Damn, I hate Apple. And Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon. Oh yeah, they want to make the world a better place, those sneaky bastards.
To Apple, Love Taylor
361–370 of 534 posts
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#362Out of curiosity, and on a similar note, is Spotify not paying artists during their "3 months for $0.99 promotional period"? I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent. I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.
I'm not sure about your Spotify question, but I believe Taylor Swift pulled all her music from there because they wouldn't agree to making it paid only (referring to their freemium offering and not the trial there). I think that's why beyond this she has so much respect for Apple's offering - they're obviously already an important player and artists want paid - and only paid, streaming.
Honestly from the point of view it's pretty good for consumers. Making her album paid-only would have improved the conversion-to-premium rate, whereas making her album free increases active users. I guess they opted for more users, maybe to look more attractive for more funding?
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#363> I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
> ... just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field
> ... we admire and respect Apple so much.
> I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been...
> I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done.
Taylor's post reminds me strongly of this article by Eli Schiff:
"Wilcox's flattery is not accidental. It was essential that Wilcox mentioned his qualification as an Apple fanatic, because that is, of course, the pre-requisite for saying anything remotely unfavorable about Apple."
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#364For 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 agree, Apple should front the costs during that 3 month trial period. It's just not fair to not pay artists. The only benefit I see from this is that artists can get exposure they normally wouldn't get, because of the smaller library size.
> I agree, Apple should front the costs during that 3 month trial period.
Precisely. We're talking about a company with $200 billion in cash reserves asking artists - many independent and hardly famous - to subsidize their marketing efforts.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#365This 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.
Suppose Apple were to instead finance their free trial by reducing the royalties they pay artists. Would this be morally reprehensible, since it would result in the "little people" losing as much revenue as they would have under the existing scheme? I don't see how it is immoral for a company to reduce the total amount that it pays to artists. Prices are set by negotiation/the market. I think people feel undue sympat…
Well, in most situations, prices are set IN PART by the market. Usually common decency is involved as well (ie: the minimum wage).
I would argue that supporting the arts is important the same way that protecting minimum wage workers from abuse is (mandatory unpaid overtime, wage theft, etc).
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#366[deleted]
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#367Earlier 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…
> By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own money. It's not about avoiding paying any US taxes, it's about avoiding paying US taxes on earnings abroad. This is why so many Americans living abroad are giving up their US citizenship. I'm a Brit living in London and I know several American born friends that have become British citizens to avoid paying both UK and US taxes on their earnin…
> On what possible basis could anyone consider that appropriate?
Not a US citizen here, but I think the reason is that a US citizen has more privileges than someone else: it's easier to travel and get a work permit abroad, if something goes badly they are still under protection of the US government, etc.
This is due to the fact that USA are the most powerful country on Earth, and one of the reasons for that is its military power, which is very expensive.
So the US citizen residing somewhere else would still have to pay their share to be protected by their country.
Not saying that I completely agree but I think it's a valid reason.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That link perfectly describes my concern with subscription systems. If Apple distribute the royalties calculated per-user rather than based on (total royalties / total number of listens system wide) I'll move over from spotify, as it will reward the bands I like more than the current system. I like that spotify pays royalties from free accounts, I dislike that I am effectively subsidizing this as a premium user. Howe…
You aren't subsidizing anything. You are paying market price for a product. The seller does bizdev how they choose.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not making any statement on whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, but ... Software developers aren't immune to piracy's effects, either. Whether we like it or not, we're quickly shifting into a world where art is only viable as a labor of love. Everything being digital means copying is free. Scarcity has gone out the window. Now if only our increased productivity and automations led to lesser and lesser worki…
> Software developers aren't immune to piracy's effects, either. Whether we like it or not, we're quickly shifting into a world where art is only viable as a labor of love. Everything being digital means copying is free. Isn't this one of the big reasons for the rise of SaaS apps, though? Developers, unlike musicians, have found a way to combat piracy in a way that both consumers seem to prefer (lower upfront costs a…
Do consumers prefer SaaS? The reaction to Windows and Office becoming subscription software seems pretty uniformly negative.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me. And I am not just talking about music. TV, Movies, etc. It's content as an entire class. All content companies are getting smashed against the backdrop of piracy. I'll do whatever I can to support content creators.
> Techdirt leans pro-piracy Does that make it OK for artists to get 2.34% of what listeners pay for the music they make? Or does it make TechDirt's figures wrong ? If so, how? > Or were you not paying for anything already, and then came across that info which now justified your position? I am not striking , but I agree with everything s/he wrote. And, as it happens, I do pay for all the music and video and software I…
If labels were so abusive artists wouldn't use them. It's not like setting up a label is hard.
The reason labels have such high overheads is the same as for movie studios . They subsidise a lot of non-Taylor Swifts music that don't end up being profitable. The costs of the failures end up impacting the profits of the successes. The flip side is - lots of artists get studio time and songwriting time even if they haven't already proven themselves.