281–290 of 534 posts
Taylor et. al. don't seem to understand. Apple controls the marketplace and is a legal monopoly, owning the software AND hardware. If you don't like what Apple does, tough luck. Whining about it has never amounted to anything and nobody is going to replace them. Long live the King. [ now picture me killing myself by slitting my throat with an Air ]
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…
Would they have to pay taxes all of the overseas earnings if they use just some of it? I figured they only paid tax on what they actually bring back here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an amazing offer. who wouldn't want to trade a one time free or 99 cent payment for recurring revenue.
Well you have to split that $10/month with all the other apps that the user accessed that month(on average). So it's quite likely that your somewhat successful app wouldn't even reach the 99 cents anymore let alone 99 cents per user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was hoping someone would start a popular kickstarter style site for this. It seems pretty simple to me. If you want your laws changed, pool your money and go lobby the gov't just like every other corporation.
That exists: Mayday PAC. Lawrence Lessig organized it last year. They raised $11 million and tried to influence some key Congressional races, but it didn't really work. Now they're trying some different things: https://medium.com/@lessig/we-tried-we-learned-we-re-trying-...
A recent Senate campaign in one of the nation's cheapest media markets (Jon Tester's) was run for ~15 million bucks[0] in coordinated campaign funds, plus probably-larger undisclosed amounts of "independent" campaign funding through PAC's etc.
In the same cheap media market, Senator Max Baucus raised >$5 million[1] for the coordinated campaign in his final Senate race, in which he ran effectively unopposed. Again this $5 million does not account for his pre-existing war chest from thirty five years of Senate campaigns or the (vastly larger) fundraising of his GlacierPAC or other related "independent" political organizations.
So the minimum single-senator campaign cost is probably somewhere between those two bounds. Therefore I don't regard the core idea of Mayday PAC as a failure; instead it seems like they need to scale it before we can decide if it's workable.
[0] http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n0002...
[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n0000...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is not true at all. Many consultants may in fact be paid once. But most developers work at companies for a salary. That salary is paid for by charging for software over and over. Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store, just to name a few, and none of the jobs that come along.
>Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store
Good riddance.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an amazing offer. who wouldn't want to trade a one time free or 99 cent payment for recurring revenue.
Of course, music works completely differently. I have many albums that I only listened to ten times or so. In the old model, they have still received a fair share of $10, in the new model, not so much. I can easily understand why artists want to opt out. I am also not sure about Apple's model for the distribution of subscription fees. But e.g. in Spotify's model, it is largely large acts benefitting from indies, rath…
I like that spotify pays royalties from free accounts, I dislike that I am effectively subsidizing this as a premium user. However, at the moment I am more comfortable with this than apples '3 months no royalties' system.
Another interesting point is that for a music subscription services, there is very little keeping users tied to one provider - all I need is the ability to export my playlists. I wonder if spotify's revenue will collapse for 3 months, but if they can be better than apple, they can get it all back 3 months later.
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…
I don't think they're being greedy, any more than I think users are being entitled when they wait for steep discounts on Steam games or refuse to pay .99 for an app someone worked really hard on.
Price trends towards marginal cost, and marginal cost for digital IP is zero. That's true if everyone on both sides is a group of angels, devils, spoiled brats, or automatons.
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…