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

| I know about that and read similar stories in
| several locations. But the stories also said that
| Apple has not yet said *how much* they'll pay,
| or that TS has agreed to the deal.
|
| of course not. that is confidential.
|

I didn't see anyplace where they said that. They
just said Mr. Cue was not forthcoming about it.
In the sfgate article they mentioned how much
Spotify pays. And Apple has said how much they
intend to pay after 3 months. So it seems reasonable
to me to assume that Mr. Cue is playing a poker
game and the hand isn't over yet. We'll see.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| I know about that and read similar stories in
| several locations. But the stories also said that
| Apple has not yet said *how much* they'll pay,
| or that TS has agreed to the deal.
|
| of course not. that is confidential.
|

I didn't see anyplace where they said that. They
just said Mr. Cue was not forthcoming about it.
In the sfgate article they mentioned how much
Spotify pays. And Apple has said how much they
intend to pay after 3 months. So it seems reasonable
to me to assume that Mr. Cue is playing a poker
game and the hand isn't over yet. We'll see.

how much money do you make?

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Mayayana:
| Last I saw, it still wasn't settled | | It was settled
yesterday, so "last you saw" isn't very current. |

Apple said they'll pay. Everyone celebrated. So far I haven't
seen where Apple has actually made a specific offer as to what
they'll pay per stream, nor have I seen confirmation that TS has
accepted their offer. If you have a link saying it's definitely
a done deal I'd be interested to see that.

Sandman:
There is no "deal". Who gives a **** about Taylor Swift? She was
one of the artists and journalists that brought this to Apple's
attention, and whether or not she likes the new policy or not is
totally irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if she created the stir, or was even
instrumental in stirring up the pot, that caused Apple to change its
policy. Changes often happen because individuals with a strong
presence in the area create a stir.

Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like Apple responded to
one artist offering a "deal" and we were all in anticipation whether Taylor Swift
would be satisfied with and "accept" this supposed deal. While that may be true
for the general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and one artist,
this is of course not true.

Apple responded to feedback and changed their policy. No need to "accept"
anything. If Taylor still don't want to release her music, so be it. Buh-bye.

--
Sandman

| Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like Apple
responded to
| one artist offering a "deal" and we were all in anticipation whether
Taylor Swift
| would be satisfied with and "accept" this supposed deal. While that may be
true
| for the general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and one
artist,
| this is of course not true.
|
| Apple responded to feedback and changed their policy. No need to "accept"
| anything. If Taylor still don't want to release her music, so be it.
Buh-bye.

Why do you need to skew it that way? What you're
saying is at odds with the facts. If both
sides don't cooperate then there's no deal. Apple
clearly needs TS to make this happen, else they
would have ignored her. They're not offering to
pay out millions just to make a cute girl happy.
Yet you want to cast it as a case of the Great God
Apple being kind and accomodating customer feedback.
TS is not a customer. She's a critical business partner.
That's what this whole story has been about!

Time: "How Taylor Swift took down Apple"

LATimes: "Taylor Swift speaks and Apple listens, how
the superstar became music's most powerful voice"

If they don't clarify what
they intend to pay, or if TS decides their offer was
just a ploy to kill time before the launch, then TS
may not take part and that could doom iRadio, or
whatever they're calling it.

You seem to feel insulted that TS should be viewed
at the same level as Apple. Apple may be your god, but
in the real world they're a corporation trying to make
money, and they just tried to grab a pile of cash that
they simply didn't have the leverage to hold onto.

Though I don't mean to especially demonize Apple in this.
They had already made deals with the major record companies,
who speak for most of the musicians involved.
The whole thing is mostly a mega-corporate play in which
musicians have virtually no say because they signed on
to be indentured servants in exchange for fame. The only
reason TS can do what she did is because, unlike most
other musicians, she's got her own record company.

Personally I think they should all be highly taxed for
supplying an addictive drug to teenagers and young
adults. But that's a whole different kettle of DRM-
infested intellectual property.

On 2015-06-24 06:08:33 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Andreas
Skitsnack wrote:

Mayayana:
| Last I saw, it still wasn't settled | | It was settled
yesterday, so "last you saw" isn't very current. |

Apple said they'll pay. Everyone celebrated. So far I haven't
seen where Apple has actually made a specific offer as to what
they'll pay per stream, nor have I seen confirmation that TS has
accepted their offer. If you have a link saying it's definitely
a done deal I'd be interested to see that.

Sandman:
There is no "deal". Who gives a **** about Taylor Swift? She was
one of the artists and journalists that brought this to Apple's
attention, and whether or not she likes the new policy or not is
totally irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if she created the stir, or was even
instrumental in stirring up the pot, that caused Apple to change its
policy. Changes often happen because individuals with a strong
presence in the area create a stir.

Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like Apple
responded to
one artist offering a "deal" and we were all in anticipation whether
Taylor Swift
would be satisfied with and "accept" this supposed deal. While that may be true
for the general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and
one artist,
this is of course not true.

Apple responded to feedback and changed their policy. No need to "accept"
anything. If Taylor still don't want to release her music, so be it. Buh-bye.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/technology/article/Independents-line-up-behind-Apple-Music-6346838.php

It

seems that there are a whole bunch who are happy to join the party when
Apple folded after that Swift kick got their attention.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Mayayana wrote:

| Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like
Apple responded to | one artist offering a "deal" and we were all
in anticipation whether Taylor Swift | would be satisfied with and
"accept" this supposed deal. While that may be true | for the
general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and one
artist, | this is of course not true. | | Apple responded to
feedback and changed their policy. No need to "accept" | anything.
If Taylor still don't want to release her music, so be it. Buh-bye.

Why do you need to skew it that way? What you're saying is at odds
with the facts. If both sides don't cooperate then there's no deal.

There never was a "deal". Apple had a compensation policy, some people pointed
out problems with that policy and Apple changed the policy. There is no "deal" to
accept or talk about.

Apple clearly needs TS to make this happen, else they would have
ignored her.

This has nothing to do with Taylor Swift, she's just one artist. It just so
happened that she made herself the figurehead of this complaint and Apple choose
to respond to her directly with their policy change.

They're not offering to pay out millions just to make a
cute girl happy. Yet you want to cast it as a case of the Great God
Apple being kind and accomodating customer feedback.

Why are you lying?

TS is not a customer. She's a critical business partner. That's what
this whole story has been about!

She's one tiny artist in an ocean of artists on iTunes. She's not a "critical"
business partner to anyone.

She's no on Spotify and Spotify manages just fine without her.

--
Sandman

In article 2015062414402670415-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
There is no "deal". Who gives a **** about Taylor
Swift? She was one of the artists and journalists that
brought this to Apple's attention, and whether or not she
likes the new policy or not is totally irrelevant.

Andreas Skitsnack:
It's not irrelevant if she created the stir, or was even
instrumental in stirring up the pot, that caused Apple to change
its policy. Changes often happen because individuals with a
strong presence in the area create a stir.

Sandman:
Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like
Apple responded to one artist offering a "deal" and we were all
in anticipation whether Taylor Swift would be satisfied with and
"accept" this supposed deal. While that may be true for the
general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and one
artist, this is of course not true.

Apple responded to feedback and changed their policy. No need to
"accept" anything. If Taylor still don't want to release her
music, so be it. Buh-bye.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/techn...ine-up-behind-
Apple-Music-6346838.php

It seems that there are a whole bunch who are happy to join the party
when Apple folded after that Swift kick got their attention.

Sigh, the press loves people that think Taylor Swift "brought down Apple", it
makes for great headlines, and sets up a great david and goliath scenario. Taylor
Swift had nothing to do with this change of policy, and she wasn't the first to
point it out. It's just that for publicity reasons it makes more sense to make an
open response to her, since she's quite influential with the customers of the
service. I bet the policy change was already being discussed internally at Apple
for weeks before Taylor Swift made her complaint.

Again, hen out of a feather. Apple had a policy, people complained about it,
Apple changed the policy. They did everything right. There is nothing to complain
about here.

--
Sandman

On Jun 25, 2015, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In article2015062414402670415-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

Sandman:
There is no "deal". Who gives a **** about Taylor
Swift? She was one of the artists and journalists that
brought this to Apple's attention, and whether or not she
likes the new policy or not is totally irrelevant.

Andreas Skitsnack:
It's not irrelevant if she created the stir, or was even
instrumental in stirring up the pot, that caused Apple to change
its policy. Changes often happen because individuals with a
strong presence in the area create a stir.

Sandman:
Of course, but Mayayana seemed to wanted to make it seem like
Apple responded to one artist offering a "deal" and we were all
in anticipation whether Taylor Swift would be satisfied with and
"accept" this supposed deal. While that may be true for the
general fanboy who thinks this is something between Apple and one
artist, this is of course not true.

Apple responded to feedback and changed their policy. No need to
"accept" anything. If Taylor still don't want to release her
music, so be it. Buh-bye.


http://www.sfgate.com/business/techn...s-line-up-behi
nd-
Apple-Music-6346838.php

It seems that there are a whole bunch who are happy to join the party
when Apple folded after that Swift kick got their attention.

Sigh, the press loves people that think Taylor Swift "brought down Apple", it
makes for great headlines, and sets up a great david and goliath scenario.
Taylor Swift had nothing to do with this change of policy, and she wasn't the
first
to point it out. It's just that for publicity reasons it makes more sense to
make an open response to her, since she's quite influential with the
customers of the service. I bet the policy change was already being discussed
internally at Apple for weeks before Taylor Swift made her complaint.

I guess you missed the point and humor of my remark.

....and for the record, I have an all Apple computer life, and have had since
my Apple ][e. I am not a Swift fan, but I appreciate the clout she has in the
music business. So I wish her and Apple nothing but success.

Again, hen out of a feather. Apple had a policy, people complained about it,
Apple changed the policy. They did everything right. There is nothing to
complain about here.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sigh, the press loves people that think Taylor Swift "brought down Apple", it
makes for great headlines, and sets up a great david and goliath scenario.

it's called linkbait.

Taylor
Swift had nothing to do with this change of policy,

bull****.

she and eddy cue discussed it on the phone.

and she wasn't the first
to
point it out.

yes she was.

It's just that for publicity reasons it makes more sense to
make an
open response to her, since she's quite influential with the customers of the
service. I bet the policy change was already being discussed internally at
Apple
for weeks before Taylor Swift made her complaint.

of course it was discussed before.

apple has been negotiating the specifics with the record labels (not
taylor in particular) for quite a while and reportedly still are
working out some details.

Again, hen out of a feather. Apple had a policy, people complained about it,
Apple changed the policy. They did everything right. There is nothing to complain
about here.

wrong.

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/techn...dents-line-up-
behind-Apple-Music-6346838.php

Sandman:
Sigh, the press loves people that think Taylor Swift "brought down
Apple", it makes for great headlines, and sets up a great david
and goliath scenario. Taylor Swift had nothing to do with this
change of policy, and she wasn't the first to point it out. It's
just that for publicity reasons it makes more sense to make an
open response to her, since she's quite influential with the
customers of the service. I bet the policy change was already
being discussed internally at Apple for weeks before Taylor Swift
made her complaint.

I guess you missed the point and humor of my remark.

No, sorry, I didn't. I commented on the content of the link, not your post
specifically, or you. Sorry if I was unclear, and I apologize.

--
Sandman