I bet some do ask [and get] free iPhones (and watches, and MacBooks)...
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.
Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I feel so bad for her. Must be rough, she must need to get on gov assistance for those three months till ppl start paying or something lulz...
That is simply not true. They get paid now via services like Spotify. When people switch to Apple Music during the free trial period, then these payments will go away. So it is not going from "nothing to something" but from "something to less and back to something". Some artists can't afford that "less" period.
Amazing how few people understand that here. The math is so unbelievably basic.
This is a flawed logic. You are assuming that people who will be listening to Apple Music paid nothing to any service prior.
What if a new subscriber stops buying songs on iTunes as a result?
I highly doubt that most new subscribers were not paying a penny in some form prior to Apple Music.
I feel so bad for you that understanding such a rather short article is too difficult for you. Perhaps Macrumors should be using shorter words like "gov", "ppl" and "lulz" to make it easier for you to understand? I guess pictograms might also help, yes?
The big labels own the vast majority of the music and Apple has individually negotiated this deal (including the no payment portion for three months) with each big label which is participating (which I believe is going to be all the big labels). So for most content no one is being directly forced (though Apple is a very tough negotiator). In the end, this will probably be a good service for the industry. But for folks living paycheck to paycheck this is going to be a lean summer if Apple pays nothing for its streaming and Spotify, Pandora and others see a dramatic decrease in their customers.
I read the article, guess what NO ONE was buying indie songs anyway, so everything will be status quo.
BUT people may be willing to stream it, which will give them money after the 3 month trial.
Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Players gonna play, play, play, play, play.
Apple gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake,
Shake it off, shake it off.
Sorry, TayTay - if I can't trial a service for free first, why would I pay for it. You test drove your Lexus for free, with no obligation. Did the sales dude insist you buy before driving it or it would be like stealing from him?
Players gonna play, play, play, play, play.
Apple gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake,
Shake it off, shake it off.
Sorry, TayTay - if I can't trial a service for free first, why would I pay for it. You test drove your Lexus for free, with no obligation. Did the sales dude insist you buy before driving it or it would be like stealing from him?
I know, clearly know. However, not all customers could afford thousands of dollars of content fee. All what I have now would worth maybe a couple of thousand dollars.
Unlike regular customers, Apple is definitely able to afford content fee to artists to gain loyalty. You spend money, and you can get more from this loss.
I am gradually purchasing contents rather than just torrenting them, such as Office 365, and 80 songs purchased from iTunes. This is not an easy thing for do, but not for Apple.
This thread alone disproves your theory, and this is only two people in a forum. Scale it up to a global level and the message is clear - pirates will always pirate. It's a mindset.
I can't believe the cry babies these artist have turned into. OMG they work so hard, well so do millions of others who don't own million dollar houses. People can still buy her stupid music while the trial is going on its 3 months get over it. I can't believe how greedy musicians are these days. Look at the price of concert tickets, its ludicrous. I wish she would just take her greed and go away.
teens these days dont listen to the same thing for more than a month let alone a whole album to begin with
she dropped them not the other way around
did you actually read the whole thing??? sure doesnt look like it
Last edited:
I agree the nerve, to expect payment of their hardwork. They should be honored to give away their work for 3 months to apple. We all know how altruistic and giving apple is.
The question is: how much fraud would it generate if Apple paid out money to artists from people on trial-accounts?
The fraud problem seems to be large enough just with pre-paid cards. I can't imagine what a bunch of penny-pinching crooks and an army of bots and humans from China or Cambodia could do.
E.g. you could create an Indie-Label and produce albums full of non-copyrighted la-la-la music and have hundreds, thousands of fake trial-period signups (and software to play the songs for you or have it play in the background at volume zero on an army of p4wned PCs).
Just because you or I can't make it work doesn't mean that nobody else is going to find a working "business-case"...
If they (APPL) don't have to pay out anything during the trial period, they don't need to look through subscribers (and labels9 to detect a fraud-pattern, either.
Is there a way for Indie-Labels to have their music on this streaming-service without offering it to people who are on a trial-period? That would be the correct thing to, IMO.
The fraud problem seems to be large enough just with pre-paid cards. I can't imagine what a bunch of penny-pinching crooks and an army of bots and humans from China or Cambodia could do.
E.g. you could create an Indie-Label and produce albums full of non-copyrighted la-la-la music and have hundreds, thousands of fake trial-period signups (and software to play the songs for you or have it play in the background at volume zero on an army of p4wned PCs).
Just because you or I can't make it work doesn't mean that nobody else is going to find a working "business-case"...
If they (APPL) don't have to pay out anything during the trial period, they don't need to look through subscribers (and labels9 to detect a fraud-pattern, either.
Is there a way for Indie-Labels to have their music on this streaming-service without offering it to people who are on a trial-period? That would be the correct thing to, IMO.
Yeah, but did the workers who built the test driven Lexus not get paid? Where they told "This month we are building vehicles to go to dealer rooms where they get test driven. since they don't get sold, we aren't paying you for these cars."
Good. I hope it does kill it. Bunch of crybabies. "Oh no, this will cut into my hundreds of millions of dollars I've mad. Wah!"
Difference - the dealer bought the Lexus from the manufacturer and isn't trying to sell it with a test drive before paying the manufacturer.
The point that people are missing is that Apple won't make a cent out of the trial period too. It's like a joint effort with the studios to get more people on board and make more money later.
The bigger subscription base will be beneficial to both artists and Apple later on.
The bigger subscription base will be beneficial to both artists and Apple later on.
Translation: "I can support my team for 3 months but I would rather have you guys do it"
I really hate how Taylor Swift is using Indie Artists as her excuse to make more money. How exactly does she think lesser known bands and musicians get discovered on a Music DISCOVERY service?!?
If she really wanted to do something to help indie artists then she should use Apple Music for something it is designed to do exactly. Artist curated playlists and artist created messages directly to fans that promote bands that their fans have never heard of. But I guess that's a hard thing to do when the only sound you ever hear is your own voice.
I'm fine with Taylor Swift doing what she feels is necessary to maximize her personal value. But don't act as if you're doing these other artists a favor by "protecting" them from being heard by her fans.
Last edited:
This is ironic, considering that Apple had named their new programming language after her.
I doubt many people care who a self-proclaimed thief does or doesn't trust.
Excuse me, but there is nothing illegal about the torrent protocol.
What's illegal or not is what you do with it.
http://bfy.tw/RaB
Some artists who are not as wealthy and privileged as Ms. Swift release their music via the Bittorrent protocol.
Blanketly labelling anyone who uses torrent software a criminal demonstrates morbid ignorance.
I am happy about this. She should keep her "music" off streaming services and off iTunes.
Reading the replies here it's obvious that people still don't see 'music' as a real product. And we can probably add 'movies', 'photographs' and 'written content' to that list.
Sure you can decide you'll offer a service as a 'loss leader' for 3 months. Sure you can decide to offer free trials for a new service you dreamt up. And (in the case of Apple News) you can choose to offer up other people's written articles through a new app you created.
But you simply can't do that by giving away other people's products for free. Or writing them that you're entering into a publishing agreement unless they say otherwise!
That, and the fact that this is the world's richest company we're talking about, all makes it a bit sad. At least Jobs had some idea about karma. Greedy b*****ds.
Sure you can decide you'll offer a service as a 'loss leader' for 3 months. Sure you can decide to offer free trials for a new service you dreamt up. And (in the case of Apple News) you can choose to offer up other people's written articles through a new app you created.
But you simply can't do that by giving away other people's products for free. Or writing them that you're entering into a publishing agreement unless they say otherwise!
That, and the fact that this is the world's richest company we're talking about, all makes it a bit sad. At least Jobs had some idea about karma. Greedy b*****ds.