[Azealia Banks]

Originally posted by Doc

This blind, illogical Apple stanning. 😂

But yall were defending Tidal blindly too, so i dont get it.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Vespertine

If Apple Music succeeds with even a portion of the huge iTunes user base, it will make labels far more money than Tidal ever could, even with three free months. You guys are comparing apples and oranges here.

Apple may win over users of other streams, but they will also lose money on downloads for people who choose to stream with them as well.

[liberalmusiclover]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Except the Apple users buying the downloads, will now have an easier time streaming for free. So they won't be buying anything.

They'll have to continuously pay $10 a month (after the free trial) to keep their downloaded Apple Music tracks and to continue to stream.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by liberalmusiclover

They'll make more money from iTunes sales than streaming downloads. So that's even more of a win for labels if that is the case.

If I can stream a song from Apple for $10 a month why would I head to the Itunes store to buy that very same song?

[Azealia Banks]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Apple may win over users of other streams, but they will also lose money on downloads for people who choose to stream with them as well.

But it's better for them to be losing potential sells on their own streaming service, than loosing sells from people using Spotify or other streaming services.

[Outlaws]

If this was some atrocious thing, then Gaga would not have accepted to be a part of it.

[Azealia Banks]

Originally posted by AHemsworth

If I can stream a song from Apple for $10 a month why would I head to the Itunes store to buy that very same song?

For the same reason you spend the money while streaming on spotify/tidal/rdio lol

[rl231]

I feel like Spotify did the same thing when they had people do free trials too, but I might be wrong

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by liberalmusiclover

They'll have to continuously pay $10 a month (after the free trial) to keep their downloaded Apple Music tracks and to continue to stream.

They were plenty of users paying more than $10 bucks a month to download songs, and now they will no longer do so. That's literally less than the costs of one album. Now that price is monthly max for all users. The most you can get from a consumer now is $120 bucks a year, and plenty of people spent more than that.

[Buddy!]

Originally posted by Superpower

Now she needs to release something to put her money where her mouth is.

d; She'll be fine. As will Drake (?) and the rest of the artists affiliated with Apple Music.

[MrBeyonceFan]

Originally posted by Phoenixx

TIDAL really can't catch a break. Even Apple are gonna do them better than they could ever do themselves.

TIDAL ? Apple is the one not paying labels. Tidal did pay the labels.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by Azealia Banks

For the same reason you spend the money while streaming on spotify/tidal/rdio lol

I haven't bought a song since I've had Spotify in over a year...

What's the point? I have the app on my phone, laptop, Ipad. So again, why would I purchase a song I have access to through a streaming app for $10 a month? Because your answer made no sense.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Azealia Banks

But it's better for them to be losing potential sells on their own streaming service, than loosing sells from people using Spotify or other streaming services.

Originally posted by Azealia Banks

For the same reason you spend the money while streaming on spotify/tidal/rdio lol

Your comments make no sense. Lost of people paid $10 bucks to stream, plus buying to own. If people choose to move from other streamers to Apple, they now only need to stream. The labels and artists lose more money over all.

[cloudinthesky]

Originally posted by Superpower

Yes it is but it's not fair to the artists. Basically people will be streaming their songs (not buying) for 3 months for free. Not a good deal for labels and artists.

Originally posted by lousaysthings

I love the amount of justification in here just because it's Apple. If TIDAL had done this, y'all would've scalped them.

All of this. And mess @ the ones in here defending this when you should be sticking up for your faves, instead of these tech companies and record labels that don't give two ***** about you. You all know good and well Apple has more than enough money to pay out during the trial period, they're one of the richest companies in the world. And yall wanna jump on Taylor and Tidal for being "greedy". None of these streaming services are in it to help the artist or the consumer. They're companies, they just want to protect their bottom line, and it's foolish to think otherwise.

[Doc]

Originally posted by Jety92

If this was some atrocious thing, then Gaga would not have accepted to be a part of it.

Gyal Gagas just tryna get her Drake check, she didn't read the fine print on page 89. 😂

[QueenBLadyG]

Originally posted by MrBeyonceFan

TIDAL ? Apple is the one not paying labels. Tidal did pay the labels.

The obsession with Tidal is seriously disgusting.

---

This is despicable. Really Apple?

[Vespertine]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Apple may win over users of other streams, but they will also lose money on downloads for people who choose to stream with them as well.

Album and single sales are continuing to decline. Streaming is (whether we like it or not) the way most music will be consumed eventually. In the short term they could make less money from streaming, but in the long term it's smarter to build a big streaming user base (and not lose them to Spotify).

Originally posted by vuelve88

I can't imagine any label releasing a major album during this 3 month period. That would basically be sabotage for the artist and label.

I think withholding major releases from streaming services for a few months will become the norm

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Your comments make no sense. Lost of people paid $10 bucks to stream, plus buying to own. If people choose to move from other streamers to Apple, they now only need to stream. The labels and artists lose more money over all.

Exactly. I don't know one person who PAYS to stream monthly and then turns around and BUYS what they're already paying to stream. And people who do that aren't using their heads properly.

With Apple Music, if the app is accessible on every Apply product, and why wouldn't it be, why buy from the Itunes store period? You're already putting money down for unlimited music and streams on all your devices. Essentially I would think the user Itunes library would become obsolete.

[cloudinthesky]

Originally posted by Vespertine

I think withholding major releases from streaming services for a few months will become the norm

This. Windowing will become commonplace in the next year, bookmark me. Exclusive releases and windowed releases for premium streaming members (spotify premium, google play, tidal, come to mind). The artists have to make money somehow and since streaming is not a viable option, they're going to have to come down hard on early listeners and premium users.

[MrBeyonceFan]

@digitalmusicnws: Breaking: Apple Music Faces Gov’t Investigation Over Ruthless Negotiation Tactics… http://t.co/jJDTCHKoUg

Mess