Apple Music to pay more for Dolby Atmos tracks?

[Franck]

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/10/20/apple-music-spatial-audio-higher-royalty-value/
I need to wait for 3 months to get payouts to see if this is real… Anyone else can confirm?

Dolby Atmos tracks cost more to produce, so may be that will compensate the costs, compared to making a stereo track.

Will that push for more tracks in that format?

 

[HomerJAU]

Hey Franck,

Did these extra payments come through?

 

[Franck]

Hey Franck,

Did these extra payments come through?

For the moment, I only see streaming reports for Nov 2023.

In the US on Apple Music, some tracks are paid $0.004725129316 per stream some others $0.008782240350 and I cannot figure out the difference, it is not Atmos, and it is not if they are recently released or not

 

[HomerJAU]

Thanks Franck. (I'm talking to an artist about potential Atmos releases)

 

[humprof]

Apple may be catching a little flak from some indie labels:

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide....sics-higher-payouts-for-spatial-audio-report/

Wonder if/how this relates to Beggars' recent decision to try selling Atmos downloads at IAA?

 

[Dynamic Editor]

The way I see it, increasing the pay for those who have spatial mixes is not an inherently bad thing, but it's a choice that's in poor taste given that it'll benefit primarily the richest of those artists/labels who are in the streaming market.

The more important, and significant action would be making payments higher from the bottom-up, and prioritizing smaller artists on shuffled playlists, etc.

 

[Franck]

The way I see it, increasing the pay for those who have spatial mixes is not an inherently bad thing, but it's a choice that's in poor taste given that it'll benefit primarily the richest of those artists/labels who are in the streaming market.

The more important, and significant action would be making payments higher from the bottom-up, and prioritizing smaller artists on shuffled playlists, etc.

Yes and No

It is not that expensive to upgrade your bedroom studio into a Dolby Atmos studio
https://www.peachymango.org/Dolby+Atmos+Studio

Remember, for music, you don't need to have it certified.

For releasing, DistroKid is expensive, about $30 per Atmos track on top of the annual subscription, but I'm trying LandR which only requires an annual subscription.

Now to release a good track, you need to invest in it... pick two: Fast, Cheap, Quality.

I do agree with you, a user centric payment model would be better, personally, I would prefer if every 30s of music is getting paid (instead of the first 30s).

Dolby Atmos has an extra marginal cost, so there need to be an incentive to recover that cost.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Yes and No

It is not that expensive to upgrade your bedroom studio into a Dolby Atmos studio
https://www.peachymango.org/Dolby+Atmos+Studio

Remember, for music, you don't need to have it certified.

For releasing, DistroKid is expensive, about $30 per Atmos track on top of the annual subscription, but I'm trying LandR which only requires an annual subscription.

Now to release a good track, you need to invest in it... pick two: Fast, Cheap, Quality.

I do agree with you, a user centric payment model would be better, personally, I would prefer if every 30s of music is getting paid (instead of the first 30s).

Dolby Atmos has an extra marginal cost, so there need to be an incentive to recover that cost.

I really feel like you're underestimating the cost of mixing material in Atmos and the reward it would offer for the average artist. What are we talking? An extra 10% or so payout? If anything, this may result in mix-trolling, creating half-assed Atmos mixes just to receive that extra 10%.

 

[barfle]

Are the users charged more for atmos? Is this a loss-leader to sell more Apple TV streaming sticks?

It seems odd.

 

[jaap74]

No Apple Music costs no more for Atmos

 

[coolerking101]

Are the users charged more for atmos? Is this a loss-leader to sell more Apple TV streaming sticks?

It seems odd.

It makes perfect sense that Apple would want to encourage Atmos content .The more Atmos content it has, the more spatial audio is available. Apple regularly advertises Spatial Audio as a reason to buy various apple devices (airpods, phones, apple tv). It's also is a way Apple Music can differentiate itself from other music streamers.

 

[PurpleMoustache]

It makes perfect sense that Apple would want to encourage Atmos content .The more Atmos content it has, the more spatial audio is available. Apple regularly advertises Spatial Audio as a reason to buy various apple devices (airpods, phones, apple tv). It's also is a way Apple Music can differentiate itself from other music streamers.

Yep. I’ve been saying for ages it’s a push that synergizes with their AR stuff… before the AR stuff was out.

“Spatial Audio” is in all aspects of iOS these days, even FaceTime calls… which doesn’t really make sense on a flat 2D screen… but *does* in AR where you could have someone speaking to your left, right, etc.

Even outside of Apple the “immersive audio” tech is being pushed alongside other entertainment tech. Valve, makers of video games and the distribution platform Steam has “Steam Audio” an open source audio tech for more immersive audio in games. Meta, makers of the Quest line of VR headsets has their own solution in their API. Sony has an extra CPU in the PS5 dedicated to handling object based audio that (until recently, with an update that ports that signal to Atmos) outputs similar “Spatial Audio” output to headphones.

The difference between those and Apple, however, is since Apple makes their own hardware *AND* software, they can make them work together perfectly. They know the exact way that AirPods playback audio from the hardware to the software driving it and can tailor an experience just for those. The concept that Apple products “Just Work” together really is true once you hop in the ecosystem, since the software and hardware is all known they all talk to each other in ways that seems like magic… but is really just a lot of man hours for engineering

 

[barfle]

It makes perfect sense that Apple would want to encourage Atmos content .The more Atmos content it has, the more spatial audio is available. Apple regularly advertises Spatial Audio as a reason to buy various apple devices (airpods, phones, apple tv). It's also is a way Apple Music can differentiate itself from other music streamers.

So, yeah, it's a loss leader. I understand that.

 

[hi-res_edition]

I also believe that for Apple Music by paying up for Atmos tracks they are actually aiming at buying market share in the streaming space. Apple Music is far ahead of the other streaming services when it comes to Atmos titles, and for those (like us) who want to be immersed, their streaming service is the best choice IMO.

 

[Franck]

Checking my numbers for December 2023, I don't see any difference between Atmos and non-Atmos.
Here are some revenues per stream per country.
NL( $0.013)
GB ($0.0075)
CA ($0.0057)
US ($0.0047)
DE ($0.0042)
ID ($0.0038)
RU ($0.0015)

 

[Franck]

I extracted Apple Music data for January 2024 for the USA. The tracks in Yellow are not Atmos. All the rest has been released in Atmos. I don't see any indication that Apple pays more for Atmos. It does not seem to be a regular pattern for the month.. I guess it is an announcement that it is totally impossible to verify.