A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 22nd 15, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more

On 6/22/2015 11:30 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS
wrote:

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.


swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.


If there is to be a change in roaylty payments, said change must be
agreed to by all parties.


--
PeterN
  #12  
Old June 22nd 15, 09:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more

On 6/22/2015 11:44 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:17:58 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists
complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't
get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?


If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.


Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".


Which they have an absolute right to do.

--
PeterN
  #14  
Old June 22nd 15, 10:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more




On 6/22/15 10:12 AM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album


So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.


they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?


No matter: Who is making $$$ on this grand much ado about nothing. All this
hype will make that album Platinum in a day.

  #15  
Old June 22nd 15, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more




On 6/22/15 11:45 AM, in article
2015062209454156141-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck
" wrote:

On 2015-06-22 16:31:40 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they
didn't get paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

PAS:
If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch
too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".

Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three weeks ago.
Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple changed the policy as
a
direct response.

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them.


yes it is.

They
handled this as perfectly as they could.


that part is true.

apple figured that in exchange for a higher royalty (which everyone is
ignoring), apple would not pay during the free trial. that's what was
*negotiated* with the music industry, so if you want lay blame, you
have to blame *both* parties.


http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bus...-how-much-Appl
e-Music-is-going-to-pay-6341370.php


Thanks for that Duck.

The REAL "scum" are the record company executives, who, until about thirty
years ago, would not pay ANYTHING to the artists. This was especially true
with R&B artists.

With iTunes, around ten years ago, the price to buy a single song was
offered for the FIRST time under a buck. The record companies SCREAMED
bloody murder, because they were not getting a 'cut'. Apple sent royalties
to the artists and a new era was made in the "Music Bizzniss".

All this is about folks like RichA creaming over something they can use to
beat down Apple for not helping "the little guy", sheesh!!!

  #16  
Old June 22nd 15, 10:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more




On 6/22/15 1:17 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them. They
handled this as perfectly as they could.


That is not how the news reported the timeline.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-swift-withholds-album-from-apple-music-143
4
916050

"Ooops, she's probably right" was revealing an omission that they were
aware of, and should be "Ooops, we got caught".


they didn't get caught at anything and you missed this part:

Post trial-period, Apple is paying slightly more than Spotify to
music owners. Apple is paying 71.5% of revenue vs. 70% from Spotify
(premium tier).

where's the anger towards spotify for paying less?

How much of that royalty revenue actually gets paid to musicians
varies, depending on the deals they have with the record labels that
distribute their music

in other words, it's the record labels who are stiffing artists.


BINGO!!!!

Give the man the Golden Nail on the Head Award...

  #17  
Old June 22nd 15, 10:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

| So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during
that
| time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained
and
| Apple changed their plan.
|
| Yeah, sure are scums.
|

That's not quite the story. Last I saw, it still
wasn't settled, but the gist of it is that Apple
was trying to use their muscle to force musicians
to shoulder the financial risk for Apple's marketing
plan by not getting paid for 3 months. The Apple
people clearly think that if they give it away for
3 months then a lot of the initial people will get
addicted and agree to pay for it. Then, presumably,
they expect that AppleSeed peer pressure will
quickly make Apple king of music. Apple has no plan
to offer any free version of any kind after the 3
months. They claim they'll pay a tiny, tiny bit more
to musicians than the other plans do.... if it all gets
off the ground and they don't change their minds.
If they decide to cancel the whole thing the musicians
lose out and Apple loses nothing. Sounds pretty
scummy and disrespectful to me.

What Taylor Swift did was to block Apple's
bullying and give the smalltime operators some
leverage in the deal.


  #18  
Old June 22nd 15, 11:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:12:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album


So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.


they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.


Yeah. They should work for free. :-(

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old June 22nd 15, 11:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:30:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PAS
wrote:

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.


swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.


Not so.

Apple can use her music more or less as much as they like, as long as
she gets paid for it. What they do with it after they get it is their
business, but the artists should still get paid.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #20  
Old June 22nd 15, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:31:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they
didn't get paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

PAS:
If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch
too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".


Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three weeks ago.
Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple changed the policy as a
direct response.

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them.


yes it is.


"Yes it is" what? "Yes it is one "of things that Apple has done
wrong"?

I don't think that is quite what you meant to say.


They
handled this as perfectly as they could.


that part is true.

apple figured that in exchange for a higher royalty (which everyone is
ignoring), apple would not pay during the free trial. that's what was
*negotiated* with the music industry, so if you want lay blame, you
have to blame *both* parties.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GREEDY Apple wanted 30% of sales for doing almost NOTHING PeterN Digital Photography 15 September 5th 11 09:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.