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

41–50 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#41

Post by opcvx »

whonut wrote: post #37

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 serv…

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.

Did you read the post where she explains what is her goal for doing this? Here is the relevant part:

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#42

Post by Zikes »

whonut wrote: post #37

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 serv…

Taylor is pulling her music because those small artists can't. She's making a statement, and because she's such a phenomenon her statement is likely to at least be heard.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#43

Post by briandear »

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).

How is wanting to be paid being "greedy?" Give me 10% of your salary please. If you refuse, it's clear you're just greedy.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#44

Post by logicchains »

briandear wrote: post #40
nemik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

US taxes contribute more to violent deaths and unnecessary punishments/imprisonments per dollar than taxes paid in most other countries. The US spends a greater proportion of GDP on "defense" than almost all other Western countries, so a tax dollar paid in the US is more likely to contribute to "defense" and less likely to contribute to education, healthcare or whatnot than a tax dollar paid in e.g. Sweden or Holland. Similarly, the US has 25% of the world's prison population yet only 5% of its total population, so necessarily spends a relatively higher percentage of tax dollars on incarceration.

There are actually people who do everything they can to minimise their tax liability in order to reduce the money spent on things they consider unjust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance.

Every dollar not paid in US tax is a dollar that won't contribute to blowing up people in the Middle East who have the misfortune of being in proximity to suspected terrorists (tens of thousands of people over the past decade) [1]. Similarly, every dollar not paid in US tax is a dollar that won't be spent putting poor people in prison for smoking a weed that causes less violence in a decade than alcohol causes in a day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war...

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#45

Post by pearjuice »

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.

I hope you do realize companies get paid handsomely to properly manage PR and make people believe they are actually the person they are representing, writing the PR. Or do you also believe Obama writes his own speeches? In fact, you believing she actually wrote that is exactly why those PR companies are in business.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#46

Post by sanswork »

briandear wrote: post #40
nemik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where is the western world has lower tax rates than the US?

Edit: answered above.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#47

Post by Someone »

x5n1 wrote: post #34
morganvachon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that logic, Jobs didn't write http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ or his "thoughts on music" (which seem to have disappeared from Apple.com), either.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#48

Post by mmorris »

unfamiliar wrote: post #31
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.

It depends on how much uptake you get, doesn't it? For example, I spend less than $10/mo on apps (and for that matter, music too). If that's the case for enough users who get the new deal, this would be a net gain for developers. I think that's why you get developers(/musicians) to agree to it.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#49

Post by sbarre »

opcvx wrote: post #41
whonut wrote: post #37

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 serv…

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. Did you read the post where she explains what is her goal for doing this? Here is the relevant part: This is n…

Do you really believe that? Or is that maybe carefully crafted language to fend off the parent's valid argument?

Plenty of creators currently put their music on Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Youtube and more, and get exposure that way without getting paid.

The choice is really up to the artist. I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to? I don't know..

btw not saying I have the answer here, but as parent said, the current landscape doesn't really line up with her argument much.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#50

Post by jws »

mnx wrote: post #11

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.

This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN.

Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months.

Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much.

Three kinds of customers will try the service:

People who buy their music: these will either become long term subscribers or not like the service and buy the songs they want anyway. Perhaps slightly delayed.

People who currently freeload: no loss for the trial. Possible huge win if they subscribe.

People using another streaming service: this is where the labels might actually give something. If a customer cancels their existing service while trying Apple's that will reduce the label's take by up to ~25% for the year. Month alignment and a comparison period will both drop this.

I suspect the third category is not the target audience. A small loss on service switchers is worth the big win for the labels in converting freeloaders to customers.

Post reply on HN