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

In article , nospam wrote:

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.

it's called linkbait.

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

bull****.
she and eddy cue discussed it on the phone.

Not bull****.

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

yes she was.

Then you haven't kept up to date. This was first revealed back in June 9th:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...ple-is-paying-
just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

Do you think Taylor Swift reads these contracts? Of course she doesn't. While
hopefully some in upper management of her label does, this was made public two
weeks ago, and Apple has most likely been having internal policy conversations
since then. Taylor Swift was just the most famous person to bring it to the
attention of the broader public via linkbait articles.

Sandman:
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.

Naturally.

Sandman:
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.

Correction: Nothing for a reasonable adult to be complaining about here.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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

bull****.
she and eddy cue discussed it on the phone.

Not bull****.

yes bull****. taylor swift had quite a bit to do with the change and
did discuss it with eddy cue on the phone.

if she did't make a big deal out of it, it likely would *not* have
changed.

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

yes she was.

Then you haven't kept up to date. This was first revealed back in June 9th:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...ple-is-paying-

just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

you did't read what you posted.

Do you think Taylor Swift reads these contracts? Of course she doesn't. While
hopefully some in upper management of her label does, this was made public
two
weeks ago, and Apple has most likely been having internal policy
conversations
since then. Taylor Swift was just the most famous person to bring it to the
attention of the broader public via linkbait articles.

the artists are not directly paid by apple.

they're paid by their record labels who are paid by apple, which is
where the problem is.

| 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.

You're not making sense. It's business. They
have to sign contracts. Apple is not God. I'm
sorry to spoil your day, but that's just the way
it is.

In the NYT today there's an article providing
more details. No word yet on TS, but several
smaller independents have agreed to sign on
to the deal with Apple, agreeing to Apple's offer
of .2 cents per listen.

Apple had already made a deal with the big
companies and just told the small indies a few
days in advance that they had no options. Take
it or leave it. But even if TS hadn't spoken up
it was still a deal. The indies could still refuse
to let Apple host their songs. Apple doesn't own
the rights and then flip a few pennies to musicians
out of the goodness of their heart.

Did you know that Apple also doesn't control
the sunrise? Sad, but true. It turns out that
Copernicus was right all along.

In article , nospam wrote:

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

nospam:
bull****. she and eddy cue discussed it on the phone.

Sandman:
Not bull****.

yes bull****. taylor swift had quite a bit to do with the change and
did discuss it with eddy cue on the phone.

if she did't make a big deal out of it, it likely would *not* have
changed.

Maybe not as swiftly (pun intended), but it would have happened. Apple Music
doesn't rely on one artist. Swift isn't on Spotify for the same reasons
(probably) and Spotify is doing just fine. People are overplaying the
importance of Swift here.

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

nospam:
yes she was.

Sandman:
Then you haven't kept up to date. This was first revealed back in
June 9th:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...king-apple-is-
paying-

just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

you did't read what you posted.

Indeed I did.

Sandman:
Do you think Taylor Swift reads these contracts? Of course she
doesn't. While hopefully some in upper management of her label
does, this was made public two weeks ago, and Apple has most
likely been having internal policy conversations since then.
Taylor Swift was just the most famous person to bring it to the
attention of the broader public via linkbait articles.

the artists are not directly paid by apple.

Unless they are indie artists without an aggregator.

they're paid by their record labels who are paid by apple, which is
where the problem is.

While some may see that as a problem, this is how the music industry works, and
have worked for decades. Nothing new about this, and nothing unique to Apple
either.

Spotify doesn't pay artists royalties for the free trial period of their
service, and the ad revenue from the entirely free tier is minuscule for
artists.

Apple pays more per stream than any other service. Only difference is that they
have an unprecedentedly long trial period of three months, which means that the
standard policy for the industry led to a larger gap of royalties not being
paid.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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

nospam:
bull****. she and eddy cue discussed it on the phone.

Sandman:
Not bull****.

yes bull****. taylor swift had quite a bit to do with the change and
did discuss it with eddy cue on the phone.

if she did't make a big deal out of it, it likely would *not* have
changed.

Maybe not as swiftly (pun intended), but it would have happened.

you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't have happened. nobody
does.

you're talking out your ass again.

Apple Music
doesn't rely on one artist. Swift isn't on Spotify for the same reasons
(probably) and Spotify is doing just fine. People are overplaying the
importance of Swift here.

nobody is focusing on swift. this was never about swift.

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

nospam:
yes she was.

Sandman:
Then you haven't kept up to date. This was first revealed back in
June 9th:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...king-apple-is-
paying-

just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

you did't read what you posted.

Indeed I did.

no you didn't since it contradicts what you're trying to say.

Sandman:
Do you think Taylor Swift reads these contracts? Of course she
doesn't. While hopefully some in upper management of her label
does, this was made public two weeks ago, and Apple has most
likely been having internal policy conversations since then.
Taylor Swift was just the most famous person to bring it to the
attention of the broader public via linkbait articles.

the artists are not directly paid by apple.

Unless they are indie artists without an aggregator.

they're a minority and the exception to the rule.

they're paid by their record labels who are paid by apple, which is
where the problem is.

While some may see that as a problem, this is how the music industry works,
and
have worked for decades. Nothing new about this, and nothing unique to Apple
either.

everyone sees it as a problem and it's something that needs to change.

Spotify doesn't pay artists royalties for the free trial period of their
service, and the ad revenue from the entirely free tier is minuscule for
artists.

also wrong.

spotify pays royalties during the free trial.

Apple pays more per stream than any other service. Only difference is that
they
have an unprecedentedly long trial period of three months, which means that the
standard policy for the industry led to a larger gap of royalties not being
paid.

that's the only thing you got right, except that it's only slightly
more and because of their 3 month trial, thus only partial credit
issued.

On 6/25/2015 9:35 AM, Mayayana wrote:

... Apple is not God....


Now just a minute. You have gone too far in making that statement. I
demand that you issue an immediate retraction.
If your statement is true, why do some treat it as a diety.

--
PeterN

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

On 6/25/2015 9:35 AM, Mayayana wrote:

... Apple is not God....


Now just a minute. You have gone too far in making that statement. I
demand that you issue an immediate retraction.
If your statement is true, why do some treat it as a diety.

Of course Apple is not god.
God was Steve Jobs, he who wrested the shared throne from the Mighty Woz. Now
that he is gone (god is dead you know?), we the followers who are true to the
core, so to speak, sit and wait for his return somewhat like Cargo Cultists.
Jon Ive and Tim Cook are pretenders running things like Scientologists
without Hubbard.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , nospam wrote:

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

nospam:
bull****. she and eddy cue discussed it on the
phone.

Sandman:
Not bull****.

nospam:
yes bull****. taylor swift had quite a bit to do with the change
and did discuss it with eddy cue on the phone.

if she did't make a big deal out of it, it likely would *not*
have changed.

Sandman:
Maybe not as swiftly (pun intended), but it would have happened.

you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't have happened.
nobody does.

you're talking out your ass again.

Not any more than you, who also doesn't know for sure whether this policy
change was solely due to Taylor Swift. I am just presenting a more likely and
reasonable scenario.

Sandman:
Apple Music doesn't rely on one artist. Swift isn't on Spotify
for the same reasons (probably) and Spotify is doing just fine.
People are overplaying the importance of Swift here.

nobody is focusing on swift. this was never about swift.

Then stop making it seem like this entire "deal" was made between Taylor Swift
and Eddie Cue.

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

nospam:
you did't read what you posted.

Sandman:
Indeed I did.

no you didn't since it contradicts what you're trying to say.

Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract almost two weeks before
Taylor Swift said anything.

nospam:
they're paid by their record labels who are paid by apple, which
is where the problem is.

Sandman:
While some may see that as a problem, this is how the music
industry works, and have worked for decades. Nothing new about
this, and nothing unique to Apple either.

everyone sees it as a problem and it's something that needs to
change.

Apparently not "everyone" sees it as a problem, since it is still being done
this way, and has been done this way for decades.

Sandman:
Spotify doesn't pay artists royalties for the free trial period of
their service, and the ad revenue from the entirely free tier is
minuscule for artists.

also wrong.

spotify pays royalties during the free trial.

No, they don't. For their free accounts they share their minuscule ad revenue
with record labels, which is as near to $0 you can get per stream, and they
recently announced a three month $0.99 premium account, which is also as close
to zero as you can get in term of royalties.

Sandman:
Apple pays more per stream than any other service. Only difference
is that they have an unprecedentedly long trial period of three
months, which means that the standard policy for the industry led
to a larger gap of royalties not being paid.

that's the only thing you got right, except that it's only slightly
more and because of their 3 month trial, thus only partial credit
issued.

"pays more" and "pays only slightly more" is not in contradiction.


--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

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

nospam:
bull****. she and eddy cue discussed it on the
phone.

Sandman:
Not bull****.

nospam:
yes bull****. taylor swift had quite a bit to do with the change
and did discuss it with eddy cue on the phone.

if she did't make a big deal out of it, it likely would *not*
have changed.

Sandman:
Maybe not as swiftly (pun intended), but it would have happened.

you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't have happened.
nobody does.

you're talking out your ass again.

Not any more than you, who also doesn't know for sure whether this policy
change was solely due to Taylor Swift. I am just presenting a more likely and
reasonable scenario.

it clearly was since she and eddy spoke on the phone.

Sandman:
Apple Music doesn't rely on one artist. Swift isn't on Spotify
for the same reasons (probably) and Spotify is doing just fine.
People are overplaying the importance of Swift here.

nobody is focusing on swift. this was never about swift.

Then stop making it seem like this entire "deal" was made between Taylor
Swift
and Eddie Cue.

they're the ones who spoke on the phone.

Where a "leaked" contract made it obvious.

nospam:
you did't read what you posted.

Sandman:
Indeed I did.

no you didn't since it contradicts what you're trying to say.

Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract almost two weeks before
Taylor Swift said anything.

read it again.

nospam:
they're paid by their record labels who are paid by apple, which
is where the problem is.

Sandman:
While some may see that as a problem, this is how the music
industry works, and have worked for decades. Nothing new about
this, and nothing unique to Apple either.

everyone sees it as a problem and it's something that needs to
change.

Apparently not "everyone" sees it as a problem, since it is still being done
this way, and has been done this way for decades.

only because there weren't any other viable options.

now there are, and the record companies are scared ****less.

Sandman:
Spotify doesn't pay artists royalties for the free trial period of
their service, and the ad revenue from the entirely free tier is
minuscule for artists.

also wrong.

spotify pays royalties during the free trial.

No, they don't.

yes they do.

stop talking about things you know nothing about or i'll call you tony.

For their free accounts they share their minuscule ad revenue
with record labels, which is as near to $0 you can get per stream, and they
recently announced a three month $0.99 premium account, which is also as
close
to zero as you can get in term of royalties.

so they do pay royalties. thanks for proving my point.

Sandman:
Apple pays more per stream than any other service. Only difference
is that they have an unprecedentedly long trial period of three
months, which means that the standard policy for the industry led
to a larger gap of royalties not being paid.

that's the only thing you got right, except that it's only slightly
more and because of their 3 month trial, thus only partial credit
issued.

"pays more" and "pays only slightly more" is not in contradiction.

you earlier said that apple paid 530% more than spotify.

the reality is it's a couple % more, only because apple has a longer
free trial.

the concept was tease the customer a little longer and get a bigger
payoff in the end.

On 6/25/2015 10:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 6/25/2015 9:35 AM, Mayayana wrote:

... Apple is not God....


Now just a minute. You have gone too far in making that statement. I
demand that you issue an immediate retraction.
If your statement is true, why do some treat it as a diety.

Of course Apple is not god.
God was Steve Jobs, he who wrested the shared throne from the Mighty Woz. Now
that he is gone (god is dead you know?), we the followers who are true to the
core, so to speak, sit and wait for his return somewhat like Cargo Cultists.
Jon Ive and Tim Cook are pretenders running things like Scientologists
without Hubbard.


The Seeds have been sown.


--
PeterN