Jimmy Iovine rails against 'freemium' price model, says most tech companies are 'culturally inept'

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2015
At the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit on Wednesday, Apple executive Jimmy Iovine said free-to-stream and so-called "freemium" pricing models are killing the music industry, saying tech companies that offer such services are profiting on the backs of artists.




Iovine unsurprisingly touted Apple Music as a solution that offers something for consumers and artists alike, positioning the service as a friend to music makers, reports The Verge.

"Free is a real issue. This whole thing about freemium, maybe at one time we needed it. But now it's a shell game," Iovine said. "These companies are building an audience on the back of the artist."

While big-name products like Pandora and Spotify offer free ad-supported tiers alongside paid subscriptions, Apple Music is a purely for-pay service. Beats 1 Radio, which can be accessed by non-subscribers, differs from competitors in that it's a live station being streamed over the Internet, meaning users can't skip songs.

After Iovine's company Beats was acquired by Apple, it took some time for the two parties to come together on a "common agenda" relating to music. He said Apple took on "300 lunatics" when it bought Beats, according to a report from Business Insider.

"Most media companies are technologically inept, and most technology companies are culturally inept," he said. "You know, just because you go to Burning Man doesn't make you Hunter S. Thomspon."

When the teams at Apple reached consensus on a way forward, Apple Music was born.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 86
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    At the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit on Wednesday, Apple executive Jimmy Iovine said free-to-stream and so-called "freemium" pricing models are killing the music industry, saying tech companies that offer such services are profiting on the backs of artists
    Iovine unsurprisingly touted Apple Music as a solution that offers something for consumers and artists alike, positioning the service as a friend to music makers, reports The Verge.

    "Free is a real issue. This whole thing about freemium, maybe at one time we needed it. But now it's a shell game," Iovine said. "These companies are building an audience on the back of the artist."

    While big-name products like Pandora and Spotify offer free ad-supported tiers alongside paid subscriptions, Apple Music is a purely for-pay service. Beats 1 Radio, which can be accessed by non-subscribers, differs from competitors in that it's a live station being streamed over the Internet, meaning users can't skip songs.

    When the teams at Apple reached consensus on a way forward, Apple Music was born.
    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
  • Reply 2 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 86
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,897member

     "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.

  • Reply 4 of 86
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    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.

     

    (emphasis mine)

     

    Agreed.

  • Reply 5 of 86
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Right.. Gator... Your sticking it to the "man" by going to free streaming... Not f**** artists... No... Not you... Do you know any actual artists or you just google about them?

    I wonder what on hell your on this since there's not one single news item you don't have a contrarian view on. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Trying to "educate" us hey. Would do a better job of it if ever single response didn't have an obvious contrary bias as a default.
  • Reply 6 of 86
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member

    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.

  • Reply 7 of 86
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,293member
    I'm not subscribing to Apple Music but can still stream radio for free. So there's that.
  • Reply 8 of 86
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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



    Last I understood, Jimmy knows A LOT of artists and pretty sure he hears their complaints. Not too mention, there are currently two high profile artists on the Apple Music team; Dr. Dre and Trent Reznor. Now, why would Apple Music be different than other streaming services? Hmmm?

  • Reply 9 of 86
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 10 of 86
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,293member
    rogifan wrote: »
    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.

    (emphasis mine)

    Agreed.

    Agreed as well
  • Reply 11 of 86
    Googling is how he pretends to know-it-all. That's why most of his posts are just links he fished up on Google.
  • Reply 12 of 86
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    foggyhill wrote: »
    Right.. Gator... Your sticking it to the "man" by going to free streaming... Not f**** artists... .
    I don't use any free streaming services other than terrestrial radio. My music subscriptions are all paid ones. I prefer an ad-free experience.

    That doesn't mean the money artists deserve is getting back to them. I don't think any of the streamers are paying performers directly but instead the bulk of it goes to the label with a smaller percentage going to the songwriter. It's up to the labels to share it with a performer.
  • Reply 13 of 86

    Maybe Jimmy might want to go easy on bashing things with the word freemium.

     

    Freemium apps are some of the highest grossing apps on the app store.

  • Reply 14 of 86
    rogifan wrote: »
    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.

    (emphasis mine)

    Agreed.

    Funnily enough I think it would have been better to have it as a separate app. What they've done is turn the iOS Music app into the equivalent of iTunes on the desktop; a bloated mess that you use because you have to.

    The release notes probably include the phrase "I'm a nightmare dressed like a daydream." :lol:
  • Reply 15 of 86
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

     

     "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...

  • Reply 16 of 86
    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
  • Reply 17 of 86
    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.
  • Reply 18 of 86
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post







    Agreed as well



    I couldn't have put it better myself.  The rubbish experience that is Apple Music wouldn't be acceptable if Microsoft would have done it.  In 2000.   As part of Windows ME.  

  • Reply 19 of 86
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,165member
    Very True ..

    Its a shame ...I dont believe the average person out there is at all concerned about or aware of how much work and time goes into producing a quality track...and that these people rely on real sales to make a living....
  • Reply 20 of 86
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    razormaid wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.