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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |