Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbrwn | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment that musicians currently expect (imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!) but if that was the norm I don't think many would just agree to put their app on the appstore for 3 months without payment.

View on HN

I imagine Apple's argument is:

(1) They bring an enormous number of new subscribers and that this 3 month trial maximizes revenue for everyone including the artist.

(2) they pay a slightly higher royaly share than spotify in part because of this longer trial.

(3) Apple shares revenue with the artist in the same 70/30 split we see elsewhere and the 30% is the finders fee they get for delivering many of their x hundred million users to the service. Since there's no revenue in the first 3 months, 70% of $0 is $0. Apple eats the bandwidth/server costs of the service in this time with no revenue coming in.

(4) Spotify paid users are fairly happy with that service and won't all switch to Apple Music overnight and the same with people who buy music and radio so it's not like all the money these artist's see turns off for 3 months. The free trial effect will be heavily staggered as a steady stream of users signs up over years.

> imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!

Honestly, $10 a month to use every app sounds pretty good for me, bad for developers.

It depends on how much uptake you get, doesn't it? For example, I spend less than $10/mo on apps (and for that matter, music too). If that's the case for enough users who get the new deal, this would be a net gain for developers. I think that's why you get developers(/musicians) to agree to it.

It's actually a bit better than that.

You're suggesting a simple view where you look at the average amount people who subscribe to this (e.g. $10/month) service would have otherwise paid, and that if that number is less than $10/month the devs (/musicians) win. This is certainly true.

However, there's the additional benefit that not every user that subscribes will entirely drop their purchasing habits. Perhaps less often, but some subscribers will buy apps (/music) on top of their subscription.

> Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case?

Apple is a super secret walled garden, full of itself. From my experience with people that work there, I doubt any of them would even know why (let alone come out here to explain).

Could you explain the downvotes? I'm new to HN and would like to learn.

I would imagine the downvotes are because of the 'super secret walled garden, full of itself' comment, which is negative in tone. You could have said instead something like,

'As someone that knows people who've worked at Apple, I doubt many of them would know the answer to this or be allowed to post here if they did.'

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Snarky comments (like 'full of itself') tend to gain downmods just for that. It's a lot softer than it used to be, though - it used to be that using the lightest touch of humour would also bring the downmod brigade. HN is becoming a much more generic "tech and this-article-I-saw-on-nytimes" site.

I didn't downvote but can see that some people might, in addition to what was previously mentioned, be upset by the vagueries of "From my experience with people that work there..." We don't know you - how many people do you know who have worked there? What were there roles (or thereabouts)? It's just so vague that I can't really derive any value from your post.

> imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app

If software developers were compensated for their creative output the way musicians are there wouldn't be so many software developers.

I had a really innovative startup idea once where I planned to have developers work for years to create hit software products that made many people's life better and then get into a crappy van and travel the country to do 90 minute demos of their product for a few hundred dollars.

But only if they had a genuinely successful product mind you, obviously being merely competent at software development meant you didn't get paid at all, you had to actually amass significant numbers of fans of your products willing to come to these demos.

Never did figure out why I didn't get more developers interested in the platform.

It's pretty obvious. They are going to take streaming to a whole new level. My dad doesn't know what Spotify is, but has an iPhone and is a couple of clicks away from lighting this service up.

You give away a couple of months, get people hooked and you and reap years of recurring revenues. It's a model that works for drug dealers, razor blade makers (Gilette gives away 5 packs of blades in many schools) and SaaS companies.

I don't really feel too bad for Taylor Swift. She doesn't get a dime from radio airplay as an artist. But she benefits immensely from the marketing and promotional value of having it played.

Artists who's songs are played on the radio are paid for every time it's played on air. Or did I get your last sentence wrong there?

In the US, for radio performances, its only the person who wrote the song that gets paid. The artist who sang the song usually get nothing.

Only if they are registered as a songwriter: http://blog.songtrust.com/publishing-tips-2/what-you-didnt-k...

Internet radio is different, as it's not considered to be a public performance.

As someone else alluded to: drug suppliers still get paid for those free 'hits'. It's the distributor who swallows the cost in exchange for recurring revenue.

Well, you can buy apps - which also applies to albums/music.

> (or perhaps formally at Apple)

You were probably looking for formerly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com