IrishRhodesianKiwi
About
- Username
- IrishRhodesianKiwi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 6
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 1
Reactions
-
Apple Music pays artists a penny per stream, double that of Spotify
The problem Apple’s streaming service has with attracting mote subscribers to compete with Spotify, appears to me to be that, unlike Spotify, Apple Music wants to access my existing music library and replace it with their own versions. Ostensibly replacing poor quality compressed versions with a higher quality version. But in practice Apple Music simply messed up my music collection by confusing versions, messing up album names and artwork and simply removing songs it or artists it didn’t recognise. I loved the streaming service but it was a disaster for my existing library. Took me ages to fix. So unless they offer a simple streaming service like Spotify, without simultaneously trying to manage my existing music library, I won’t be subscribing. Does anyone know if they have fixed that problem?AppleZulu said:
1. Apple Records is the Beatles' label, created back in the 60s. They're not giving that up, which was made clear in litigation that had to be hammered out back when Apple computers first started entering the music arena and therefore potentially treading on the Beatles' trademark.Beats said:blastdoor said:It's such a shame that apple could not have done with TV/movies what they did with music.
That is, access to almost ALL content at a reasonable price for users and fair payment to creators, with Apple doing a tad better than break even on the service, viewing it mostly as a means of attaching folks to the ecosystem. That would be so much better than all of these separate services.When Apple Music launched I thought they would create an Apple Records for artists. This would have worked if they can pay the artists more on their platform.
I thought this would happen because Jimmy and Dre were employed. They are known for creating big artists and huge labels.
2. Apple Music launched as the streaming service version of iTunes, which is a store that carries music from all major labels, plus independents. There's not much reason for them to create their own vanity record label to compete with all that. They could perhaps have tried to grab some major artists for exclusive distribution rights, but that would sour deals they need to make with other major labels for the overall streaming service. There's too much conflict of interest built into trying to do both things, which would make the whole operation less competitive.
