Hopefully all these artists will get paid in the long run. Wanna support them? Skip the streaming all together and BUY their music when you can.
Funny you mention that - Safari has really been crashing a lot lately - who do I see about that?
Riiight, I forgot that there are people outside of Apple's headquarters with pitchforks. They're pissed that Safari keeps crashing on them. Oh, wait! It's just one guy on an internet forum. I'm so confused!I know 'cause you're the go to guy ... if it works for you ... then it's everyone else's problem ... must be good to be you.
The lack of Indie signup was the real reason Apple changed direction on royalty fees, Swift is just getting the credit.
Would have been fine for Apple Music to launch a free trial without a Taylor Swift album music lovers don't care about but a disaster to launch with 50% of Spotifys music catalogue and a depleted search for music fans who actually like a diverse range of acts to find. The service would be DOA and the internet would be full of "Apple music doesn't even have artist X".
Yeah because they're totally the same thing...Kind of like Pings success, because you know, Apple.
The problem is you're conflating the consumer's benefit with the business process. The business relationship between Apple and the rights holders is separate from the relationship between Apple and the consumer.WHAT??? Excuse me??? Uh the 3 month trial was for the consumer's benefit. Are you not considered a consumer of anything, Apple or not? This "Let's all pull together and go against Apple" attitude is getting quite sickening here.
Off topic, I know. But I just have to point out how short sighted your signature is. Of course the stuff you buy does what you need it to do. You wouldn't buy it if it didn't! The problem is when it does stuff you don't want it to do.I own products from Apple, Samsung, Google, MS, and a ton of other companies. All of it works and does exactly what I want it to do. Personal use case. Nothing else matters.
Of course the actual artists still get nothing -with the agents and agent's agents and agents and lawyers and lawyer's agents and agent's lawyers getting almost all the money.
Haven't read - may have missed but is Apple still going to pay the small % extra that they were going to in order to "make up" for the 3 months they weren't going to pay?
Well that other poster was saying, "Nobody told Apple to do a 3 month trial". By saying that he's saying "Who gives an F about the consumer, only the artists are important". Well WE are the paying subscribers that end up paying the artists at the end of the day, so all of it ties in together. If Apple can't get enough subscriptions the artists will not be paid. I hope people don't have a notion in their heads here thinking Apple is contractually required to continue paying artists even if Music fails to get a decent amount of subscriptions. Isn't it going to be just like Spotify, Pay per Play?The problem is you're conflating the consumer's benefit with the business process. The business relationship between Apple and the rights holders is separate from the relationship between Apple and the consumer.
Not sure what your comment has to do with the topic or my comment for that matter. Rogifan and I were discussing the free trial, not the free ad supported radio. Not the same thing.Google the company that appropriates other people IP until they complain? This is the same company that thought they should be able to scan books and display them on their site for free, while they generate ad income, and was surprised the authors and publishers where upset. and Google only announced their free tier this week.
Safari keeps crashing all the time, I hope Apple fix this, if not..I have no choice but to contact Taylor swift, and boom..problem solved
AFAIK Google is paying the same industry average of 70%. Not sure how you figure Spotify is screwing artist. The approx. 1.2% difference between what Spotify and Apple pays isn't really the difference between being screwed or well paid. Since you say they're screwing artists, can I assume you know how they pay royalties?So is Google paying apple level royalties in their ad supported songza service or will they be screwing the artists like Spotify does.
Maybe if you were looking at the forest: "Personal use case. Nothing else matters." instead of staring at the trees: "Does what I need it to do" you'd realize it's a statement about not being beholden to a brand. Either way, as long as I get it we'll all be okayOff topic, I know. But I just have to point out how short sighted your signature is. Of course the stuff you buy does what you need it to do. You wouldn't buy it if it didn't! The problem is when it does stuff you don't want it to do.
Sorry it took so long to respond to your reply, I had to look for dictionary to see what livelier meansDid Taylor respond in a livelier, more energetic or brisker manner?
Dating myself, but except for Adele and Radiohead I don't know anybody else.
(Okay TS of course , can't be overlooked)
Just goes to show with advanced age the importance of following music is very much diminished.
Go 60s, when Rock was Rock![]()
Don't worry. When Apple Music launches, there will be nothing for anyone to complain about. Everything you want, or possibly could want will be there from Day 1.Great news, but also a bit scary. That is according to that notice, if Apple hadn't changed their course recently then for instance Adele's music would not have been on Apple Music. Since that was never mentioned makes you wonder what other artists may not have been included or which popular artists still may not show up on the service.
Taylor Swift jokes in 3... 2... 1...
Maybe if you stopped dating yourself and saw other people you'd be exposed to more new music. Or at least take yourself out to a club.![]()
If Taylor Swift married Tom Swift, would she be Taylor Swift Swift?.