It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.
To Apple, Love Taylor
11–20 of 534 posts
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#12I must say, Swift is a pretty good writer; yet this perception is warped by my surprise to be honest. I guess I'll go looking out for more of her written works when I next have a free moment to make a better judgement.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#13> 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).
She's a startup.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#14Hate 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.
On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists.
Making Apple's revenue be directly tied to artist revenue makes a lot of sense.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#15Not 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?
That's only to join Apple Music, not to stay on iTunes.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#16> 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).
> ..she avoids non-profit-maximising revenue streams
Like someone running a business you mean?
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#17Not 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?
In deals like this, service providers don't have the upper hand, content providers do. Apple wouldn't have been able to offer free 3 month trial if record companies wouldn't have agreed to it. Maybe I'm misinformed, but did Apple come out and say that if she doesn't put her albums on its streaming service, she'd be off iTunes music service? Why on earth would they do that? It'd be a PR nightmare for them and they'd lose money.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#18It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.
It's okay, the notice is in your e-mail inbox and your music is already online... If you don't like it, write them an e-mail, put: "2 legit 2 quit" in the subject line. /s
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists. Making Apple's revenue be directly tied to artist revenue makes a lot of sense.
> On the other hand I could argue that making apple pay leads to fewer/smaller free trials which leads to less money for the artists.
How? The trials would still be free. Nothing would change for the consumer, therefore you couldn't argue that.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#203 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.