To Apple, Love Taylor • Hacker News Board

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#151

Post by chernevik » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

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…

They can almost certainly borrow against their foreign holdings.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#152

Post by sanswork » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #103

Someone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a time when people used to calculate how much money would have to be lying on the ground for it to be worth Bill Gates' time to simply stop, lean down, and pick it up...

And when asked during his last AMA BillG said he would stop, lean down and pick up any money he saw on the ground. But then he'd give it to his foundation.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#153

Post by achamayou » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

issa wrote: post #142

This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible. This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.

It was, until one of the biggest "little people" started writing on her tumblr how she would have none of it.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#154

Post by ScottWhigham » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

contentfairplay wrote: post #36

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).

I didn't downvote but can see that some people might, in addition to what was previously mentioned, be upset by the vagueries of "From my experience with people that work there..." We don't know you - how many people do you know who have worked there? What were there roles (or thereabouts)? It's just so vague that I can't really derive any value from your post.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#155

Post by gavanwoolery » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

hahainternet wrote: post #6

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…

> 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.

I agree - Apple should pay for it, but I don't think they will unless this causes some uproar (which it could).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#156

Post by yequalsx » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

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.

Nice usage of the word 'confiscatory'. My experience with people who use this word in relation to taxation is that they use it in derogatory sense and is used primarily by conservatives and libertarians. I don't know if that is the case for you. What do you consider the optimal corporate tax rate? You said 10% is high enough. Do you think it should be 0%?

If you are in the libertarian and/or conservative branch of U.S. politics why do you look to other countries' tax rates for guidance on what our tax rates ought to be? I have been under the impression that looking to other countries for guidance on our social policy is bad and contrary to the notion of exceptionalism.

The U.S. uniquely, I believe, considers corporations persons. Hence the Citizens United decision. Given this shouldn't the tax rate on these citizens be the same as on other citizens with like earnings?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#157

Post by fenomas » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #112

vacri wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. It's really weird that you specify "developing the software" as a real cost, but not "developing the music".

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

But once Apple's service starts, the costs to develop it are already paid. Therefore it's a sunk cost, and we don't need to consider it here. ...right?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#158

Post by threeseed » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #94

Apple Music's big problem is that the service itself offers nothing new - most of the people that are going to paid for paid music will use Spotify already, and getting them to switch will be hard. I suspect that Apple knows that the take up for the three month free trial will be huge, but that conversion to paid will be a much harder row to hoe. This is all about Apple not wanting to foot the bill if and when people…

Apple Music does offer a number of features over Spotify:

a) Siri. With the existing Music app I can tell Siri to play a particular artist or playlist. I would expect far deeper integration.

b) Watch. The Music app is native, has a glance.

c) Desktop. Spotify client on the desktop is slow and clunky. iTunes on the Mac is anything but.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#159

Post by spinchange » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

biturd wrote: post #127

japhyr wrote: post #109

I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

They gove away their OS and a ton of solid near business class apps in some cases. They do this to get people to buy hardware. She said she supports herself on tours, five more music away, you should get more people at her tours. Same for the new band, you don't get discovered on the radio, 5K and they will play your song, it's that easy. Never works. Play shows for 5 - 10 years, you may make it, or be coached and mo…

Can I use their OS or apps on anything I don't buy from them first? Apple doesn't "give away" anything for free.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#160

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #150

JohnTHaller wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also cre…

> There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes. Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. > iOS users can't download music from the web Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

> Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening.

A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this.

> Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Android. On Android, I can download a song while out on the go from anywhere I want and add it to my music library. Every app can add music, every app can play music. Can you do that on iOS... or do you have to go back to your home computer, add the song to your computer, add it to your iTunes library and then sync it to your iPhone/iPad? The last time I helped a friend do this, this is what we had to do.