The catalogue will probably be better, but unless they offer a student price then I'm sticking with Spotify.
WWDC 2015
- Thread starter traveyb
- Start date
The catalogue will probably be better, but unless they offer a student price then I'm sticking with Spotify.
From what I've read, yes it is is. iTunes Match and Apple Music are going to remain two separate services.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Got a link?
Thanks!
Do we have any idea how Apple Music will work with vehicles that are designed to work with iPods / iPhones? My MINI had an iPod connection, I'm assuming the music library (whether owned or from part of a subscription) will be seen by the car the same?
I'm thinking the same, not sure if they'll do it though. I have found a few songs where i've had to add from my library as I can't "play it in my country", which are all there on iTunes.
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
Taylor Swift has now penned an open letter criticising Apples decision to not pay artists during the 3 month Apple Music trial.
Rightly so, too. I couldn't believe it when I heard that they don't want to pay artists during this time.
If they want to play catchup to the streaming industry with their own product and get users on board with a free trial then they should eat the costs over that 3 month period to get subscribers, not swindle the artists out of a paycheck.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/21/taylor-swift-apple-music/
Taylor Swift has now penned an open letter criticising Apples decision to not pay artists during the 3 month Apple Music trial.
Rightly so, too. I couldn't believe it when I heard that they don't want to pay artists during this time.
If they want to play catchup to the streaming industry with their own product and get users on board with a free trial then they should eat the costs over that 3 month period to get subscribers, not swindle the artists out of a paycheck.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/21/taylor-swift-apple-music/
On the flip side - Loss leader for the artists, with the largest company in the world, with a heck of a lot of devices out there to play said music on. Apple are covering the costs by implementing the system to deliver the service (of course this will be re-couped quickly).
Do I agree with TS, yes, but only on the side of smaller artists. If artists disagree to the apple POV, then there are other streaming services they can use to promote their music... As with many apple things, if you don't like it, you can go else where. If artists feel they are missing out by not going with apple... then I raise my original point - loss leader.
Do I agree with TS, yes, but only on the side of smaller artists. If artists disagree to the apple POV, then there are other streaming services they can use to promote their music... As with many apple things, if you don't like it, you can go else where. If artists feel they are missing out by not going with apple... then I raise my original point - loss leader.
The smaller artists will need to realise albums are there to promote their music and not necessarily to make money. The vast majority of artists are not making big money on their music but are still producing it for the love of music itself. The only people Taylor Swift is hurting are her fans.
The service is no good if it only has tracks from artists in the top 40. That's what the problem was with the initial streaming offerings years ago. Yeah, it has a few artists on it - but not necessarily all of the ones you want.
For a streaming service to be successful it needs to have pretty much everything a customer wants on it in order for them to pay for it.
The big artists aren't the ones that are going to hurt from the 3 months without pay. It's the smaller ones who have bills to pay that are. It's been widely reported for quite a while that artists receive peanuts from streaming royalties. So instead of one of the richest companies in the world with billions in the bank eating this 'relatively' small cost to promote their new untested service in order to gain market share, they decide to stiff the artists that they want to hop on board and evangelise the service?
You think Apple aren't going to make that money back in order of magnitudes from subscription fees if the free trial works taking their substantial cut?
Artists can't make music forever out of love itself. They need to get paid too, they have bills to pay. Taylor Swift's fans have proved themselves devoted enough to buy her albums outright online without streaming. I can't remember the exact details, but I'm pretty sure her last album was only released to buy, not stream, and it sold in record numbers. She is the exception, most artists don't have that loyal a following.
Apple needs the artists on boards as much as they need Apple.
I don't know, it's just feels off to me that Apple have approached it in this way. If they want to pull a 3 months free publicity stunt to steal away subscribers from other streaming services, they shouldn't do it to the detriment of the income of the artists they're trying to 'help'.
For a streaming service to be successful it needs to have pretty much everything a customer wants on it in order for them to pay for it.
The big artists aren't the ones that are going to hurt from the 3 months without pay. It's the smaller ones who have bills to pay that are. It's been widely reported for quite a while that artists receive peanuts from streaming royalties. So instead of one of the richest companies in the world with billions in the bank eating this 'relatively' small cost to promote their new untested service in order to gain market share, they decide to stiff the artists that they want to hop on board and evangelise the service?
You think Apple aren't going to make that money back in order of magnitudes from subscription fees if the free trial works taking their substantial cut?
Artists can't make music forever out of love itself. They need to get paid too, they have bills to pay. Taylor Swift's fans have proved themselves devoted enough to buy her albums outright online without streaming. I can't remember the exact details, but I'm pretty sure her last album was only released to buy, not stream, and it sold in record numbers. She is the exception, most artists don't have that loyal a following.
Apple needs the artists on boards as much as they need Apple.
I don't know, it's just feels off to me that Apple have approached it in this way. If they want to pull a 3 months free publicity stunt to steal away subscribers from other streaming services, they shouldn't do it to the detriment of the income of the artists they're trying to 'help'.
Last edited:
She's such a hypercrit - her music and the accompanying videos are available for free on her YouTube VEVO page which is funded by adverts, yet she won't have her album available on Spotify's free tier, funded by adverts?
And now she's hissing at Apple and claiming they need to dig into their (very very deep) pockets during a free trial? What about her very deep pockets?
She uses small and upcoming bands as a smoke screen for her narcissism! If Apple agreed to cover the royalties for these poor and unfortunate small bands then she'd still pull another excuse from her ***.
Last edited:
Why is she a hypocrite in that sense?
Her stance is that artists needs to get paid, she wants to get paid, and she doesn't want the small artists to get stiffed out of making the tiny amount of money that they would make from having their content hosted on audio streaming services.
She (or her management/label) realise that there is very little money to be made from streaming and the profits lie in true album sales, hence not streaming her last album.
Instead, to cater to the streaming crowd they probably make a considerable more amount of money out of running video and display ads on her streaming videos through VEVO instead of Spotify. Especially considering her demographic probably have a rather low percentage of ad block users.
If those videos and resulting ad impressions and clicks are bringing in more revenue than having the content hosted on streaming services, then why wouldn't she do that?
Her stance is that artists needs to get paid, she wants to get paid, and she doesn't want the small artists to get stiffed out of making the tiny amount of money that they would make from having their content hosted on audio streaming services.
She (or her management/label) realise that there is very little money to be made from streaming and the profits lie in true album sales, hence not streaming her last album.
Instead, to cater to the streaming crowd they probably make a considerable more amount of money out of running video and display ads on her streaming videos through VEVO instead of Spotify. Especially considering her demographic probably have a rather low percentage of ad block users.
If those videos and resulting ad impressions and clicks are bringing in more revenue than having the content hosted on streaming services, then why wouldn't she do that?
Last edited:
Well, it looks like it worked! https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824775220555776
Or at least they changed their mind for one reason or another. Probably didn't want to give the FTC another reason to probe them further.
Or at least they changed their mind for one reason or another. Probably didn't want to give the FTC another reason to probe them further.
Yet it seems Taylor has still pulled her newest album from the service even though Apple have bowed down to her request? I suppose her music is too good to be on poverty steaming services..... to be fair she does need funding for her 4th house.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2003
- Posts
- 2,038
- Location
- Cambridge
Whilst I agree with what she's said relating to new/upcoming artists in principle, the fact that Apple Music would be free of Taylor Swift's annoying, whiney musical effluent is IMHO a major plus in Apple's favour ...