after reading your post, I'm going to add to my "google is the best improvement in the past 10 years" to saying that Apple may well be the best improvement for the next 10, simply because it pays the artist.
Except there are other services that pay the artist more, are more user-friendly, and produce a better product.
iTunes was the first product that got record companies to start doing what everyone had said they should be doing for half a decade - but it wasn't an original idea, it still isn't a good implementation of the idea, and other people have done it better, since, in ways that are better for the artists because they involve less Apple Tax.
well I'm just hoping that there will be some competition, amazon and apple are such 900 pound gorillas that you wonder if they care about innovation sometimes.
Rhapsody and Amazon are the big ones. Even the Zune store pays more than iTunes.
With iTunes' market share, I would have thought that artists' earnings from iTunes were higher than elsewhere.
Total earnings, maybe - iTunes making up 65% of the market does tend to indicate that you're going to get those smaller pieces *more often* from them, and that could easily add up to more total money.
But you still earn more *per purchase* if you don't sell via Apple. If your product is available in two places, the one that isn't iTunes makes you more per sale.
All of the big players - iTunes, Amazon, Zune, Napster - pay out 70%. Some of the smaller online retails pay around 60%. The real shocker is how little artists earn from streaming services like Spotify.
Who pays out more than iTunes? (Other than selling on your own website, of course.)
Apple skim 30% off micro purchases and refuse to allow people to link to their sites so that all updates have to be bought through Apple so they get their money. It's pretty incidious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-08-28 09:58 pm
no subject
no subject
iTunes was the first product that got record companies to start doing what everyone had said they should be doing for half a decade - but it wasn't an original idea, it still isn't a good implementation of the idea, and other people have done it better, since, in ways that are better for the artists because they involve less Apple Tax.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
With iTunes' market share, I would have thought that artists' earnings from iTunes were higher than elsewhere.
no subject
Rhapsody and Amazon are the big ones. Even the Zune store pays more than iTunes.
With iTunes' market share, I would have thought that artists' earnings from iTunes were higher than elsewhere.
Total earnings, maybe - iTunes making up 65% of the market does tend to indicate that you're going to get those smaller pieces *more often* from them, and that could easily add up to more total money.
But you still earn more *per purchase* if you don't sell via Apple. If your product is available in two places, the one that isn't iTunes makes you more per sale.
no subject
Who pays out more than iTunes? (Other than selling on your own website, of course.)
no subject