Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well these are Apple related forums, you know, most of the people are gonna support Apple unconditionally, which is fine, that it is completely normal.

Discussing Apple ≠ blindly supporting every move without thinking of the repercussions. Giving unconditional support to a company shouldn't be normal, it just makes you a tool to a brand.

These are no doubt the same people that'll complain about the changes Apple's making recently 10 years down the line once they're disillusioned and realised their blind support encouraged these poor practices and decisions.
 
Everyone who does.. or stops using it.
Every play that AM gets between July and October that would have previously gone to any other service is money the artist is not getting..
Thanks for pointing this out - I forgot that Spotify provides revenue based on plays.

At the end of the day, it's the labels that negotiated the contracts.
 
In those 3 months she would make 0 while her music catalog would be getting streamed millions of times. It'd actually make her lose even more money, if potential buyers of her album chose to stream it for free instead of buying it.

I can't think of any artist in their right mind embracing the 3 month trial, it'd be as smart of them as tweeting links to torrents of their music. Although they shouldn't really blame Apple, but the labels that agreed on it instead.
Streaming is temporary, purchasing to own is forever (unless you buy a CD and record labels in your country are trying to re-outlaw making private copies for backup, but that's another story).
 
My understanding is that Apple pays more than the other streamers for all paid up memberships. The free part is to introduce non-streaming users to the service and in the process, any new songs that come out. The three months applies to each user, not each song, so only the songs that come out for each free user will cost Apple and the artist. Everybody else pays and the artists get more.
 
Really? Hmm. I don't know what posts you've been reading. Every person I've called out (except for you) about them paying upfront rather than the free subscription is ignoring my replies because deep down they just want to show hatred towards Apple rather than fulfilling the big picture. If they want these artists paid so badly then ditch the freemiums and trials and pay.

In the end whatever the Artists and Apple agree to is what matters. None of these artists are being forced to join Apple music and those that are by their label can take that up with them. Those that speak out also have every right to do so.

It seems this would all go away with a one month trial but Apple think's it needs 3 month's to get people to switch or join.

Looking forward to seeing what music apple music will lack once it is live.
 
Carry Underwood hasn't been relevant in ages. Why? She never evolved her music. She's singing the same thing the same way over and over again. No one is here for it. Like Apple an artist can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect people to be interested. Artists need to evolve their craft. If thats selling out to other genre's, so be it. Taylor Swift doesn't have to do what constitutes country music these days because people are here for her more pop sounding music as well. Taylor was also kind of a country pop hybrid.

I'm sorry but you're entire posts speaks nothing but your own opinion and not facts. Carrie Underwood's current song on Spotify #25 of the top 40 in country music. I don't even listen her music as I am not a country music fan but I don't have to be one to know who's relevant. She's very relevant. At least she holds true to her craft.

Taylor Swift jumped out of the country bandwagon very shortly after her interaction with Kanye West. But it's okay, go ahead and support FAKE artists because that's what they are when they do what she did. I mean, an ARTIST is a person of craft IMO and not one who just wants a ton of tween Twitter followers and puts out music for the masses just because it's gonna make them instantly rich.
 
When are her 15 minutes up? Her music isn't good enough to be able to throw that much weight around. The next teenie bopper will roll around and she'll end up a 'what ever happened to...' story in a few years.

Yeah, teens usually don't listen to a music artist once that artist reaches 30 and those who listened to her as teens grow up and realize their mistake. She probably will try to reconnect with her country roots and hope people over 30 will reconnect with her.
 
Well Apple is not the only game in town. Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, Amazon all offer excellent music streaming services. The day the music industry stops viewing Apple as the huge Goliath of music distribution is the day Apple stops their profit grabbing practices.
 
Think about it this way,
You make bread and someone buys one loaf off you a day. it costs you 50p to make and sell it for £1
Then a supermarket says that they want a free three month trial of bread to who ever wants bread
For those days you lose £90 Just on one customer
If there are a hundred loafs that's £9,000!

that's not a similar scenario.

reminds me of the fbi commercial which likens music pirating to stealing cars.
they aren't the same thing.

digital entertainment reproduction is a different type of entity than hard goods/ bread/ cupcakes etc and should be treated differently.
 
Discussing Apple ≠ blindly supporting every move without thinking of the repercussions. Giving unconditional support to a company shouldn't be normal, it just makes you a tool to a brand.

I agree, that's why i'm commenting here too. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: kagharaht
I agree about letting Eddy go. He's clearly the weak link in Apple's software, hardware and services strategy. He was always known as a "maintenance guy" for a reason.

I can't speak to Eddy's performance as a systems and services manager, though he has more on his plate than any other senior VP at Apple. But according to Isaacson's Jobs bio, Eddy was instrumental in negotiations, and was a key player is getting a deal with the record labels when the iTunes Store originally went up.
 
Taylor Swift said:
I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months.
I'm also not sure you know that the writers, producers nor artists will be paying for bandwidth, marketing or engineering and operations for 3 months.

I'm having a hard time getting bothered by this. Opt in, opt out, whatever. I just don't see this as Apple strong arming or exploiting anyone.

It sounds like "1989" is being distributed like it's 1989.
 
It sounds like "1989" is being distributed like it's 1989.

well yeah, the music industry is pro vinyl.

taylor_swift_1989_vinyl_at_wild_honey_records_tennessee_record_store.jpg


They make more money that way. They are definitely not happy seeing the majority going the streaming way...

Even Apple is pro digital file not streaming...
 
Well at least she is asking Apple to pay, rather than asking them to cancel the three month free trial . That trial is a great idea.

That's more than can be said about her stance on Spotify, which, you know, actually *paid* her.

Basically Apple should just stump up the cost.

Aren't they already stumping the cost for bringing the music to everyone during the trial period? Aren't there costs associated with all the hardware, software and people hired to make this happen???
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryDJP
Pretty valid point. I was under the assumption Apple was just eating up the costs for 3 months. We'll see if this picks up more traction and changes anything.

I also had thought Apple was paying for the free trial. Instead they want the artists to pay for pumping up Apple's new business.

It's is as if OpenTable decided to give away three months of free restaurant meals to build up their reservation business, but wanted the restaurants to pay for it.

Of course she was being politic by saying that smaller artists didn't want to comment because of their "respect for Apple". More like their fear of Apple and its vengeful ways.
 
Last edited:
Urgh, the amount of apologists in this thread makes my skin crawl.

There's no way to defend Apple not paying artists for using their content to promote Apple's own service. It's not about 'cancelling the trial', or "Greedy artists' etc. it's about Apple stumping the bill the content creators deserve.

Stop being such tools and realise Apple's pulling a major douche move.

Apple is only doing what the music labels let them do. If the music labels didn't want Apple to do the free 3 month trial it wouldn't happen.

Apple may be greedy but so is the music industry.
 
Apple is only doing what the music labels let them do. If the music labels didn't want Apple to do the free 3 month trial it wouldn't happen.

Apple may be greedy but so is the music industry.

Yes both are but i'm not that sure about this: If the music labels didn't want Apple to do the free 3 month trial it wouldn't happen.

Spotify is already giving 3 months for free hence Apple must have that too.
 
How so? Please explain?

You are stating that people should call Apple and ask to skip the free trial? That's dumb. Just sign up and support another streaming service. They'll have music that Apple's service likely won't have anyway and it will better push apple to change their ways.
 
What about this guys:

Apple is not adopting the free model (like Spotify), artist should be grateful because of that, they shouldn't complain about those 3 free months...what do you think?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.