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
OK, let's try the math again.... Apple is paying .2 cents which = $.002 per play, which is actually LESS generous...
Let's say that I get 100 plays every day, being a small artist. If I'm lucky, let's say that's how many plays I get every day. That's $.20 a day I make. Multiply that by 365, hoping they are listening on their holidays as well Not that you are railing on artists or Apple but at 100 plays per day for a year, I would make $73 for the year.... How anyone is getting mad at artists is crazy. I mean, you can get angry at Swift and whether or not she was truly standing up for the independent artists, she said something. No other artist threatened to not put their newest release on Apple Music. So yeah, streaming only makes the giant artists money in all reality.
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.
iTunes Radio is only available in America and Australia to iOS or Mac users. You are probably right that iTunes radio is up to 200 million listener hours per month now, however that is only a tiny fraction of the amount of use Apple Music will see. Since Apple Music will also be on Android you're looking at nearly all the mobile phones in the world having access to this service with a couple billion devices that can access the service for free for 3 months. You could very easily be off by a factor of 100 in your math.
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>
so Apple is paying 3 times as much as Spotify... you'd be mad to keep doing business with Spotify wouldn't you.
iTunes Radio is only available in America and Australia to iOS or Mac users. You are probably right that iTunes radio is up to 200 million listener hours per month now, however that is only a tiny fraction of the amount of use Apple Music will see. Since Apple Music will also be on Android you're looking at nearly all the mobile phones in the world having access to this service with a couple billion devices that can access the service for free for 3 months. You could very easily be off by a factor of 100 in your math.
Or way over. I don't think most people have any interest in streaming music from their smart phone. . If I were to guess maybe 20% or less and certainly not for hours a day.
Or way over. I don't think most people have any interest in streaming music from their smart phone. . If I were to guess maybe 20% or less and certainly not for hours a day.
Steve Jobs thought the same thing, but he and you are both clearly wrong. I don't stream music much myself but you and I are in the minority. If you add up all the Spotify, Pandora, iTunes radio, iHeartRadio, rdio, etc. users it's quite a large number and many of them stream music all day every day. Now offer all those people and the rest of the world three free months on Apple Music and it would be silly to think that there won't be multiple hundreds of millions of people trying this for free from June 30-Sept. 30.
Spotify is probably complaining to the DOJ, FTC, European Commission and the NY/CT State AGs to stop Apple from paying the artists money because it is something Spotify cannot compete with without having a very real financial hit.
I think this would only be true if Apple was making the artists sign exclusive deals. Otherwise I don't see how Apple paying more money impacts Spotify. Unless Apple continued to give its service away for free beyond some introductory period, thus making Apple's service more attractive to consumers than Spotify's service. Then Apple would be using money from other segments of their business to intentionally hurt a smaller competitor.
so Apple is paying 3 times as much as Spotify... you'd be mad to keep doing business with Spotify wouldn't you.
No. Not if Spotify reaches customers Apple doesn't. The marginal cost of putting a song on multiple streaming services is zero. Being on more services = more revenue for the label/artist. A label/artist then needs to decide how little they are willing to accept before cutting off a distribution channel.
Spotify does get in the situation where labels/artists may decide to go exclusively with Apple unless Spotify price matches.
The article says that Apple are paying 0.2 cents per play ($0.002).
Quote:
Originally Posted by isthisnametaken
OK, let's try the math again.... Apple is paying .2 cents which = $.002 per play, which is actually LESS generous...
Uh Oh, Am I getting my math wrong
2 cent = $0.02
20 cent = $0.2 = $0.20 because $1.00 = 100 cent
Right?
So, $0.002 is actually one fifth of a cent => $0.002 x 5 = $0.01 = $0.010
- - - - -
EDIT:
Okay, I got it. Apple is paying 0.2 cents, which is a fifth of one cent! I misread the title as 2 cents. You're right, Spotify is the more generous one:
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!
Same here. Thankfully I actually take time to question what people write in an attempt to find out their agendas.
Taylor Swift earns a lot of money from digital sales, but she also earns a lot of money on tour. When an artist earns $100 million a year from touring, I am damn certain quite a bit of those millions are being pocketed by the artist. People saying Taylor Swift needs Apple and that Taylor Swift's career will eventually wind down while Apple will continue onward printing gobs of money are intentionally being blind to history. Just as Taylor Swift will succumb to time, Apple will also.
I think this would only be true if Apple was making the artists sign exclusive deals. Otherwise I don't see how Apple paying more money impacts Spotify. Unless Apple continued to give its service away for free beyond some introductory period, thus making Apple's service more attractive to consumers than Spotify's service. Then Apple would be using money from other segments of their business to intentionally hurt a smaller competitor.
The investigations have already been started. Apple Music is under a microscope by agencies. I am expecting an agency to throw a last minute halt order on Apple Music to prevent it from competing vigorously with Spotify. I do not mind being proven wrong.
Doesn't Spotify pay 0.005 or something per song? Apple is paying 0.2
Wow, would not want to be Spotify at the moment, Apple could be aiming to put them out of business simply by paying more the labels more than they could ever afford.
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>
so Apple is paying 3 times as much as Spotify... you'd be mad to keep doing business with Spotify wouldn't you.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
This is why the entire music industry is screwed up, they can not seem to keep their negotiation under wraps, they seem to like to like things out, it that whole hollywood things of any publicityis good publicity. It not always good to make it known what your negotiated terms are. You do not always hear about terms between other companies unless it required by law for public disclosures.
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.
Apple Music and the free 90 day trial wasn't what she was referring to. She was referring to artists not receiving a dime or even $.002 during that trial period.
Plus she makes the most money on tours. She just played Philly and sold out the football stadium for two shows. That's 50000+ tickets per show. Add the merchandise sold and that's a lot of $$$.
Ok this .2 cents not 2 cents. 5 plays for 1 penny. This is not about Taylor Swift it's about all the artists trying to make a buck - 500 plays. I think that's working hard for your money. Ok more like streaming hard for your money.
Agreed. With that type of low pay service replacing CDs and album sales, I don't know why any artist would want their albums on streaming services.
It only marginalizes indi artists more, because their music is never played, and you must look deep in a library/ catalog to find non-mainstream artists and genres.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
You linked but failed to provide all important informations in the article, like this for example:
Quote:
One of our sources is an independent getting distributed through Sony (and received an email update this morning); the other is also an indie with a fairly substantial catalog.
Aren't Indie label just signed with Apple Music after they confirmed they will pay? If this such a poor rate as you tried to make out, I wonder why they suddenly caved?
And this:
Quote:
But the sources that revealed that number to DMN were careful to note that major labels could receive an entirely different payout, and may already have elevated free-trial rates in place.
So this may not be a standard rate after all?
Or how about this fact?
Quote:
In addition to the per-play fee, Apple is also paying a smaller sum to publishers for songwriting rights.
Bottom line is UK indie labels who represented thousands of artists seem perfectly happy with it. So who are you crying for?
Comments
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
OK, let's try the math again.... Apple is paying .2 cents which = $.002 per play, which is actually LESS generous...
Let's say that I get 100 plays every day, being a small artist. If I'm lucky, let's say that's how many plays I get every day. That's $.20 a day I make. Multiply that by 365, hoping they are listening on their holidays as well
Not that you are railing on artists or Apple but at 100 plays per day for a year, I would make $73 for the year.... How anyone is getting mad at artists is crazy. I mean, you can get angry at Swift and whether or not she was truly standing up for the independent artists, she said something. No other artist threatened to not put their newest release on Apple Music. So yeah, streaming only makes the giant artists money in all reality.
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.
iTunes Radio is only available in America and Australia to iOS or Mac users. You are probably right that iTunes radio is up to 200 million listener hours per month now, however that is only a tiny fraction of the amount of use Apple Music will see. Since Apple Music will also be on Android you're looking at nearly all the mobile phones in the world having access to this service with a couple billion devices that can access the service for free for 3 months. You could very easily be off by a factor of 100 in your math.
so Apple is paying 3 times as much as Spotify... you'd be mad to keep doing business with Spotify wouldn't you.
What is the source for those Spotify figures? And the Apple figures didn't come from Apple directly so who knows if they're accurate.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/23/8830029/eternify-spotify-loop-payments
includes a price point and also spotify's own assessment range of what they pay.
Or way over. I don't think most people have any interest in streaming music from their smart phone. . If I were to guess maybe 20% or less and certainly not for hours a day.
Steve Jobs thought the same thing, but he and you are both clearly wrong. I don't stream music much myself but you and I are in the minority. If you add up all the Spotify, Pandora, iTunes radio, iHeartRadio, rdio, etc. users it's quite a large number and many of them stream music all day every day. Now offer all those people and the rest of the world three free months on Apple Music and it would be silly to think that there won't be multiple hundreds of millions of people trying this for free from June 30-Sept. 30.
Spotify is probably complaining to the DOJ, FTC, European Commission and the NY/CT State AGs to stop Apple from paying the artists money because it is something Spotify cannot compete with without having a very real financial hit.
I think this would only be true if Apple was making the artists sign exclusive deals. Otherwise I don't see how Apple paying more money impacts Spotify. Unless Apple continued to give its service away for free beyond some introductory period, thus making Apple's service more attractive to consumers than Spotify's service. Then Apple would be using money from other segments of their business to intentionally hurt a smaller competitor.
so Apple is paying 3 times as much as Spotify... you'd be mad to keep doing business with Spotify wouldn't you.
No. Not if Spotify reaches customers Apple doesn't. The marginal cost of putting a song on multiple streaming services is zero. Being on more services = more revenue for the label/artist. A label/artist then needs to decide how little they are willing to accept before cutting off a distribution channel.
Spotify does get in the situation where labels/artists may decide to go exclusively with Apple unless Spotify price matches.
The article says that Apple are paying 0.2 cents per play ($0.002).
OK, let's try the math again.... Apple is paying .2 cents which = $.002 per play, which is actually LESS generous...
Uh Oh, Am I getting my math wrong
2 cent = $0.02
20 cent = $0.2 = $0.20 because $1.00 = 100 cent
Right?
So, $0.002 is actually one fifth of a cent => $0.002 x 5 = $0.01 = $0.010
- - - - -
EDIT:
Okay, I got it. Apple is paying 0.2 cents, which is a fifth of one cent! I misread the title as 2 cents. You're right, Spotify is the more generous one:
$0.007 (Spotify) > $0.002 (Apple)
Same here. Thankfully I actually take time to question what people write in an attempt to find out their agendas.
Taylor Swift earns a lot of money from digital sales, but she also earns a lot of money on tour. When an artist earns $100 million a year from touring, I am damn certain quite a bit of those millions are being pocketed by the artist. People saying Taylor Swift needs Apple and that Taylor Swift's career will eventually wind down while Apple will continue onward printing gobs of money are intentionally being blind to history. Just as Taylor Swift will succumb to time, Apple will also.
Quote:
"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.
You do realize that your quote might one day apply to Apple as well, right?
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.
Really? She will make more than most people make in a year without lifting a finger? She would be nothing without Apple products?
Come on... the delusional comments on this forum are just getting ridiculous!
The investigations have already been started. Apple Music is under a microscope by agencies. I am expecting an agency to throw a last minute halt order on Apple Music to prevent it from competing vigorously with Spotify. I do not mind being proven wrong.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/23/breaking-apple-paying-just-0-002-per-stream-during-its-free-trial-period
Apple Music and the free 90 day trial wasn't what she was referring to. She was referring to artists not receiving a dime or even $.002 during that trial period.
Plus she makes the most money on tours. She just played Philly and sold out the football stadium for two shows. That's 50000+ tickets per show. Add the merchandise sold and that's a lot of $$$.
at 10$ a month, one would have to listen to roughly 5,000 songs per month to get their money's worth
Seems way low, when the idea is to pay artists
I believe i read before that 73% of the cost is going to the artists, so it must cost apple around 3 tenths of a cent per song
at 3 tenths of a cent, that comes out to 3,334 songs to get your monthly 10$ out of it
Agreed. With that type of low pay service replacing CDs and album sales, I don't know why any artist would want their albums on streaming services.
It only marginalizes indi artists more, because their music is never played, and you must look deep in a library/ catalog to find non-mainstream artists and genres.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/23/breaking-apple-paying-just-0-002-per-stream-during-its-free-trial-period
You linked but failed to provide all important informations in the article, like this for example:
Quote:
Aren't Indie label just signed with Apple Music after they confirmed they will pay? If this such a poor rate as you tried to make out, I wonder why they suddenly caved?
And this:
So this may not be a standard rate after all?
Or how about this fact?
Bottom line is UK indie labels who represented thousands of artists seem perfectly happy with it. So who are you crying for?