Apple Music’s Oliver Schusser Slams ‘Free Music’ Model at NMPA 2025: “It’s Crazy”
At this year’s National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) annual meeting in New York, Apple Music’s Global Head Oliver Schusser made headlines with a sharp critique of the music industry’s ongoing flirtation with free-tier streaming. “It’s crazy that 20 years on, music is still offered free,” Schusser told NMPA President & CEO David Israelite, calling out competitors like Spotify and Amazon Music who continue to operate ad-supported streaming options.
Schusser’s remarks underline a long-running philosophical divide in the streaming economy: Should music be treated as a commodity to bait users into premium subscriptions—or should it be considered art, valuable from the first note?
Apple Music’s Paid-Only Stance
Apple Music has long positioned itself as the premium alternative in the streaming wars. Since its 2015 launch, the platform has never offered a free, ad-supported tier. Schusser emphasized that this isn’t a financial decision—it’s a cultural one.
“As a company, we look at music as art and we would never want to give away art for free. It just makes no sense to me,” he said.
This stance is central to Apple Music’s identity, setting it apart in a crowded field where conversion funnels and freemium models often dominate strategy. For Schusser and Apple, the issue is less about onboarding new users and more about setting an industry-wide precedent for how music—and by extension, songwriters and publishers—should be valued.
Spotify’s Free Model: A Double-Edged Sword?
Spotify, which boasts over 600 million users globally, continues to argue that its free tier plays a crucial role in growing the paid music market. The company claims that more than 60% of its Premium subscribers started as free users, positioning the free experience as a bridge to paid conversion.
But for songwriters and publishers, the economics of this model are far more brutal.
Israelite, in the same conversation with Schusser, pointed to the structural imbalance created by statutory licensing obligations, which force rights holders to license to these platforms—whether they agree with the monetization strategy or not.
Spotify’s recent “bundling” maneuver, which reclassifies its Premium subscriptions as part of a broader services package (including audiobooks), has only exacerbated concerns. According to NMPA General Counsel Danielle Aguirre, this reclassification has already cost songwriters and publishers $230 million in 2025 alone, with losses expected to balloon to $3.1 billion by 2032.
Amazon Music’s similar strategy has led to a 40% revenue drop for music rights holders in just three months.
The Songwriter Squeeze
What’s particularly troubling for songwriters is the lack of agency. Despite being the backbone of the music industry, they’re often boxed out of the decision-making process when it comes to streaming economics. While DSPs like Spotify and Amazon chase scale and shareholder satisfaction, the creators themselves are stuck with diminishing royalty rates and fewer legal options to push back.
That’s what makes Schusser’s comments resonate: Apple isn’t just saying that music matters—it’s trying to reflect that belief in its policies.
“We make every decision based on what’s good for artists and songwriters,” Schusser added, pointing to Apple’s focus on proper crediting and tools that improve catalog visibility.
The Bigger Picture
The clash between free and paid streaming models isn’t just about business—it’s about what kind of music industry we want in the next decade. Are we building one where scale justifies devaluation, or one where sustainability and artistic respect take priority?
As regulatory pressures mount, and songwriters continue to fight for a fairer share, Schusser’s firm stance might offer a glimpse of the future Apple envisions: one where music, like any serious art form, isn’t a giveaway—but a profession worth paying for from the start.
Bottom Line: Free streaming might attract users, but it’s costing songwriters dearly. As Apple doubles down on its premium-only strategy, the industry may be forced to reckon with a simple but powerful truth: art deserves to be valued—and paid for.
Publicar un comentario