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

In article , PeterN
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.

and?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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.

nope

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.

that's the case for any free trial, of any product.

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.

so what?

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.

more bull****

If they decide to cancel the whole thing the musicians
lose out and Apple loses nothing. Sounds pretty
scummy and disrespectful to me.

they're not going to cancel apple music unless it's a complete
disaster, which is highly unlikely.

it also doesn't need to kill off spotify. there's room for more than
one service.

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

nope.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Not so.

yes 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.

they are.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

e.g. Assume arguendo that nospam was a musical artist. He/she certainly
not want his/music music used in anti Apple ads. Similarly, I would not
want any of my photo work used to benefit skinheads.

i know what my next photoshop project is going to be.

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

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.

it is.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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.

Of course not. Apple made a policy to share 70% of their revenue with the
artists, which meant that if there was no revenue, there was nothing to share.

71%

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....

"Tiny" in this instance means a whopping 530% more than other streaming
plans.
Yes, tiny...

nope. it was about 1% more.

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.

They have already changed their mind, and will not pay artists for their
music
even when they don't make any money from it themselves.

nope.

they were going to pay the artists all along, just not during the free
trial. now they are going to include the free trial.


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

You're clueless. There was no "bullying". Apple was already paying *way* more
than any other service.

nope. only slightly more.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Give an organization like Apple an inch, they'll take a mile.

"Take a mile" here means "compensate artists more than 530% more than any
other
streaming plan".

1% more

Now it's all sweetness and light from them. I'm surprised they
didn't call it "a big misunderstanding." Like some politicians
scurrying around pretending to have been quoted out of context.

I think the "big misunderstanding" is reserved to fanboys like yourself.

rich is an anti-fanboi.

In article , nospam wrote:

Mayayana:
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.

Sandman:
Of course not. Apple made a policy to share 70% of their revenue
with the artists, which meant that if there was no revenue, there
was nothing to share.

71%

70% - 73%

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Of course not. Apple made a policy to share 70% of their revenue
with the artists, which meant that if there was no revenue, there
was nothing to share.

71%

70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports, which is nowhere near your
ludicrous claim of apple paying 530% higher.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:10:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
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.

and?

In this case they don't appear to have been agreed to by all partners.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens