If they screw up too much in the coming years, the big, bad wolf could be Google or someone else coming to move into their new(ish) campus.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music's Three-Month Trial is No Longer Free in Australia, Spain, and Switzerland
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they screw up too much in the coming years, the big, bad wolf could be Google or someone else coming to move into their new(ish) campus.
So much hate for Apple and it's customers. Get over yourself and let that hate go.Clearly cause Australia is part of Europe and decided to sit down wih Spain and Switzerland to create a law to force apple to make more money.... it's not Austria mate!makes no sense for legal reasons ..
How often does apple start something other than the US when it comes to increasing prices - Always champ! Never seen the US pricing change
If you must know, it's part of https://www.spotify.com/au/ Spotify this week launched three months for 99 cents. So some douchebag in apple decided that they could make lots of money if they matched Spotify offer
for a man devoid of any explanation why this is happening, geez you can play critic well
[doublepost=1495387668][/doublepost]
Spotify launched their summer 99 local currency for 3 months and apple is matching them. Very smart, will get them millions !!! The blind apple lovers using legal excuses on this thread to charge is actually more pathetic to be honest. My opinion is they are just matching Spotify .
I wasn't saying that one side has a greater chance of being correct (we agree on our guesses of which side is more likely to be correct, but that isn't the issue at hand in this discussion at the moment). You said, "[the] statement that Apple is complying the law is no more or less correct than opposing statements stating they have other reasons". I was trying to make the point that, in a binary situation with an existing but unknown value, there is a difference between the statement "both sides are equally correct" (this is false, the answer exists even though it is not known to the parties - one side is correct and one is wrong), which is one implication of your statement, and the statement "neither side can yet be proven correct, so both sides have a greater-than-zero possibility of being correct" (in retrospect, this may be the point you were making, as well). I wasn't trying to argue that (my preference) the "regulatory" viewpoint is more likely to be true (not in this line of questioning - I do think it is, but that's a separate discussion). I just like to make sure that, when logic is brought to the table, it is used properly.
Overly dramatic stance aside, you don't have a moral imperative to call out anyone. It's an internet forum. We're all just giving opinions. The fact that you "didn't start it", doesn't give you a moral high ground to come back with equally nasty retorts. But you do you.
We'll agree to disagree here.
This edit: "[Edit: Deductive reasoning dictates that] Apple's complying with the law in those countries, people. "
That edit is still wrong. Not sure why it seems so hard for you to admit it's just an opinion. Deductive reasoning doesn't dictate the issue is legal. It could. It could also dictate Apple using the same locations as Spotify to get feedback about getting rid of the free tier altogether. It could also dictate Apple wanting myriad other things. I personally think it is a legal thing, but I'm not so presumptuous to think the road of deductive reasoning leads only to that conclusion.
[doublepost=1495400842][/doublepost]
Bingo.
99 cents here, $99 there, $999...eventually the bank gets broken if you're not careful. Apple could make it only one month instead of three months as a free trial. I think that would be fair and a little more enticing as the principle here weighs much heavier than the financial expenditure. Unless, Apple's just following some law or something in those particular countries which hasn't been mentioned yet.
Last edited:
Beyond the exact reasons why this new charge is in force, the saddest thing is why Apple put this in place without an explanation
Call me old fashioned (Off you go, youngies!), but I do really miss the Age when Apple engaged with their supporters and explained their actions.
Call me old fashioned (Off you go, youngies!
), but I do really miss the Age when Apple engaged with their supporters and explained their actions.Beyond the exact reasons why this new charge is in force, the saddest thing is why Apple put this in place without an explanation
Call me old fashioned (Off you go, youngies!
Perhaps we should give Apple the opportunity to respond before we make any unjust comments. We don't fully understand the reasoning or facts behind the fee, as the article states. (It could be government or regulatory related by all means.)
Apple may not comment on the situation if there are any legalities or unconfirmed reports until the situation is certain or pending.
I love my huge music collection of music that I have collected over the years. No streaming ... just the stuff I like.
I wonder if one day Apple will ban media that was not purchased via iTunes store? (e.g. all ripped stuff no longer will play). I think they would like to do this but the outcry would be too much. At one point though, since CDs and DVDs are on their way out, a new "all digital" generation will not even notice. Hopefully by then I'll be gone....
I wonder if one day Apple will ban media that was not purchased via iTunes store? (e.g. all ripped stuff no longer will play). I think they would like to do this but the outcry would be too much. At one point though, since CDs and DVDs are on their way out, a new "all digital" generation will not even notice. Hopefully by then I'll be gone....
Beyond the exact reasons why this new charge is in force, the saddest thing is why Apple put this in place without an explanation
Call me old fashioned (Off you go, youngies!
Is it possible people were changing Apple ID's every 3 months? I'm interested to know why they revoked it, I bet they got tons of people hooked despite not initially caring all that much. Once you start to build a library the chance of you going elsewhere diminishes greatly.
With a $500 price hike on the MBP for no reason what so ever, and a 99c money grab here. Plus your left arm for an apple watch band. It's getting a bit much. Especially when there is precisely ZERO innovation happening at apple lately. Other companies have virtual reality, better AI assistants, Augmented reality, next generation graphics APIs. Apple's current idea of an innovative update is politically correct emojis. Sorry, but I am starting to think that's not worth the asking price. Soon as MacOS loses its security edge, I am done. I fear that's only a matter of time at this rate, its lost every other edge it once had. Point in case, apple music.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have the patience to watch from the sidelines, it's starts getting funny.
I stopped at the MBPr 2012 and the iPhone 6.
I have however spend money on Apple products since 2006.
The MacBook releases and the latest iPad has ended my journey.
I will watch WWDC and September keynotes, but spending more money contributing to Apples greed is not likely for me.
I stopped at the MBPr 2012 and the iPhone 6.
I have however spend money on Apple products since 2006.
The MacBook releases and the latest iPad has ended my journey.
I will watch WWDC and September keynotes, but spending more money contributing to Apples greed is not likely for me.
Nope. Where are apple ahead of the curve....besides politically correct emoji? I am talking years ahead, not just a slightly different product than everybody else has. You know, like apple USED to be.
Wait. wait....it IS just like Columbia House. Get the first three for 99 cents, then every other month turns out to be around $18 even though you could buy it elsewhere for $10. Yup, that's how I remember it.
Every Music that has less then 1411KB/sec stream sucks, please don't pain your brain with this garbage quality of sound. Rather spend your money on a good Hi-Res or Vinyl Record, better for your ears and soul. Less is more!!! If Apple really would love music as they say, they would sell/stream all music in 24-bit/96khz, oh they will, when the iphone 20 got 1TB storage...... 2017 and we hear music in a worse quality then 40 years before.... techical evolution
Apple is probably charging in countries where they can get away with it because of a lack of streaming alternatives. If it's "just 99¢" then why can't Apple just absorb it? They're sitting on billions and billions of dollars. Instead they'd rather nickel and dime you at every chance.
If something's free no one values it. Put a small price tag and people think they're getting a bargain.
