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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
| 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. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more
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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more
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 |
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 |