I see, so since I didn't actually install the carpet I should not take a large cut. I agree totally by the way.
So then tell me what did Apple do to actually make the music they are using and paying $0.002 a play on?
They don't make the content. They provide the marketplace and infrastructure for that content to be consumed. That's their value added.
Or Netflix's. Or Pandora's. Or...
I didn’t say you couldn’t take a cut, I am not begrudging you your business in the least, you are providing a service that is beneficial to both ends... the actual contractor doesn’t have to spend his time chaising down work and making bids that for the most part will not actually turn into work, nor spend money on marketing or other costs that you are bearing. And the customer doesn’t have to deal directly with figuring out who is a good carpet installer and who’s not, and whos a drunk or on drugs, or ex con, etc etc etc. And if the sub does disappear, that’s your problem to deal with not theirs etc.
I have no issues with you making your money or taking your cut. What I am trying to explain to you is that streaming digital content is a completely different business model, they are not putting a customer and a seller together, they aren’t simply brokering a single transaction. They are providing a customer with a service.
That service is the fully on demand delivery of digital content whenever they want. To make that model work, you are in a different category than brokering a deal between a provider and a buyer. That model, which apple does do, millions if not billions of times a day via iTunes has virtually the same financial breakdown of your business. Apple keeps 30% and the product maker gets 70% gross numbers. So right around 1/3 to 2/3 generalization.
The economics of digital publishing are not the same, lets look at the economics of it. If we attempted to apply the broker model to digital streaming, that would mean that Apple would pass on $6.50-$7 per month per subscriber to the content provider, leaving just $3 to $3.50 a month gross for apple to cover all of its infrastructure, labor, regulatory, marketing and all other costs, the math doesn’t work. Apple has to have and keep running enough servers to keep all those streams going and available 24/7. They have to pay for the bandwidth to make sure all that outbound data can get to its subscribers without buffering or delay.. it needs to constantly update its databases and increase storage so that new content being provided can be stored, and retrieved in a timely fashion to potentially millions of users simultaneous etc etc etc. Apple is doing a lot more than simply being a broker.
Now is the content provider actually playing the music personally every time its streamed? Nope.... but I bet your subs are showing up for work and laying that carpet every time you book them for a job. Your sub has no way to leverage any economy of scale, other than to hire new employees, and increase his overhead... But a recording can be streamed to 1000 people at one time, and the artists who made it don’t have to put in one more second of work, beyond whatever time it took to initially create it. If your subs could through the magic of imagination, somehow carpet 1 room then instantaneously copy that carpeting to any other room anywhere anytime without actually doing any more labor or needing any more materials then they did for that very first room, do you think costs would go down?
All I am trying to point out here is that Apple is not screwing anyone here, this service is in a different type of model than your business operates, your business model works great for the type of business you are doing, theirs works for the model of business they are doing, just because the economics are different between the two does not mean that one model is screwing folks while another is not.
Your viewpoint is just skewed incorrectly. You are correct apple didn’t create that content they are paying .002 per song to stream, just like the artist who made that song did nothing to build up the infrastructure, labor, utility, storage, network, marketing,etc that allows their song to reach the end customer subscribed to apple music in the first place. Just because the economics are different doesn’t mean that someone is getting screwed.
Apple is facilitating getting the music TO the listener. . . which for the musician is a big thing. If their music is not heard, it is nothing. If music is played in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it, and appreciate it, AND PAY FOR IT, it is merely noise, of no VALUE. Apple is making that musician's music available to be heard by a potential audience in the millions. Where else could he or she gain such an audience AND BE PAID FOR IT? That is what YOU fail to understand. Apple is rendering an extremely valuable service to the musicians and deserves to be paid and appreciated for doing it. Instead, you turn and bite the hand that is offering you this invaluable opportunity!
In the past, independent artists went from station to station begging and pleading to get them to air their music for FREE to get themselves heard by a small number of listeners to get word of mouth talking about their talent. . . and you guys are complaining. SHEESH!