After a lot of bad press and a letter from Taylor Swift bringing attention to the cause, Apple Senior Vice President, Eddy Cue said on Twitter that artists will be paid for streaming music, even during the three-month Apple Music trial.
We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
Apple will always make sure that artist are paid #iTunes #AppleMusic
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
Good choice Apple.
Apple-Music-no-payments-during-streaming-free-trial-gate:
Est.: 20 Jun 2015
RIP: 21 Jun 2015
So what portion of Apple’s $200 billion in cash is currently available as discretionary funds to make any future (whatever)-gate just go away?
It is worth noting that Cue commented to Recode this evening and he slipped in that it will not be at the same rate as once subscribers actually start paying, so I wouldn’t say this one is dead yet. That doesn’t surprise me as I have a feeling this could get extremely costly for Apple even if they could “afford it”. There are more than 1B iOS devices out there and I would ballpark about 500-800 million users (800 million iTunes accounts is a public figure). If 5% of the low end of my estimate try the service (keep in mind if those 25 million people trying the service actually convert to paid customers, Apple would already have more paid subscribers than Spotify), it would cost them more than $500 million in royalties (25M$30.7) over three months.
Pretty sad that it had to come to this. I can’t believe Apple execs thought a 3 month period where no one got paid would fly. Now they come across as weak. Who else are they going to cave to because of a stupid decision made in the first place.
Your move Taylor.
Good move, Apple. But the way it hapenned, man, that’s embarassing.
What a great way to keep Apple Music in the news! For Free! Just cause an uproar and then “change your mind” to the original plan of paying artists. Or, if nobody complains, just save a big chunk of money.
So now Apple Music will get “1989”? Is that a good news or a bad news? Lol.
It may look like Swift won.
It may look like Apple caved.
That may look like egg on Apple’s face.
Apple may have to pay millions, even hundreds of millions.
But … both Apple Music and Swift just got millions of PR in a series of tweets.
BOOM!
All this buzz, and Swift still hasn’t caved – 1989 not yet part of Apple Music. Seems like she has quite the clout for an airhead.
Last I heard, they had about US$ 35 billion in “cash and cash equivalents”, but how much is where I do not know. However, I’m sure they’ll pay the US rights holders from on-shore funds, and use the “tax-resident nowhere” money sloshing around the Caymans, Bermuda, and Guernsey to pay the international holders.
It’s funny to see how many people believe her performance persona has very much to do with the way she runs her business. It’s sad to see so many of those people equating “I don’t like her music” with “how dare she decide where her music gets sold.”
Thank you for being smart enough to see behind the curtain. The rest of the people here are an embarrassment to the human capacity for critical thinking.
because the artists are going after the labels next?
“The per-stream rate won’t be as high during the free trial as it will when Apple Music subscribers start paying $9.99 a month, because Apple is sharing subscription revenues with labels.”
and what percentage of that 800M are iOS users? let’s face it, mobile is a huge part of this service, and until Apple puts something on the Play store, they’re not getting 50% of the phone market. nobody’s paying for a service that isn’t supported on their phones..
(and I don’t see a compelling reason for one who’s most likely invested in the Play ecosystem getting music from Apple all of a sudden)
still, Spotify only has 12M paid, apple could do that without android.