Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's good to hear that Apple is going to pay the artists during the free trial. This should hopefully bring in labels that weren't going to participate in the free trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Doctor11
Smells like a PR-Stunt in the first place. And in return Taylor DOES get her free iPhone. Good for her. I bet Apple wrote Taylors letter by themselves...

But hey, I mean... its really something for the smaller labels/artists!
 
  • Like
Reactions: fullauto
The US over-pays for healthcare while Canada gets free healthcare. Yeah it's funny that people that don't live in the United States expect Apple to pay taxes. ;)
I expect Apple to pay taxes, I just know it's not going to happen.

Of course they could go into pharmaceuticals if they really wanted to make money, those margins make Apple's look pathetic.
 
Don't forget ... she done this for the indie artists and labels.

Yeah, sure she did ...
:rolleyes: She already showed that she doesn't have any issues with retracting her music, so I'm guessing there is some merit to what she is saying. And Does it matter? She achieved something that none of those little grubby hipster bearded groups that you are likely to listen to will never achieve.

In stead of second guessing the motivations of something that might not adhere to your personal taste, it might be good to look at the overall picture and see what is happening here.
 
" We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple - Eddy Cue (@Cue) June 22, 2015 "

200w.gif
 
I expect Apple to pay taxes, I just know it's not going to happen.

Of course they could go into pharmaceuticals if they really wanted to make money, those margins make Apple's look pathetic.
Do you know how long trials have to go on and all of the red tape those companies have to go through to get their drug to market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
:rolleyes: She already showed that she doesn't have any issues with retracting her music, so I'm guessing there is some merit to what she is saying. And Does it matter? She achieved something that none of those little grubby hipster bearded groups that you are likely to listen to will never achieve.

In stead of second guessing the motivations of something that might not adhere to your personal taste, it might be good to look at the overall picture and see what is happening here.

I agree, after all, this is good news for everyone, Taylor Swift, the artist, and the paying customer. And not to forget, Apple as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
Am I the only person who is glad that Apple reversed course, but hopes that Swift's album still doesn't appear on Apple Music?

I think this turnaround by Apple is a good thing, but why do you "hope" that Swift's album doesn't appear on Apple Music? I'm not a Taylor Swift fan but I couldn't care less if others do like her music. It's not like you're being forced to play her music you know....
 
You know all this talk of flip flopping around with multi billion dollar contracts at the last minute makes me think this was a cunning stunt. Perhaps Taylor wanted to get back into streaming but didn't want to capitulate to spotify so she concocted this with Apple. I would say the ownership of the cunning stunt is hers and Apple have just gone into it to satisfy her hoping to get her on to Apple Music.

I'm loving Taylor and Apple so I'm happy !
 
  • Like
Reactions: dragje
Do you know how long trials have to go on and all of the red tape those companies have to go through to get their drug to market?
Oh, that's great, I haven't heard that excuse parroted since 7pm when Sixty Minutes ran an old rerun on Big Pharma.

Why do we pay five times as much for the same drugs? Could it be because congress is in Big Pharma's pocket, check that out when you're off the kool-aid.

Oh, and be sure to also review the publicly funded research that gets patented by private drug companies, it's a hoot.
 
I'm glad she got what SHE wanted, but you cannot deny Apple's general hubris in terms of how they treat content providers (developers and artists).

With Family Sharing, Apple FORCED app developers to give away four extra copies of each app for one sale (5 copies total). If a developer did not agree to the new terms, they could not submit new apps or updates of existing apps. Those terms effectively kicks you out of the store if you don't capitulate.

"No one" (big/significant) said a peep in the software industry because Family Sharing only affected small developers. When small shops go out of business, the big companies (including Apple) reap the rewards from less competition for employees. Family sharing was a direct hostile attack on developers by Apple.

Thanks Ms Swift! Glad to see someone standing up to Apple. I wish someone significant in the software industry stood up to Apple like you did.

Family Sharing from the consumer side shows that some apps are not shareable, as an opt-out item.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Apple Music is now officially blessed by Taylor.

Spotify has AFAIK always payed artist from day one.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.