Hacker News Reader

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics.

A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also creating marketing materials online and off. This is all for a usually small time period when a new album will sell. And when streaming (which generally makes them next to nothing) will hit its peak. All these costs are front loaded and then there's a usually short time period where the band hopes to make this money back. During this time, the band is spending additional money and time doing marketing and promotion as well.

Apple's deal is a raw one for these artists as they'll lose a good chunk of revenue during that small time period. And it will leech purchases away from iTunes as well. I can guarantee that Apple will have prominent notices within iTunes about which albums are available on Apple Music and suggest that would-be purchasers sign up.

Plus there's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes if they don't agree to stream for free on Apple Music. And the fact that these artists can't just decide to sell the music themselves on their website to iOS users because, thanks to Apple's carefully-designed walled garden, iOS users can't download music from the web or 3rd party apps and add it to their music library like they can on Android.

> There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes.

Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening.

> iOS users can't download music from the web

Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

> Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening.

A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this.

> Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Android. On Android, I can download a song while out on the go from anywhere I want and add it to my music library. Every app can add music, every app can play music. Can you do that on iOS... or do you have to go back to your home computer, add the song to your computer, add it to your iTunes library and then sync it to your iPhone/iPad? The last time I helped a friend do this, this is what we had to do.

> A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this.

Well I am far more likely to take the measured, legally considered statement from Apple over a single independent artist's Twitter posts. Apple would be in a for a world of hurt if they deliberately mislead people.

> Did you purposely take my quote out of context

No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It is completely legitimate to use iTunes to add it to your collection. Otherwise third party apps exist which allow you to download from the mobile web. I am not saying it isn't as flexible as Android but it is disingenuous to say it isn't possible.

> Well I am far more likely to take the measured, legally considered statement from Apple over a single independent artist's Twitter posts. Apple would be in a for a world of hurt if they deliberately mislead people.

Considering the way Apple lied... ehem... misspoke? misled people?... about ebooks, lying about music isn't that far fetched.

> No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It is completely legitimate to use iTunes to add it to your collection. Otherwise third party apps exist which allow you to download from the mobile web. I am not saying it isn't as flexible as Android but it is disingenuous to say it isn't possible.

So, as I said, it is impossible for an iOS user to just download a song and add it to their music library on the go. It would be technically easy for Apple to enable this, but they purposely disallow this to make it harder for customers to purchase from 3rd parties. The same way they won't let 3rd parties sell music within their apps without paying 30% to Apple (making it financially impossible).

Having to go all the way home, add your music to iTunes, plug your phone into your computer, and then sync to iTunes just to be able to add a single MP3 to your phone's music library may be "legitimate" but it's anything but reasonable. It's in this state solely to make it inconvenient to the user and push them into the open arms of iTunes.

They don't even have to be lying. Apple is a huge company, and it's entirely possibly that its representatives may have been making threats that were not, ah, officially authorized.

I don't think you understand how music usually works…

30 years playing in and recording with independent bands. Dong just fine on understanding up front investments.

> 30 years playing in and recording with independent bands. Dong just fine on understanding up front investments.

Apologies, then. Though I am curious about your take on this... specifically why it differs from my other friends. All of my independent musician friends I know online and off think this is a raw deal as soon as they learn the details. I understand why it makes sense for the big labels (they don't care about artists' incomes and likely got a sweet payoff from Apple). But I'm curious why a smaller musician/music producer would be happy with it.

I suspect mostly because I started making music in an age when duplicating a CD was not possible and MP3 hadn't happened. I view my music projects as producing something and then working to get it into customers' hands. Radio stations would play our music and not pay us any royalty (except the songwriter portion), and that was fine.

Enter MP3 and suddenly musicians are looking at a hostile world where their primary consuming demographic believes it is silly to pay for music at all. Bands have traditionally felt screwed by labels, now their customers are screwing them. Apple sets up a service where the labels contribution to the free trial period results in no revenue for bands and that's the distributor screwing them. That makes it pretty much the entire industry top to bottom.

I don't see it that way. Apple Music will likely tap a huge population that doesn't currently have a streaming service which is a great thing.

As far as "losing" micropayments from song plays during the trial… If someone is forced to listen to my song by their robot DJ and doesn't care enough to come see a concert or buy something, or listen to it in the future… that wasn't really a sale I missed out on. That was some poor schmuck that wasted 4 minutes of his listening time on my song and in some alternate economic system would have paid me for the privilege, but didn't.

Also: I'm eating in August no matter how this plays out.

> Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much.

It's really weird that you specify "developing the software" as a real cost, but not "developing the music".

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free.

By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.

> So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free.

Except first features downloading and owning it and the other streaming rights through certain period of time.

Apple is giving away three months of its software and servers for the streaming service. After the 3 month period, both Apple and the label/artist get paid.

Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry…

In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system.

Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them.

Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets.

About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.

> Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music.

Of course they do. No music, no product.

But once Apple's service starts, the costs to develop it are already paid. Therefore it's a sunk cost, and we don't need to consider it here. ...right?

The labels and artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist.

Apple built a service that wouldn't exist without the content. The content would still exist on other services without Apple though.

> artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist.

no one is arguing that their costs don't exist, but that they have nothing to lose to put it on. It's not like the artist will somehow have a lower cost by _not_ putting it up.

Except they do have something to lose if they put it on. They will have a lower profit if listeners that would subscribe to another paying service or buy their music switch to Apple streaming.

> They will have a lower profit

You have zero evidence of this. We don't know and may not know for a number of years whether Apple Music is more profitable for artists (or not) than competitor services.

We know for a fact that its going to be less profitable for at least three months, unless they were already making zero dollars.

I get the typical arguments that things being available free might not affect sales - but in this case I think they'll see a direct impact.

I think they'll get a pretty large amount of trial users simply by advertising it in iTunes - oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead?

Other than Android they have a lot of music use cases supported, free of charge - why would you buy?

I honestly don't know how much this will affect sales but Apple are certainly in a position to push users away from those sales and toward the free service.

> oh you're about to buy this album? Why don't you listen to it and the majority of our catalog free for three months instead

I think it was Eddy Cue who said specifically in an interview that they will not do this.

Edit: from the Guardian

He also denies a recent report that Apple is planning to aggressively promote its new streaming service to people buying albums on the iTunes Store. “That’s the wrong way to look at it. You shouldn’t take a customer who’s buying an album, who’s happy buying an album, and try to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong,” he says.

“But we don’t have to, and we shouldn’t try to kill the iTunes Store or kill people that are buying music. If you’re happy buying a few albums a year and that’s the way you’d like to continue doing it … but if we can help you discover some new artists or some new albums through Connect or through listening to Beats 1 radio, great.”

What would you tell Youtube or Soundcloud? They also foot the bill.

Apple is placing the value of artists work at $0 in a bid gain market share. It should be them who incurs the full cost not the artist.

When the music is offered on free, the prime beneficiary is Apple.

Apple's enormous cost in launching the service is the best counterpoint I've read. 3 month free trial means no revenue for Apple too. Apple is certainly in a better position than most to endure atartup risk through trial.

There's another point being overlooked regarding how music is consumed: music is listened to repeatedly over months, and the free trial is no different than a promotional period. Artists, even indies, will still receive income from the myriad other services, and will soon receive a better rate from Apple. Distribution is an enormous service to the artists, and it's value shouldn't be overlooked.

That being said Taylor Swift has every right to pass on Apple's offer, and it's great for the recording industry to have a major check/balance like Swift.

Unrelated, but interested to see if artists will ever abandon the labels and go direct to distribution. I'm sure labels provide more value than people want to acknowledge.

Edit: formatting

I think you haven't quantified the artists' opportunity costs. The idea is a customer may swap a streaming service which pays artists for Apple's streaming service which doesn't pay artists. Therefore artists may be losing money they otherwise would have typically made.