The real problem with Spotify and other streaming services (as recently pointed out by Jason Calacanis when he visited This Week in Tech) is that they are not making money now and will soon have to pay much, much higher licensing fees. Their original agreements contained low music licensing fees and those low rates will expire, essentially putting them into bankruptcy.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Apple's App Store policies. The problem is these streaming services are bad businesses and cannot make money!
Exactly! The music labels were stupid to ever even license to these free and all you can eat services for a low monthly fee. It was short term thinking and is seriously damaging the business for the long term, and totally screwing the performers and song writers.
"Fair artist compensation from internet radio and streaming services is quite the hot topic of late, and now members of Congress are joining the debate. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, alongside the musicFIRST Coalition, introduced the Fair Play Fair Pay Act today that would end regulations that don't require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to artists and labels. As it stands, those AM/FM stations available in your car only pay licensing fees to songwriters and publishers. Organizations like ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) handle those agreements, collecting fees every time a copyrighted song is played on the radio or during a public performance. For its part in managing those agreements, ASCAP brought in over $1 billion last year.
"Artists, musicians, producers and radio services alike deserve better," Nadler explained. "The Fair Play Fair Pay Act fixes this broken and unjust system by making sure all radio services play by the same rules, and all artists are fairly compensated."
By the way I had no idea that songwriter royalties are set in 5-year periods by three judges sitting on the Federal Copyright Royalty Board. Had never even heard of the CRB before this morning. http://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/how-songwriters-get-paid
That too may get changed to better reward songwriters/performers. If you really want to delve into the facts and what is being proposed here's the link.
Release web app instead and stop whining if you think the App Store offer no value to your business model.
There's 3 things any company can do if they don't like Apple's policy's!!!
#1. Pull your App from the App store or don't create a iOS App in the first place!!!
Android owns 80% of the Market Share is what I keep being told right? So iOS is just a tiny market in comparison,... Oh wait... iOS users spend money and most Android phones sold are low to middle end and Android users seem to be more cheap!!!
#2. Do what Amazon did when they didn't like Apple taking 30% from a ebook sale. Rewrite your App to get around Apple's rules!!!
#3. Create a Web App!!! In fact yo can even have a icon on a iOS device for your web app. You can then do anything you want. Apple is not even in the picture!!! In fact this was originally what Apple wanted in the first place.
You can do this today for any Web page you go to in Safari. Go to the Web page, Click the square with the Up Arrow and then click "Add to home Screen". Now you have that Web page on a Icon on your iOS device and can then just go to it. A Web App does this.
First, Apple wants to eliminate the free option from Spotify and others. Apple knows they can't compete one on one so they want to eliminate that option to eliminate any advantage. Sleazy.
Second, since they don't have to the 30% they can undercut everyone and still make more money.
Third, they are directly copying the competition model because they were beginning to lose their monopoly with iTunes. Customers are ditching their iTunes model for streaming, so Apple wants to unfairly kill them.
Now if they keep their app separate and not bake it in, and stop lobbying the labels to remove any advantage Spotify may have in their free tier, and compete FAIRLY, then cool. But to use their platform in the same abusive ways Microsoft and walmart use to crush their competition by the sheer size and ubiquity, then government HAS to step in smack them real hard back in their place.
Who says Apple wants to eliminate the free option from Spotify? Oh RUMORS!!!!!!! There's ZERO facts actually released on that.
How is Apple copying anyone? Did you get to already see what Apple is doing with beats before everyone else here? In fact Apple bought beats so wouldn't that mean Beats copied Spotify before Apple bought them? Or maybe Spotify copied Apple and their itunes which was out long before Spotify!!!
Your crap is just that, CRAP! All this is based on a RUMOR and a service you havn't seen, used or know how much it costs. Not even knowing of Apple would be doing a free level for beats either. You have NOTHING. Typical Apple hating fandroid going off on zero facts.
These rules have been here forever. Everyone knows that's the cost of doing business in the iOS playground. Nobody is stopping them from creating a web app or going to Android. Apple created their ecosystem and market and now these companies think Apple should just let them play for free. Welcome to business 101.
Exactly!!! Apple gets NOTHING for hosting their Spotify app as it's a FREE download. 30% Apple cut of a FREE App is ZERO!!! Now I might agree that on a monthly subscription that 30% is a bit much for Apple to grab. Maybe that should be 10% instead. But it's 30% across the board and if you don't like it, there's other options.
These rules have been here forever. Everyone knows that's the cost of doing business in the iOS playground. Nobody is stopping them from creating a web app or going to Android. Apple created their ecosystem and market and now these companies think Apple should just let them play for free. Welcome to business 101.
Agree with your comments. Unless there are other facts not mentioned, this argument flies in the face of established markets. Can't imagine a similar complaint, from companies selling product to Walmart or Home Depot, having a legitimate claim because their products have to sell for more because the store wants a piece of the retail sale.
Spotify is a leech, gonna have to agree with the artists on this one. i will and do pay for tons of CD's and converted any "pirated mp3's" i could replace with actual lossless files taken from cd's that I purchased.
The piece of crap sound quality of youtube and spotify, etc. is not the experience I want. The spotify's of the world also have limited internation music tracks that are important to my family.
You do know that Artists only get a few pennies per CD sold!!!! The Labels get the biggest cut, followed by the Producers, the Song writer, and on the bottom is the Artist!!! Unless you're something with their OWN label like Jay Z and so can keep most of the money!!!
Lossless from a CD is still lower quality then true Lossless!!! How is Spotify a Leach? They pay out around 70%, which is a whole 5% less then the 75% Tidal is making such a huge deal over. The money handout for them is no different from Spotify!!!
On a side note, apple needs to have lossless, drm free, inheritable lossless accounts. I am sick of getting cd's and burning the lossless files into my library.
If you want lossless, burning from a CD is NOT it. The CD right from the start downgraded the audio quality!!! Besides unless you are is a really good envoroment with really high end speakers, you're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you're downloading low quality MP3's. Lossless is really just a huge space waster.
Oh please. Spotify's payouts to artists are laughably infinitesimal, 0.007cents per play. They are one of the main antagonists towards music artists with regard to revenue.
Regardless, they should all be paying the same royalty rate as terrestrial radio, cause its the same damn thing... a business broadcasting a song. If anything the internet streaming rates should be higher, since their reach exceeds a radio stations broadcast's range.
If a retooled Beats can forward even a tiny fraction of listeners to an iTunes Store purchase is a huge step in the right direction vs Spotify's virtual freeloading off artists work.
What, Radio pays out money? Spotify pays out a ton of money. Just like a CD sale, the Artists is the last person in line to get their cut!!!
I don't think the folks at Beats were particularly concerned with how much the artists were going to get. Numerous reports claim Apple was trying their best to get the labels to reduce royalty demands to the point Beats could still turn a profit at $5 or so a month. The labels wouldn't roll over. They also tried for $7.99/mo which reportedly won't be workable either (oddly that's the price Google Play Music was introduced at).
So no, trying to get the content licenses as cheaply as possible, pressuring for reduced royalties, isn't having the best interests of musicians in mind do you think? IMHO it's almost always about the money and Apple is far from the only company with high margin expectations. Heck, it's business.
Apple is in fact negotiating with Studios/Music Publishers and has no control over what artists gain from these negotiations; perhaps your questions would be better directed to the Studios for artist compensation, but as a business, Apple should negotiate for the best deal they can obtain.
This would appear to be no different that how Spotify would negotiate.
Just like playing in ebay's playground means you have to pay seller fees so to do you have to pay Apple for making your money making ability slick and intuitive.
The 30% rule is not only for streaming music apps so they need to take this upset-ness somewhere else. Like to Google Play.
Yes, Google Pay charges 30%, so does Amazon. But they Don't charge anything on what they sell like ebooks or a Subscription, which is what Apple is doing. The App in the store is FREE. so 30% of FREE is ZERO. Apple, Google, and Amazon makes nothing hosting the App. Apple gets 30% if you subscribe to the service where they don't. Apple takes care of processing the payment every month. Is that worth a 30% cut? They have no choice of handling the payment's themselves. They can't even send people to their web site in the App to subscribe that way. I think the policy is a little to strict. Maybe a 30% cut every month for as long as you're paying for the service, which could be years, maybe a little high.
On the other hand, if you don't like it Apple's policy's you have other options!!! One of those includes doing a Web App. Then Apple takes NOTHING!!! You are free to do anything you want as Apple is not even in the picture.
"They control iOS to give themselves a price advantage...".
Ah, no.
They control iOS because they created it.
But a thought comes to mind, didn't Apple make a 15% agreement with HBO?
I have no idea what Apple's agreement with HBO is. Maybe it's 15%, but that could be the same rate being paid out to the Cable Company's also. I do agree that 30% of a monthly subscription is a bit high. You could be signed up for 5 years or longer and that's a pretty big cut for a App you downloaded so long ago. Processing the transactions is a tiny fraction of that, which Apple forces everyone to use Apple and not their own. 10-15% maybe more fair. Apple makes nothing on the App because it's free. 30% of free is Zero. Apple is hosting the App, and Apple is taking care of the transactions keeping credit card processing easier for iOS users. You're not giving out your credit card info to everyone. So there's something in that.
If you don't like the 30%, there's 3 options you can do!
#1. Pull your App and/or don't create a iOS App in the first place. Stick with Android only, after all they have 80% of the market, right? That's what I keep being told.
#2. Change you App like Amazon did because they didn't like Apple taking a 30% cut in a sale of a ebook. That's the same disadvantage right!!! Apple is not paying that 30% and so for Amazon to make the same money would have to change 30% more right!!!
#3. Create a Web App. At that point, you can do anything you want. Apple is not in the picture at all. Keep 100% of the money!!! In fact, Apple originally wanted everyone to create Web Apps. People can still have a icon on their iOS device just like a normal App.
Yes, Google Pay charges 30%, so does Amazon. But they Don't charge anything on what they sell like ebooks or a Subscription, which is what Apple is doing. The App in the store is FREE. so 30% of FREE is ZERO. Apple, Google, and Amazon makes nothing hosting the App. Apple gets 30% if you subscribe to the service where they don't. Apple takes care of processing the payment every month. Is that worth a 30% cut? They have no choice of handling the payment's themselves. They can't even send people to their web site in the App to subscribe that way. I think the policy is a little to strict. Maybe a 30% cut every month for as long as you're paying for the service, which could be years, maybe a little high.
On the other hand, if you don't like it Apple's policy's you have other options!!! One of those includes doing a Web App. Then Apple takes NOTHING!!! You are free to do anything you want as Apple is not even in the picture.
Go to Spotify.com
Press the "Go Premium" button.
Sign up and pay
Not much of a barrier to entry.
This is all about Beats being in the iTunes Store, and Spotify is concerned that they can't compete with Beats without being in the iTunes Store themselves. I guess Spotify doesn't want to rely on its own rhetoric as the "best" streaming service, as many here have also been testifying.
Apple is in fact negotiating with Studios/Music Publishers and has no control over what artists gain from these negotiations; perhaps your questions would be better directed to the Studios for artist compensation, but as a business, Apple should negotiate for the best deal they can obtain.
This would appear to be no different that how Spotify would negotiate.
The only question in there was whether anyone thought that Apple was concerned about the artists or instead more about how to maximize the profits from a music subscription. You've given your answer that whatever the performers and songwriters get should be of no matter to Apple. Not their problem. Others here seem to think Apple's goal is to make sure musicians get more money and that's the reason "free" streamers have to go.
The Spotify doesn't payout myth is a LIE!!! Spotify pays out around 70%. That's 5% less then what Tidal is making such a huge deal over!!!
The fact is The Labels get all the money, and they pass it out according to the contracts signed!!!! The labels get the biggest chunk, followed by the Producers, then the writers, and on the bottom of the pile is the Artist!!! This isn't going to magically change with Tidal or anyone else for that matter. These same Artists get a few pennies per CD sold!!! Unless you're someone like Jay Z with your own label!!!
There is no money to be made in streaming audio at the price point Spotify has established.
Spotify costs more then Netflix and I think Netflix is by far the better deal and they're making money!!!
There's a lot of money being made by Artists on Spotify!!! Most of them though are getting screwed by their own labels!!! The labels are getting all the money and dishing it out which them getting most of it, then the producers and then song writers and on the bottom is the Artist. Unless you're Jay Z with your own label in which you can keep far more of the money!!! Artists get crap for the CD's sold. a few pennies. You didn't get crap for Radio. In fact labels would pay the radio stations to play the music. That generated sales for Tapes and then CD's. For the artist to make money, it was LIVE Concerts and Merchandising. As in selling CD's and Shirts, and Posters and whatnot at the shows.
The ironic thing is that all this publicity is just exposing the fact that spotify doesn't pay artists a fair price, a fact that hasn't necessarily been in the forefront of the publics' consciousness until now. This may just end up hurting spotify in the long run.
The thing is, it's not the early 2000's anymore and public sentiment has turned towards making sure artists get their fair share of the pie. I don't know what apple has planned with regards to this aspect of the business but spotify may not be the victim it hopes to be in this narrative.
That myth people keep throwing out there is just that!
Spotify costs more then Netflix and I think Netflix is by far the better deal and they're making money!!!
There's a lot of money being made by Artists on Spotify!!! Most of them though are getting screwed by their own labels!!! The labels are getting all the money and dishing it out which them getting most of it, then the producers and then song writers and on the bottom is the Artist. Unless you're Jay Z with your own label in which you can keep far more of the money!!! Artists get crap for the CD's sold. a few pennies. You didn't get crap for Radio. In fact labels would pay the radio stations to play the music. That generated sales for Tapes and then CD's. For the artist to make money, it was LIVE Concerts and Merchandising. As in selling CD's and Shirts, and Posters and whatnot at the shows.
Comments
I allege that the royalty rates paid by Spotify, Pandora, etc. pay are anti-competitive: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/appeals-court-upholds-pandoras-victory-over-songwriters/
"Fair artist compensation from internet radio and streaming services is quite the hot topic of late, and now members of Congress are joining the debate. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, alongside the musicFIRST Coalition, introduced the Fair Play Fair Pay Act today that would end regulations that don't require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to artists and labels. As it stands, those AM/FM stations available in your car only pay licensing fees to songwriters and publishers. Organizations like ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) handle those agreements, collecting fees every time a copyrighted song is played on the radio or during a public performance. For its part in managing those agreements, ASCAP brought in over $1 billion last year.
"Artists, musicians, producers and radio services alike deserve better," Nadler explained. "The Fair Play Fair Pay Act fixes this broken and unjust system by making sure all radio services play by the same rules, and all artists are fairly compensated."
By the way I had no idea that songwriter royalties are set in 5-year periods by three judges sitting on the Federal Copyright Royalty Board. Had never even heard of the CRB before this morning.
http://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/how-songwriters-get-paid
That too may get changed to better reward songwriters/performers. If you really want to delve into the facts and what is being proposed here's the link.
http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf
Release web app instead and stop whining if you think the App Store offer no value to your business model.
There's 3 things any company can do if they don't like Apple's policy's!!!
#1. Pull your App from the App store or don't create a iOS App in the first place!!!
Android owns 80% of the Market Share is what I keep being told right? So iOS is just a tiny market in comparison,... Oh wait... iOS users spend money and most Android phones sold are low to middle end and Android users seem to be more cheap!!!
#2. Do what Amazon did when they didn't like Apple taking 30% from a ebook sale. Rewrite your App to get around Apple's rules!!!
#3. Create a Web App!!! In fact yo can even have a icon on a iOS device for your web app. You can then do anything you want. Apple is not even in the picture!!! In fact this was originally what Apple wanted in the first place.
You can do this today for any Web page you go to in Safari. Go to the Web page, Click the square with the Up Arrow and then click "Add to home Screen". Now you have that Web page on a Icon on your iOS device and can then just go to it. A Web App does this.
First, Apple wants to eliminate the free option from Spotify and others. Apple knows they can't compete one on one so they want to eliminate that option to eliminate any advantage. Sleazy.
Second, since they don't have to the 30% they can undercut everyone and still make more money.
Third, they are directly copying the competition model because they were beginning to lose their monopoly with iTunes. Customers are ditching their iTunes model for streaming, so Apple wants to unfairly kill them.
Now if they keep their app separate and not bake it in, and stop lobbying the labels to remove any advantage Spotify may have in their free tier, and compete FAIRLY, then cool. But to use their platform in the same abusive ways Microsoft and walmart use to crush their competition by the sheer size and ubiquity, then government HAS to step in smack them real hard back in their place.
Who says Apple wants to eliminate the free option from Spotify? Oh RUMORS!!!!!!! There's ZERO facts actually released on that.
How is Apple copying anyone? Did you get to already see what Apple is doing with beats before everyone else here? In fact Apple bought beats so wouldn't that mean Beats copied Spotify before Apple bought them? Or maybe Spotify copied Apple and their itunes which was out long before Spotify!!!
Your crap is just that, CRAP! All this is based on a RUMOR and a service you havn't seen, used or know how much it costs. Not even knowing of Apple would be doing a free level for beats either. You have NOTHING. Typical Apple hating fandroid going off on zero facts.
These rules have been here forever. Everyone knows that's the cost of doing business in the iOS playground. Nobody is stopping them from creating a web app or going to Android. Apple created their ecosystem and market and now these companies think Apple should just let them play for free. Welcome to business 101.
Exactly!!! Apple gets NOTHING for hosting their Spotify app as it's a FREE download. 30% Apple cut of a FREE App is ZERO!!! Now I might agree that on a monthly subscription that 30% is a bit much for Apple to grab. Maybe that should be 10% instead. But it's 30% across the board and if you don't like it, there's other options.
These rules have been here forever. Everyone knows that's the cost of doing business in the iOS playground. Nobody is stopping them from creating a web app or going to Android. Apple created their ecosystem and market and now these companies think Apple should just let them play for free. Welcome to business 101.
Agree with your comments. Unless there are other facts not mentioned, this argument flies in the face of established markets. Can't imagine a similar complaint, from companies selling product to Walmart or Home Depot, having a legitimate claim because their products have to sell for more because the store wants a piece of the retail sale.
Spotify is a leech, gonna have to agree with the artists on this one. i will and do pay for tons of CD's and converted any "pirated mp3's" i could replace with actual lossless files taken from cd's that I purchased.
The piece of crap sound quality of youtube and spotify, etc. is not the experience I want. The spotify's of the world also have limited internation music tracks that are important to my family.
You do know that Artists only get a few pennies per CD sold!!!! The Labels get the biggest cut, followed by the Producers, the Song writer, and on the bottom is the Artist!!! Unless you're something with their OWN label like Jay Z and so can keep most of the money!!!
Lossless from a CD is still lower quality then true Lossless!!! How is Spotify a Leach? They pay out around 70%, which is a whole 5% less then the 75% Tidal is making such a huge deal over. The money handout for them is no different from Spotify!!!
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
On a side note, apple needs to have lossless, drm free, inheritable lossless accounts. I am sick of getting cd's and burning the lossless files into my library.
If you want lossless, burning from a CD is NOT it. The CD right from the start downgraded the audio quality!!! Besides unless you are is a really good envoroment with really high end speakers, you're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you're downloading low quality MP3's. Lossless is really just a huge space waster.
Oh please. Spotify's payouts to artists are laughably infinitesimal, 0.007cents per play. They are one of the main antagonists towards music artists with regard to revenue.
Regardless, they should all be paying the same royalty rate as terrestrial radio, cause its the same damn thing... a business broadcasting a song. If anything the internet streaming rates should be higher, since their reach exceeds a radio stations broadcast's range.
If a retooled Beats can forward even a tiny fraction of listeners to an iTunes Store purchase is a huge step in the right direction vs Spotify's virtual freeloading off artists work.
What, Radio pays out money? Spotify pays out a ton of money. Just like a CD sale, the Artists is the last person in line to get their cut!!!
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
I don't think the folks at Beats were particularly concerned with how much the artists were going to get. Numerous reports claim Apple was trying their best to get the labels to reduce royalty demands to the point Beats could still turn a profit at $5 or so a month. The labels wouldn't roll over. They also tried for $7.99/mo which reportedly won't be workable either (oddly that's the price Google Play Music was introduced at).
So no, trying to get the content licenses as cheaply as possible, pressuring for reduced royalties, isn't having the best interests of musicians in mind do you think? IMHO it's almost always about the money and Apple is far from the only company with high margin expectations. Heck, it's business.
Apple is in fact negotiating with Studios/Music Publishers and has no control over what artists gain from these negotiations; perhaps your questions would be better directed to the Studios for artist compensation, but as a business, Apple should negotiate for the best deal they can obtain.
This would appear to be no different that how Spotify would negotiate.
Just like playing in ebay's playground means you have to pay seller fees so to do you have to pay Apple for making your money making ability slick and intuitive.
The 30% rule is not only for streaming music apps so they need to take this upset-ness somewhere else. Like to Google Play.
Oh wait..they charge 30% too https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en
Yes, Google Pay charges 30%, so does Amazon. But they Don't charge anything on what they sell like ebooks or a Subscription, which is what Apple is doing. The App in the store is FREE. so 30% of FREE is ZERO. Apple, Google, and Amazon makes nothing hosting the App. Apple gets 30% if you subscribe to the service where they don't. Apple takes care of processing the payment every month. Is that worth a 30% cut? They have no choice of handling the payment's themselves. They can't even send people to their web site in the App to subscribe that way. I think the policy is a little to strict. Maybe a 30% cut every month for as long as you're paying for the service, which could be years, maybe a little high.
On the other hand, if you don't like it Apple's policy's you have other options!!! One of those includes doing a Web App. Then Apple takes NOTHING!!! You are free to do anything you want as Apple is not even in the picture.
They could make the purchase button in their app say something like:
"Pay $13 dollars here in the app or go to our website and pay only $10."
Let the customer decide.
Thought that was against the AppStore terms....
"They control iOS to give themselves a price advantage...".
Ah, no.
They control iOS because they created it.
But a thought comes to mind, didn't Apple make a 15% agreement with HBO?
I have no idea what Apple's agreement with HBO is. Maybe it's 15%, but that could be the same rate being paid out to the Cable Company's also. I do agree that 30% of a monthly subscription is a bit high. You could be signed up for 5 years or longer and that's a pretty big cut for a App you downloaded so long ago. Processing the transactions is a tiny fraction of that, which Apple forces everyone to use Apple and not their own. 10-15% maybe more fair. Apple makes nothing on the App because it's free. 30% of free is Zero. Apple is hosting the App, and Apple is taking care of the transactions keeping credit card processing easier for iOS users. You're not giving out your credit card info to everyone. So there's something in that.
If you don't like the 30%, there's 3 options you can do!
#1. Pull your App and/or don't create a iOS App in the first place. Stick with Android only, after all they have 80% of the market, right? That's what I keep being told.
#2. Change you App like Amazon did because they didn't like Apple taking a 30% cut in a sale of a ebook. That's the same disadvantage right!!! Apple is not paying that 30% and so for Amazon to make the same money would have to change 30% more right!!!
#3. Create a Web App. At that point, you can do anything you want. Apple is not in the picture at all. Keep 100% of the money!!! In fact, Apple originally wanted everyone to create Web Apps. People can still have a icon on their iOS device just like a normal App.
Yes, Google Pay charges 30%, so does Amazon. But they Don't charge anything on what they sell like ebooks or a Subscription, which is what Apple is doing. The App in the store is FREE. so 30% of FREE is ZERO. Apple, Google, and Amazon makes nothing hosting the App. Apple gets 30% if you subscribe to the service where they don't. Apple takes care of processing the payment every month. Is that worth a 30% cut? They have no choice of handling the payment's themselves. They can't even send people to their web site in the App to subscribe that way. I think the policy is a little to strict. Maybe a 30% cut every month for as long as you're paying for the service, which could be years, maybe a little high.
On the other hand, if you don't like it Apple's policy's you have other options!!! One of those includes doing a Web App. Then Apple takes NOTHING!!! You are free to do anything you want as Apple is not even in the picture.
Go to Spotify.com
Press the "Go Premium" button.
Sign up and pay
Not much of a barrier to entry.
This is all about Beats being in the iTunes Store, and Spotify is concerned that they can't compete with Beats without being in the iTunes Store themselves. I guess Spotify doesn't want to rely on its own rhetoric as the "best" streaming service, as many here have also been testifying.
I'm more in that first camp with you.
The Spotify doesn't payout myth is a LIE!!! Spotify pays out around 70%. That's 5% less then what Tidal is making such a huge deal over!!!
The fact is The Labels get all the money, and they pass it out according to the contracts signed!!!! The labels get the biggest chunk, followed by the Producers, then the writers, and on the bottom of the pile is the Artist!!! This isn't going to magically change with Tidal or anyone else for that matter. These same Artists get a few pennies per CD sold!!! Unless you're someone like Jay Z with your own label!!!
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
There is no money to be made in streaming audio at the price point Spotify has established.
Spotify costs more then Netflix and I think Netflix is by far the better deal and they're making money!!!
There's a lot of money being made by Artists on Spotify!!! Most of them though are getting screwed by their own labels!!! The labels are getting all the money and dishing it out which them getting most of it, then the producers and then song writers and on the bottom is the Artist. Unless you're Jay Z with your own label in which you can keep far more of the money!!! Artists get crap for the CD's sold. a few pennies. You didn't get crap for Radio. In fact labels would pay the radio stations to play the music. That generated sales for Tapes and then CD's. For the artist to make money, it was LIVE Concerts and Merchandising. As in selling CD's and Shirts, and Posters and whatnot at the shows.
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
The ironic thing is that all this publicity is just exposing the fact that spotify doesn't pay artists a fair price, a fact that hasn't necessarily been in the forefront of the publics' consciousness until now. This may just end up hurting spotify in the long run.
The thing is, it's not the early 2000's anymore and public sentiment has turned towards making sure artists get their fair share of the pie. I don't know what apple has planned with regards to this aspect of the business but spotify may not be the victim it hopes to be in this narrative.
That myth people keep throwing out there is just that!
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
Spotify costs more then Netflix and I think Netflix is by far the better deal and they're making money!!!
There's a lot of money being made by Artists on Spotify!!! Most of them though are getting screwed by their own labels!!! The labels are getting all the money and dishing it out which them getting most of it, then the producers and then song writers and on the bottom is the Artist. Unless you're Jay Z with your own label in which you can keep far more of the money!!! Artists get crap for the CD's sold. a few pennies. You didn't get crap for Radio. In fact labels would pay the radio stations to play the music. That generated sales for Tapes and then CD's. For the artist to make money, it was LIVE Concerts and Merchandising. As in selling CD's and Shirts, and Posters and whatnot at the shows.
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
Artists still have to purchase the cd's to sell at concerts from the labels with can be 50% of retail.