Apple's Jimmy Iovine reportedly attempting to poach artists from Jay Z's Tidal music service

Tidal, a competitor to the Apple-owned Beats Music, already has agreements with several artists for exclusive releases. Iovine has reportedly been attempting to lure some of those artists to Apple's music service. Speaking to Billboard, Jay Z says that he isn't mad about this, but he thinks Iovine needs to take a larger view of the situation:

I think that's just his competitive nature, and I don't know if he's looking at the bigger picture: That it's not about me and it's not about him; it's about the future of the music business.

Iovine has previously been reported to be in talks with artists regarding exclusive albums for iTunes, though it's likely that those exclusives would also come to Beats Music. Apple is currently said to be planning a relaunch of Beats Music as a service inside the iOS Music app, with a relaunch reportedly planned for around WWDC 2015.

Source: Billboard

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is the former Editor in Chief of iMore. An Apple user for almost 20 years, he spends his time learning the ins and outs of iOS and macOS, always finding ways of getting the most out of his iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac.

  • Nothing like already established mega artists complaining that they don't have enough money. Don't blame the streaming music services or those of us who can't afford to buy ever album released but, can afford a reasonable monthly subscription. Instead they should be questioning the labels that claim to support them but only steal the money from the artists. Sent from the iMore App
  • I feel your pain, but Jay Z has an answer for you: "People really feel like music is free, but will pay $6 for water. You can drink water free out of the tap, and it’s good water. But they’re OK paying for it. It’s just the mind-set right now."
  • So by that statement, Tidal should be free, right? Also the reference (or pun?) to water was kind of cheesy on Jay's part :/ Sent from the iMore App
  • These artist, songwriters, producers, etc put time and money into making songs/albums, it's their right to their ownership. This is their work, it's their job. Just as if you go to work, you expect your check. Record labels don't support a lot of their artists as they once did because these days, they just can't afford to. So we have to look at why that is, it's the consumer not consuming a product the way it was meant to be consumed. People want things for free now so they rip music instead of buying. It's stealing, we just make light of it because it doesn't seem serious since its music, but it's still product. It changes the way record labels conduct business, it puts a hurt on the industry, artists, songwriters, producers, etc. What they're asking for is simple, due credit.
  • Music existed long before the "business" aspect of it reared its head.. I'm in no mood to sustain a business that sucks the life out of artists financially and artistically.
  • I think Tidal has all the earmarks of desperation. It has no artists other than the mega-stars they go to sign up, but the only reason they signed, was because they get a share of the company profits. To pay all these rich a-holes the service has to be $20 a month, which is about FOUR TIMES the price Beats is purported to be when it launches, and Beats will have more artists. The UI for Tidal is a one-to-one ripoff of Spotify, and the whole thing was put together in the last couple of months. This is a desperate attempt to be relevant after missing out on Beats. That's all.
  • No one missed out on Beats, Beats is desperate to get to these artists, but Jay Z has a different idea of compensation to the artists, which we all know is too low in the current model, that's why he charges more for the service. Tidal was designed to be A-list only at the start, and all those A-list stars like Madonna, Alicia Keys and Kanye West are partners. Tidal is an artists response to a model that is good for everybody but the artists. If its right or wrong, depends on the point of view, I guess.
  • Actually he he charges $9.99 for his low-end option, same as unless people subscribe to the higher premium, $20/month then how is Jay giving any more compensation than current streaming models? I think what's most annoying is how this "innovative app" is shrouded in some sort of "give back to the musicians" bs when I have seen little to no support from smaller musicians...the musicians they are claiming to help? I think paired with a crappy live showcase no one really knows how to feel about Tidal because there really isn't anything worth being excited about except the mega-stars who are co-owners (what the hell does that even mean??) changing their profile pictures blue? I'll pass and stick with Spotify but I'm interested to see how well this plays out throughout the year. Sent from the iMore App
  • Current compensation at services like Spotify runs at about $0.006 and $0.0084 per execution (I don't how much of the song you have to listen to count). If I was an A-lister I don't think I would even bother.
    I also think its unfair to characterize artists like Kanye West, Jay Z and Alicia Keys as "rich a-holes". These are people that were born in adverse conditions, had everything against them, and still managed to be rich and successful through the value of their craft. I personally don't enjoy their music (perhaps Alicia's a little bit), but I respect them.
  • Most independent artists/performers/producers tend to make their money from gigs anyway. Whatever model Tidal, Spotify, Beats, etc use really only benefits artists already on mega-buck contracts on big labels. Rich get richer, basically.
  • Good luck with that Iovine.
  • NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sent from the iMore App