Taylor Swift says her album ‘1989’ will be on Apple Music

Taylor Swift Apple Music

Taylor Swift has answered one of the last remaining questions about Apple Music before it launches: her popular album 1989 will be available on Apple Music when it launches on Tuesday. The development follows Swift’s high profile letter to Apple over how artists would be paid during the streaming service’s 3-month free trial. Apple later reversed its decision announcing it would pay artists during the trial.

Author Ad Placeholder
Will only appear on redesign env.

While the pop star says it isn’t an Apple Music exclusive (like Pharrell’s upcoming release), the album is notably not available on Spotify as Swift removed her catalog last year due to the service’s free tier.

Apple’s updated royalty rate during the 3-month free trial period is said to be on par with that of Spotify’s free tier. The difference between the two business models is that Apple’s 90-day trial option is only available up front while Spotify offers a constant free tier with limits.

Following this week’s high profile development, Apple Music is set to launch on Tuesday, June 30th, on iOS 8.4 plus Mac and Windows through iTunes. An Android app is planned for release in the fall.

[tweet https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/614092816940167168 align=’center’] [tweet https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/614093248961847296 align=’center’] [tweet https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/614093540902195200 align=’center’] [tweet https://twitter.com/cue/status/614100764596703232 align=’center’]

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. Why that was a fast article!

  2. Rasmussen (@Twitboydk) - 8 years ago

    Enough with the Swift stories…jeez :-)

  3. chrisl84 - 8 years ago

    In 1989 the US invaded Panama resulting in over 300 deaths. The year 1989 is highly offensive to the familys of those who lost lives as a result. Apple must boycott any albums referring to this year

    • Rasmussen (@Twitboydk) - 8 years ago

      well you know there is only one person that can make apple do that :-D

    • TechSHIZZLE.com - 8 years ago

      Not to diminish any loss of life, but I think something happened in every single year.

      And something happened on a Tuesday once, too, so we better boycott everything that has a year on it.

      And Tuesdays.

      • Rasmussen (@Twitboydk) - 8 years ago

        I had a bad experience on a wednesday too

      • chrisl84 - 8 years ago

        And flags dont kill people yet we are banning them simply based upon the reaction it invokes in some authors for 9to5

      • chrisl84 - 8 years ago

        To further upon, there is likely “evil” connected to every flag which makes it coincide with your post

      • Doc Erock (@whackasshit) - 8 years ago

        such a silly comparison. The confederate flag was *designed* to stand as a symbol for succession from our country because of slavery (most of all). Heck, it wasn’t even put up in S.C. until 1962 when it was flown as obvious protest to the civil rights movement. No matter how you cut it the confederate flag was and is a symbol of our county’s racist past.

        And… it doesn’t help that non-racist southerners think the flag means something different to them. Just like the swastika is technically a hindu symbol for ‘life’ and ‘good fortune’, it has become a symbol of something much much different for the MAJORITY of people. no different. If you like swastikas and confederate flags you can enjoy them in your own home.

        oh, and I think we can agree that Taylor Swift didn’t *design* her 1989 album to symbolize the US invasion of Panama.

      • irelandjnr - 8 years ago

        You’ll find it was sarcasm.

      • iphone6splus - 8 years ago

        @Doc words and symbols change over time. Gay meant happy, rainbows were for all orientations and the KKK were Democrats killing black Republicans. The Conderate flag has a different meaning to people in the south now.

      • iphone6splus - 8 years ago

        Confederate…

      • Doc Erock (@whackasshit) - 8 years ago

        @iphone6splus Yes, it’s possible for symbols to change over time but the confederate flag clearly hasn’t when you have racist nut jobs wearing it like a superhero costume. Where’s the change when you have various hate groups still using it a a symbol? Heck, there have already been reports of racist groups retaliating against the news of the flag being brought down (e.g., church burning in Georgia). Anyway, it was a silly comment Chrisl84 to make on a mac blog to begin with. I don’t know why even took the troll bait…

      • o0smoothies0o - 8 years ago

        @Doc you’re far smarter than chrisl84

    • standardpull - 8 years ago

      Yes, it is too bad that some have ruined the confederate flag, converting it into a symbol commonly recognized as one of hate and racial intolerance. The Nazis did the same to the Swastika, a common religious Hindu symbol representing peace. Those that fly the confederate flag did very much fail to curb the flags’ misuse – I’m not sure why they weren’t able to confront the losers that ruined it for everyone – perhaps because of the violent rhetoric by the racists prevented bolder action. No wonder why some are so very upset.

    • Paul Andrew Dixon - 8 years ago

      i honestly think the album is so named because she was born in 1989!!!

    • I thought 1989 referred to how many guy’s she’s dated.

  4. brswllc - 8 years ago

    Well played Apple! Taylor gave a reason for not streaming her album and Apple obliged. It was in Taylors court with no clear reason to not stream her album. Now Apple Music finally gets some value add over all the other players. It may or may not be enough or significant, but at a minimum it certainly helps a great deal with marketing and buzz.

  5. sukhhkahlon - 8 years ago

    publicity stunt…

    • Charlypollo - 8 years ago

      As brilliant and clear as the freakin’ sun. And people will fall for it. Bravo Apple.

  6. rogifan - 8 years ago

    She says this isn’t an Apple exclusive so I’m assuming then we will see this album on Spotify?

  7. This whole thing was set up… every move choreographed like one of her performances. Everything from her getting upset at Apple, to Apple contacting her directly by phone, to changing paying artists during the free period, and now–so magically, her 1989 album is now going to be on Apple Music. Apple/Swift isn’t fooling anyone. It’s just for publicity. Nothing more. I’ll be skipping her songs, like I normally do.

  8. Arnold Ziffel - 8 years ago

    I trust this is a good thing for Apple Music, but as for me, it don’t matter.

  9. epicflyingcat - 8 years ago

    Clearly a PR stunt, Eddy Cue’s tweet confirms it.

  10. Magnolo Bugarin - 8 years ago

    who the hell is Taylor Swift- who cares?!

    • 1551denis - 8 years ago

      Those 70M people who like her on Facebook…

      • William Grayson - 8 years ago

        Doesn’t say anything in times where you can buy followers and likes. Be sure they did it like they do with many others to suggest to the people, that other people like her “music” so that they buy that low quality stuff too. Thats pretty normal these days.

  11. suchkunt - 8 years ago

    Here’s what happened: This dipshit’s publisher said she should “take a stand” and “girl power” and shit.

    Apple spoke to the record label and said “get your no-talent moron in line, schlomo. We’ll send some shekels her way to shut her up”

    Schlomo said “What the hell do you think you’re doing little girl? You’re doing a reversal or you’re done in this town”

  12. Steven Moore (@Stniuk) - 8 years ago

    Keep your name in the news Swift!

  13. patthecarnut - 8 years ago

    Ahhh, the power of publicity. They are both masters in the art of publicity.

  14. Shawntel Vanhook - 8 years ago

    Still a step in the right direction!!

  15. William Grayson - 8 years ago

    We’ll don’t care and don’t understand why that was such a big deal. Her album wouldn’t have been a loss. Took a listening sneak peak, and its far from good, the lyrics are typically for the low quality lyrics we get today. Nothing special. If she’s really really popular somewhere then the music taste reached a new deep point.

    What happened to good music, it’s so rare today.

  16. Dmitriy Kozyrev - 8 years ago

    Sweet Jesus! The world can sleep in peace now!

  17. nathillien - 8 years ago

    LOL I predicted three things:
    – She would not approve the free trial
    – Apple would cave in
    – She will return to Apple Music
    Considering that there is no significant difference in how much artists will get from Apple Music compared to Spotify and knowing how much she is against Spotify but somehow is OK with Apple; just tells me that there is something fishy going on there.
    This all was orchestrated by Apple and Taylor from the beginning – from Taylor pulling out from Spotify.

  18. Paul Andrew Dixon - 8 years ago

    Haha… well, we were all expecting this… it sort of could have been a publicity stunt…it certainly has put her in the news…

    I think it would be very funny if during the free period many people don’t listen to her album and she makes little to no money after all this commotion she’s triggered…

  19. triankar - 8 years ago

    ah, and I couldn’t wait for it… (irony)

  20. Kate Apker - 8 years ago

    Who cares! Its not like she can sing like Aretha or Shirley Horn or can write like Carly Simon. She is a reasonably attractive blond twit with a fair voice who needs to expand her song writing range.

  21. cjt3007 - 8 years ago

    Taylor who? Also note: she is carrying a Whole Foods basket XD

  22. dipaguco - 8 years ago

    It’s about free advertisement. This story of Apple’s new music service reached millions of news watchers and social media users alike, at no ad cost to Apple (except for the artist fees – but that was the plan all along, right?).

    OR this is just too outrageous of a thing to happen for us to grasp the fact that it actually may be true.

    I like the first one.

Author

Avatar for Zac Hall Zac Hall

Zac covers Apple news for 9to5Mac and hosts the 9to5Mac Happy Hour and 9to5Mac Watch Time podcasts.