Slashdot Mirror
Apple Will Pay More To Streaming Music Producers Than Spotify -- But Not Yet
Reader journovampire supplies a link to Music Business Worldwide (based on a re/code report) that says Apple's new Apple Music service, after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties, is expected to pay a bit more than 70 percent of its subscription revenue out to the companies supplying it, rather than the 58 percent that some in the music industry had feared. Notes journovampire: "If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now."
Suppose a subscriber does not listen to any music for one month and still pays $9.99. How will Apple distribute the 70-80% proceeds of the $9.99 to the copyright holders?
Between family share plans, people who have multiple devices, and people who have zero interest in apples streaming platform, there is no way they will get a 13% paid subscription rate.
Reader journovampire supplies a link to Music Business Worldwide (based on a re/code report) that says Apple's new Apple Music service, after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties, is expected to pay a bit more than 70 percent of its subscription revenue out to the companies supplying it, rather than the 58 percent that some in the music industry had feared.
If you believe this then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. It has never been Apple's business model to pay reasonable amounts to content providers. Just talk to almost any independent Apple developer. AND just because Apple "might", "sometime in the future", dribble some cash out to "the companies supplying it" does not mean that the actual authors of the music will get a penny.
Maybe I'm just not "getting it" but I'm trying to see what the value added is in this service. I already have Amazon Prime and with it I get a nice free music service that does a good enough job. Do they have artists no one else has?
there'd be no need for tinkers
Korma: Good
I refuse to pay for any service that rewards the scum that is the record industry. Free services only for me or my own music ripped off of used CD's.
I am the record industry's worst nightmare, someone that buys CD's but only second hand. It's the best way to steal from them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Copying is the highest complement that can be offered. And, in usual Apple style, they will polish it, reach many more customers and profit. And, since iTunes is available on other platforms, expect this service to go there also.
Let's just hope the artists truly benefit.
Continuing to pay more and more to music producers, not artists, incentivizes content mills. Nowhere is this more obvious than American pop music and radio. the same 5 songs are played, 15 times a week, for 3 months in a concerted effort to sell a product or vision. that vision once packaged is then augmented slightly and cloned to other artists. themes of independence, individuality, triumph, and scandal therefore become omnipresent themes in every artist from pitbull to kesha. artists no longer write their own songs or compose their own melodies; they are merely a delivery vehicle for revenue.
Producers realize Apple and Spotify will eventually cast them aside like so much chaff, and in an effort to ensure continued revenue now perform tie-ins to markets and products. LMFAO, Pitbull, and several rap artists have found themselves opining for various branded liquor and apparel despite their personal convictions. older artists are in turn being repackaged for sale to advertisement firms, political campaigns, soft drink companies and films in order to continue generating revenue for producers. John Legend hasnt done anything meaningful in 2 years, for example, yet he still managed to show up on the Django: unchained soundtrack without pay im certain.
Producers will eventually exhaust their creative pool of old brands, having disenfranchised the majority of them into either creative commons licenses or retirement with periodic litigation.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Since they're mainly going to be streaming popular music, there will be no artistry involved whatsoever. This is just another branch in the money tree that is manufactured entertainment. Art doesn't get created in a board room by men in suits who decide what color lipstick the current music whore is going to where.
Tim promises.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Seriously, who cares? Poor starving artists don't get paid? Then they should sign for better royalty rates. Spotify/apple/pandora does not set the rates which artists get paid. That's all up to the record labels and the artists who have contracts. There's the whole other mess associated with the government approved collection agencies which only gives money to member artists. If you create something and it's played seldomly and it's not part of any big label, then fat chance you'll see even a penny.
The idea isn't to give starving artists any extra money, it's to give the copyright holders even more cash through streaming.
Except that it works on android as well. You're uninformed
>> ... a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties...
How, exactly, did they get away with millions of unpaid plays that at the same time we're reading a story about the royalty police going after a mom-and-pop restaurant for a song or two?
"If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now."
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?
$3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.
I stole this Sig
Why pay $10 for apple music, which is streaming, cannot use offline, when Netflix is only $8?
Price seems excessive.
" after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties"
My understanding is that they're not refusing. They are in fact paying 12,000% royalties during the free trial period.
If they refuse to pay royalties then how can they legally provide the music?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
welfare
I think choosing any Apple service depends a lot on how Apple are you? If you have many Apple devices it probably makes sense to stay in Apple's services.
Because everything just works, or at least is supposed to work better. Even when Apple introduces a Android app for its music service. I have no doubt it will be less then a total mirror image of what is available on a Apple device. Hence the somewhat broken and hugely bloated iTunes on a Windows PC. I never felt Apple could do any Windows app well and have had plenty of experience. From BootCamp to iTunes to iCloud. Spotify also offers a free offering which i'll bet many people especially those younger who enjoy music but dont feel like paying for music. After all, many young people have forced this streaming and subscription plan because they don't buy complete albums or even songs.
Just wait till Apple tries to deny other streaming apps for "duplicating functionality".
The giant cock makes up for it though.
Anybody know how much Google forks over for All Access subscribers?
Back in the Napster days, a flat license of something like 2+ Billion dollars was offered to get this same sort of thing started...
Blogging because I can...
This time it's Tidal, the streaming service built by Jay Z, Madonna, and other artists who want a "fair share" of the streaming music pie. Their business model is incredible: offer the same crap music they've been donig for ages, in supposedly hifi quality (polished turd analogy goes here) for twice the price of Spotify.
First, Tidal wasn't built by Jay Z, Madonna etc. . It started out as a Norwegian company WIMP, and was bought by Jay Z.
Second, they do have a tier with the same quality as Spotify for the same price. They also offer lossless quality tier, which I've subscribed to since it launched with wimp here in Norway. I love the service and the quality, and I just hope the new owners won't ruin it. Exclusive music isn't exactly what I want as a new trend...
"If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now." --Apple will be lucky to have 1% of its entire user base sign up for this service. You have to consider that 13% of all iOS users include lot of people with multiple devices, such as personal and work iPhones, iPad and per Apple policy you can have authorize up to 5 devices in your family to use your paid apps and I would imagine Apple Music to have same sort of agreement. Still we are talking big numbers.
what about paying the artists more and not letting labels take most of it?
Right, because real art can't be popular.
Fuck off back to whatever hell spawned you, hipster.
How nice for them. They've "refused to pay royalties".
And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you make music and want to sell it? Use Bandcamp.
Do you listen to music and want to buy it? Use Bandcamp.
Do you want to listen to some music to see if you want to buy it? Use Bandcamp.
Just a happy customer.
For every song you do not buy I am going to buy two! I do not even LIKE the music.
I figure 2*0 = 0. We should both be good.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I don't even want to guess.
Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.
They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.
In my opionion, Tidal has better playlists (nice, curated ones with descriptions etc) and better sound quality (lossless). Spotify has better hardware support (Spotify connect), better autogenerators (E.g. make a radio based on a playlist) and is widely integrated (shazam, PS4, runkeeper etc).
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
I've looked Tidal over and it just hasn't convinced me yet.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
That's one of the things Apple Music is probably going to be good at. It already has Apple Match, so not integrating with your own library would be stupid. That would fill out the holes, and hopefully it also allows Apple not to pay artists whose music you already own - thus leaving more for the artists providing music you haven't already paid for. The shouldn't be a need to pay twice.