To Apple, Love Taylor • Hacker News Board

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#131

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:28 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #50

mnx wrote: post #11

It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.

This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN. Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months. Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. Three kinds of customers will try the service: People who buy their music: th…

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics.

A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also creating marketing materials online and off. This is all for a usually small time period when a new album will sell. And when streaming (which generally makes them next to nothing) will hit its peak. All these costs are front loaded and then there's a usually short time period where the band hopes to make this money back. During this time, the band is spending additional money and time doing marketing and promotion as well.

Apple's deal is a raw one for these artists as they'll lose a good chunk of revenue during that small time period. And it will leech purchases away from iTunes as well. I can guarantee that Apple will have prominent notices within iTunes about which albums are available on Apple Music and suggest that would-be purchasers sign up.

Plus there's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes if they don't agree to stream for free on Apple Music. And the fact that these artists can't just decide to sell the music themselves on their website to iOS users because, thanks to Apple's carefully-designed walled garden, iOS users can't download music from the web or 3rd party apps and add it to their music library like they can on Android.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#132

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:28 PM UTC

kbrwn wrote: post #26

Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment t…

It's pretty obvious. They are going to take streaming to a whole new level. My dad doesn't know what Spotify is, but has an iPhone and is a couple of clicks away from lighting this service up.

You give away a couple of months, get people hooked and you and reap years of recurring revenues. It's a model that works for drug dealers, razor blade makers (Gilette gives away 5 packs of blades in many schools) and SaaS companies.

I don't really feel too bad for Taylor Swift. She doesn't get a dime from radio airplay as an artist. But she benefits immensely from the marketing and promotional value of having it played.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#133

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

japhyr wrote: post #109

I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

It's the weakest part of her argument though as iPhones have a unit cost whereas digital copies of her music do not.

But I think she is very right to refuse to pay for a scheme that is supposed to increase Apple's market share and not hers.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#134

Post by bedhead » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

What is fundamentally wrong with a model that essentially works as, "You make money when we make money"? Meanwhile, both sides are contributing resources to the trial - musicians the content, Apple the back-end and a gazillion users. Seems like a pretty fair deal with aligned interests. Apple does not have a moral obligation to use this as a loss leader just because they make a lot of money while many musicians don't...this isn't a charity.

Taylor Swift is a blowhard. I'm tired of her holier-than-thou rhetoric that she's just speaking up on half of other musicians. Yeah right...my bs detector is going bonkers. This is about Taylor Swift (and the idiots involved in the laughable TIDAL) maximizing her earnings, which is perfectly fine. But spare me the music industry's equivalent of "won't someone think of the children?!"

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#135

Post by 1stop » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #23

1stop wrote: post #8

So Apple run a loss-leader... where they don't incur the loss, and just get the lead. Scum.

That analogy would apply if the loss got people in the door, but they bought SOMETHING ELSE that ensured profits. For example, in this case if free music got them onto Apple's platform (loss) where they then bought a bunch of apps (unrelated to music and the source of profit). For anyone who doesn't know, a loss leader is something advertised like bread for 50 cents or something, where the store loses money on each a…

That's a specific (but common) use of the loss-leader strategy, but not the definition.

The strategy itself is to sell something at a loss, to get a lead/marketshare/conversion.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#136

Post by themartorana » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

outericky wrote: post #130

Out of curiosity, and on a similar note, is Spotify not paying artists during their "3 months for $0.99 promotional period"? I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent. I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.

With the market cap and war chest they have, it's incredibly disappointing that Apple expects artists to bear the brunt of Apple's business decision.

For every Taylor Swift there are thousands of artists just scraping by (and thousands more hoping to reach "just scraping by.")

I lose a decent amount of respect for Apple with this call. (And Taylor Swift is hardly the first artist to express disappointment and/or outrage at this "decision" by Apple.)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#137

Post by joe5150 » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #67

If you don't need the promotion hold your music off for 3 months. If you do, go for it. Problem solved? Maybe there was some sort exclusivity thing but it doesn't make sense that artists would have to take it or leave it now. Also, someone with her streaming numbers is basically the only kind of artist that would even care. Streaming royalties are really low unless you have really huge numbers so while she stands to…

It's difficult to know for sure but reasonable to assume that at least some of the people streaming for free would have bought the album instead.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#138

Post by ricardobeat » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

ehosca wrote: post #51

does Taylor Swift herself have full autonomy over determining how/when her music can be played?

That is a great question that I'm also curious to hear the answer. She seems to be signed with Universal, how come does she have fine-grained control over her publishing rights unlike most other artists? Or are these actually moves by the labels using her to earn sympathy from the public?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#139

Post by Dwolb » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #50

mnx wrote: post #11

It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.

This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN. Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months. Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. Three kinds of customers will try the service: People who buy their music: th…

I think you haven't quantified the artists' opportunity costs. The idea is a customer may swap a streaming service which pays artists for Apple's streaming service which doesn't pay artists. Therefore artists may be losing money they otherwise would have typically made.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#140

Post by aGuyNamedJonas » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:39 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #132

kbrwn wrote: post #26

Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment t…

It's pretty obvious. They are going to take streaming to a whole new level. My dad doesn't know what Spotify is, but has an iPhone and is a couple of clicks away from lighting this service up. You give away a couple of months, get people hooked and you and reap years of recurring revenues. It's a model that works for drug dealers, razor blade makers (Gilette gives away 5 packs of blades in many schools) and SaaS comp…

Artists who's songs are played on the radio are paid for every time it's played on air. Or did I get your last sentence wrong there?