Anyway: my point is... Don't always ascribe altruism to a company's actions. There are _many_ reasons why a company does what it does... and most of the time it has to do with profit (either now or in the future).
Good points, but I feel like if that was Apple’s intention they could just lower their prices now to achieve the same goal (if the goal is to damage Spotify).
And be accused of "unfair business practices" by FTC and others, the way Amazon was when they started lowering prices to beat the competition? This way is easier and less prone to such accusations.
I thought it was the other way around. Amazon had lower prices for ebooks than iBooks did at its debut so Apple was accused of keeping ebook prices high, which was deemed unfair to consumers.
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't? BTW, your source for the chart posted an update the next month which you may have missed: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't?
My guess is the reference was to YouTube and lumping it in with Google. Maybe?
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't? BTW, your source posted an update on those rates based on actual royalty reports the next month: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
Absolutely. Youtube music is estimated to account for almost 50% of all music streaming. From Forbes "YouTube is far and away the most popular option in the world when it comes to streaming music."
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't?
My guess is the reference was to YouTube and lumping it in with Google. Maybe?
Yes, based on Youtube, which accounts is nearly half of all music streaming these days, Google is putting it to artists. Combine that with their recent opposition to increasing rates, it's no wonder the artists industry is thanking Apple.
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
No, you are looking at the old chart. It's confusing the way they posted it, but if you look closely, the article I referenced said it was updated for 2019 and that's why Spotify was able to creep past Amazon, when previously they were even lower than Amazon.
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't? BTW, your source posted an update on those rates based on actual royalty reports the next month: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
Absolutely. Youtube music is estimated to account for almost 50% of all music streaming. From Forbes "YouTube is far and away the most popular option in the world when it comes to streaming music."
Really? I wouldn't have guessed it, but I also think Forbes is wrong. According to your own chart source doesn't it go on to claim Spotify and Apple Music as the largest ones?
FWIW YouTube royalties are paid out in an entirely different manner, generally as a percentage of the ads connected to it, and music that artists/labels don't want streamed is blocked at upload even if background sound within a video stream. Music artists don't rely on Youtube for an income anyway do they, instead use it mostly for promotional purposes with any pay for play a bonus IMHO.
How is Apple a greedy company when they want to pay to artist more, while others want to pay less?
I see you're new here, at least as a commenter. Perhaps you are unaware that the "/s" at the end of the OP's comment indicates sarcasm (on this site as well as many others).
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
BTW, your source for the chart posted an update the next month which you may have missed:
No, you are looking at the old chart. It's confusing the way they posted it, but if you look closely, the article I referenced said it was updated for 2019 and that's why Spotify was able to creep past Amazon, when previously they were even lower than Amazon.
The update was the actual royalties being reported by one of the larger indies rather than reports from the streamers themselves. For that Amazon was #1 in payout per stream, with Google Play Music #5 followed by Apple Music at #6. Apparently it all may depend on which catalog is receiving the royalties.
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't? BTW, your source posted an update on those rates based on actual royalty reports the next month: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
Absolutely. Youtube music is estimated to account for almost 50% of all music streaming. From Forbes "YouTube is far and away the most popular option in the world when it comes to streaming music."
Really? I wouldn't have guessed it, but I also think Forbes is wrong. According to your own chart source doesn't it go on to claim Spotify and Apple Music as the largest ones?
FWIW YouTube royalties are paid out in an entirely different manner, generally as a percentage of the ads connected to it, and music that artists/labels don't want streamed is blocked at upload even if background sound within a video stream. Music artists don't rely on Youtube for an income anyway do they, instead use it mostly for promotional purposes with any pay for play a bonus IMHO.
LOL. Of course musicians don't relay on Youtube for income, Google pays by far the worst so they can't! Let me guess, you use Youtube music to stream? How would you feel if your boss said they weren't going to pay you much, but don't worry, by working for a pittance, you'll get great "promotional" value. And, you are wrong about how musicians are paid when their music is listened to on Youtube as every article points out. There's a reason the musician's groups have battled Google in particular.
You should also search for information about streaming services. I'll get you going.
"A full 47 percent of global music consumption is now happening on YouTube, according to a new report published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The IFPI’s Music Consumer Insight Report 2018, which takes a look at the state of music consumption across the globe also found that more than half, 52 percent, of on-demand music streaming occurs over video."
Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists, almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year. That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists. (*Note, Napster is likely to go under) **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!
Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't? BTW, your source posted an update on those rates based on actual royalty reports the next month: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
Absolutely. Youtube music is estimated to account for almost 50% of all music streaming. From Forbes "YouTube is far and away the most popular option in the world when it comes to streaming music."
Really? I wouldn't have guessed it, but I also think Forbes is wrong. According to your own chart source doesn't it go on to claim Spotify and Apple Music as the largest ones?
FWIW YouTube royalties are paid out in an entirely different manner, generally as a percentage of the ads connected to it, and music that artists/labels don't want streamed is blocked at upload even if background sound within a video stream. Music artists don't rely on Youtube for an income anyway do they, instead use it mostly for promotional purposes with any pay for play a bonus IMHO.
LOL. Of course musicians don't relay on Youtube for income, Google pays by far the worst so they can't! Let me guess, you use Youtube music to stream?
No I use Google Play Music and Tidal, one of which pretty much equals Apple Music and the other exceeds it in payout's per stream.
Fuck the streaming model, and fuck Spotify in particular.
But as a German artist, I have a special place in hell where I’d like to see YouTube go, for lying to users about their licensing policies.
For years, they blocked access to thousands of videos, claiming that the GEMA (German rights management and collection agency) hadn’t released the rights — an outright lie. GEMA had disputed the basic licensing model, but they had filed exemplary legal complaints on a total of thirteen songs.
Similar thing in the last few months, where YouTube is agitating young people over the new proposed EU content licensing regulation that puts the responsibility for licensing on the HOST, rather than the uploader. Rather than admitting that their entire business model is based around screwing over rights holders, they’re busily explaining to millions of kids that holding the profiting company responsible for sharing revenue with content owners will result in shutting down of all popular YouTube channels.
Fuck the streaming model, and fuck Spotify in particular.
But as a German artist, I have a special place in hell where I’d like to see YouTube go, for lying to users about their licensing policies.
For years, they blocked access to thousands of videos, claiming that the GEMA (German rights management and collection agency) hadn’t released the rights — an outright lie. GEMA had disputed the basic licensing model, but they had filed exemplary legal complaints on a total of thirteen songs.
Similar thing in the last few months, where YouTube is agitating young people over the new proposed EU content licensing regulation that puts the responsibility for licensing on the HOST, rather than the uploader. Rather than admitting that their entire business model is based around screwing over rights holders, they’re busily explaining to millions of kids that holding the profiting company responsible for sharing revenue with content owners will result in shutting down of all popular YouTube channels.
Of course it would.
First it would be impossible to police since a major portion is licensed for streaming already, a minority may not be, and a few definitely are not. So it's absolutely assured that YouTube will be found to be "violating" the new EU content licensing policy in specific instances and pay out-sized penalties in each case leaving little to no profit to pay the licensed creators. The solution will be to severely restrict the ability to upload and share video content from general YouTube members, remove certain channels entirely as being too difficult/time-consuming to regulate , and slow the entire process of approving videos for upload from everyone else.
The Spain solution WILL come into play. Google won't operate the service at a loss.
Paying proper royalties is a good thing and bad on Google for not making it a bigger priority. But even the artist friendly Apple pays far less than a penny per stream. If Google were to employ the most aggressive and careful vetting by both human and machine of each uploaded video, it will still will not ensure YouTube and the massive volume of user uploaded content is totally free of "content licensing" violations. A miss or three is guaranteed since nothing is foolproof, just as $millions in EU authority penalties for each instance of it. That will rapidly make the service untenable for Google,YouTube users, and the content providers.
Google becomes 100% responsible for the conduct of every YouTube user, even for the most innocent wedding or birthday video that has includes some background music. That there will be some folks who intentionally try to hide unlicensed (perhaps even their own) music behind some other video and then complain in order to punish Google with EU penalties is near guaranteed. There are far more "evil" people than there are "evil" corporations. Bad people cannot be stopped.
Bye-bye certain YouTube channels. It's not a lie IMHO.
Comments
BTW, your source for the chart posted an update the next month which you may have missed:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/
FWIW YouTube royalties are paid out in an entirely different manner, generally as a percentage of the ads connected to it, and music that artists/labels don't want streamed is blocked at upload even if background sound within a video stream. Music artists don't rely on Youtube for an income anyway do they, instead use it mostly for promotional purposes with any pay for play a bonus IMHO.
You should also search for information about streaming services. I'll get you going.
"A full 47 percent of global music consumption is now happening on YouTube, according to a new report published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The IFPI’s Music Consumer Insight Report 2018, which takes a look at the state of music consumption across the globe also found that more than half, 52 percent, of on-demand music streaming occurs over video."
But as a German artist, I have a special place in hell where I’d like to see YouTube go, for lying to users about their licensing policies.
For years, they blocked access to thousands of videos, claiming that the GEMA (German rights management and collection agency) hadn’t released the rights — an outright lie. GEMA had disputed the basic licensing model, but they had filed exemplary legal complaints on a total of thirteen songs.
Similar thing in the last few months, where YouTube is agitating young people over the new proposed EU content licensing regulation that puts the responsibility for licensing on the HOST, rather than the uploader.
Rather than admitting that their entire business model is based around screwing over rights holders, they’re busily explaining to millions of kids that holding the profiting company responsible for sharing revenue with content owners will result in shutting down of all popular YouTube channels.
First it would be impossible to police since a major portion is licensed for streaming already, a minority may not be, and a few definitely are not. So it's absolutely assured that YouTube will be found to be "violating" the new EU content licensing policy in specific instances and pay out-sized penalties in each case leaving little to no profit to pay the licensed creators. The solution will be to severely restrict the ability to upload and share video content from general YouTube members, remove certain channels entirely as being too difficult/time-consuming to regulate , and slow the entire process of approving videos for upload from everyone else.
The Spain solution WILL come into play. Google won't operate the service at a loss.
Paying proper royalties is a good thing and bad on Google for not making it a bigger priority. But even the artist friendly Apple pays far less than a penny per stream.
If Google were to employ the most aggressive and careful vetting by both human and machine of each uploaded video, it will still will not ensure YouTube and the massive volume of user uploaded content is totally free of "content licensing" violations. A miss or three is guaranteed since nothing is foolproof, just as $millions in EU authority penalties for each instance of it. That will rapidly make the service untenable for Google,YouTube users, and the content providers.
Google becomes 100% responsible for the conduct of every YouTube user, even for the most innocent wedding or birthday video that has includes some background music. That there will be some folks who intentionally try to hide unlicensed (perhaps even their own) music behind some other video and then complain in order to punish Google with EU penalties is near guaranteed. There are far more "evil" people than there are "evil" corporations. Bad people cannot be stopped.
Bye-bye certain YouTube channels. It's not a lie IMHO.