251–260 of 534 posts
Apple made their response to this a few days ago in this Recode article. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a... >Apple won’t pay music owners anything for the songs that are streamed during Apple Music’s three-month trial period, a bone of contention with music labels during negotiations for the new service. But Kondrk says Apple’s payouts are a few percentage points higher than the industry…
Couple of thoughts here: 1) If you're an indie artist and you can afford to opt-out of Apple Music on principle, then clearly you can afford to opt-in for the three free months. Either way you're not making money from Apple Music. If you opt-in, you make more money in the long-term. If you opt-out, you continue to earn from your current streaming and downloads. 2) If you think that Apple Music will be so earth-shatte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.
So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.
Apple made their response to this a few days ago in this Recode article. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a... >Apple won’t pay music owners anything for the songs that are streamed during Apple Music’s three-month trial period, a bone of contention with music labels during negotiations for the new service. But Kondrk says Apple’s payouts are a few percentage points higher than the industry…
1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...
[ now picture me killing myself by slitting my throat with an Air ]
3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.
From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists. Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own…
It's not about avoiding paying any US taxes, it's about avoiding paying US taxes on earnings abroad. This is why so many Americans living abroad are giving up their US citizenship. I'm a Brit living in London and I know several American born friends that have become British citizens to avoid paying both UK and US taxes on their earnings. In fact the current mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is Anglo_America and even though he has never lived or worked in the USA, because he had US citizenship the IRS hit him with a massive tax bill on his lifetime earnings in the UK. On what possible basis could anyone consider that appropriate? He promptly gave up his US citizenship.
The US Government's attitude to earnings abroad is IMHO utterly reprehensible. I'm not aware of any other country that does this. I'm not a US citizen but I do work for a US owned company.
For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…
It's hard because music you can actually track how many people are listening to what songs and how much of the song they listen to and compensate accordingly. If they were able to track how often a person used an app then I don't think that would be too bad except for extremely niche apps which are usually enterprise already. I would take a smaller payment if I got paid $0.01 for three minutes my app was open on a ph…
For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…
But what if you had just ditched Android (i.e. Spotify) last year after publicly complaining about its usurious terms?
On one hand, the music industry tries to get higher revenue on every front but then agrees to something that has essentially one goal in mind, to kill off any competitive streaming market, which will eventually lead to them being solely dependent on Apple. Interestingly enough, all major labels have stake in Spotify (not sure about the exact number but around 20-30% in total). Why do they now apply different rules, I don't know.
Unless of course Apple demanded not to pay any royalties, in which case the music industry is really hopeless (again). The cry for "we love you Apple but pretty please, we gave you all our music, would you mind paying us" just confirms that. They feel being robbed in an era for which they've been long overdue with a business model, don't know what to do, and look up to big brother to save them.
I love Apple's products, their marketing is brilliant, and they cleverly use all their power to make the most money out of anything. But they're getting more and more hungry and arrogant every year. Microsoft, anyone?