Ondrej Holzman When Apple Music launches on June 30, it won't be able to stream Taylor Swift's latest album, 1989. The popular singer decided not to make her fifth studio album available for streaming, and now in an open letter to Apple, she wrote why she decided to do so.
In a letter entitled "To Apple, Love Taylor" (loosely translated "For Apple, kisses Taylor") the American singer writes that she feels the need to explain her move. Taylor Swift is one of the most vocal opponents of streaming if it works for free. That's why she had her entire discography removed from Spotify last year, and now she won't even give her latest hits to Apple. She does not like the three-month trial period during which the Californian company will not pay the artists a cent.
"It's shocking, disappointing, and completely against this historically progressive and generous society," Taylor Swift wrote about the three-month trial. At the same time, she stated right at the beginning of her open letter that Apple is still one of her best partners and has the utmost respect for it.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]I think this is a platform that can do it right.[/su_pullquote]
Apple has three free months for its new music streaming service mainly because it is entering an already established market where companies such as Spotify, Tidal or Rdio operate, so it needs to interest customers in some way. But Taylor Swift doesn't like the way Apple is doing it. “This is not about me. Fortunately, I released my fifth album and I can support myself, my band and the whole team by organizing concerts," explains Swift, who is one of the most successful artists of the last decade, at least in terms of sales.
"This is about a new artist or band that just released their first single and they don't get paid for their success," Taylor Swift gives as an example, continuing with young songwriters, producers and everyone else who "doesn't get paid a quarter to play their songs."
Moreover, according to Swift, this is not only her opinion, but she encounters it everywhere she moves. It's just that many are afraid to talk about it openly, "because we admire and respect Apple so much." The Californian giant, which will charge $10 a month for streaming after a three-month trial period - and, unlike Spotify, will not offer a free option - already has an answer to the pop-country singer's letter.
Apple manager Robert Kondrk for Re / code a few days ago he said, that his company has prepared compensation for artists for the first three months without royalties in the form of a slightly higher paid share of the profits than other services offer. Therefore, any efforts by Taylor Swift to call for a rethinking of Apple's current approach are likely to be futile.
“We're not asking you for free iPhones. Therefore, please do not ask us to provide you with our music without the right to compensation," Taylor Swift, 25, concluded her letter. Her latest album 1989, which sold almost 5 million copies in the United States alone last year, will most likely not arrive on Apple Music, at least not yet.
However, Taylor Swift has hinted that this could change over time, possibly once the trial period ends. “I hope to soon be able to join Apple in its move towards a streaming model that is fair to all music creators. I think this is the platform that can do it right.”
OH HONEYYY https://youtu.be/YAoLNcGlNc8
Even if he's right, he's no less greedy than Apple itself :)
And what do you see as her greed? How about having all new employees work for free for the first 3 months. That's a fair request. Like for a test and see you later. What do you say to that?
How do you do it... If the usual salary for the position is X and the employer would think that the new employee will work for 3 months for free and then only get X, then it will not be fair.
But with Apple Music, it's a slightly different situation - here a completely new channel for future profits opens up for artists, which has the potential to generate more money than the current ones. That's why the request for support at the time of departure doesn't seem so unfair to me...
And a side note - the claim about "free work" is also a huge exaggeration. After all, we are not talking about any exclusivity here, at the time of Apple Music's launch there can still be income from albums and all other stream services. In essence, the artists, with those calculations about the "huge loss" during the Apple Music raid, on the contrary, confirm that they believe in the power of Apple and that future income from this service is therefore real. And in this context, with the approach "I won't be there at the beginning, but I'll wait until after the launch", one could already talk about a certain greed.
I really don't know if the opening of Apple music is a new channel for singers' future income. I personally do not have a subscription to any streaming service, and even after the creation of Apple music, I am not thinking about it. So no new channel for me. And people who stream music through other services will either stay with them or subscribe to the new supr dupr channel, but probably cancel the old one, right? Or do you think people will pay two or even three companies for the ability to stream music? It's definitely a new channel. A new money stream for Apple. Sure, Apple is a private company, not a charity, and artists are often pretty cool, but Taylor Swift has done nothing but stand her ground. She didn't agree to free streaming with Spotify, and she doesn't agree with Apple either.
Taylor Swift herself wrote quite clearly that she rejects it because of the trial months and may be involved later. If she strictly rejected streaming as such, then it is her indisputable right, which is not the least reason to criticize, but that was a little different...
Ad new channel - I see it more as a real possibility of growth in the number of paying users. Other services generally also offer free versions (after all, this was apparently the reason for the departure of the aforementioned Taylor Swift from Spotify), so for example Spotify claims about 50 million users, but less than 20% of them pay. And Spotify is a big service, for example Beats before the acquisition by Apple had a little over 100... If the Apple Music service reached somewhere in the "100M paying" sessions, which is probably nothing unrealistic, then the income from streaming could start to be quite interesting .
I like Taylor, but she's wrong.
True Comment:
Everyone arguing for artists to get paid during the free trial is showing a serious lack of financial understanding. The artists will always get paid the royalties they're due. But they need to invest in the platform to take something out of it.
Otherwise it would only be fair for Apple to ask the labels and artists to cover their fair share of the advertising, servers and bandwidth during this free period.
The only time where the subscription service will not bring in money will be during the very first three months. After which there will always be paying subscribers while new testers roll their own three months.
Without Apple the music industry would have been in the shit over 10 years ago. With Apple, subscription revenues are about to bloom. But some people, in addition to Apple shouldering all the risk, also want Apple to burn more money by paying artists/labels for income they haven't earned.
Taylor being a budding artist, Apple will kick her out of iTunes, as they promised Newcomb, for example. At least she stood up for the weaker ones with this approach, they can't afford this.
And you did a great job here. To tell the truth on the beloved Apple, this brand of all brands. Don't you read articles about how Apple under the leadership of a teploid has become friendlier, more ecological, and that even people in Foxconn don't jump out of windows anymore, and on the contrary, everyone sings in chorus in the morning: From joy only from joy, the worker goes to the factory. You're an ugly one too.
are you a moron
Yippee. He is a hater who, under the nickname _John_, has been bothering discussions on MobilMania for at least a year. Under every article about Apple, there are dozens of his comments.
I generally write my comments under the nickname Jenda. I only discuss here and then occasionally on Android World. I don't go to MobilMania. But nice try Sherlock
Sorry, I reacted wrongly in that thread. _John_ is Jan Horák above. But otherwise you remain a moron, that doesn't change :-D
But Newcomb's claim is explicitly denied by other "beginners". Sure, it can be downplayed in the "Apple intimidated them" style, but it's also possible that the person in question is either bullshitting or at least exaggerating. There were already clouds of similar statements in show business...
I think he just wants to make an even bigger halo around his new album. I wouldn't look for anything more than marketing in it. It is probably no coincidence that he is one of the best-selling performers.
A new one? After all, it came out last fall. More like the last album.
style="display:block"
data-ad-client=”ca-pub-3316622662776711″
data-ad-slot=”2220332188″
data-ad-format="auto">
This text shows it to me in the mobile version of the website and it always appears above the opening image, probably the editors made a mistake there
Good promo.
After all, the point is to present the new service, attract as many listeners as possible, and then the artists will be paid regularly.
It's far, far better than people downloading music for free.
Now Taylor Swift is definitely known to more people than before, and that's okay.
If I understand correctly, he will wait until most people finish the trial version and then upload his album there. The question is whether the trial will be once for one apple ID or there will be a new trial with a new phone. In any case, piracy is high, so they should be grateful to Apple that at least some money is flowing to them from it.
It is probably necessary to realize WHO needs whom more. It may sound harsh, but the mentioned "star" without the mentioned company will only sing at the bar for a couple of regulars.
Said starlet earned: According to the Celebrity 100 list released annually in May by Forbes magazine, Swift earned $2009 million in 18, $2010 million in 45, $2011 million in 45, $2012 million in 57, $2013 million in 55 and 2014 $64 million. Well, I don't know if he'll be at the bar.
I played her work and after listening I have to say that I don't understand what contribution she is to the music world, it's a sub-par piece of boring pop.
And who are you to evaluate someone's work like this? He sells records very well. Personally, I quite like it, although I'm a different age group and I certainly won't be buying the CD or subscribing to a streaming service. Some people don't like Taylor Swift and I throw up at the Beatles. But sorry, he doesn't touch the Beetles, that's art after all.
Jenda: He is a listener, something like an end customer for singers, therefore someone who has the most right to evaluate someone's music.
But millions of people obviously don't think so and bought the album. Will you be as tolerant of me when I, as a user of computer technology, and therefore actually an end customer of Apple, say that Apple's products are mostly only good for subways and homosexuals, or stupid blondes, to which I include Taylor Swift, among others? Or will you intolerantly call me a moron again? And just on a side note, which of the two groups I mentioned do you belong to? According to your name, I classify you as metrosexual homosexuals. I am wrong? Not much, right?
But you still didn't answer WHO awarded her a star - today everyone knows that awarding a "star" initially costs not only money, but also the star's team and in many cases connections (protection). Personally, I played about 3 tracks and didn't listen to a single one - but I don't tolerate others...
Lord, yes, it brings a man to his knees. It's zero.
I fully agree. I'm betting that she only wanted to make herself visible, because now everyone who has never heard of her and doesn't even know what this "star" is, went to YouTube and played some of her work :D:D:D
Considering that this nick is probably going to, like many other inexperienced "artists", cut it in 2 months like a rich young dried cod, the 3-month trial appli period really scares her. All these little stars who are supposed to start the stinking corpse of countless music publishers should let their taste for a singing career take over and start making doodle porn.
Maybe it would be nice to find some information first before posting such a stupid and ignorant comment.
He's right, it's a nick, a zero and a mess.
"Nicka", says the person who spends her time writing such comments while she makes billions touring the world. Well, that Czech vanity. :-)
A better and more apt answer could not possibly have been given :-) And I say this as a vain guy :-)
Do you have a very simple view of the world? Just your expression. Touring the world and even billions. LOL. And because she made money, does it make her a joke? Hnaty makes her stink like you do.
So why won't they support a 3-month trial? A musician who does not make a living by giving concerts is not a musician....
So for next time, mention a "star" in your opinion so that you can see who you are comparing with
Music just needed a home, so we created one for it.
Everyone likes something different, of course... I just put his name on YouTube and found this shock that can't even be called music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg But she earns several thousand times more than all of us together who read this server... I don't envy, but there will probably be something wrong with everyone...
The fact that she earns millions means nothing, at least to me. The workers who can build a house are much more than these "celebrities"
Even if it were Apple, I would subtly take this out of its profit later, when paid subscriptions start to increase.
It's a pipe that can't get enough.
And you're a trumber who can't read