Uh, I think he understood that and was just pointing out the inanity of the comment.First question was rhetorical.
Uh, I think he understood that and was just pointing out the inanity of the comment.First question was rhetorical.
Some would say Apple changed their tune because of the negative press.Apple, Inc. = Class Act
yea she will get all the votes from annoying teenage girls who have no taste in music.So I guess Taylor Swift for President?!
I kind of wish they didn't do this. Apple needs to be the dictator here
Taylor Swift did not agree to that yet. We will see.Now Apple Music will have Taylor Swift and Spotify won't.
Guess they need every edge they can get.
Can an Artist also complain about the ridiculous Apple Watch Band prices? $50 bucks for a sport band?
Eddy just called her bluff. Let's see if Taylor does the honorable thing.
I am willing to bet it's the latterTime to see if Swift really stood up for the Indies and put her music on Music or if she was just being her usual complaining self.
That was a Swift response.
Actually, I think this will be good for AAPL. Cash-starved competitors will have trouble matching that investment. And, in the steady state, this should have negligible impact on revenue.
I kind of wish they didn't do this. Apple needs to be the dictator here
*Attempts to decode post.*
So are you trying to say they were planning on paying them all along and were just waiting for people to get bothered by expecting to not be paid? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if they did that.
Torrenting music in 2015 is pathetic, not this. For $9.99 (Spotify) you can basically listen to everything you want, and save songs offline.
Is this post even serious? Admitting to piracy on a public forum? Jesus, time to go back to lurking.