverage.
There is no three month free trial on the Android side. That was made clear two weeks ago.
No it wasn’t. If you read Apple’s information nowhere does it say that Android users won’t get 3 month free trial. It only says that it will come in Autumn.
Please, the MSM says Apple is doomed for 15 years. Can't give them any cred.
What? Wanting to be paid for her work? Tell you what, if your company gave away free samples, please volunteer to forgo a portion of your wages during that time.
I'm not giving them cred, but those are the facts. The twitterverse is full of tweets and retweets with headlines that Apple caved to Taylor Swift. And the people not thinking that are thinking this was some elaborate PR scheme concocted by Apple and Swift.
"Widespread outcry" = one whiner with lemmings for fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82
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.
Yes these are also the same artists that are bitching about free streaming services paid for by Ad's!!! Putting the Hate on Spotify for example!!! Somehow Ad's on Streaming services is different and not fair compared to all the free music on AM/FM radio!!!
What a load of crap. There have been numerous times when a celebrity (for example) makes a mistake and then comes back and apologizes for it. After the apology their popularity goes through the roof (within reason, of course, you can't apologize for doing something truly disgusting). You also seem to forget the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press."
This is absolutely a huge win for Apple. They are getting a ridiculous amount of free press for Apple Music, which is now less than 10 days away. NOBODY is talking about their competitors (Spotify). They are giving the impression they made a mistake and are correcting it by helping artists by paying them during the free trial. People LOVE this stuff.
This will do nothing to hurt Apple TV. Quite the opposite, actually. When Apple Music launches, and we see Apple convert untold millions of consumers to their new model for music consumption, it'll give them even more leverage. Nothing the TV industry cronies will hate more than Apple moving an entire industry over to a new model with ease. Something they simply do not have the ability to do themselves while realizing their time is next. Nothing could be worse for the TV industry than a hugely successful Apple Music launch.
Spotify was crapping bricks before. Now they're crapping concrete slabs. Apple Music has ALL the cards in the streaming game now.
They're not getting good free press though. And I think it's a pipe dream to think Apple is going to convert millions of people into paying streaming customers. If that is where people were moving then Spotify would have a lot more paying subscribers and YouTube would be on its last legs. Neither of which are true. I'm sure Apple Music will do well (and the power of defaults helps here) but I think it's WAY to early to say if it's going usher in a whole new wave of paying customers that will translate over to Apple TV.
Why not? Seems kind of DUMB. How is a Android user suppose to try it out if they have to pay up front? There's no FREE service!!! Without a free trial, few would even try it out.
maybe Apple should see if they can get back any of the money they wasted on dr dre and jimmy Iovine. Maybe they should hire Taylor swift to negotiate future deals. She seems to have made apple look pretty foolish today.
Comments
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/03/less-than-a-stinkin-cent/
The headlines won't read that Apple did the right thing; they'll say that Apple caved, and that's what content providers will remember as they walk smiling into negotiations with Cue. If we create a stink, Apple will cave.
That's precisely it. Along with blog entries about a singer's "new-found power." And people do love power.
That's precisely it. Along with blog entries about a singer's "new-found power." And people do love power.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
Taylor Swift is the biggest artist in the music industry right now, and one with an uncommonly powerful position for reasons even beyond her world-leading sales. It only makes sense to use that position to negotiate for what she believes in. Apple clearly concluded her position was ultimately reasonable, and capitulating would do more good than harm. It's patently ridiculous to criticise either side for making a case or for choosing not to be belligerent for the sake of it.
Ultimately it is not in Apple's best interests to antagonise music artists. Their decision to compromise in the face of criticism should be applauded. Contrast it with Spotify, who are stubborn and insistent that they know what's best and everyone else - users, artists, labels - are just along for the ride. There is a place for leadership and decisive action, and Apple has shown it in the past such as with iTunes. But Apple [I]also[/I] demonstrated with iTunes then and Apple Music now that compromise is important. Apple capitulated to DRM on iTunes at first not because they agreed, but because they knew they needed to have the labels onside. Here, they are capitulating on the free trial issue because they need the artists on side.
This has resolved satisfactorily for all concerned. This is good news, and it is done. Anyone still complaining and sniping now is badly out of touch with reality.
If they do this the same way they do for iTunes Match Apple will keep around 28.5% of the total revenue for themselves, approx the same as they get now from apps and music sales. The remaining 71.5% will be divided up between labels and songwriters with the former getting over 85% of it . The one part that confuses me a bit is Apple supposedly pays royalties based on "how many times someone accesses your song". If that's accurate then it would seem the 71.5% for the IP owners is being paid out at a variable rate each month depending on how many total tracks were streamed. If not and it's a fixed price per stream then it would be possible for the royalties due to far exceed the monthly subscription price.
If I were to guess at this point the actual amount paid out per stream may be fairly low, in the Spotify neighborhood of a penny or less (perhaps FAR less), but because of volume some of the artists may come out better overall.
Please, the MSM says Apple is doomed for 15 years. Can't give them any cred.
What? Wanting to be paid for her work? Tell you what, if your company gave away free samples, please volunteer to forgo a portion of your wages during that time.
This is why it's hard to argue this was good for Apple in any way. The media spin is that Apple was "owned" by Taylor Swift. It makes Apple look tone deaf on the one hand and weak on the other. Not what they want if they're still in negotiations with content providers for Apple TV.
What a load of crap. There have been numerous times when a celebrity (for example) makes a mistake and then comes back and apologizes for it. After the apology their popularity goes through the roof (within reason, of course, you can't apologize for doing something truly disgusting). You also seem to forget the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press."
This is absolutely a huge win for Apple. They are getting a ridiculous amount of free press for Apple Music, which is now less than 10 days away. NOBODY is talking about their competitors (Spotify). They are giving the impression they made a mistake and are correcting it by helping artists by paying them during the free trial. People LOVE this stuff.
This will do nothing to hurt Apple TV. Quite the opposite, actually. When Apple Music launches, and we see Apple convert untold millions of consumers to their new model for music consumption, it'll give them even more leverage. Nothing the TV industry cronies will hate more than Apple moving an entire industry over to a new model with ease. Something they simply do not have the ability to do themselves while realizing their time is next. Nothing could be worse for the TV industry than a hugely successful Apple Music launch.
Spotify was crapping bricks before. Now they're crapping concrete slabs. Apple Music has ALL the cards in the streaming game now.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
It's closer to 65%, since iTunes accounts for almost 65% of all music sales.
Swift also has stated that most of her income is from touring, similar to what other popular artists have said.
Why so much hate? A musician with a product to sell chose not to enter into a contract with a distributer, and publicly explained why. Whether she's right or wrong, it's her product, and her leverage.
There is no three month free trial on the Android side. That was made clear two weeks ago.
No it wasn’t. If you read Apple’s information nowhere does it say that Android users won’t get 3 month free trial. It only says that it will come in Autumn.
I'm not giving them cred, but those are the facts. The twitterverse is full of tweets and retweets with headlines that Apple caved to Taylor Swift. And the people not thinking that are thinking this was some elaborate PR scheme concocted by Apple and Swift.
"Widespread outcry" = one whiner with lemmings for fans.
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.
Yes these are also the same artists that are bitching about free streaming services paid for by Ad's!!! Putting the Hate on Spotify for example!!! Somehow Ad's on Streaming services is different and not fair compared to all the free music on AM/FM radio!!!
They're not getting good free press though. And I think it's a pipe dream to think Apple is going to convert millions of people into paying streaming customers. If that is where people were moving then Spotify would have a lot more paying subscribers and YouTube would be on its last legs. Neither of which are true. I'm sure Apple Music will do well (and the power of defaults helps here) but I think it's WAY to early to say if it's going usher in a whole new wave of paying customers that will translate over to Apple TV.
Android users will not get a free trial.
Why not? Seems kind of DUMB. How is a Android user suppose to try it out if they have to pay up front? There's no FREE service!!! Without a free trial, few would even try it out.
maybe Apple should see if they can get back any of the money they wasted on dr dre and jimmy Iovine. Maybe they should hire Taylor swift to negotiate future deals. She seems to have made apple look pretty foolish today.