31–40 of 145 posts
First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this analysis just seems right. They sign a deal with TS, get her to be "outraged" then Apple does a 180 and then says it will pay the artists. TS looks good and Apple gets a shitload of free press for their new music service. I feel dumber everyday I don't see this stuff happening.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this analysis just seems right. They sign a deal with TS, get her to be "outraged" then Apple does a 180 and then says it will pay the artists. TS looks good and Apple gets a shitload of free press for their new music service. I feel dumber everyday I don't see this stuff happening.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
Far more likely than apple planning this with her is apple anticipating her reaction (or if not her, somebody. Jay Z likes to make noise about streaming royalties too). Either they get a reaction from a celebrity and get to dominate the news cycles with their new product for a while, or they get to set a new precedent of not paying artists. Either way, apple wins.
First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.
Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
> think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work TS, her lawyer, some top guys in Apple and their marketing division? It could very realistically be less than 5 people. I don't say I support the theory, just want to point out that it doesn't take much to write an open letter and then respond to it on Twitter.
Also: "Cue says Apple will keep the existing royalty rates it has already hammered out with the three major music labels for subscribers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
Although I dont think this was all intentional (see: letter sent to news companies re: news app), lets play devil's advocate. It doesn't require everybody to be in on it to execute this. It only requires one entity and that's apple. Apple pings indie artists they know will get mad. The singer of the brian jonestown massacre is known for his rants. They get a bunch of people pissed off "Free music.. free music..." and…
Wearing my altruistic tin-foil-hat, I would argue that Apple wanted to pay indie artists all along (because it's art and they respect them!), but were afraid of the antitrust implications of doing that (re: ebooks litigation). So they made this deal (of not paying artists) to go public, knowing it will 'backfire' and Apple would have the grounds to 'reverse' their decision and pay artists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this analysis just seems right. They sign a deal with TS, get her to be "outraged" then Apple does a 180 and then says it will pay the artists. TS looks good and Apple gets a shitload of free press for their new music service. I feel dumber everyday I don't see this stuff happening.
You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…
Does anyone has numbers on Apple Music royalties? how do they fare against Spotify, Rdio and the like?
They're higher at 71.5% in the US and 73% in the rest of the world. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a...