To Apple, Love Taylor
taylorswift.tumblr.com
To Apple, Love Taylor
1–10 of 534 posts
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#2I don't understand why a company with such a professed love of music and simultaneously so much in the bank can't back its own product and a) pay artists for that three month period and b) offer the service at cost going forward.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#3> These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child.
I am starting to doubt that Taylor Swift really is as 'representative' as she wishes to portray, and not simply greedy, considering the extent to which she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams (e.g. Spotify).
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#4Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so this move does not surprise me. $0.02
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#5Both sides of this disagreement are hilariously petty. Both desperate to hold on to every last penny they can get hold of.
The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#6Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so thi…
> In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run
So, Apple should pay for it, rather than attempting to enforce themselves as a middleman who takes only profit as they have done in every other sphere.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#7> These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. I am starting to doubt that Taylor Swift really is as 'representative' as she wishes to portray, and not simply greedy, considering the extent to which she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams (e.g. Spotify).
That is literally her choice to make, as it's her name and her work that's being sold here. And good for her (and her management team, and her management team's management team) for making it.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#8So Apple run a loss-leader... where they don't incur the loss, and just get the lead.
Scum.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#9Not sure I understand this argument. Shouldn't she complain about the record companies rather than Apple? It's not like Apple's making money during that free 3 month period.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#10Not sure I understand this argument. Shouldn't she complain about the record companies rather than Apple? It's not like Apple's making money during that free 3 month period.
What do the records company have to do with Apple demanding that she gives away her songs for free to stay on iTunes music service?