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

81–90 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#81

Post by zymhan »

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…

Would they have to pay taxes all of the overseas earnings if they use just some of it? I figured they only paid tax on what they actually bring back here.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#82

Post by vacri »

sbarre wrote: post #49
opcvx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 services. Did you read the post where she explains what is her goal for doing this? Here is the relevant part: This is n…

Do you really believe that? Or is that maybe carefully crafted language to fend off the parent's valid argument? Plenty of creators currently put their music on Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Youtube and more, and get exposure that way without getting paid. The choice is really up to the artist. I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to? I don't know.. btw not sayin…

> I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to?

Unless the artist (or representative) have given them permission to use their content for free, they should absolutely have to. It's the same IP laws that Apple like to use in their own defence: you can't just use someone else's stuff without their permission and without remuneration. What do you think Apple would do to me if I started selling an OS that used Apple's graphics set?

Just because some artists put their music on free media doesn't mean that a corporation can use that music as a loss-leader to sell their service.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#83

Post by paukiatwee »

sauere wrote: post #80

> Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. It is safe to assume that max. 10% of the subscribers will be in this 3 month trial. You will make money from the other 90%. Also, just a little industry insight: Taylor makes $1.5m+ at each concert, plus travel, hotel, technical rider. I have a very hard time understanding all this cry baby talk.

> This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

Did you read the whole article?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#84

Post by zymhan »

sauere wrote: post #80

> Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. It is safe to assume that max. 10% of the subscribers will be in this 3 month trial. You will make money from the other 90%. Also, just a little industry insight: Taylor makes $1.5m+ at each concert, plus travel, hotel, technical rider. I have a very hard time understanding all this cry baby talk.

You have any data to support that?

And if that's true, then Apple should be taking the hit up front, not the artists.

Your last point is just irrelevant and unnecessary.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#85

Post by kweinber »

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 seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here."

She is VERY in touch with its shape... And she is trying to change it. She also famously ditched Spotify and has been consistent in using her fame and leverage.

What she is doing is very important...Spotify is bankrupting artists while bleeding cash with no real business model to make the money back. She was outlasting them while the vc money ran out and it was working.... Now that Apple is in the game, the danger of them using their cash to bankrupt artists with a bad business almost indefinitely is very scary to artists. She is trying to be diplomatic while making a point.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#86

Post by thefreeman »

sauere wrote: post #80

> Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. It is safe to assume that max. 10% of the subscribers will be in this 3 month trial. You will make money from the other 90%. Also, just a little industry insight: Taylor makes $1.5m+ at each concert, plus travel, hotel, technical rider. I have a very hard time understanding all this cry baby talk.

So you obviously didn't read TFA then. Like the second or third sentence in clearly states that she is not doing this for herself but for all of the smaller artists who don't have the power to make a stand like this.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#87

Post by sanswork »

sauere wrote: post #80

> Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. It is safe to assume that max. 10% of the subscribers will be in this 3 month trial. You will make money from the other 90%. Also, just a little industry insight: Taylor makes $1.5m+ at each concert, plus travel, hotel, technical rider. I have a very hard time understanding all this cry baby talk.

If you made it to that line you already read her explanation of that and her saying that she makes enough from live performances.

That money pays a lot of other peoples salaries too. It takes a large staff to put on a tour for a performer of her size.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#88

Post by on_and_off »

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…

In your comparison, the dealer has to pay the cost of this free sample, not the drug producer. Offering several weeks/months for free is nothing new in the music streaming industry but usually the service is the one that has to swallow that cost.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#89

Post by m_fayer »

unfamiliar wrote: post #27

I agree with everything she said... but she didn't answer the question she posed at the start: why is she withholding 1989, (and not any of her other albums), and what does that have to do with the 3 month trial? If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span.

The one album can be seen as her token of protest without going as far as shunning the service as a whole. So, this is probably a carefully calibrated objection, and we're not privy to the details of why she did it this way and not some other way.
Post reply on HN