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

51–60 of 145 posts

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

#51

Post by JohnTHaller »

IBM wrote: post #43
JohnTHaller wrote: post #37

Eddy 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.

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.

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

#52

Post by ghshephard »

balls187 wrote: post #30
pasta_2 wrote: post #10

Spotify is truly fucked if Apple is going to pay during the free trial AND pay higher overall royalties. When the negotiations come up again with Spotify, who is already running increasing losses, things will just get worse.

I've been a spotify premium subscriber for a number of years now, and been happy with it. Apple music seems interesting, and more competition is good, however there isn't much that makes me want to switch just yet. While Apple has a lot of things going for it, SaaS hasn't ever been their strong suit. Spotify's entire business is streaming music. Apple's streaming music service is a small fraction.

I was a Spotify Premium Subscriber, but then canceled when they didn't have Mylo Xyloto. I'm wondering how many top albums missing it will take before Spotify will restrict certain albums to their Paid Tier only.

Regardless, now Spotify is in the crappy situation of Apple having some top albums they don't have, and Apple offering it for free (to subscribers).

You really don't want to get into a $$$ fight with Apple.

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

#53

Post by geofft »

ratfacemcgee wrote: post #46
cwyers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Why is it plausible that Recode and every other news site and Taylor Swift all made this up (or that someone fed this to them) and that Apple did not correct them but instead acted as if they are making a change in policy?

I mean, it's also possible that Eddy Cue's Twitter account was hacked by Taylor Swift, well known infosec thought leader that she is. Why is nobody reporting on the real story here??

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

#54

Post by ghshephard »

plorg wrote: post #44
IBM wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The Major Difference is Apple will not be offering an ongoing free tier to compete against their paid tier. That's got to be attractive to people like Taylor.

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

#55

Post by synaesthesisx »

ghshephard wrote: post #6

The 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…

It's not like Apple is affiliated with Swift or anything....wait...

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

#56

Post by sangnoir »

_asummers wrote: post #36
chinhodado wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work TS, her lawyer, some top guys in Apple and their marketing division? It could very realistically be less than 5 people. I don't say I support the theory, just want to point out that it doesn't take much to write an open letter and then respond to it on Twitter.

Does TS really have to know? I think her outrage would be more believable if she didn't.

How sure are you the outrage is 'hers' in the first place if it was in written form on a blog? Believe me, her tirade was edited, vetted and revised by multiple parties six ways to Sunday. It matters very little if the original author was TS herself.

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

#57

Post by iiiggglll »

ghshephard wrote: post #6

The 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…

That's just silly. Apple doesn't need to do anything like that as they already have millions of captive eyeballs on their iOS devices. As soon as they put a nice big icon on the home screen, they'll have an audience.

Case in point: a mere six months after it launched, iTunes Radio had more listeners than Spotify:

http://www.cnet.com/news/itunes-radio-now-third-most-popular...

Once they unify everything under Beats & iTunes Radio and make it an in-your-face feature of iOS, they'll have all the visibility they need. No reason to engage in some weird false-flag PR campaign like you describe.

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

#58

Post by cwyers »

ratfacemcgee wrote: post #46
cwyers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

From an article that just came out:

http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-s...

> Cue says he talked to Swift today about the change. “I did reach out to Taylor today, and talked to her, and let her know that we heard her concerns, and wanted her to know that we were making changes,” he says. “She was thrilled to hear from us and that we were making the change, and we were grateful for that.”

Why would Apple contact Taylor Swift to let her know they were making changes if they weren't, y'know, making changes?

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

#59

Post by jrs99 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #38
justindocanto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I dont think this was all intentional (see: letter sent to news companies re: news app), lets play devil's advocate. It doesn't require everybody to be in on it to execute this. It only requires one entity and that's apple. Apple pings indie artists they know will get mad. The singer of the brian jonestown massacre is known for his rants. They get a bunch of people pissed off "Free music.. free music..." and…

Also, over at /r/apple it became 'fact' that it would actually be illegal for Apple to have a three month free trial due to anti-competitive behaviour - it could be seen as them using their large cash resources to dump or flood the market to gain an unfair advantage. Wearing my altruistic tin-foil-hat, I would argue that Apple wanted to pay indie artists all along (because it's art and they respect them!), but were a…

that they wouldn't pay artists initially is pretty bad press, to me, at least. Even with the 180, apple doesn't look good here, in my opinion.

swift has a lot of influence on her fans. It's not a minor threat that apple is facing.

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

#60

Post by IBM »

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.

Aren't you forgetting that this was about making sure artists were compensated for their work? That's been now met. Apple isn't going to offer them the same rate they would get when people paid for the service when they aren't just like Spotify doesn't pay premium-tier royalties on their free-tier users.
Post reply on HN