71–80 of 152 posts
Musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and it's fixed the next day. App developers and content producers get emailed 'we are taking more out of your cut' or 'if you don't want us to show ads near your content, reply to this email with "opt out"'
So, without making a judgement call on this actual decision. It amazes me that no one saw this type of reaction from artists (and the generally pro-artist consumer base) coming when the overall business plan was created. And that the concession was made so quickly...
Am I then only one that noticed that they didn't say they would be paying the same during the free trial as after the free trial. They could be paying a flat $0.01 fee to each artist regardless of plays, and everything Apple has said would still apply. I want to know "how much" they will be paying.
Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed in this. The music industry has long been using bullying to get what they want, and this is no exception to that rule. The sooner every traditional media company goes out of business, the better the situation will be for everyone -- listeners and artists.
this was a BRILLIANT pr orchestration. blogs, articles, etc all over the globe were written about apple music, for free. would have been far more expensive to buy all that airtime than this little scandal. so taylor swift gets more publicity, apple music is now an established brand name, everyone and their dog knows about their pricing model - holy shit. hats off to the apple team, playing the outrage-piano like no o…
Musicians can complain when they want a bigger cut and it's fixed the next day. App developers and content producers get emailed 'we are taking more out of your cut' or 'if you don't want us to show ads near your content, reply to this email with "opt out"'
this was a BRILLIANT pr orchestration. blogs, articles, etc all over the globe were written about apple music, for free. would have been far more expensive to buy all that airtime than this little scandal. so taylor swift gets more publicity, apple music is now an established brand name, everyone and their dog knows about their pricing model - holy shit. hats off to the apple team, playing the outrage-piano like no o…
This. It's highly unlikely that some SVP would respond so swiftly (no pun intended) to a pop star.
this was a BRILLIANT pr orchestration. blogs, articles, etc all over the globe were written about apple music, for free. would have been far more expensive to buy all that airtime than this little scandal. so taylor swift gets more publicity, apple music is now an established brand name, everyone and their dog knows about their pricing model - holy shit. hats off to the apple team, playing the outrage-piano like no o…
a) "Oh gosh, apparently having the artists/labels taking the monetary risk for us for trying to acquire a strategic stranglehold on the music industry was bad, we should do the right thing!"
b) "Argh! the backlash is bigger than we anticipated and Taylor Swift is causing too much negative PR. Quickly, change our minds before our service and future music profits are doomed. We'll make it back some other way somewhere down the line"
Doing the right thing because you have to is better than not doing it I guess, but I tend to measure a company on whether they'd try the same thing again if they could get away with it... and Apple definitively would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It's highly unlikely that some SVP would respond so swiftly (no pun intended) to a pop star.
I think it's more unlikely that a change in business model would happen so quickly. Given public presence and the way they are steering Apple Music, the personal response - regardless of planning - is less surprising.
They might have been going with the "shared risk" model of free up front play, but bigger payouts to the artists on the subscriptions - but still had their "Apple takes the risk" on the front end, then payouts are smaller on the back end.
Then when artists grumbled about the shared risk model, they kicked in with the alternative model.
Some professional photographer is calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy. http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-...
This was posted as an HN article and was subsequently deemed irrelevant due to the incredibly different nature of their jobs. Mostly that, no, photographers shouldn't be able to do whatever they want with photographs of Taylor Swift without her permission. That's how you ruin your brand image.
The entire argument was that they were demanding rights to use the photographer's work in the future for free. There was a non-commercial clause but its wording was a bit strange (is publicity for a brand like Taylor Swift ever non-commerical?)