Apple Music starts charging for three-month trials in some countries

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
For reasons unknown, Apple has begun charging a small fee in Australia, Spain, and Switzerland for what would ordinarily be a free three-month trial of Apple Music.




The company is charging newcomers 99 cents in Australia, 0.99 in Spain, and Fr. 0.99 in Switzerland. All three countries had access to free trials as recently as this month.

So far the switch doesn't appear to have taken root elsewhere.

The fee is unlikely to deter too many customers, particularly since the leader in the on-demand music space -- Spotify -- sometimes charges more for trying out its Premium plan. In the U.S. for example, first-time Premium customers get three months for $9.99. Unlike Apple though, the company also offers a free ad-supported tier.

Apple could conceivably be trying to recoup some of the costs of trials. In fact the company originally planned to skip paying royalties entirely for trial streams, but a backlash from labels and pop star Taylor Swift prompted Apple to change its mind, likely at significant expense.

If so Apple will presumably bring the new fees to other markets like the U.S., U.K., and Canada.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,090member
    Not unexpected. The three months trial is at premium tier with no ads, while charged it is only 99 cents. I surprise it took Apple this long. Other company like Spotify already charged people for their trial service in Australia. This is just a competitive move by Apple, nothing much.
    edited May 2017 Rayz2016Grimzahnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 10
    JanNLJanNL Posts: 282member
    In Netherlands it's only 1 month free trial (for some months now).
  • Reply 3 of 10
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,765member
    kevin kee said:
    Not unexpected. The three months trial is at premium tier with no ads, while charged it is only 99 cents. I surprise it took Apple this long. Other company like Spotify already charged people for their trial service in Australia. This is just a competitive move by Apple, nothing much.

    My guess is that this is to comply with regional laws. In some instances, a contract to provide services is only binding when money has exchanged hands. This seems to be the case with music. The likes of Elton John and Paul McCartney are paid £1 to play at charity gigs, which ensures they're legally obligated to show up. 

    According to some people of the other sites, this is not anything new; Spotify charges for trials in the same three countries. 

    My 0.99c




    edited May 2017 watto_cobramrboba1
  • Reply 4 of 10
    mike54mike54 Posts: 347member
    I wonder if its for accounting or tax purposes.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    Regional laws might have influenced this change. $0.99 for a month's worth of access to millions of songs is still a bargain, though.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 10
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,194member
    Regional laws might have influenced this change. $0.99 for a month's worth of access to millions of songs is still a bargain, though.
    But is it worth the cost of processing for Apple? I can't see why Apple would bother unless they're worried about running afoul of local governments.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,312member
    Well we just had an article about how Jimmy Lovine hates free music so...
  • Reply 8 of 10
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,142member
    mike54 said:
    I wonder if its for accounting or tax purposes.
    I wonder if it's due to some strange weird unrelated tax. Like Fringe Benefits, say by making trial 99c they can claim the accounts they gift staff are trials. Making the reportable benefit 10% of full subscription value. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 10
    But is it worth the cost of processing for Apple? I can't see why Apple would bother unless they're worried about running afoul of local governments.
    It isn't. There's no way it's penny-pinching either, because that's beneath Apple. It's most likely local laws that they have to comply with, seeing that Spotify is also doing the same thing. They could also be avoiding anti-competitive lawsuits because Music is natively installed in iOS, giving them an unfair advantage over similar offerings from other companies.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 10
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 275member
    This is why this will never be a real news organization. Posting crap like this with absolutely no followup (which is actually provided by the readers) just begs for a question that already had an answer.
Sign In or Register to comment.