Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#61

Post by culturestate »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #51
IBM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's during the free trial period. The higher rates remain once people are paid subscribers.

Right. But the trial could be significantly lower. They're not saying. It's worth nothing that by "higher rates" we are talking about a hundredth of a cent per stream.

I'm sure the new trial rates will be broadly similar to Spotify's per-stream rates, which average[1] between $0.006 and $0.0084. Apple Music has no advertising; you can't pay a percentage of revenue that doesn't exist.

1. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#62

Post by gpickett00 »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #51
IBM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's during the free trial period. The higher rates remain once people are paid subscribers.

Right. But the trial could be significantly lower. They're not saying. It's worth nothing that by "higher rates" we are talking about a hundredth of a cent per stream.

Why is that "worth noting"? Is that an unfair rate? If so, what is fair? Your implication is that "about a hundreth of a cent" per stream is not fair.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#63

Post by hellgas00 »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #32
jen729w wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.…

Occam's Razor, man… the problem with conspiracy theories is that they require everything to work flawlessly and EVERYONE to keep their mouths shut. nonsense.

NSA was spying on people for years before it was made public, tens of thousands of people had managed to keep their mouths shut. Collusion is a thing that happens all of the time, and considering the money involved its bound to happen again.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#64

Post by danoprey »

gpickett00 wrote: post #62
JohnTHaller wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. But the trial could be significantly lower. They're not saying. It's worth nothing that by "higher rates" we are talking about a hundredth of a cent per stream.

Why is that "worth noting"? Is that an unfair rate? If so, what is fair? Your implication is that "about a hundreth of a cent" per stream is not fair.

I think it was a typo and meant to be "worth noting"

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#65

Post by interpol_p »

mistermann wrote: post #48
jen729w wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.…

> 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 mout…

> a) Successful secrecy of new product development at Apple

Now days pretty much every Apple product leaks in some way prior to announcement. From manufacturing CAD schematics to actual hardware prototypes.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#66

Post by icebraining »

hellgas00 wrote: post #63
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's Razor, man… the problem with conspiracy theories is that they require everything to work flawlessly and EVERYONE to keep their mouths shut. nonsense.

NSA was spying on people for years before it was made public, tens of thousands of people had managed to keep their mouths shut. Collusion is a thing that happens all of the time, and considering the money involved its bound to happen again.

No, it wasn't. In fact, many of us were surprised at the outrage of people around here, since we thought it was common knowledge. Even the European Parliament had issued a report back in 2000 about the widespread communications/internet spying. See ECHELON.

See also Mark Klein's denouncement of their AT&T spying, which prompted a lawsuit by the EFF back in 2006, charging them with having created an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance".

There had been plenty of leaks over the years.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#67

Post by KevanM »

jen729w wrote: post #20
socrates1998 wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.…

You only need three people to form a conspiracy; two people to conspire against a third party. Tim, Taylor and the public.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#68

Post by SG- »

ekianjo wrote: post #7

> Apple will always make sure Artists are Paid You mean, except until yesterday where your plans said otherwise ? :)

Unless they always intended to pay them from the beginning and Taylor Swift (or her managers) jumped to conclusions.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#69

Post by MCRed »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #51
IBM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's during the free trial period. The higher rates remain once people are paid subscribers.

Right. But the trial could be significantly lower. They're not saying. It's worth nothing that by "higher rates" we are talking about a hundredth of a cent per stream.

Yep. And it appears that the Artists, like the music industry, really don't get that things have changed.

Hey, I'm old school. I can identify with them. I like to buy my music. I don't get subscriptions where if I stop playing I can't listen to anything.... but I find myself listening to podcasts-- 2 hour long podcast of EDM. My favorite one has several YEARS of podcasts and despite skipping months at a time I'm still over a year behind. I'm not paying them anything[1], they're not paying the artists anything (it's meant for promotion more than anything else.)

I did buy an album once.

So, even though my habits are different the industry has changed.

Apple is progressive. The whole point of the free trial is to get people addicted to the service. In the long run Taylor Swift will make more money from a free trial than if Apple offered the service without a free trial-- because more people will sign up and ultimately end up with royalties going to Taylor.

I think it's hilarious that Apple is (as ever, of course) portrayed as the bogeyman for trying to market a service that will make the artists more money.

Just like they are constantly derided for taking %30 of revenue (which is a huge improvement over the often %95 and worse terms that you had to accept before the iPhone came out).

Things have changed. I'll try this service and see if it changes my habits. If Tayler didn't make out from it in 6 months then go ahead, complain away and have some data to back it up.

But making a big to do about it now is kinda silly. Like people being mad that Apple gave them a free U2 album. Sure they handled it clunky and If they do it again I'm sure they will be better. But OH! Apple gave me free music! #FirstWorldProblems

[1] near as I can tell, it's a record label that puts out the podcast and I think it's their artists they're putting in it.

Post reply on HN