More than 70% of Apple Music revenues passed to rights owners, Apple confirms

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 77
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    you are not reading.

    I said Facebook was ALWAYS FREE.  ALWAYS. FREE.  Understand?

    People have been buying CD's, MP3's, records for DECADES. 

    So stop comparing an app that was ALWAYS FREE to Music that is mostly paid in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

    Doesn't matter. It's clear people are willing to put up with ads to not have to pay for something. Spotify very well may lose the right to have a free tier when they renegotiate but that doesn't mean all the non-paying customers will move to paid subscribers. No they'll just go to YouTube or someplace else to get their music. The industry (and Apple) has its collective head in the sand if it thinks the problem with the industry is ad supported streaming.
  • Reply 42 of 77
    schlackschlack Posts: 719member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    those 'free' services don't allow you to pick the specific songs or download.

     

    If they do, they won't in a few months once the labels renegoiate the deals.

     

    Apple has changed the game again. 

     

    And it isn't $10.  Its $15 for a family of 6.  


     

    Beat's Music already had a family subscription plan for $15 prior to Apple acquiring them. I had that plan. It allowed multiple concurrent users per account.

     

    And of course it's $10. Read Apple's own page. But it's also $15. Don't twist the facts.

  • Reply 43 of 77
    jamjamjamjam Posts: 17member
    sog35 wrote: »
    short-term thinking.

    the 3 month free period will lead to a greater SUBSCRIBER BASE than if they charged $10 from the start.

    Its a small sacrifice to quickly increase subscriber base

    Still not sure why all of these people who are going to increase the subscriber base are not currently using spotify etc. but will suddenly want to subscribe through Apple music.

    I can see some increased but enough to offset the lost income???

    I can see movement from spotify to Apple but every one will take 12 years to recover lost income, some will move if the free tier disappears but there is no guarantee this will happen.

    I just don't see the increased payment as some sign that Apple is a 'better' friend to the industry.

    J
  • Reply 44 of 77
    jamjamjamjam Posts: 17member
    sog35 wrote: »
    its not about recovering the 3 months of lost revenue.  Its about ADDING TENS OF MILLIONS of SUBSCRIPTIONS!!!

    And why would they switch to AppleMusic?  Because AppleMusic is the ONLY music service that is FULLY INTEGRATED with iOS and your iTunes library.

    You said it yourself 'And why would they switch to AppleMusic?  Because AppleMusic is the ONLY music service that is FULLY INTEGRATED with iOS and your iTunes library' if they switch from an existing service it's 3 months lost income which takes 12 year to recover.

    Alternatively, are tens of millions of people who don't currently subscribe to a music service suddenly going to chose to subscribe beacuse the integration is better! Dont think so, enough to recover the lost income from the switches maybe

    J
  • Reply 45 of 77
    chelinchelin Posts: 106member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    I hope AppleMusic brings an end to free streaming with ads.

     

    Musicians deserve a decent cut and with free streaming they get basically zero.




    My prediction is that they will get the same amount from Apple Music. The music producers will still take the biggest piece of the pie regardless who hosts the streaming service.

  • Reply 46 of 77
    jamjamjamjam Posts: 17member
    sog35 wrote: »
    so dense.

    What would you rather have?

    1,000,000 subscribers for 12 months at $7 per month?

    or

    50,000,000 subscribers for 9 months at $7 per month?

    pretty obvious.

    will tens of millions of new paid subscribers join AppleMusic?  I say yes.

    Make your mind up first the're switching now the're new subscribers.

    So if these people are new subscribers who don't currently subscribe (that is the important bit otherwise it takes 12 years remember) why are they suddenly going to choose to start paying $10 a month?

    As I said before if the free tier goes you will get new subscribers, just beacuse it's better integrated? Mybe but tens of millions i just don't see it.

    Maybe you can stop with the insults and just answer a open question, I just don't see better integration as a massive motivator of making people start using a music subscription service.


    J

    Just to be clear the free 3 months needs to attract 30% more subscribers to recover the lost income in 12 months 12% to recover in 2 years then with no free period
  • Reply 47 of 77
    russellrussell Posts: 296member

    Quote:




    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    The title is correct.   I forget what that form is called off hand, but it is correct.  It is not "simple past"


     

    Is it Future Perfect Tense?  A tense that indicates an action will have been completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the future.

     

    Nope. 

    The tense is formed with "will" plus "have" plus the past participle of the verb. The title doesn't have any of that.

     

    "More than 70% of Apple Music revenues passed to rights owners, Apple confirms"

     

    A more accurate title would be "More than 70% of Apple Music revenues will be passed to rights owners, Apple confirms"

  • Reply 48 of 77
    jamjamjamjam Posts: 17member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Reasons why TENS of Millions will pay for AppleMusic:

    1. only service with FULL iOS integration

    2. only service that seemlessly ties your iTunes library

    3. service with the most songs

    4. cheapest family plan for FULL FEATURES (no ads, download option, top tier radio content)

    5. Massive marketing/hype - its an Apple product after all.  Plus Beats/Dre/Iovine are huge with the young demo

    6.  Full featured free services will be extinct in the near future.

    I agree the're all great features, just don't see how they have stopped tens millions of people from subscribing to a current service.

    J
  • Reply 49 of 77
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

     

     

    Is it Future Perfect Tense?  A tense that indicates an action will have been completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the future.

     

    Nope. 

    The tense is formed with "will" plus "have" plus the past participle of the verb. The title doesn't have any of that.

     

    "More than 70% of Apple Music revenues passed to rights owners, Apple confirms"

     

    A more accurate title would be "More than 70% of Apple Music revenues will be passed to rights owners, Apple confirms"


     

     

    The short hand version of that is

     

    "More than 70% of Apple Music revenues passed to rights owners, Apple confirms"

     

    You don't have to believe me.  But it works.  Especially in a news media context where they try and shorten things for space.



    And no, it is not future perfect.  It is present perfect, IIRC, meaning, on an ongoing basis.  passed = is passed

     

    Apple Music, whether publicly launched or not, exists now, so it is appropriate to describe it in the present perfect.

  • Reply 50 of 77
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Reasons why TENS of Millions will pay for AppleMusic:

    1. only service with FULL iOS integration

    2. only service that seemlessly ties your iTunes library (huge feature for Android users)

    3. service with the most songs

    4. cheapest family plan for FULL FEATURES (no ads, download option, top tier radio content)

    5. Massive marketing/hype - its an Apple product after all.  Plus Beats/Dre/Iovine are huge with the young demo

    6.  Full featured free services will be extinct in the near future.
    I'd only question item 3. It looks like Apple will be offering around the same number of songs as some of their competitors, at least at roll-out. About 30M.
  • Reply 51 of 77
    mieswallmieswall Posts: 84member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    The artists will continue to complain that they aren't getting any money!!! As normal the labels will keep most of it and nothing changes. At this point, I still don't see myself signing up. I just don't want to pay $10 a month for this service. At $5, ok, at $10, no thanks. I just don't tune into music as much these days as when I was younger. How about a $5 a month for only so many hours per month.
    How much did you spend when buying cd's? One cd every three months?
    I guess this service is for people that love music, and respect the artists.
  • Reply 52 of 77
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    those 'free' services don't allow you to pick the specific songs or download.

     

    If they do, they won't in a few months once the labels renegoiate the deals.

     

    Apple has changed the game again. 

     

    And it isn't $10.  Its $15 for a family of 6.  


    When people choose to listen to music by streaming, they don't care about picking music or downloading.  They don't care to pay $10 per month when they can listen for free.  Apple hasn't changed the game because streaming music and subscription services have been around for YEARS before Apple decided to join in.  Apple is late in the game, and buying Beats won't help them.  You assume everyone has a family.  The service is $10 per month.  Many families still use the same Apple ID, so unlikely they would pay for a family pack.  iTunes Radio was a joke, repeating the same songs or freezing altogether.  It is about as popular as the failed Ping service.  Not many people want to "rent" their music, so the subscription model isn't exactly a successful one.  Even Apple can't fix that.  I would never pay to rent music, and I have zero interest in paying $10 a month for streaming music when I can do it for free with Pandora or Spotify.  Remember, when you stop paying, those fake 'downloads' stop working.

  • Reply 53 of 77
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    there is no service with more songs than AppleMusic = service with the most songs

    there may be services with equal amount but when you throw in your iTunes purchases AppleMusic has the advantage.

    Plus Taylor Swift.
    There's other streamers with Taylor Swift too. ;) Even ones that will include your iTunes purchases.... and yes Apple Music will end up a winner for the simple reason it will come pre-installed on new iPhones, and automatically installed by default on 10's of millions of older iPhone's with iOS 9 . Hard to compete with that.
  • Reply 54 of 77
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Face it.  Apple is going to destroy the ad based streaming service.  Sorry Google.

     

    I think its Apple's crusade to wreck ad-based companies.  Soon iOS will have adblock which will destroy scummy companies to who rely on popup ads to make money.


    Apple relies on advertising in iOS apps.  In case you did not know, Apple INVENTED iAd for advertisements on iOS and in apps.  That is how you get all your free apps you know.  Apple is not going to take that away from consumers because the majority don't mind an ad or two when they prefer an app for free.

     

    You are aware that the forced Apple Watch app was nothing but an advertisement for a watch.  You could not delete the app, which angered many users that wished to delete an app they would never use.  When you opened the app, it displayed an advertisement for the watch.  So even Apple pushes their own advertisements and refuses to allow the user to delete it.  In iOS 9, Apple will force users to have Find My Friends and Find My iPhone apps permanently installed.  More useless apps you can't remove.  If I lose my iPhone, I would log into iCloud on a computer.  I cannot use an app on a phone that has gone missing.  I don't know anyone that uses Find My Friends (or in reality, Stalk My Friends).

  • Reply 55 of 77
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »

    You don't like renting music so you think AppleMusic will fail.  Problem is you don't realize there are tens of millions of people who are willing to pay.
    That's exactly what Apple is hoping. I'll guess they'll be right.
  • Reply 56 of 77
    basjhjbasjhj Posts: 97member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    you are not reading.

     

    I said Facebook was ALWAYS FREE.  ALWAYS. FREE.  Understand?

     

    People have been buying CD's, MP3's, records for DECADES. 

     

    So stop comparing an app that was ALWAYS FREE to Music that is mostly paid in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS.


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Doesn't matter. It's clear people are willing to put up with ads to not have to pay for something. Spotify very well may lose the right to have a free tier when they renegotiate but that doesn't mean all the non-paying customers will move to paid subscribers. No they'll just go to YouTube or someplace else to get their music. The industry (and Apple) has its collective head in the sand if it thinks the problem with the industry is ad supported streaming.

     

    Actually, the fact that the business models are fundamentally different between Google/Facebook and a music reseller already indicates that it does matter. The only ones who can really kill ad-distorted streaming are the music labels. If the dollars start rolling in from Apple in sufficient quantities, they might just do that. I suspect, however, that the current streaming services would simply adapt. The idea that Apple is going to crush everything on its path completely ignores the possibility that Apple is going to be copied...

  • Reply 57 of 77
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    "Rights owners", not musicians. Same old same old.
  • Reply 58 of 77
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    basjhj wrote: »


    Actually, the fact that the business models are fundamentally different between Google/Facebook and a music reseller already indicates that it does matter.
    Again, Google Play Music has no ads, nor any ad-supported level. According to the charts at the beginning of the comments section it pays a considerable amount in royalties compared to nearly every other streaming service out there. In fact Apple Music and Google Play Music are nearly identical in features and catalog. Apple will be the winner here for the reason I offered and Sog shares in a previous post. No other provider will be as successful.
  • Reply 59 of 77
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    mieswall wrote: »
    How much did you spend when buying cd's? One cd every three months?
    I guess this service is for people that love music, and respect the artists.

    I have a ton of CD's!. Like I said, I don't tune into music as much these days as when I was a kid and Apple is marketing the service to the younger crowd. Stopped buying CD's when XM radio dust started service and I was running into a lot of music still back then. It started shooting to more and more talk radio. A few months ago I cancelled Siriusxm radio because the app just sucked so bad I couldn't take it and I only wanted talk from them and they don't offer that option for streaming inky satellite. $15 a month as rather pay half and not have the music, but even then the app still sucks. I still buy a CD rarely. But I've since form mms gotten more into audio blogs. That's free and for some music I use Amazon Prime Music which is free since I'm a long time prime member and it's just something else Amazon has thrown in. The app is pretty good. It's like Pandora and spotify with singe extra nice features. The music library is smaller, but in fine with that.

    You pay $10 for this plus another $30-$40 for Apple tv surface which has been the rumor, and now you're passing Apple $50 a month. No thanks!!!
  • Reply 60 of 77
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Sorry the free with ads model is out of the bottle and not even Apple will be able to put it back in. If someone can get Spotify free with ads they're not going to pay Apple $10 a month. The music industry needs to get into the 21st-century and find other ways for monetization.

    What do people think AM and FM radio is? They play music with ad's and have been doing that for a very long time. Long before the internet even existed. People were doing copying songs right from the radio into a cassette tape before the internet existed, but now somehow streaming on the internet for free with ad's is different? How is it?. Or have the labels just gotten more greedy?
Sign In or Register to comment.