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

141–150 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#141

Post by threeseed »

sanswork wrote: post #68
chii wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist. no one is arguing that their costs don't exist, but that they have nothing to lose to put it on. It's not like the artist will somehow have a lower cost by _not_ putting it up.

Except they do have something to lose if they put it on. They will have a lower profit if listeners that would subscribe to another paying service or buy their music switch to Apple streaming.

> They will have a lower profit

You have zero evidence of this. We don't know and may not know for a number of years whether Apple Music is more profitable for artists (or not) than competitor services.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#142

Post by issa »

This 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.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#143

Post by wmeredith »

nemik wrote: post #30
sanswork wrote: post #20

3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.

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…

"it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US"

Oh, the horror.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#144

Post by charlesdenault »

rsync wrote: post #126
nrp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014. Apple has north of $20 Billion in cash in the US. There are likely many reasons for Apple to make the move they did, but it is unlikely cash on hand was one of them.

"Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014." Amazing. We think of the RIAA, or "big music" as some kind of juggernaut force in society and politics - especially Internet politics. But their entire industry top line is smaller than what fedex makes in a month .[1] [1] http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fdx/revenue-eps

That's astonishing. I'd be interested in seeing some more statistics on the amount of lobbying vs market size compared to other industries (e.g. Transportation, Hospitality, Pharma).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#145

Post by revelation »

sanswork wrote: post #20

3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.

It's not content producers, it's content right holders. Presumably they entered into this deal freely.

Is this a dick move from Apple? Sure. But the day I'll be arguing on behalf of music labels and distributors is the day the hell freezes over. Their situation is entirely of their own making.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#146

Post by jjoonathan »

RexRollman wrote: post #111
briandear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.

I agree with corporations who attempt to legally pay as little taxes as possible. That's what I do. If someone doesn't like it, then get the laws changed.

Changing the laws requires a sizable investment in lobbyists and bribe money before any ROI can be achieved. Most individuals simply don't have enough taxable income to make the investment worthwhile. Megacorps do. The situation is not morally symmetrical and not practically symmetrical.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#147

Post by spinchange »

nemik wrote: post #30
sanswork wrote: post #20

3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.

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…

They "only" have about 22 BILLION in American cash! They can raise capital in the bond market in perpetuity secured against all their global cash. There's demand for debt like Apple's. SO, they absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably can pay the artists. This is a business decision based on greed - just like leading a wage suppression cartel. They are not too poor!

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#148

Post by gavanwoolery »

bhickey wrote: post #38
gavanwoolery wrote: post #4

Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so thi…

> Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." There's a difference between not charging the end user and not paying the supplier.

Good point :)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#149

Post by jjoonathan »

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…

If there are loopholes allowing corporations to not actually pay their taxes and the capital gains tax rate is a fraction of the income tax rate, is it really fair to call it double taxation?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#150

Post by threeseed »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #131
jws wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN. Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months. Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. Three kinds of customers will try the service: People who buy their music: th…

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also cre…

> There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes.

Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening.

> iOS users can't download music from the web

Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

Post reply on HN