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

61–70 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#61

Post by fordh »

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.

I was curious and looked up this claim. Turns out PolitiFact looked into it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/...

The conclusion:

  Bolling said the United States has "the highest corporate tax rate in the free
  world." He was referring to the statutory rate, meaning the rate before
  deductions. On that score, he’s right: The United States does have the highest
  statutory rate among developed countries. However, the United States’ corporate
  tax rate doesn’t appear to be the highest once deductions and other exclusions
  are taken into account.
I found it an interesting article so I decided to share.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#62

Post by unfamiliar »

Zikes wrote: post #42
whonut wrote: post #37

The Apple Music free trial thing is shitty but Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here. Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming serv…

Taylor is pulling her music because those small artists can't. She's making a statement, and because she's such a phenomenon her statement is likely to at least be heard.

I find this hopelessly naive. Yes she said that. Why is she only pulling 1989? Not her other albums? It seems the most likely true answer is "because that one is still selling strong so it is in her interests to do so."

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#63

Post by acyacy »

jws wrote: post #50
mnx wrote: post #11

It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.

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…

What would you tell Youtube or Soundcloud? They also foot the bill.

Apple is placing the value of artists work at $0 in a bid gain market share. It should be them who incurs the full cost not the artist.

When the music is offered on free, the prime beneficiary is Apple.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#65

Post by chii »

sanswork wrote: post #59
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…

The labels and artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist. Apple built a service that wouldn't exist without the content. The content would still exist on other services without Apple though.

> 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.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#66

Post by sanswork »

unfamiliar wrote: post #62
Zikes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor is pulling her music because those small artists can't. She's making a statement, and because she's such a phenomenon her statement is likely to at least be heard.

I find this hopelessly naive. Yes she said that. Why is she only pulling 1989? Not her other albums? It seems the most likely true answer is "because that one is still selling strong so it is in her interests to do so."

Because that is the one streaming services are most interested in getting so it gives her the most leverage.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#67

Post by tehwebguy »

If you don't need the promotion hold your music off for 3 months. If you do, go for it. Problem solved?

Maybe there was some sort exclusivity thing but it doesn't make sense that artists would have to take it or leave it now.

Also, someone with her streaming numbers is basically the only kind of artist that would even care. Streaming royalties are really low unless you have really huge numbers so while she stands to potentially lose significant revenue in 3 months tons of artists won't.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#68

Post by sanswork »

chii wrote: post #65
sanswork wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labels and artists have already incurred the costs to produce the content, their costs do exist. Apple built a service that wouldn't exist without the content. The content would still exist on other services without Apple though.

> 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.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#70

Post by hookey »

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.

Are there even any artists that agree to this? The first three months of Apple Music will essentially be “free music from artists who would give away their music for free”.
Post reply on HN