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

191–200 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#191

Post by TillE »

Havoc wrote: post #60
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…

> [Steam] a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator Without wanting triggering an argument here...would you mind giving me a 3 sentence summary of what aspect of it is anti-creator?

A number of developers have been complaining (unreasonably, IMO) about the recent refund policy. Oh, and there's the 30% cut which can be seen as a bit too high.

Otherwise, I would also be genuinely curious to hear what problems developers have with Steam.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#192

Post by pmorici »

w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

That sounds like an amazing offer. who wouldn't want to trade a one time free or 99 cent payment for recurring revenue.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#194

Post by taylorwho »

w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

You seem to be confusing Taylor with musicians.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#195

Post by Fargren »

tehwalrus wrote: post #188
Fargren wrote: post #180

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'…

This is about free access to a set of highly engineered content, which is not just a back catalogue you are trying to milk but your current latest creation. We do not think that software engineers should be prohibited from charging for copies of their software: neither do we think that musicians should be prohibited for getting paid for their music. Yes, people will continue to make art for free, because they love do…

Most software engineers (employees) are paid for crafting their software, not for having crafted in the past. That's exactly what I advocate for. We absolutely should pay people for working! I'm saying that those who distribute should be compensated for the distribution, and those who craft should be compensated for the crafting. And everyone should be free to do either, to the best of their abilities.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#196

Post by themartorana »

Fargren wrote: post #180

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'…

But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, and so on. You want to see the latest Monet painting? There's only one way to do that. Want to make a very close copy of it? It's likely you're a bit of a genius yourself.

It's not that I think this model is perfect, but consuming art was difficult at best, expensive for much of history, and for large swaths of time, reserved for the rich.

If the exchange for extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability is a model where artists get further compensated, I'm fine with that.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#197

Post by mcintyre1994 »

threeseed wrote: post #158
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.

It's been years since I used iTunes on Windows but at the time incredibly slow and clunky to the point of incompetence would have summed up my views on it. I wonder how it compares now to Spotify there.

On another note, Apple have a pretty good story with Airplay - does Spotify on iOS support that fully? On Android they don't support Chromecast and I've always thought that was an advantage of Play Music over Spotify - maybe there's an analogous situation on iOS?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#198

Post by hetman »

Fargren wrote: post #180

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'…

Throughout most of human history there was also no way to listen to a specific artist unless you attended their live performance. Since technology has made the impossible possible, it shouldn't surprise anyone that new social contracts have also been created around it.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#199

Post by JoeAnzalone »

hahainternet wrote: post #5

Both 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.

Did you not read the whole post or do you just not believe her?

> 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.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#200

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

jannotti wrote: post #125
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come 10% is high enough for corporations but I pay a lot more than that in income taxes. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think it could be either way, but many object to the fact that it is both. In other words, corporate tax is seen as double taxation, since the earnings (after taxes) are then passed on to shareholders, who pay tax on it again. I could see a coherent tax code that taxes corporations, but not individuals, or one that taxed individuals, but not corporations (Of course with either of these there would no doubt be all s…

By the double tax hypothesis, how come then I have to pay sales tax on things I buy using money I earned from income that's already been taxed.
Post reply on HN