Drake says new album's Apple Music exclusivity just one week long

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Although Drake's new album Views From the 6 is launching today as an Apple Music exclusive, that exclusivity period is just one week long, according to the rapper.




Drake made the announcement on Apple's Beats 1 radio on Thursday night, when a global listening party for the album was held. Apple confirmed that the album would be an exclusive earlier this month, but at the time, wouldn't say how long the arrangement would last.

People wanting to own the album instead of just streaming it can buy it through iTunes. The exclusivity does, however, mean that the album can't be found on other streaming services like Spotify or Tidal, or downloaded from storefronts like Amazon or Google Play. Only the singles "One Dance" and "Pop Style" can be found outside of Apple services.

Apple has managed to exploit longer-lasting exclusives to its benefit, most notably Taylor Swift's 1989, which still can't be streamed on Spotify or Tidal. Swift almost boycotted Apple as well, until the company agreed to pay royalties to artists from tracks streamed by trial listeners.

Tidal is wielding exclusives of its own, one suddenly important example being the full catalog of Prince, who died on April 21. Spotify tends to have fewer flagship exclusives, but is the most popular on-demand service and the default for many musicians.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    apple v. samsungapple v. samsung Posts: 406member
    Can these companies compete not with exclusive music, but with exclusive features. It only pisses off consumers to lock their favorite artists in competing services. 

    I use Google music becuase it comes with YouTube red. If Apple came up with a great feature like that I would consider switching. As of now locking my favorite artist away from me for a week does not push me to switch.
    wonkothesane
  • Reply 2 of 10
    bdkennedy1002bdkennedy1002 Posts: 543member
    I couldn't have made it through the day without knowing this.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 3 of 10
    VisualSeedVisualSeed Posts: 217member
    apple v. samsung said:
    Can these companies compete not with exclusive music, but with exclusive features. It only pisses off consumers to lock their favorite artists in competing services. 

    I use Google music becuase it comes with YouTube red. If Apple came up with a great feature like that I would consider switching. As of now locking my favorite artist away from me for a week does not push me to switch.
    The one week exclusivity helps the services but not the artists. They really only appeal to fans that are anticipating the album's release and probably would have bought the album anyway.  They don't do much for helping the artist get discovered by future fans than need time to be exposed to the music. 
  • Reply 4 of 10
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 574member
    Seems Drake didn't do himself or Apple any favors in announcing this.   Essentially he's said it really isn't all that exclusive (and exclusivity does increase demand)  He has taken away any advantage Apple had with the exclusive sell agreement by telling folks to essentially wait a week and they can purchase it anywhere (most probably for less).   With business partners like this who needs competitors?
    cali
  • Reply 5 of 10
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Isn't Apple sponsoring this person's tour, something that is no doubt not cheap, and all that Apple could negotiate is a one week exclusive on their album?

  • Reply 6 of 10
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Why are they(companies/artists) even using the word "exclusive" anymore?

    One week is nothing and I wouldn't consider that "exclusive" by any means.

    Maybe Drake should have said "it'll never be outside Apple!" ;)
  • Reply 7 of 10
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    apple v. samsung said:
    Can these companies compete not with exclusive music, but with exclusive features. It only pisses off consumers to lock their favorite artists in competing services. 

    I use Google music becuase it comes with YouTube red. If Apple came up with a great feature like that I would consider switching. As of now locking my favorite artist away from me for a week does not push me to switch.
    The video game industry has used this tactic for decades. Microsoft/Sony take games that are being developed for every console, throws money at the developer and buys a year exclusivity to a specific console. It's anti-consumer because you're taking an existing work and removing it from a group of people, punishing them for not being a part of your service. It's much different than investing money into creating new works, like for instance if Apple decided to fund upcoming artists and actually create albums exclusive to their service. So I agree, this type of stuff is really stupid. It's stupid when Kanye did it with Tidal and it's stupid now.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    JanNLJanNL Posts: 327member
    koop said:
    apple v. samsung said:
    Can these companies compete not with exclusive music, but with exclusive features. It only pisses off consumers to lock their favorite artists in competing services. 

    I use Google music becuase it comes with YouTube red. If Apple came up with a great feature like that I would consider switching. As of now locking my favorite artist away from me for a week does not push me to switch.
    The video game industry has used this tactic for decades. Microsoft/Sony take games that are being developed for every console, throws money at the developer and buys a year exclusivity to a specific console. It's anti-consumer because you're taking an existing work and removing it from a group of people, punishing them for not being a part of your service. It's much different than investing money into creating new works, like for instance if Apple decided to fund upcoming artists and actually create albums exclusive to their service. So I agree, this type of stuff is really stupid. It's stupid when Kanye did it with Tidal and it's stupid now.
    And that's why I think Drake/Apple wanted to be transparent to announce the exclusivity for (only) a week, instead of the charade of Kanye.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    levilevi Posts: 344member
    VisualSeed said:
    apple v. samsung said:
    Can these companies compete not with exclusive music, but with exclusive features. It only pisses off consumers to lock their favorite artists in competing services. 

    I use Google music becuase it comes with YouTube red. If Apple came up with a great feature like that I would consider switching. As of now locking my favorite artist away from me for a week does not push me to switch.
    The one week exclusivity helps the services but not the artists. They really only appeal to fans that are anticipating the album's release and probably would have bought the album anyway.  They don't do much for helping the artist get discovered by future fans than need time to be exposed to the music. 
    Drake and others seem to think it's a worthwhile deal. I'll trust thier judgment. 
  • Reply 10 of 10
    levilevi Posts: 344member

    jannl said:
    koop said:
    The video game industry has used this tactic for decades. Microsoft/Sony take games that are being developed for every console, throws money at the developer and buys a year exclusivity to a specific console. It's anti-consumer because you're taking an existing work and removing it from a group of people, punishing them for not being a part of your service. It's much different than investing money into creating new works, like for instance if Apple decided to fund upcoming artists and actually create albums exclusive to their service. So I agree, this type of stuff is really stupid. It's stupid when Kanye did it with Tidal and it's stupid now.
    And that's why I think Drake/Apple wanted to be transparent to announce the exclusivity for (only) a week, instead of the charade of Kanye.
    Tidal and Kanye are also being sued because of it
Sign In or Register to comment.