"Pay artists" has a lot of room for interpretation. What does that mean? (I work at Pandora, so I see this as an overly simple response.)
“AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
41–50 of 145 posts
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#42[deleted]
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 standard, in part to account for the lengthy trial period; most paid subscription services offer a free one-month trial."
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#43Eddy Cue clarified that artists will not be paid at the streaming rate they are paid during users paid memberships. They will be paid at a different rate that isn't being disclosed: http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-s... Also: "Cue says Apple will keep the existing royalty rates it has already hammered out with the three major music labels for subscribers."
That's during the free trial period. The higher rates remain once people are paid subscribers.
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#44Does anyone has numbers on Apple Music royalties? how do they fare against Spotify, Rdio and the like?
They're higher at 71.5% in the US and 73% in the rest of the world. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a...
I'm honestly surprised it's that low. I know the difference is supposed to be that Apple Music accounts will all be 'paying'. But if they're only paying out low-single-digit higher rates than Spotify, I don't see how it's supposed to be meaningfully different than Spotify Premium or Tidal, except that people paying for Spotify/Tidal through iDevices are paying $13/month instead of $10, and $3 is still going to Apple.
And that actually makes the previous stiffing of artists an even more raw deal. I had read elsewhere that the rate was rumored to be closer to 90%, and at that rate it would take about a 10 months of someone subscribing to Apple Music to pay out higher than Spotify Premium, which pays out at roughly 70% (considering 3 unpaid months).
If you make the same comparison with Apple Music at 73% and 3 months free/unpaid trial, Spotify at 70% and 1 month, it would take more than 4 years before Apple paid out more. If you think you'll subscribe to either for more than 4 years and you care about the artists, it might be worth it. But it's going to take a long time.
If that payout number is correct, a conscientious consumer might as well subscribe to Tidal (who pays out at a similar 70% rate), because they'd at least get access to higher-quality tracks and the artists aren't getting payed significantly more or less.
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#45Well look at that - good on Apple for correcting course and doing the right thing.
[deleted]
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#46[deleted]
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 standard, in part to account for the lengthy trial period; most paid subs…
but did Apple ever say that? posting text from an article doesn't mean jack shit. Show me where Apple themselves said "We will not pay you during the free trial".
the ONLY thing i can find is: http://beggars.com/group/pressrelease/90/with-regards-to-app...
which says: > In many ways the deal structure is very progressive, but unfortunately it was created without reference to us, or as far as we know any independents...
>At the moment we do not have an agreement with Apple Music that would allow us to participate in the new service.
so what does that mean? does it mean they are upset because they won't be getting paid, or does it mean that they are upset because their content won't be on the new service?
the above article was cited in
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/independent-labels-refuse-...
that claimed:
>The group’s main problem is with the three-month free trial Apple is offering to users when it launches on June 30. During that time, artists won’t be paid anything when their music is played on the platform.
however, the blog post they cite doesn't at all say that. it says they won't be a part of the new service.
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
By your logic: non-disclosure/secrecy agreements would never work either.
Do they work? I'm thinking out loud, but I see two types of case:
1. People care enough about what's being kept secret, e.g. the Apple Watch. As a result, it leaks and the agreement didn't work.
2. People don't actually care about what's being kept secret because it's really boring, e.g. almost every corporate agreement. So yeah, nobody talks, but that's because nobody cares.
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this analysis just seems right. They sign a deal with TS, get her to be "outraged" then Apple does a 180 and then says it will pay the artists. TS looks good and Apple gets a shitload of free press for their new music service. I feel dumber everyday I don't see this stuff happening.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
> think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large.
a) Successful secrecy of new product development at Apple
b) Snowden revelations
c) Other things that we don't know about because people can keep their mouths shut
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#49"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free" - What a capitalist.
Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”
#50The extraordinarily cynical side of me wonders if this is all just a massive co-branding PR exercise to dominate the news cycle with "Taylor Swift", "Apple", "Free Music", "Apple Music." Highly unlikely because it's not the type of underhanded marketing that Apple engages in, but man - All I've been reading about, seeing in my twitter feed, is talk about the 90 Day free Music Trial with Apple coming up. This has been…
They even named their new programming language after Taylor as a co-promotional ruse. Wake up sheeple!!1