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

201–210 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#201

Post by jpgvm »

Though this might seem a raw deal for artists I think it should be considered that the artists (and record labels etc) are effectively business partners with Apple.

What they are really doing here is asking the other side of the partnership to participate in the loss leader effort. Apple provides the platform development + storage and delivery infrastructure, the artists provide the content.

When you consider it as a partnership it doesn't seem so reprehensible, they are both forgoing income to secure future recurring income.

I think what people are upset about is the fact Apple has a big war chest when many artists do not. Fundamentally this isn't really Apple's fault though, likely this deal was brokered by their biggest partners - huge record labels. Huge record labels also have big war chests and are probably fine with the arrangement.

It makes good business sense if you are a record label or Apple, less so if you are an independent artist but maybe not no sense at all, I don't know what exposure is worth.

Unfortunately Apple can't create a 2 tier system where they have the big record labels foot the cost of the indie artists nor can their ignore the obvious good business sense of the loss leader approach.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#202

Post by pinaceae »

overall, it is interesting to see pure market forces at play here.

revenues with computer games and movies are going up, revenue with music is going down.

the consumer does not value music that much, plus there is so much musical content which further depresses value.

the historic anomaly of high priced musical reproduction/media is over. back to normal.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#203

Post by microtonal »

pmorici wrote: post #192
w4 wrote: post #186

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…

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, rather than the other way around.

http://lit.vulf.de/spotify-so-little/

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#204

Post by shimfish »

w4 wrote: post #186

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…

Except how long do you think it would take Google to move to app subscriptions if that happened?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#205

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

briandear wrote: post #40
nemik wrote: post #30

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…

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.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corpora...

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#206

Post by comex »

yequalsx wrote: post #156
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.

Nice usage of the word 'confiscatory'. My experience with people who use this word in relation to taxation is that they use it in derogatory sense and is used primarily by conservatives and libertarians. I don't know if that is the case for you. What do you consider the optimal corporate tax rate? You said 10% is high enough. Do you think it should be 0%? If you are in the libertarian and/or conservative branch of U.…

There is no sense setting up a strawman about a topic, exceptionalism, which the parent did not even raise or mention.

Blaming Citizens United (certainly a harmful decision) on corporate personhood is, while popular, unduly reductive; the actual ruling was more about freedom of association. Even in the context of the debate about corporate personhood, your rhetorical question about tax rate is pure demagogy.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#207

Post by coldtea »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #133
japhyr wrote: post #109

I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

It's the weakest part of her argument though as iPhones have a unit cost whereas digital copies of her music do not. But I think she is very right to refuse to pay for a scheme that is supposed to increase Apple's market share and not hers.

>It's the weakest part of her argument though as iPhones have a unit cost whereas digital copies of her music do not.

The most basic cost you have to recoup is that of making the song (studio, musicians, production, what you charge for your voice etc). This remains real money, even if you can make a digital copy of a song for free.

Besides this is based on a "physical product" model of economics and tries to apply it to digital goods. It doesn't relate that well. In an era when tons of people works in stuff that can be "copied for free", there are other models that should be applied (e.g. that you should still pay for the free-to-produce copy).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#208

Post by programmernews3 »

logicchains wrote: post #44
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.

US taxes contribute more to violent deaths and unnecessary punishments/imprisonments per dollar than taxes paid in most other countries. The US spends a greater proportion of GDP on "defense" than almost all other Western countries, so a tax dollar paid in the US is more likely to contribute to "defense" and less likely to contribute to education, healthcare or whatnot than a tax dollar paid in e.g. Sweden or Holland…

I hope the people who are avoiding tax are donating their avoided taxes to their local schools and hospitals.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#209

Post by tomp »

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…

Isn't double taxation really a choice that the owners make? I.e. an unlimited liability company wouldn't be taxed twice. In essence, corporate tax is a fee for the legal protection given by a corporation/limited liability entity.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#210

Post by Justsignedup »

shimfish wrote: post #204
w4 wrote: post #186

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…

Except how long do you think it would take Google to move to app subscriptions if that happened?

There'll always be someone making an app. You can stop producing good apps, but since most apps are already free w/ ads or are a free addon to an already existing service it probably wouldn't matter for the majority of apps people use :(
Post reply on HN