Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Apple, Love Taylor

taylorswift.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#31

Post by unfamiliar »

kbrwn wrote: post #26

Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment t…

> imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!

Honestly, $10 a month to use every app sounds pretty good for me, bad for developers.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#33

Post by morganvachon »

x5n1 wrote: post #25
b1zguy wrote: post #12

I 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.

Taylor did not write that... at least I don't think that she did.

You'd be surprised. I'm not a fan of her music (if I had kids they probably would be) but she's very hands-on with her image and if it's on her tumblr page, she wrote it. I respect her as a person and from what I've seen she's very intelligent and articulate.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#34

Post by x5n1 »

morganvachon wrote: post #33
x5n1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor did not write that... at least I don't think that she did.

You'd be surprised. I'm not a fan of her music (if I had kids they probably would be) but she's very hands-on with her image and if it's on her tumblr page, she wrote it. I respect her as a person and from what I've seen she's very intelligent and articulate.

She's also a multi-millionare. I doubt she has time for this and it's managed by her company, pr, and/or lawyers.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#35

Post by sanswork »

unfamiliar wrote: post #27

I agree with everything she said... but she didn't answer the question she posed at the start: why is she withholding 1989, (and not any of her other albums), and what does that have to do with the 3 month trial? If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span.

She probably is withholding the rest like on Spotify but people typically only care about the newest album. Alternatively maybe it's to stop them from being able to promote their service as being the only one with 1989 on it?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#36

Post by contentfairplay »

kbrwn wrote: post #26

Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment t…

> Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case?

Apple is a super secret walled garden, full of itself. From my experience with people that work there, I doubt any of them would even know why (let alone come out here to explain).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#37

Post by whonut »

The Apple Music free trial thing is shitty but Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here.

Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming services.

It strikes me as similar to the situation with people only buying games that are on Steam. Consumers love the convenience of a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator. Tough one.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#38

Post by bhickey »

gavanwoolery wrote: post #4

Hate 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…

> Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free."

There's a difference between not charging the end user and not paying the supplier.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#39

Post by AndrewDucker »

sarreph wrote: post #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).

She avoids Spotify because they wouldn't let her music be only available for paying users.

Basically, she refuses to be ad-supported, or give her music away.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#40

Post by briandear »

nemik wrote: post #30
sanswork wrote: post #20

3 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.

From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists. Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own…

Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.
Post reply on HN