Apple Music is sticking firmly to its paid-only model, and its top executive isn’t holding back on his views about competitors who offer free music tiers. Oliver Schusser, Apple Music’s vice president, recently called the idea of free music streaming “crazy,” arguing it devalues the art form. This strong stance highlights a key difference in strategy among major streaming services and reignites debate around how artists and songwriters get paid.
Contents
The core takeaway? Apple believes music is art worth paying for, and they’re not budging on their paid-only approach, a move that puts them at odds with services like Spotify and Amazon Music amidst ongoing industry tensions over royalties.
Why Apple Music Says No to ‘Free’
During a recent industry event, Oliver Schusser made Apple Music’s position crystal clear: offering music for free after 20 years of streaming is something he finds baffling. He emphasized that Apple views music as art, and giving art away for free simply isn’t their philosophy.
He drew a parallel to Apple’s TV streaming service, Apple TV+. To watch hit shows like “Severance,” you have to pay the subscription fee – there’s no free option. Schusser argued that the same principle should apply to music from artists like Gracie Abrams or Kacey Musgraves, wondering why their albums should be available without cost on any platform. His message was direct: “We don’t have a free service, we will not have one, we have no plans for one.”
Music icon on an iPhone
Industry Tensions and the Royalty Debate
Schusser’s comments come during a period of significant friction between music streaming platforms and the music industry, particularly songwriters and publishers. A major point of contention revolves around how artists and writers are compensated – often fractions of a penny per stream – and how new platform strategies might be making things worse.
The Rise of Bundles and Falling Royalties
One specific issue raising alarms is the trend of bundling music subscriptions with other services, like audiobooks. Spotify started this, and Amazon Music recently followed suit.
Industry representatives, like David Israelite of the National Music Publishers Assn. (NMPA), argue that these bundles are reducing the royalties paid to songwriters and publishers. They feel companies like Spotify are actively working to cut down payments.
Music icon on an iPhone
The NMPA shared stark figures illustrating the impact. According to NMPA executive Danielle Aguirre, the industry lost over $230 million last year specifically due to Spotify’s bundles. More recently, since Amazon began bundling music, they’ve seen a 40% decrease in music revenue from the platform in just three months.
While U.S. music publishing revenue overall did see healthy growth last year (up 17% to over $7 billion), industry figures suggest this growth would be even stronger without these revenue-reducing practices and challenges from regulations like mechanical royalties.
Apple Music’s refusal to offer a free tier positions it distinctly in this evolving landscape, emphasizing a model where access to music content requires direct payment, aligning their interests more closely with those advocating for higher per-stream compensation for artists and writers.
Want to dive deeper into the world of music streaming? Learn more about [how music streaming services pay artists and what new changes might mean for your favorite musicians]. (Simulated internal link)
What This Means for Listeners
For you, the listener, this debate boils down to choice and value. Do you prefer platforms where you can access music for free (with ads) or via bundles, even if it means potentially less pay for artists? Or do you support a model where music is strictly a paid service, potentially ensuring a more direct revenue stream for creators, like Apple Music offers? Apple’s unwavering stance ensures its platform remains one option squarely in the “paid value” camp.
