The irony is that Jony Ive talked about how Steve searched for the simple, while Jimmy Iovine is associated with iTunes which is the worst GUI mess Apple has ever created.
Lots of good things in iTunes, but what is an iPad app store doing in the same interface with music and movies and audiobooks and text? Why is one interface on Windows/Mac split between local music, cached music, streaming uploaded music, streaming subscription music, streaming radio, playlists, ... It needs to be divided up into focused apps.
For starters, the iOS app store should be its own app.
Then audiobooks should be its own player/store app just like iBooks.
Then radio should be a separate app, but be able to link to the music store/Apple music.
etc.
Funny how in your world, Jobs is magically not involved, not responsible, for the mess of Itunes, Itunes has been a mess since almost its inception to now in my book. That's main thing I tried to bypass when I bought my first Iphone (and it put me off buying the Ipod).
Considering how hands on Jobs was and how much Itunes was important to Apple's success pre 2010, thinking Jobs wasn't heavily involved in the mess is ludicrous.
Itunes basically has a early 2000s UI esthetic while everything else has moved on.
I'm sure Jimmy is aware of where the money is going. It's no different with Apple Music AFAIK. The labels are getting theirs, the artists not so much. The interview was typical PR IMO.
I hope he is putting his money where his mouth is and artists are getting paid more with Apple Music than other streaming options.
I only bring it up because he is championing a service that pushed Taylor Swift to stand up for artists to be paid during the 3 month free trial.
If Jimmy had his way he would have tried to launch and build the new Apple Music service directly on the backs of artists for 3 months.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Good grief Jimmy.
Apple is paying a higher royalty rate per streamed song. This was documented in many stories when the Taylor Swift thing hit. Apple's general plan was everyone doesn't make money during the free three months (including Apple) and when people subscribe, the artists get more than other services. So the higher royalty rate was to help offset the free period. It sounds reasonable. Taylor spoke up and Apple changed course. I'm sure there are folks on here that will paint every action they took with an evil brush (just as I would anything from Google), but what actually happens matters more. The issue came up, Apple adjusted their policy before the launch and Artist get royalties for every streamed song in the free trial and subscription period. The only thing I never saw was if Apple was paying a standard royalty in the free trial period or if they went to the higher than standard rate they had previously planned on for the subscription period. If Apple is just keeping up appearances, then that is good enough as their service is actually better for the artist even if they are just money whores out to screw artist a little bit less than the competition. Or maybe there are some folks at Apple Music (formerly beats) that may actually be trying to make positive change for the artists as Jimmy is saying. Hmmm...
"You know, just because you go to Burning Man doesn't make you Hunter S. Thomspon."
I like this guy. A very intelligent dick. But I think Apple probably has a lot of dicks working at the higher levels. It just that they are smarter, more polite and hip than your run-of-the-mill dick. You don't get to be as big and successful as Apple by being dickless.
I'm hoping that doesn't apply to Victoria's Secret...
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music….
Finally! Someone who gets it. But everyone continues to bash Apple "for not paying the artists" and when they do pay the labels for 3 months, the bitch is, "they're not paying the artists enough..." (cue violin in the background).
I'm saving your post and will be copying & pasting whenever I hear someone bitching about how Apple is destroying the music industry.
The labels are destroying the music industry. The disrupters will save it.
This from the genius that wanted artists to give up three months worth of their product for a slightly higher cut. Hey Jimmy, how about you give me a brand new MacBook now, and in three months I'll pay you five bucks more than MSRP for it? Sound like a good deal to you?
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on <sound the trumpets> Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
Shut up Jimmy. Silicon Valley doesn't need your kind of culture. Perhaps you should focus on a better Apple Music experience. It's probably the least Apple experience I've had with any Apple product or service I've used. The only reason I didn't go back to Spotify is Apple Music playlists sync with Apple Watch.
Weren't you the one saying you weren't gonna subscribe to crap Apple Music and sticking to Spotty?
Yes, because we know that all tech and media companies have the best interest of the artist first and foremost. We all know that artists never suffered prior to digital streaming music. They were well paid back then. Right, Just another idiot trying to rewrite history.
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on <sound the trumpets> Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
Excellent post. Thank you.
One question: how do youth ok this self publishing works in the end? I have some experience in the book market, and there, of course you can self publish as well, and eliminate the greedy publishers, but then you're stuck in an ocean of others, and you don't get any marketing. Marketing is the main reason why a authorizing up with a publisher IMO. The iBook store for example doesn't even show your book (not even under NEW books) unless they choose to add it to this category. Otherwise you're o my found when someone.searches the exact title. So how would this be any different with Apple Music?
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
A decade ago, and without any experience in the record business, I predicted the demise of the labels at the hands of: (1) advanced production techniques on personal computers, (2) digital distribution (e.g. iTunes, etc), and (3) the emergence of social media as a means of advertisement. What need for a "label" when you have production, distribution, and advertisement at your beck and call? It is a matter of evolution to the simplest and best solution, but it always takes years to evolve when money and the legal system enter the picture (as they always do). Isn't all of this obvious?
On a side note, the same will happen with video of all kinds, but it will take longer to shake out into the simplest and best solution. There is a hell of a lot more money, and also many more exclusive contracts, involved.
Why does anyone need to pay attention to whether or not pricing models are hurting artists? This is capitalism, right? If the market screws you, you just have to take it and find some way to make it on your own, just like any ordinary worker that no one cares about. What the market will bear is inviolable. All hail the market. He is great.
I prefer a great freemium app above a paid app that sucks (Yes Apple Music it is you I am referring to). Iovine should better take care of his job before giving cheap remarks on the business practice of others.
Apple Music will find its way. I'm glad Apple bought Beats. Their audio products are becoming more sophisticated and improving gradually. Cut to several years down the line and Apple will have a superb speaker/earphone/headphone lineup with a great modern brand and a simply great streaming service and it will be because of the Beats acquisition and perhaps more importantly Apple will be after inking a TV Show subscription deal with Hollywood which will give them the contractual leverage to make a subsidised full blown television thanks more than likely to Jimmy's deal making prowess.
Music streaming, television hardware and great audio products from Apple thanks to this acquisition. And people will still call this a bad deal long long after Apple's recouped the money and more.
I prefer a great freemium app above a paid app that sucks (Yes Apple Music it is you I am referring to). Iovine should better take care of his job before giving cheap remarks on the business practice of others.
Iovine is right. Freemium music doesn't pay the artists nearly what they are entitled to. Apple could offer free music in the morning, it doesn't need the money, but they avoid freemium to ensure the artists get paid. It's a rather straight forward argument. You prefer freemium because you couldn't care if the artists get paid.
I prefer a great freemium app above a paid app that sucks (Yes Apple Music it is you I am referring to). Iovine should better take care of his job before giving cheap remarks on the business practice of others.
Iovine is a very-well connected person in that industry, a brilliant individual*, and a billionaire. He's also one of the few people at Apple Keynotes (and actually, the only one) I've instantly disliked. He sounds like he could just as well be selling anti-personnel mines and arguing just how much safer these will make the planet.
Also, it's hard to be very successful without being either an operational genius, an inventor with business skill, or having a remarkable talent for making money off other people's sweat. I don't recall reading Iovine is either of the first two.
Therefore, I don't put much stake in his words. His competition is evil, says he? Really. How remarkable.
* as millions of other Americans, who happen to not be billionaires.
You miss the point. Artist on labels agree to a contract and are paid a percentage of profit or revenue. When you have have a service come in and take 40% of that in come and pay 10% of what you were already making that is a huge hit. It's like a temp agency going to your boss and offering to do part of your job for less so they cut you salary almost in half and they push to give them even more of you work.
The irony is that Jony Ive talked about how Steve searched for the simple, while Jimmy Iovine is associated with iTunes which is the worst GUI mess Apple has ever created.
Lots of good things in iTunes, but what is an iPad app store doing in the same interface with music and movies and audiobooks and text? Why is one interface on Windows/Mac split between local music, cached music, streaming uploaded music, streaming subscription music, streaming radio, playlists, ... It needs to be divided up into focused apps.
For starters, the iOS app store should be its own app.
Then audiobooks should be its own player/store app just like iBooks.
Then radio should be a separate app, but be able to link to the music store/Apple music.
etc.
I think the main reason for iTunes being such a mess is that it all has to run on Windows. By stuffing everything including the kitchen sink and garage door opener into iTunes it is essentially an "iTunes virtual machine" that they can deploy on Windows. Most of the applications and features in iTunes would be much better served as integrated features of OS X but there's still the Windows problem to deal with. Unfortunately Windows is too large a market to ignore and OS X users have to suffer as a result. I'm sure Apple will fix this eventually but it has obviously gone on for long enough to be a major black eye for Apple and its OS X and iOS customers. Just my opinion.
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on <sound the trumpets> Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
As a record company I'm surprised to see you so happy about being put out of business after 30 years. Apple has more resources to throw at this than any company on earth. Or perhaps you have plans in place to remain relevant and/or you don't don't think Apple is going to impact your record company and others like you in the near future? Curious your feelings about it as a businessman.
Apple is paying a higher royalty rate per streamed song. This was documented in many stories when the Taylor Swift thing hit. Apple's general plan was everyone doesn't make money during the free three months (including Apple) and when people subscribe, the artists get more than other services. So the higher royalty rate was to help offset the free period. It sounds reasonable.
Apple said they'd be paying 71.5% after the intro period compared to the typical 70% from some other providers. Rather than the artist who you apparently assume is getting that entire royalty it's paid to the rights holder who is generally a recording label. There's no assurance the performing artist is getting any more percentage-wise from Apple than they were from some others tho in cases like Swift's they probably do. She and a few like her are special cases.
The only thing I never saw was if Apple was paying a standard royalty in the free trial period or if they went to the higher than standard rate they had previously planned on for the subscription period. If Apple is just keeping up appearances, then that is good enough as their service is actually better for the artist even if they are just money whores out to screw artist a little bit less than the competition. Or maybe there are some folks at Apple Music (formerly beats) that may actually be trying to make positive change for the artists as Jimmy is saying. Hmmm...
During the intro period Apple was reported to be paying $0.002 per stream according to indie-artists receiving those payouts.
Comments
The irony is that Jony Ive talked about how Steve searched for the simple, while Jimmy Iovine is associated with iTunes which is the worst GUI mess Apple has ever created.
Lots of good things in iTunes, but what is an iPad app store doing in the same interface with music and movies and audiobooks and text? Why is one interface on Windows/Mac split between local music, cached music, streaming uploaded music, streaming subscription music, streaming radio, playlists, ... It needs to be divided up into focused apps.
For starters, the iOS app store should be its own app.
Then audiobooks should be its own player/store app just like iBooks.
Then radio should be a separate app, but be able to link to the music store/Apple music.
etc.
Funny how in your world, Jobs is magically not involved, not responsible, for the mess of Itunes, Itunes has been a mess since almost its inception to now in my book. That's main thing I tried to bypass when I bought my first Iphone (and it put me off buying the Ipod).
Considering how hands on Jobs was and how much Itunes was important to Apple's success pre 2010, thinking Jobs wasn't heavily involved in the mess is ludicrous.
Itunes basically has a early 2000s UI esthetic while everything else has moved on.
I'm sure Jimmy is aware of where the money is going. It's no different with Apple Music AFAIK. The labels are getting theirs, the artists not so much. The interview was typical PR IMO.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/23/mo-users-mo-money/#.nkavf3:LPxr
I hope he is putting his money where his mouth is and artists are getting paid more with Apple Music than other streaming options.
I only bring it up because he is championing a service that pushed Taylor Swift to stand up for artists to be paid during the 3 month free trial.
If Jimmy had his way he would have tried to launch and build the new Apple Music service directly on the backs of artists for 3 months.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Good grief Jimmy.
Apple is paying a higher royalty rate per streamed song. This was documented in many stories when the Taylor Swift thing hit. Apple's general plan was everyone doesn't make money during the free three months (including Apple) and when people subscribe, the artists get more than other services. So the higher royalty rate was to help offset the free period. It sounds reasonable. Taylor spoke up and Apple changed course. I'm sure there are folks on here that will paint every action they took with an evil brush (just as I would anything from Google), but what actually happens matters more. The issue came up, Apple adjusted their policy before the launch and Artist get royalties for every streamed song in the free trial and subscription period. The only thing I never saw was if Apple was paying a standard royalty in the free trial period or if they went to the higher than standard rate they had previously planned on for the subscription period. If Apple is just keeping up appearances, then that is good enough as their service is actually better for the artist even if they are just money whores out to screw artist a little bit less than the competition. Or maybe there are some folks at Apple Music (formerly beats) that may actually be trying to make positive change for the artists as Jimmy is saying. Hmmm...
"You know, just because you go to Burning Man doesn't make you Hunter S. Thomspon."
I like this guy. A very intelligent dick. But I think Apple probably has a lot of dicks working at the higher levels. It just that they are smarter, more polite and hip than your run-of-the-mill dick. You don't get to be as big and successful as Apple by being dickless.
I'm hoping that doesn't apply to Victoria's Secret...
That is probably Victoria's Secret.
I suppose Iovine is against FM radio, too. Deal with it, billionaire.
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music….
Finally! Someone who gets it. But everyone continues to bash Apple "for not paying the artists" and when they do pay the labels for 3 months, the bitch is, "they're not paying the artists enough..." (cue violin in the background).
I'm saving your post and will be copying & pasting whenever I hear someone bitching about how Apple is destroying the music industry.
The labels are destroying the music industry. The disrupters will save it.
What a great post. Thank you.
I'm now following you... On AI. ????
How does Tidal fit into this equation?
Weren't you the one saying you weren't gonna subscribe to crap Apple Music and sticking to Spotty?
I
Someone doesn't know who Jimmy Iovine is....
O
SMH..... *facepalm*
Oh God..... There's words I can use but I'll get banned again.....
The lack of education.....
Excellent post. Thank you.
One question: how do youth ok this self publishing works in the end? I have some experience in the book market, and there, of course you can self publish as well, and eliminate the greedy publishers, but then you're stuck in an ocean of others, and you don't get any marketing. Marketing is the main reason why a authorizing up with a publisher IMO. The iBook store for example doesn't even show your book (not even under NEW books) unless they choose to add it to this category. Otherwise you're o my found when someone.searches the exact title. So how would this be any different with Apple Music?
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
A decade ago, and without any experience in the record business, I predicted the demise of the labels at the hands of: (1) advanced production techniques on personal computers, (2) digital distribution (e.g. iTunes, etc), and (3) the emergence of social media as a means of advertisement. What need for a "label" when you have production, distribution, and advertisement at your beck and call? It is a matter of evolution to the simplest and best solution, but it always takes years to evolve when money and the legal system enter the picture (as they always do). Isn't all of this obvious?
On a side note, the same will happen with video of all kinds, but it will take longer to shake out into the simplest and best solution. There is a hell of a lot more money, and also many more exclusive contracts, involved.
Yet new artists sign with labels every single day.
Why does this keep happening?
I prefer a great freemium app above a paid app that sucks (Yes Apple Music it is you I am referring to). Iovine should better take care of his job before giving cheap remarks on the business practice of others.
Music streaming, television hardware and great audio products from Apple thanks to this acquisition. And people will still call this a bad deal long long after Apple's recouped the money and more.
Iovine is right. Freemium music doesn't pay the artists nearly what they are entitled to. Apple could offer free music in the morning, it doesn't need the money, but they avoid freemium to ensure the artists get paid. It's a rather straight forward argument. You prefer freemium because you couldn't care if the artists get paid.
I prefer a great freemium app above a paid app that sucks (Yes Apple Music it is you I am referring to). Iovine should better take care of his job before giving cheap remarks on the business practice of others.
Iovine is a very-well connected person in that industry, a brilliant individual*, and a billionaire. He's also one of the few people at Apple Keynotes (and actually, the only one) I've instantly disliked. He sounds like he could just as well be selling anti-personnel mines and arguing just how much safer these will make the planet.
Also, it's hard to be very successful without being either an operational genius, an inventor with business skill, or having a remarkable talent for making money off other people's sweat. I don't recall reading Iovine is either of the first two.
Therefore, I don't put much stake in his words. His competition is evil, says he? Really. How remarkable.
* as millions of other Americans, who happen to not be billionaires.
The irony is that Jony Ive talked about how Steve searched for the simple, while Jimmy Iovine is associated with iTunes which is the worst GUI mess Apple has ever created.
Lots of good things in iTunes, but what is an iPad app store doing in the same interface with music and movies and audiobooks and text? Why is one interface on Windows/Mac split between local music, cached music, streaming uploaded music, streaming subscription music, streaming radio, playlists, ... It needs to be divided up into focused apps.
For starters, the iOS app store should be its own app.
Then audiobooks should be its own player/store app just like iBooks.
Then radio should be a separate app, but be able to link to the music store/Apple music.
etc.
I think the main reason for iTunes being such a mess is that it all has to run on Windows. By stuffing everything including the kitchen sink and garage door opener into iTunes it is essentially an "iTunes virtual machine" that they can deploy on Windows. Most of the applications and features in iTunes would be much better served as integrated features of OS X but there's still the Windows problem to deal with. Unfortunately Windows is too large a market to ignore and OS X users have to suffer as a result. I'm sure Apple will fix this eventually but it has obviously gone on for long enough to be a major black eye for Apple and its OS X and iOS customers. Just my opinion.
Apple said they'd be paying 71.5% after the intro period compared to the typical 70% from some other providers. Rather than the artist who you apparently assume is getting that entire royalty it's paid to the rights holder who is generally a recording label. There's no assurance the performing artist is getting any more percentage-wise from Apple than they were from some others tho in cases like Swift's they probably do. She and a few like her are special cases.
During the intro period Apple was reported to be paying $0.002 per stream according to indie-artists receiving those payouts.