<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/186914/apple-to-reportedly-pay-0-2-cents-per-song-for-apple-music-90-day-free-trial-period#post_2739839" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Suddenly Newton</strong> <a href="/t/186914/apple-to-reportedly-pay-0-2-cents-per-song-for-apple-music-90-day-free-trial-period#post_2739839"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/>Taylor Swift's open smack down (and the tech websites who don't listen to her music's coverage of it) has generated public interest in how much Apple pays record labels. Ordinarily, nobody wants to know how the sausage is made. Those negotiations happen behind the scenes, as they do between Apple and cellular carriers, or Apple and its supply chain partners.</div></div><p> </p>so why aren't the labels being implicated in all of this. it's not like the negotiations were one-sided. furthermore, if labels pay their artists, why weren't they named at all in this pr debacle?
apple isn't paying the artists .2 cents directly. the labels are.
Exactly.
Remember when Apple sold songs for 99 cents?
Apple kept 29 cents... and the labels got 70 cents.
Then it was up to the labels to give the artist their share... which ended up only being a few pennies per song.
It was the same with records, tapes, CDs and now streams. The labels make most of the money.
Which begs the question... why would any sane person sign a contract with a label?
After this kerfuffle, Taylor Swift would look pretty lame if she withheld the most talked/written about album this year from Apple Music. I have no doubt the articles trashing her for not releasing the album have already been written and are being revised to get the most sensationalist amount of stab wounds that can be inflicted on her in the least amount of words the keep the attention spans of the people who will read the articles.
Still, those articles will pale in comparison to the millions of people (who include her fans, people who hate just because they nothing else better going on in their lives or because she had the audacity to call out Apple, the extraordinarily reputable CNBC, NYT and WSJ and you know... Philip Elmer-Dewitt over at Fortune) who will not hesitate to go thermonuclear on her on Twitter and Facebook.
The ball is most definitely in her court! Yikes!!
Where is the popcorn?
"For the loser now will be later to win..."
Swift's career will trend down soon enough. Apple will continue to print more money than she can dream of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual
Taylor Swift will make $20K for every million plays of one of her songs ... Apple paid too much.
I hope Ms. Swift is happy ... $20K is more than many people make per year, and she will make that without lifting a finger.
Then again, some of her concert tickets are $700 a piece, so she really doesn't care about anyone except herself.
She would be nothing without Apple products.
Exactly. More than half her income is from iTunes Music Store sales.
"Independents were not sent proposals by Apple until the day of the event, and they were told they had five days to approve them with no possibility of negotiation, according to two executives with knowledge of the talks."
Apple never had the artists in mind. This is not a negotiation, this is a take it or leave it deal. As great as Apple is on some things, they are extremely arrogant about this.
Swift's career will trend down soon enough. Apple will continue to print more money than she can dream of.
Exactly. More than half her income is from iTunes Music Store sales.
She runs a billion dollar empire. I don't think she has anything to worry about.
She'd still make a ton of money without iTunes as there would be several other sources to make money from. Artists were making money before iTunes and they'll continue make money after iTunes.
She runs a billion dollar empire. I don't think she has anything to worry about.
She'd still make a ton of money without iTunes as there would be several other sources to make money from. Artists were making money before iTunes and they'll continue make money after iTunes.
Apple makes a billion dollars in less than a week.
"Independents were not sent proposals by Apple until the day of the event, and they were told they had five days to approve them with no possibility of negotiation, according to two executives with knowledge of the talks."
Apple never had the artists in mind. This is not a negotiation, this is a take it or leave it deal. As great as Apple is on some things, they are extremely arrogant about this.
If true, why are independents being sent terms to negotiate or even approve and not through the labels? I find it hard to believe artists represented by labels are left to negotiate for themselves directly with companies like Apple. This makes no sense. If true, why have labels at all. I would think the labels, if they represent artists interests (and are responsible for paying them), would be the ones at the bargaining table. More money for them, slightly more for the artists.
You don't really know if apple didn't care about the artists. And, if, as you say, it wasn't a negotiation and take it or leave it, why all the stink? Just leave it.
If true, why are independents being sent terms to negotiate or even approve and not through the labels? I find it hard to believe artists represented by labels are left to negotiate for themselves directly with companies like Apple. This makes no sense. If true, why have labels at all. I would think the labels, if they represent artists interests (and are responsible for paying them), would be the ones at the bargaining table. More money for them, slightly more for the artists.
You don't really know if apple didn't care about the artists. And, if, as you say, it wasn't a negotiation and take it or leave it, why all the stink? Just leave it.
Independent labels my friend. The labels are the independents.
They were leaving it. That's why only within the last 48 hours they have just now signed on because they are getting what they deserved in the first place.
Read the article that this post is getting its information from next time as that quote was from it.
A bit of math: iTunes Radio, in its first month, reported 67million listener hours. Let's say it's up to 200 million listener hours now. And let's say that's representative of the number of listener hours per month Apple Music will get in its free three month trial. That's 600 million listener hours that they'll pay royalties against. And let's say there are 17 songs played per hour. So that comes to 10.2 billion songs, at 0.2 cents per song equals $20.4 million.
Apple will earn about $46 billion in profits this year. $20.4 million is 3 hours and 53 minutes of Apple's profits.
Apple could stream 1.6 billion hours of music per month and still consume only a single day of profits to cover the entire three month trial. That would be 80 million listeners streaming an average of 20 hours per month.
She called Apple Music's planned 90 day trial period "shocking, disappointing" ... really?
Shocking was it?
Apples gives a lot of stuff away free to market product and services. Most businesses do.
If she doesn't like it, then she should stop selling her wares on iTunes.
Oh wait, that's right ... iTunes is how she makes millions and millions of dollars.
I am all for making money, creating wealth, making it big, and more ... but her complaints were utter hypocrisy on her part.
Her music is exposed to hundreds of millions of people via Apple (globally) and it's played on hundreds of millions of devices thanks to Apple's "shocking and disappointing" products which she had nothing to do with at all.
Exactly. More than half her income is from iTunes Music Store sales.
Nonsense. Unlike most musicians, she owns her music and doesn't have a 360 contract with a label. She certainly makes far more money on concert ticket sales than on music sales. She probably makes more on endorsements than she makes on music. And I doubt that Apple is responsible for half her revenue from music: radio play is very lucrative if you own your music.
People keep bagging on Swift, but she was just the first major act to complain publicly. If Apple hadn't caved, there would have been more. That's what Tim and Eddy saw coming, I think.
I am not sure if it is true or not - But, I read somewhere that this days most of the big names artists make money from their tours and the swags that are sold at the concerts - which is why a concert tickets this days cost you no less than triple digit amount.
She called Apple Music's planned 90 day trial period "shocking, disappointing" ... really?
Shocking was it?
Apples gives a lot of stuff away free to market product and services. Most businesses do.
If she doesn't like it, then she should stop selling her wares on iTunes.
Oh wait, that's right ... iTunes is how she makes millions and millions of dollars.
I am all for making money, creating wealth, making it big, and more ... but her complaints were utter hypocrisy on her part.
Her music is exposed to hundreds of millions of people via Apple (globally) and it's played on hundreds of millions of devices thanks to Apple's "shocking and disappointing" products which she had nothing to do with at all.
swift may make millions off iTunes but it's peanuts to her other revenue streams such as touring, merchandise and endorsements/sponsorship.
The hypocrisy of some here that seem to fine with a company giving away for free someone else's work... but would be squealing like stuck pigs if their employers did that to them!
Apple is paying 2 cent/play, which is $0.02 and not $0.2
And apparently Spotify pays a little more: <span style="line-height:1.4em;">$</span> <span style="line-height:1.4em;">0.007 instead of $0.005</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Still Apple is the more generous one: $0.02 versus $0.007</span>
The article says that Apple are paying 0.2 cents per play ($0.002). I'm not sure what Spotify pay per play but the article also says that Apple's rate is comparable to competing free services so I assume it's similar.
Comments
Exactly.
Remember when Apple sold songs for 99 cents?
Apple kept 29 cents... and the labels got 70 cents.
Then it was up to the labels to give the artist their share... which ended up only being a few pennies per song.
It was the same with records, tapes, CDs and now streams. The labels make most of the money.
Which begs the question... why would any sane person sign a contract with a label?
Yet it happens. Every. Single. Day.
Still bi***ing?!!
Do you work for free?
After this kerfuffle, Taylor Swift would look pretty lame if she withheld the most talked/written about album this year from Apple Music. I have no doubt the articles trashing her for not releasing the album have already been written and are being revised to get the most sensationalist amount of stab wounds that can be inflicted on her in the least amount of words the keep the attention spans of the people who will read the articles.
Still, those articles will pale in comparison to the millions of people (who include her fans, people who hate just because they nothing else better going on in their lives or because she had the audacity to call out Apple, the extraordinarily reputable CNBC, NYT and WSJ and you know... Philip Elmer-Dewitt over at Fortune) who will not hesitate to go thermonuclear on her on Twitter and Facebook.
The ball is most definitely in her court! Yikes!!
Where is the popcorn?
"For the loser now will be later to win..."
Swift's career will trend down soon enough. Apple will continue to print more money than she can dream of.
Taylor Swift will make $20K for every million plays of one of her songs ... Apple paid too much.
I hope Ms. Swift is happy ... $20K is more than many people make per year, and she will make that without lifting a finger.
Then again, some of her concert tickets are $700 a piece, so she really doesn't care about anyone except herself.
She would be nothing without Apple products.
Exactly. More than half her income is from iTunes Music Store sales.
It does?
I would imagine she makes most of her money from touring...
Like it always does.
It does?
I would imagine she makes most of her money from touring...
Like it always does.
That figure is from a music industry exec.
I don't think people make all that much from concerts.
Whoa... my mind is blown.
For years we've heard that artists don't make much, if any, money on the album or radio play... instead they make money on the road.
Damn... I can't believe anything anymore!
Apple never had the artists in mind. This is not a negotiation, this is a take it or leave it deal. As great as Apple is on some things, they are extremely arrogant about this.
She runs a billion dollar empire. I don't think she has anything to worry about.
She'd still make a ton of money without iTunes as there would be several other sources to make money from. Artists were making money before iTunes and they'll continue make money after iTunes.
She runs a billion dollar empire. I don't think she has anything to worry about.
She'd still make a ton of money without iTunes as there would be several other sources to make money from. Artists were making money before iTunes and they'll continue make money after iTunes.
Apple makes a billion dollars in less than a week.
Sure but do you really think she cares about that? She's now in the top 1% and will continue to make billions more throughout her career.
You don't really know if apple didn't care about the artists. And, if, as you say, it wasn't a negotiation and take it or leave it, why all the stink? Just leave it.
Independent labels my friend. The labels are the independents.
They were leaving it. That's why only within the last 48 hours they have just now signed on because they are getting what they deserved in the first place.
Read the article that this post is getting its information from next time as that quote was from it.
Apple will earn about $46 billion in profits this year. $20.4 million is 3 hours and 53 minutes of Apple's profits.
Apple could stream 1.6 billion hours of music per month and still consume only a single day of profits to cover the entire three month trial. That would be 80 million listeners streaming an average of 20 hours per month.
Why the hate? Did her music just magically appear and record itself? She earned it.
That's like saying Chris Pratt made millions of dollars over the weekend without doing anything.
Hate? What hate?
She called Apple Music's planned 90 day trial period "shocking, disappointing" ... really?
Shocking was it?
Apples gives a lot of stuff away free to market product and services. Most businesses do.
If she doesn't like it, then she should stop selling her wares on iTunes.
Oh wait, that's right ... iTunes is how she makes millions and millions of dollars.
I am all for making money, creating wealth, making it big, and more ... but her complaints were utter hypocrisy on her part.
Her music is exposed to hundreds of millions of people via Apple (globally) and it's played on hundreds of millions of devices thanks to Apple's "shocking and disappointing" products which she had nothing to do with at all.
Exactly. More than half her income is from iTunes Music Store sales.
Nonsense. Unlike most musicians, she owns her music and doesn't have a 360 contract with a label. She certainly makes far more money on concert ticket sales than on music sales. She probably makes more on endorsements than she makes on music. And I doubt that Apple is responsible for half her revenue from music: radio play is very lucrative if you own your music.
People keep bagging on Swift, but she was just the first major act to complain publicly. If Apple hadn't caved, there would have been more. That's what Tim and Eddy saw coming, I think.
I am not sure if it is true or not - But, I read somewhere that this days most of the big names artists make money from their tours and the swags that are sold at the concerts - which is why a concert tickets this days cost you no less than triple digit amount.
The hypocrisy of some here that seem to fine with a company giving away for free someone else's work... but would be squealing like stuck pigs if their employers did that to them!
Doesn't Spotify pay 0.005 or something per song? Apple is paying 0.2
TYPO:
Apple is paying 2 cent/play, which is $0.02 and not $0.2
And apparently Spotify pays a little more: $0.007 instead of $0.005
Still Apple is the more generous one: $0.02 versus $0.007
The article says that Apple are paying 0.2 cents per play ($0.002). I'm not sure what Spotify pay per play but the article also says that Apple's rate is comparable to competing free services so I assume it's similar.