| |
Celeb News: Taylor explains Apple Music decision
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RomanNavy
Why should we care about the bank accounts of these celebs and their writers/producers.
I'm not gonna join a streaming service i have to pay for period.
I pay for Rihanna's, Nicki's, Drake's and Kanye's music via itunes and that's it.
I barely listen to other artists and when I do I always find a way to do it free.
Taylor is really trying it with me lately.
Idk if it's cuz she's so overexposed or things like this.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you very likely listen to just mainstream artists if you're saying that. Taylor is no god, and Apple is unlikely to change their stance, but indie artists aren't making millions out there.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ijulianv
I think a handful of you are discounting how savvy Taylor is as a businesswoman. She knows what she's talking about or she wouldn't have posted it. This is called politics. It doesn't just play out in the landscape of the government.
Apple is going to have to respond. Taylor has too much influence and attention of the general public for them not to.
|
There is a very slim chance that Apple will respond
Quote:
Originally posted by Lovato
You're gonna be waiting a long time for that.
|
dddd
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 19,016
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ijulianv
Apple is going to have to respond. Taylor has too much influence and attention of the general public for them not to.
|
Sadly they don't. Apple can pay her dust, they're way bigger than her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/9/2012
Posts: 38,050
|
So intelligent! 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by h.u.r.r.i.c.a.n.e
Then they're losing money. I didn't mean to talk about the actual cost of manufacture. Obviously a song doesn't need metal and raw materials but in essence the artists are giving away their property. Same as if Apple have away their iPhone.
An album costs a lot to produce, anyway.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Haus
Umm, labels don't lose money from pirating. Yeah, it's lowered their profits, but most people pirating wouldn't buy the album regardless because people don't value music the way they used to. It isn't like every time someone pirates an album, $10 escapes the label's bank account.
And as it has already been stated, labels will profit more from Apple Music after the trial period not only because they pay more but also because they reach a wider user base. Taylor is the only major artist to be showing opposition so the rest of the music industry obviously doesn't see an issue with it.
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Taylor showing true leadership in the industry. She is sticking up for the smaller artists who are too powerless or afraid to speak up.
Taylor already getting loads of support from new and smaller artists for this. Champion of the songwriters, producers and artists tbh!
Apple has $178 Billion in cash and earlier this year posted the most profitable Quarterly results of any company in history! They can easily afford to pay artists royalties for the 3 months of free trials. They have no moral defence for expecting to stream artists for free for three months, when they are netting $8.3 million in profit every hour!
Taylor will get even more popular within the industry due to this letter!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 19,016
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Caesar
.
|
She's not discussing the paid aspect of it. She's discussing the free trial.
When Apple manufactures an iPhone, they pay for it. They pay for the marketing costs. They pay for research and development. They pay for their Apple Stores where people can try out their items.
They sell the product at a premium to make profit.
When an artist/label creates an album, they have to spend time and money renting studios, buying equipment, paying producers per song upfront (up to six figures for some big names) and more just to get their project off the ground. Then they market their music and spend money on hiring a band, travel expenses, ads, and what not. Then they sell their songs at a premium to make a profit. Not to mention iTunes takes 30% of EACH purchase!
If no one bought iPhones Apple would lose money too. Thankfully it isn't easy to duplicate an iPhone.
Simply because it's easy to duplicate a song doesn't mean it's not essentially similar. If you really want a more solid comparison, think of those cheap throwaway Android phones that borrow features and visual similarities from the iPhone and now Android has a huge market share.  Apple loses money from that so that's why they go to battle in court over patent loyalties and such.
Sounds like Haus is being optimistic too. Apple Music hasn't even been released yet. For all we know people could drop it after the trial.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/18/2012
Posts: 25,853
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Taylor showing true leadership in the industry. She is sticking up for the smaller artists who are too powerless or afraid to speak up.
Taylor already getting loads of support from new and smaller artists for this. Champion of the songwriters, producers and artists tbh!
Apple has $178 Billion in cash and earlier this year posted the most profitable Quarterly results of any company in history! They can easily afford to pay artists royalties for the 3 months of free trials. They have no moral defence for expecting to stream artists for free for three months, when they are netting $8.3 million in profit every hour!
Taylor will get even more popular within the industry due to this letter!
|
Wrong - A smaller act sealing a deal with Apple and having their music put on Apple Music or Spotify would profit them more than not. That's why any smaller acts going on to Apple Music haven't felt the need to speak about anything.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 12,615
|
Quote:
|
This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
|
SCREAMING @ this part because only 1% of new artists/producers/writers get a hit massive enough to make them BE on their first single.
idrc about her reasoning but I'm glad she's not adding her stuff. Music exclusivity will hurt consumers in the future, and that seems to be what Apple is aiming for
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Taylor showing true leadership in the industry. She is sticking up for the smaller artists who are too powerless or afraid to speak up.
Taylor already getting loads of support from new and smaller artists for this. Champion of the songwriters, producers and artists tbh!
Apple has $178 Billion in cash and earlier this year posted the most profitable Quarterly results of any company in history! They can easily afford to pay artists royalties for the 3 months of free trials. They have no moral defence for expecting to stream artists for free for three months, when they are netting $8.3 million in profit every hour!
Taylor will get even more popular within the industry due to this letter!
|
Look, this is not the first time Taylor has done this. She bitched about Spotify last year and totally removed her catalog from it. Spotify pulled the desperate card, because compared to Apple they're tiny, and acted cheesy as hell. She paid them dust. Of course she's not gonna support a company that provides a free tier.
But her catalog is available on Tidal, and will be on AM (sans 1989). That begs the question - if she really is against AM's free trial and supporting indies, why not withhold her entire discography?
It's simple economics. Her album has not gone out of the top 10 since release, nearly a year now. Her label obviously knows this, and so does she. However, saying "guys imma not be on AM cos my album is selling really well on iTunes and I have no reason to go to a service where I'm paid less" would be entirely selfish and she would get a ton of criticism, so she pulls the indie card.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Taylor showing true leadership in the industry. She is sticking up for the smaller artists who are too powerless or afraid to speak up.
Taylor already getting loads of support from new and smaller artists for this. Champion of the songwriters, producers and artists tbh!
Apple has $178 Billion in cash and earlier this year posted the most profitable Quarterly results of any company in history! They can easily afford to pay artists royalties for the 3 months of free trials. They have no moral defence for expecting to stream artists for free for three months, when they are netting $8.3 million in profit every hour!
Taylor will get even more popular within the industry due to this letter!
|
Apple is NOT gonna pay for artists with the profits they majority made from selling their products, all businesses do this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/11/2004
Posts: 28,320
|
I really appreciate her for making such a valid point. She owns every decision around her career at this point, and she's been smart enough for not trying to change the game like Jay-Z and others. However, I still believe that the current streaming services are beneficial to indie artists who need the exposure. The current model should change towards the access to music from well-known artists like her, but I seriously hope there won't be need to subscribe to every music service to access to different sets of music artists.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Luis
I really appreciate her for making such a valid point. She owns every decision around her career at this point, and she's been smart enough for not trying to change the game like Jay-Z and others. However, I still believe that the current streaming services are beneficial to indie artists who need the exposure. The current model should change towards the access to music from well-known artists like her, but I seriously hope there won't be need to subscribe to every music service to access to different sets of music artists.
|
I totally agree with this. To whoever didn't watch Apple's WWDC keynote, basically AM will not just be a streaming service. It's that, plus a 24/7 radio station called Beats 1, plus Connect. Now, Connect is where artists can share anything they want, kinda like they do on Twitter, IG, Tumblr, etc...but all in one place. Apple has tried this with Ping many years ago, and it flopped, but it kinda only works when a streaming service is attached to it.
Now, here's the good part. If you already own Taylor's 1989, or any other album that's not on AM, Apple will match it, upload it to the cloud, and you will be able to stream that alongside Apple's entire streaming catalog from any device (well, Android will come soon enough). You can do this with Spotify currently, but it's more inconvenient, especially on a mobile device. This provides a seamless way to listen to your existing digital library + Apple's catalog, all in one place.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/23/2008
Posts: 4,113
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2014
Posts: 10,805
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Green
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.
|
These are little cute words to hide her real intentions so let not
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack!
Wrong - A smaller act sealing a deal with Apple and having their music put on Apple Music or Spotify would profit them more than not. That's why any smaller acts going on to Apple Music haven't felt the need to speak about anything.
|
And yet twitter is full of smaller artists and songwriters thanking Taylor for speaking up about this issue. Don't be naive. How many smaller artists are gonna be able to speak up on this issue and risk alienating Apple? Now Taylor has, they can add their voices to the debate that will have to now ensue.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2014
Posts: 10,805
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
What's interesting to me is that a majority of artists don't seem to have a problem with the popular streaming services, and those that do(Taylor and the Tidal crew) happen to be millionaires.
 |
EXpose them
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Caesar
Apple is NOT gonna pay for artists with the profits they majority made from selling their products, all businesses do this.
|
All major corporations have products and divisions that are subsidised by others in the short-term. One of Apple Music's strengths is that it will be able to bundle in subscriptions of Apple Music with sales of iPhones and other products.
If Apple Music does not make a profit within 6 months, what do you think will happen? Apple are not gonna can the service. If needed they will subsidise it from sales of iPhones/iPads and from their profitable divisions. If it precisely this ability to afford to operate Apple Music as a loss leader for literally decades, that makes them such a threat to Spotify. Similary Google can subsidise Youtube MusicKey.
Spotify does not have those deep pockets which gives them a major competitive disadvantage over the long term relative to Youtube and Apple Music.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/14/2011
Posts: 14,089
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
