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

481–490 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#481

Post by girvo »

baddox wrote: post #432
mikehearn wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me there are, but I'm open to discussion. - Different pricing. Apps can be anywhere from $1 to $500, while songs typically hover around $0.99. The wide variance in app pricing makes a subscription model challenging to satisfy all users and developers. - Different markets. When you make an app, you're tying it to be used on a specific platform. It is additional work to make it cross-platform. That alone is limiting…

> while songs typically hover around $0.99. This is slightly off topic, but it seems that iTunes song prices have silently increased to $1.29, which is a huge increase. There are still some $0.99 songs out there, but most of the tracks I buy are $1.29.

$1.29? Luxury!

Seriously though, here in Australia the regular price for a track is $2.19 -- which is absolutely ludicrous to be honest. As of today, that's the equivalent of $1.70USD

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#482

Post by girvo »

danmaz74 wrote: post #442

3 months free is a way for Apple to promote its service against its competitors, and they need to do this promotion because they're late-comers. There is nothing to gain for the creators of music in getting more people to use Apple streaming service instead of Spotify or Google, so, why should they finance Apple's promotion?

> There is nothing to gain for the creators of music in getting more people to use Apple streaming service instead of Spotify or Google

Are you sure? Because Apple are promising to pay higher royalties. That sure seems like not nothing to me. Now, I pass no judgement on whether the financial calculus works out for 3 months of free usage, but to be honest saying there's "nothing to gain" is being dishonest.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#483

Post by thanatropism »

morganvachon wrote: post #33
x5n1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor did not write that... at least I don't think that she did.

You'd be surprised. I'm not a fan of her music (if I had kids they probably would be) but she's very hands-on with her image and if it's on her tumblr page, she wrote it. I respect her as a person and from what I've seen she's very intelligent and articulate.

> very hands-on with her image

As compared with whom? Ariana Grande? Metallica? Madonna? Jello Biafra? Efrim Menuck? Nicki Minaj?

Sure, she's probably market-positioned as "more authentic" than Paris Hilton. You shouldn't be blinded by the marketing any more than you should believe Iron Maiden to be devil-worshippers.

> intelligent and articulate.

Which usually translates to "White, non-Southern American accent". ("British" also applies, but usually to men.)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#484

Post by jfoster »

WalterBright wrote: post #462
Animats wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" I suspect the modern artists-get-rich era started with Elvis." A little further back than that, but not much further. Frank Sinatra, maybe. With radio and recordings, for the first time a musician could get revenue from people far away. "In my own profession, writing compilers, you simply can't sell them anymore." Compilers, operating systems, browsers... Maybe software as an industry only had a limited lifespan. I…

It's the internet that killed paid commodity software. Before the internet, you had to pay someone to burn a CD/floppy and mail it to you, and of course it had to be worth that person's while to do it. Internet downloading removed all the friction, and prices went to zero. However, there's still plenty of opportunity doing service, maintenance, custom work, training, etc.

They also had some quite significant costs involved in making you realise that their software existed, though.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#485

Post by WalterBright »

jfoster wrote: post #484
WalterBright wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the internet that killed paid commodity software. Before the internet, you had to pay someone to burn a CD/floppy and mail it to you, and of course it had to be worth that person's while to do it. Internet downloading removed all the friction, and prices went to zero. However, there's still plenty of opportunity doing service, maintenance, custom work, training, etc.

They also had some quite significant costs involved in making you realise that their software existed, though.

Marketing and promotion is just as costly, if not more costly, than it ever was. I know too many wonderful open source projects that failed and left their author bitter because they thought that merely creating a great program was good enough.

The "build it and they will come" is a stupid Hollywood fantasy. Even the Beatles went nowhere until they hooked up with promoter George Martin.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#486

Post by ScottWhigham »

mikehearn wrote: post #342
blankenship wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps Are there? (At least for independent musicians?) From my experience, it seems like a decent comparison—you can make an app or album for $2000 or $200k.

To me there are, but I'm open to discussion. - Different pricing. Apps can be anywhere from $1 to $500, while songs typically hover around $0.99. The wide variance in app pricing makes a subscription model challenging to satisfy all users and developers. - Different markets. When you make an app, you're tying it to be used on a specific platform. It is additional work to make it cross-platform. That alone is limiting…

You're missing the biggest difference: longevity. An album can sell for 50+ years whereas an app... well, let's just say it's one step above "ephemeral".

All the more reason app developers shouldn't/wouldn't go for such a deal.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#487

Post by dzhiurgis »

rayiner wrote: post #369
w4 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Personally I do not perceive software as SaaS if it is not browser based. That's where the synergy comes from - easier to debug, maintain, etc.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#488

Post by zxcvcxz »

Apple should keep the free trial, but pay revenue only to artists who aren't multi-millionaires or extremely popular.

Then when Taylor still refuses to let iTunes sell her music she'll be seen for what she really is.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#489

Post by ChiperSoft »

naveenspark wrote: post #312

Taylor Swift is signed to Big Machine Records (BMLG). Big Machine Records is distributed by Universal Music Group (UMG). I am sure BMLG/UMG received a sizable advance from Apple in exchange for streaming rights for their master recordings. UMG probably negotiated an even higher advance in exchange for permission to launch the 3 month free campaign. UMG / BMLG should be sharing this advance payment with their artists.…

I suspect her ability to refuse apple the right to stream her album is also a product of her success. I doubt smaller artists have that right in their agreements.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#490

Post by lkrubner »

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…

It's worth noting that this bit:

"For $9.99/month users will receive unlimited access to all apps on the App Store. Developers will receive a share of each user's subscription payments in proportion to app usage."

is exactly what Kachingle unveiled back in 2010, and the public hated it. So, if this wasn't Apple pulling this stunt, we know how much the public would hate it.

http://kachingle.com/

Post reply on HN