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."
The subscription services are worth about double or triple what I used to spend on music.
The "radio" (hand picked, and automatic), and the music exploration features additionally have value.
I used to spend about $5/month for music (from ages 23 -30 or so, before then it was more, since then, subscription service, also more), I happily pay $10 for the subscription.
It seems unlikely they'll go much lower, unless they cut deals with the cell phone carriers or some such, though I suspect you could be correct, the optimum price could be a little bit lower (or higher too, I'd guess).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
When they say, Apple "refused to pay royalties", they're giving a false impression that Apple is supposed to pay royalties, but they refused. In fact, they negotiated a deal with record labels so that they wouldn't have to pay royalties during their "free trial" period. Customers aren't paying Apple during that period, and Apple isn't going to pay record labels, but that was all negotiated with record labels in advance.
Because they negotiated it in advance. It's not really that Apple "refused to pay royalties", but that they negotiated licensing terms such that they aren't required to pay royalties under specific circumstances.
The summary is poorly worded.