Apple denies threatening to pull artists off iTunes for not signing up with Apple Music

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 110
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gilly33 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post



    Too late, the ‘tech media’ are off and running with this already. No amount of denial from Apple will change the storyline. It’s about Apple and it’s negative so it has legs.




    Well put Ikrupp. This shit is just too funny. Am I missing something or is AI following these bullshit reports way to much.



    Oh yeah, right. Just let the bullshit reports stand in the public spotlight unchallenged as the official record.

    How does that usually work out? You think, just keep quiet, and it will all go away?? Newb...

  • Reply 22 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    IMO, Apple should be paying royalties on their free three-month subscriptions.  



    I agree with this 100%.

     

    You can't just give away someone else's stuff for free. Apple would not -- and should not -- let anyone do it to its products, services, or IP. Similarly, Apple should not be doing it to others. 

  • Reply 23 of 110
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

     

    I think that's a great name for an indie psych-rock band.  FYI, indie rock isn't supposed to be some huge corporate thing.  Nobody in that target demographic is likely to go see a band called "Business Acumen and the MBAs"...


    Funny stuff!

  • Reply 24 of 110
    nobodyy wrote: »
    Why aren't these artists taking issue with their label who made these negotiations for them?

    Because the artist works for the middleman, not the other way around.
  • Reply 25 of 110
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post



    ...

    I would not surprise me that someone at Apple said to them well if you not willing to sign up for Apple radio then why not pull your product from Itunes as well.


    ...

     

    I wonder if Apple said just that and the band goes out and says that Apple was going to pull it.  Maybe all Apple said was the band should pull it if Apple is so bad.

  • Reply 26 of 110
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    These artists are nuts! They are worried about loosing 3 months of royalties? That three months will insure that Apple Music has large audience and will in the long run make them (or who ever holds them by the balls... errrr contract) more money... Nobody ever said pop musicians needed to have any brains!

    Dumb asses!
  • Reply 27 of 110
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,628member
    krreagan wrote: »
    These artists are nuts! They are worried about loosing 3 months of royalties? That three months will insure that Apple Music has large audience and will in the long run make them (or who ever holds them by the balls... errrr contract) more money... Nobody ever said pop musicians needed to have any brains!

    Dumb asses!
    Why does Apple quibble about three months of royalties? It's for Apple's benefit isn't it, so as not to have much in the way of out-of-pocket expenses while they work out the kinks and see how initially successful it is before committing to more promotion.
  • Reply 28 of 110
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Why does Apple quibble about three months of royalties? It's their idea to make the service free for three months, not the artists.

    Yes, it is Apple's intent to offer a longer free trial period and in exchange, the artists (or labels) will reap a higher return versus what minuscule recompense they receive from Spotify now. Seems like a fair trade.
  • Reply 29 of 110
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,628member
    Yes, it is Apple's intent to offer a longer free trial period and in exchange, the artists (or labels) will reap a higher return versus what minuscule recompense they receive from Spotify now. Seems like a fair trade.
    If the service is successful it will be for many of them. That's assuming they're all still performing/recording a year from now. Some number of them won't be, missing out on the opportunity to "strike while the iron is hot" so to speak because they made zilch from the biggest streaming service of all for three months. Apple will be here long after they're gone and still making millions on subscriptions every month.

    By the way most streaming services are paying more in royalties, sometimes MUCH more, than Spotify is.

    1000

    Are any of those also refusing to pay the rights holder for any free introductory period the service chooses to offer as a promotion? I've not read about anyone else doing so.
  • Reply 30 of 110
    I posted the same thing over at MacRumors so I apologize if anyone read it there first.

    Now I could be wrong but this is how I am understanding their complaint. The indie labels feel that if they don't get paid for the 3 months of free streaming service then they will be forced out of business.

    Now here is where I find fault with that logic. Apple currently does not have a streaming service where they are paying royalties so at the current moment they are receiving 0.00 a month in royalty payments. For the first three months they will also be receiving 0.00 a month. Then they will be payed according to the contract agreements. If being paid 0.00 now isn't breaking them how is 3 months going to? I not a mathematician but I am pretty sure zero equals zero, and if your current deal is working just fine now being paid zero because the streaming service does not yet exist, then for a three month trial when it does should not have any affect on your financial standing.

    Again I could be completely wrong here, but to me the argument doesn't make sense. Also from this consumers standpoint the amount of royalties they will see from me will most likely always stay at zero because I have no plans to use Apple Music as a paid or trial member.
  • Reply 31 of 110
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Apple should be at least splitting the income from the subscriptions with the rights holders during the three month period. Perhaps they each make a little less than they would at full price but it would be a partnership.

  • Reply 32 of 110
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by IdleWanderlust View Post



     If being paid 0.00 now isn't breaking them how is 3 months going to? I not a mathematician but I am pretty sure zero equals zero, and if your current deal is working just fine now being paid zero because the streaming service does not yet exist, then for a three month trial when it does should not have any affect on your financial standing.

     

    If the subscribers bail on Spotify to switch to ?Music then the bands will lose money. There are only $X dollars in the streaming market. If Apple takes customers away from competitors the bands lose money during the free trial period. Eventually Apple may be able to grow the market but in the beginning the bands will lose money if Apple doesn't pay them.

  • Reply 33 of 110

    That is a fair and reasonable response. And it very may well be true for the short term, but I believe and again could be wrong, because Spotify and Pandora, Rdio etc, are ad supported they pay royalties no matter what. While yes if you have fewer listeners then revenue will go down I doubt it would change by much, and when it does the revenue stream will have switched to a different source.



    I view this the same as if I stopped listening to Spotify all together (which I don't use much anyway I prefer Pandora). Every time I turn off Spotify the revenue goes down, but there is someone else who just started listening so it goes back up. There are going to be paying members of these services too that will try Apple Music while keeping their current subscriptions, then switch when the trial is over, there are going to be those who just use the trial, there will be those that use the trial but stay with what they have, others will not use any of it or pay for any streaming music. In my opinion the amount lost will be minimal if at all because it will just be offset by something else.  

  • Reply 34 of 110
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by IdleWanderlust View Post

     

    ...because Spotify and Pandora, Rdio etc, are ad supported they pay royalties no matter what. 


    But the royalties and the ad revenue are subject to the size of the subscriber list and the number of listeners. If Spotify had zero listeners, they would receive zero ad dollars and pay zero music licensing. The revenue is directly proportional to the number of listeners and subscribers.

  • Reply 35 of 110

    Agreed but we both know that won't happen over night, plus in the short term there will most likely be new subscribers to replace the ones who left. Should Spotify (and I am just using them as the example) every be reduced to zero subscribers there with almost certainty will have been something that replaced them which is providing the new revenue stream.

  • Reply 36 of 110
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IdleWanderlust View Post

     

    Agreed but we both know that won't happen over night, plus in the short term there will most likely be new subscribers to replace the ones who left. Should Spotify (and I am just using them as the example) every be reduced to zero subscribers there with almost certainty will have been something that replaced them which is providing the new revenue stream.




    Sure, I'm just using that as an example to point out that the ad brokers adjust the rate they pay per ad by the number of listeners and ASCAP and BMI base the licensing on the amount of revenue the service is generating, hence if they lose listeners and subscribers, the bands get paid less.

     

    The band may lose money as opposed to loose money which is how I operate. /s

  • Reply 37 of 110
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,927member
    DOJ to investigate all claims against Apple. DOJ spokesman: who does Apple think they are? Amazon?
  • Reply 38 of 110
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,295member
    In exchange for three months of no royalties isn't the subsequent royalty rate slightly higher thereafter (eg. 71.5% vs industry standard 70 %)?

    I think that they.might have been told if you don't agree to three months free your music won't be available on Apple music, but no doubt It would still be available for purchase on iTunes.
  • Reply 39 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    DOJ to investigate all claims against Apple. DOJ spokesman: who does Apple think they are? Amazon?



    The judge has read through the preliminary information and she believes that Apple are very likely guilty. No real reason to have an trial and all that as we can just presume the outcome. The government's onsite monitor is now authorized to charge double his rate to also cover this. /s

  • Reply 40 of 110
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    IMO, Apple should be paying royalties on their free three-month subscriptions.  



    I agree with this 100%.

     

    You can't just give away someone else's stuff for free. Apple would not -- and should not -- let anyone do it to its products, services, or IP. Similarly, Apple should not be doing it to others. 




    It's like this for radio that stations, or anyone else, has to pay to play.

Sign In or Register to comment.