To Apple, Love Taylor • Hacker News Board

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#531

Post by ixtli » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #458

ixtli wrote: post #226

In 215 comments no one that I could find has mentioned that, while well-intentioned, this post comes off as somewhat disingenuous because Apple does not deal directly with the artists. The entire (pretty well-written) thing doesn't mention _at all_ that the majority of musicians do not deal directly with distributors. Think about it: how are Apple/Google/Spotify/Amazon going to deal directly with 10 million individua…

>I think anyone can agree that Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on Apple AND the music industry are losing money during the 3 months, but they both stand to gain money after that. Apple has invested a lot of money in creating the service and running it for free for the trial period.

They are making artists pay for their user acquisition. I still call that profiting off of someone else's work without compensating them.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#532

Post by 1stop » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 12:07 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #408

1stop wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a specific (but common) use of the loss-leader strategy, but not the definition. The strategy itself is to sell something at a loss, to get a lead/marketshare/conversion.

well, if you type "loss leader" into Google an infobox pops up that says "A loss leader (also leader) is a pricing strategy where a product is sold at a price below its market cost to stimulate other sales of more profitable goods or services" which it got from Wikipedia, whose article doesn't mention what you call the strategy.

Try typing:

define: loss leader

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#533

Post by mike_hearn » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #505

mike_hearn wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the reason is that a US citizen has more privileges than someone else Not the case. I have read that the most powerful passport in the world (as in, getting into countries visa free) is the British passport. Additionally Americans, unlike citizens of other countries, get no protection from their host government. If they get evacuated from a disaster zone they get charged for the costs. And as everything the…

> If they get evacuated from a disaster zone they get charged for the costs. And as everything the US Gov does is horrendously price inflated, there are cases of people getting "rescued" and then wishing they'd been left behind after being served with massive bills. Citation please? The only thing I've ever heard of even remotely close to this ate the occasional local search and rescue operations that are caused by p…

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/emergencie...

Click the "Will the U.S. government pay for my travel? How much will it cost?" section.

As bad as people like to make this country out to be, we are the first ones there with the biggest shovel any time another country needs to be dug out.

It's not so. Go look at Yemen. The Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis evac'd their citizens when the war started. The USA left theirs to rot.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/01/american-civili...

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#534

Post by nmesse » Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #455

nmesse wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The truth is, some of my most used apps are the least important and/or cheapest. This is why, if we went with a pay by usage app store plan, the true winners would be the addictive, least useful apps. I use the Spotify app 24/7, yet I use Editorial and Pythonista (both costing around $7), an app I value to a much greater degree, sometimes just -8h daily. And the truth is, while OmniOutliner is so much use…

Sure but that's easily fixed by stipulating that ad supported services are not eligible for the payout.

Aha, but of course, these services and time wasters will just adapt to have no ads. Essentially, I fear that all apps will take the approach of being excellent time wasters or services (because that's what they're being paid for), and killing all the truly great apps that that have around 20 people using them, yet cost around $7. And are not as addictive as these time wasters. Some apps try to minimize the time spent in their apps (a losing strategy in this new economy) because people pay them for a fast, frictionless service (think Drafts), but put less time into them than a browser or addictive game.