Listen to this Post
🎵 Introduction: Apple’s Bold Take on Music’s True Value
In a powerful interview that stirred the music industry, Apple’s Vice President Oliver Schusser—who leads Apple Music, Apple TV+, and the tech giant’s sports content strategy—challenged one of the most accepted norms in music streaming: offering music for free. His comments have sparked debate across the entertainment sector, reigniting the conversation around the value of art, artist compensation, and platform responsibility. What Schusser shared wasn’t just corporate positioning; it was a philosophical stance on the state of the music business.
🧾 Oliver
In a recent interview with National Music Publishers’ Association president David Israelite, Apple VP Oliver Schusser offered a rare and candid critique of the music streaming landscape. Reflecting on the evolution of the industry over the last two decades, Schusser expressed regret that free music streaming still exists in 2025. He labeled it “a terrible mistake” and emphasized that music, as an art form, should never be given away without value attached.
Schusser highlighted Apple Music’s unique position in the market, proudly stating it remains the only major service without a free tier. This decision, he insisted, isn’t driven by financial motives but by respect for the art and its creators. Unlike Spotify and Amazon, which use free, ad-supported models to draw users into their ecosystems, Apple holds firm that requiring payment preserves music’s artistic worth.
Drawing a comparison to Apple TV+, Schusser noted that users must pay to access premium shows like the globally acclaimed Severance, and the same philosophy should apply to music. He argued that free access turns music into a commodity rather than a valued form of art.
His remarks received strong support from music publishers, many of whom are increasingly discontent with current royalty structures. Recent complaints include the bundling of extras like audiobooks in platforms such as Spotify and Amazon Music, which ultimately dilute artists’ earnings.
While Apple’s stance aligns with artists and publishers seeking higher payouts, critics point out the business benefits of Apple’s approach. Apple has long avoided ad-based revenue models, focusing instead on premium subscription services.
Conversely, Spotify defends its freemium model, arguing that its free tier helps new users discover music, eventually converting them to paying customers. The company claims to distribute billions in royalties annually—more than any of its competitors.
As the streaming wars intensify, Apple’s refusal to offer free music challenges a market trend that has dominated for years. The full interview reveals the underlying tensions and diverging philosophies shaping the future of music access and artist value.
💬 What Undercode Say:
Apple’s Strategy: A Purist’s Stance or Strategic Positioning?
Apple’s argument for valuing music as paid art positions it as a purist in an industry overrun by freemium models. On the surface, it’s a bold artistic stand, aligning Apple with creators frustrated by diminishing returns. Yet behind the moral high ground lies a carefully calculated business strategy. Apple’s ecosystem thrives on subscriptions, from iCloud to TV+ and Arcade. Music, therefore, fits seamlessly into its “pay-to-play” model.
Spotify’s Counterbalance: Discovery Versus Devaluation
Spotify, however, plays a different game. Its freemium model is designed for scale, discovery, and eventual monetization. It argues that the free tier is essential for attracting users and growing overall music consumption. But critics argue that this accessibility comes at a steep price for creators—diminished royalties and a commodified art form. Spotify’s massive payout claims, while impressive, are diluted when spread across millions of artists.
The Publisher’s Perspective: Applause or Opportunism?
Music publishers loudly applauded Schusser’s remarks, not just for ideology but for their own bottom line. The reality is that paid streaming results in higher, more predictable royalty streams. Bundling tactics by platforms like Spotify are seen as clever accounting, masking reduced artist compensation. Schusser’s hardline against free music resonated because it directly challenged the very model that has caused publishers’ frustration.
The Broader Ecosystem: Culture vs Commerce
Schusser’s stance draws attention to a fundamental tension: Should music be universally accessible or carefully curated and protected? Apple’s model leans toward exclusivity and premium quality, whereas competitors embrace volume and viral reach. Each has its pros and cons, but the cultural implications are deep. Are we training future generations to expect art for free? Or are we shaping a system where only those who can afford subscriptions can truly experience it?
Apple TV+ as a Model: Pay for Premium, Reap the Reward
The comparison to Apple TV+ is telling. By requiring payment for shows like Severance, Apple ensures that creators are compensated and content is not taken for granted. The same could be argued for music. Apple’s approach assumes that if users are willing to pay for high-quality video content, they should be just as willing to pay for music—an equally valuable form of artistic expression.
Business Motives: Is Apple Playing Chess While Others Play Checkers?
Let’s not forget the strategic benefits for Apple. With limited interest in ad-based revenue and massive brand loyalty, Apple has little to gain from offering a free tier. Its hardware sales drive ecosystem integration, and music becomes another cog in its high-end brand identity. By taking this position, Apple can appeal to artists, publishers, and premium users alike, reinforcing its image as a platform that values quality over quantity.
✅ Fact Checker Results
Oliver Schusser’s claim about Apple being the only major service without a free music tier is accurate.
Apple TV+ content like Severance indeed topped global charts in early 2025.
Music publishers are increasingly vocal about royalty reductions linked to platform bundling practices.
🔮 Prediction: Where the Streaming War is Headed
As digital consumption matures, a deeper divide will likely form between freemium giants and premium purists. Apple will continue to double down on paid models, perhaps expanding exclusive artist content to boost perceived value. Meanwhile, Spotify and others may face regulatory or industry pressure to improve artist compensation, especially if more creators migrate toward platforms with stronger monetization ethics. The future will likely favor hybrid models, but Apple’s stance could set a new standard if consumer perception shifts toward quality over convenience.
References:
Reported By: 9to5mac.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.quora.com/topic/Technology
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
