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

111–120 of 145 posts

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

#111

Post by culturestate »

pluma wrote: post #99
culturestate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

They're licensing the music. Whether they make any revenue or not doesn't matter. You can't hand out other people's stuff for free and then refuse to pay anything because you didn't make any money from it. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks the current copyright system is incredibly broken.

I mentioned that only to illustrate why they'll likely be paying a flat fee during the trial, rather than a percentage of the (non-existent) revenue.

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

#112

Post by ruipgil »

batmanthehorse wrote: post #15

First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.

Pretty much every other streaming service, except spotify, has the album available. No exclusive here.

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

#113

Post by bedhead »

pluma wrote: post #99
culturestate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

They're licensing the music. Whether they make any revenue or not doesn't matter. You can't hand out other people's stuff for free and then refuse to pay anything because you didn't make any money from it. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks the current copyright system is incredibly broken.

They are not handing out music for free. They incur costs, such as IT costs, marketing costs, plus the costs of having amassed hundred of millions of users. You could just as easily turn your argument around: the musicians incur zero costs for putting their music on Apple Music.

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

#114

Post by bedhead »

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are largely irrelevant, especially during a mere three month window.

It's obvious that Taylor Swift was motivated by one thing and one thing only: maximizing her own revenue. That's it...and that's fine. But I cannot stand her disingenuous "won't someone think of the children?!" nonsense. It's like LeBron James publicly pleading for the NBA to share more of its revenue so that the younger players can be better off in retirement, while leaving out the fact that he'll personally take 90% of any incremental revenue. Taylor Swift seemed so concerned about other people, but I sure don't see her offering a pay cut or anything. Instead she successfully guilted Apple into paying because they've got a ton of money. Pathetic.

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

#115

Post by simonh »

bedhead wrote: post #114

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are larg…

If the deal were considered in isolation you might have a point, but you need to consider the competitive landscape and why Apple wants to offer the 3 month free trial. (I don't agree with your being down-voted, you're posting a valid oppinion, just one I happen not to agree with).

Apple is offering a 3 month free trial in order to win market share for their service from the established streaming services. Doing that benefits Apple but does not benefits artists.

Say I'm a Spotify subscriber. I cancel my Spotify service and switch to the Apple service. Artists suffer a 3 month gap in revenue during which they're not being paid either by Spotify or Apple for my listending to their music. The only people who really benefit are Apple who now get a split of the revenue instead of spotify, and the only people who really lose out are the artists who lost 3 months pay.

There's no reason artists should have to forgoe revenue in order to benefit Apple in that way.

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

#116

Post by JohnTHaller »

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.

It was a typo meant to be "worth noting". Many people have bandied about Apple's "higher rate" than Spotify, but the difference is likely to be only one hundredth of a cent per stream. Apple will pay out 71.5% of their $9.99 fee vs the 70% that Spotify does. An extra $0.15 a month per subscriber divided by all streams works out to about one hundredth of a cent per stream difference. So, a popular artist's paycheck for millions of plays of their song would be $10,200 vs $10,000 using the typical average streaming payout of a little over 1/2 a cent per play.

Plus, there's the fact that Apple Music will cannibalize a lot more iTunes sales than Spotify does.

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

#117

Post by bedhead »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #34
batmanthehorse wrote: post #15

First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.

If she's smart, she'll still hold out. 1/2 a cent per play won't add up to anywhere near as much as her sales are. Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.

Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the public face of abolishing the estate tax. Do you think it's a coincidence that TIDAL, the streaming service that was supposed to revolutionize the business, only had the world's wealthiest artists on stage during its unveiling?

This is about a handful of artists grabbing a little more money, period.

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

#118

Post by nalsh »

bedhead wrote: post #114

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are larg…

I'm trying to understand why you think it's bad that Taylor Swift tries to maximize her own revenue, but it's fine that Apple does the same, using her likeness and music to do so.

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

#119

Post by robgibbons »

bedhead wrote: post #117
JohnTHaller wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she's smart, she'll still hold out. 1/2 a cent per play won't add up to anywhere near as much as her sales are. Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.

Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the publi…

And yet it's not OK to question Apple for doing the same? Every decision they make is about gaining more power and money. More influence. More market. All they care about is money, and they don't give two shits about the little guys. Personally, I don't care about T. Swift, but I'm glad she used her fame to combat Apple's power grab.

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

#120

Post by bedhead »

simonh wrote: post #115
bedhead wrote: post #114

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are larg…

If the deal were considered in isolation you might have a point, but you need to consider the competitive landscape and why Apple wants to offer the 3 month free trial. (I don't agree with your being down-voted, you're posting a valid oppinion, just one I happen not to agree with). Apple is offering a 3 month free trial in order to win market share for their service from the established streaming services. Doing that…

You are talking about a three month gap for a small minority of users, who will then become paying subs for presumably many years, locked in to the world's most powerful ecosystem, at HIGHER royalty rates, with a company that is insanely well-funded and will promote the hell out of it. This is a bad thing???

There is give and take to every deal. Telling artists, "you make money when we make money" is perfectly, 100% reasonable, especially considering each side was bringing important things to the table.

Post reply on HN