Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

[psylence2k]

Yeah, she was obviously PART of it. But I doubt she did this by herself. The timing is weird, I'll admit, but they're not likely to change a policy in one day. This was, likely, coming over a few days of artists complaining and making it clear they wouldn't be a part of it. They could have done just fine without Swift.

Well I mean until you have some sort of solid evidence supporting this I feel the current evidence is stacked in her favor.

Most artists didn't have the choice to do anything about this because their labels make that call. So they were out of luck.

I know alot of people have a stronger connection to Apple than Swift but you can't just ignore the current evidence and not look biased. I'm more of an Apple fan than a Swift fan and even I have to admit that.

Yes they could've done just fine without Swift but this was an issue much bigger than Swift, she was just the one who lent her voice and history has shown us that alot of companies eventually go under over a course of time by an accumulation of bad decisions.

 

[Michael Goff]

Well I mean until you have some sort of solid evidence supporting this I feel the current evidence is stacked in her favor.

Most artists didn't have the choice to do anything about this because their labels make that call. So they were out of luck.

I know alot of people have a stronger connection to Apple than Swift but you can't just ignore the current evidence and not look biased. I'm more of an Apple fan than a Swift fan and even I have to admit that.

Yes they could've done just fine without Swift but this was an issue much bigger than Swift, she was just the one who lent her voice and history has shown us that alot of companies eventually go under over a course of time by an accumulation of bad decisions.

http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-swift-for-free-streams-after-all/

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Eddy Cue. I’m going to dump some notes in here, and then turn them into something more coherent in real time. Internet!

Cue says that Swift’s letter, coupled with complaints from other artists, did prompt the change. He said he discussed it with Apple CEO Tim Cook today. “It’s something we worked on together. Ultimately we both wanted to make the change.”

And thus we can now stop pretending Taylor Swift wrote a letter and Apple caved on that alone.

 

[psylence2k]

Okay, so you really think that Apple changed contract terms with the labels overnight from one letter from Taylor Swift? Just think about that. That's not logical.

The letter stirred up bad publicity for them with an argument that actually made sense.

How many times have companies changed policies after bad publicity over something that is easily perceived as a "wrong move" ?

The status and reach of her voice was what allowed the story to get the magnitude of publicity it did which shoved the issue front stage and center for the public AND Apple and then they made the decision.

hence why they even directly acknowledged her by name.

They can change the contract whenever, you think the labels are gonna object over this ? The decision was made over a simple phone call with Eddie,Tim, Jimmy, and maybe a few others.

 

[davideotape]

While I just love your analogies, as a person who is paid on commission I can tell you now that when I have to provide services that don't have any gross profit I get no compensation from the company, but the client gets receives services free of charge still.

musicians arent salespeople for a storefront. they didnt apply for that job. the music being made is the product here, and apples providing the storefront. its a rental store in this case.

they cant just assume musicians are cool with 3 months of free rentals while they see no compenastion at all.

moot point now i guess, but come on.

 

[Karma*Police]

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.

True, but Avie gave us Mac OS X and Jon R. gave us the iPod (far greater achievements than negotiating deals with the labels) yet Steve stripped them of their duties when he felt they weren't as driven. And IMO having a lot on your plate is no excuse for being the weak link. A great leader finds ways to get things done. He has all the talent and resources to leapfrog the competition yet he always seems to be skating to where the puck was, rather than where it will be. I guess there was a reason Steve Jobs never promoted him to SVP.

 

[psylence2k]

http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-swift-for-free-streams-after-all/

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Eddy Cue. I’m going to dump some notes in here, and then turn them into something more coherent in real time. Internet!

Cue says that Swift’s letter, coupled with complaints from other artists, did prompt the change. He said he discussed it with Apple CEO Tim Cook today. “It’s something we worked on together. Ultimately we both wanted to make the change.”

And thus we can now stop pretending Taylor Swift wrote a letter and Apple caved on that alone.

you're not saying anything that wasn't revealed in the original article showing his original tweets naming the indie artists.

but guess what your article also says ? He talked about it and made the decision over a phone call TODAY.

HMMM, that's really convenient timing, right after her letter goes viral huh ?

obviously Apple acknowledged the indie artists because it's common sense good publicity 101. To not make it look like " we kneeled down and did this strictly for Swift cuz we want money from her music " that makes the decision seem less respectable.

They acknowledged the same indie artists Tayor specifically noted herself in her letter to not look like a spoiled rich star. Apple obviously used that same approach like they should've to not look like the move was strictly financially driven by some spoiled rich company.

if this really was already a decision being made before today why didn't Apple thank ALL artists including all the non-indie artists I'm sure were not okay with this. Why was the tweet "@ Taylor Swift (and the indie artists you mentioned to make this whole thing look like it's for the "little guys" )

If this was something already in the works, Eddie wouldn't have directly acknowledged her by name. It would've been so much easier to say " We hear you artists and musicians , you will be paid" and explain that this was a decision already being made but guess what ? they didn't do that.

Apple gave her the credit, now you guys need to stop being bitter and do the same. I'm not even a fan of her music but obviously her voice was the main thing that pushed this through.

 

[dfs]

Hooray for Taylor. When you get right down to it, Apple is a corporation, and a lot of the things that people like Noam Chomsky have to say about the all-consuming greed of corporations apply to Apple just as much as to Big Oil and Big Pharma. Apple wanting to to launch a streaming service on the backs of artists is an example of corporate greed at work. So is that four hundred dollar stainless steel watch bracelet. So are the cheap and toylike keyboards and mice they give you even with their premier products. So are those outrageously overpriced Beats headphones. So is designing iTunes to be more of a portal to Apple moneymaking enterprises than a tool for the benefit of the individual user. So is Apple Radio, a misconceived catastrophe if ever there was one because it was so cynically designed as another moneymaking portal that they forgot to make it anything else. So are all those years when they had multi-billion dollar cash reserves but refused to pay their stockholders any dividends. Want me to go on?

 

[HenryDJP]

The letter stirred up bad publicity for them with an argument that actually made sense.

How many times have companies changed policies after bad publicity over something that is easily perceived as a "wrong move" ?

The status and reach of her voice was what allowed the story to get the magnitude of publicity it did which shoved the issue front stage and center for the public AND Apple and then they made the decision.

hence why they even directly acknowledged her by name.

They can change the contract whenever, you think the labels are gonna object over this ? The decision was made over a simple phone call with Eddie,Tim, Jimmy, and maybe a few others.

Okay, no worries. Keep believing that Taylor Swift was the only reason this happened. Remember there were contract terms that were changed not just changing a policy.

 

[HenryDJP]

musicians arent salespeople for a storefront. they didnt apply for that job. the music being made is the product here, and apples providing the storefront. its a rental store in this case.

they cant just assume musicians are cool with 3 months of free rentals while they see no compenastion at all.

moot point now i guess, but come on.

I'm not a sales person. My work is entrepreneurial just like the music artists. But you're right it's over now so let it go.

 

[psylence2k]

Okay, no worries. Keep believing that Taylor Swift was the only reason this happened. Remember there were contract terms that were changed not just changing a policy.

It ultimately happened because it was an issue that made sense but the publicity required for Apple to respond was what Taylor Swift's influence did. She was what made this a very public issue. How many times have we seen a company NOT do anything about something UNTIL it gets huge publicity ? This is business history 101 C'mon.

You dont think Apple knew alot of artists would be upset about this when they first made those contracts ? Why did they finalize it back then ? Tell me that ?

Contract terms dont require long to change at all if neither side has a problem with this. Why would the labels have a problem with this ? Apple calls and says "We're gonna write the check". What label is gonna object ? Why are you acting like this takes months, weeks, or even days to go forward with if nobody objects ? Do you know how many big huge contractual business decisions have been made just minutes before a deadline ? As an apple consumer do you NOT remember how many contracts and deals get made just RIGHT before a Apple unveiling event ? Seriously ?

 

[psylence2k]

@HenryDJP @Michael Goff

go check Taylor's timeline, it's filled with retweets about people quoting Cue directly admitting that her letter was what "really solidified that they had to make a change".

 

[HenryDJP]

@HenryDJP @Michael Goff

go check Taylor's timeline, it's filled with retweets about people quoting Cue directly admitting that her letter was what "really solidified that they had to make a change".

I said earlier that I have a good feeling that this was a set up between Apple and Taylor Swift. You don't have to believe it. But that's what I think is really going on. It's too perfect of a situation to have not been a set up. I just think it was a planned jab against Spotify.

 

[HenryDJP]

It ultimately happened because it was an issue that made sense but the publicity required for Apple to respond was what Taylor Swift's influence did. She was what made this a very public issue. How many times have we seen a company NOT do anything about something UNTIL it gets huge publicity ? This is business history 101 C'mon.

You dont think Apple knew alot of artists would be upset about this when they first made those contracts ? Why did they finalize it back then ? Tell me that ?

Contract terms dont require long to change at all if neither side has a problem with this. Why would the labels have a problem with this ? Apple calls and says "We're gonna write the check". What label is gonna object ? Why are you acting like this takes months, weeks, or even days to go forward with if nobody objects ? Do you know how many big huge contractual business decisions have been made just minutes before a deadline ? As an apple consumer do you NOT remember how many contracts and deals get made just RIGHT before a Apple unveiling event ? Seriously ?

Well let's see if Taylor Swift allows for her album to be on The Apple music store. Apple has now called her bluff. Let's see how she reacts.

 

[jonnyb098]

Are you seriously kidding yourself? Taking away that the three-month trial hurts the consumer.

What I meant was they should keep the trial period but pay the artists, not pimping them to sell more iPhones. Which is now happening as it should since there was about to be a PR nightmare. How quickly the ship changes course. Haha

 

[Peruna]

You go girl! Taylor Swift is right on here!

 

[gijoeinla]

Not every artist is Taylor Swift or Metallica. Not every label is "multi-million" dollar labels. Stop living in a dream. Most artists struggle. Not all artists sell a million albums. In fact, very few.

Need to separate the "industry" from the "artist."

Did you miss this part? Quoting myself here "In fact they (indie artists) have more avenues than ever to make money thank you. One door closes another one opens."

Dude or dudette: I live and die in L.A. I think I have a pretty good handle on who runs the music business and a very clear understanding of how artists struggle.

So?

There isn't a creative person I know - me being one of them -- that doesn't suffer at times financially because of my passion for my work. Fact: without the "industry" of the past there would be no solid revenue streams for the future.. With streaming Indie artists have a better chance than ever to expose themselves to a WORLDWIDE audience.

Taylor Swift and Metallica were once independent artists before they were signed to an "industry label". What musician in their right mind would refuse an offer from an A/R rep from a label for a contract? A moron maybe.

Brother or sister I'm living in reality. Reality is that this deal was brokered by the big labels - it's no secret that those very same labels don't want indies to have the same access to streaming revenues. Duh..Clearly Apple capitulated to the labels wishes.

 

[psylence2k]

I said earlier that I have a good feeling that this was a set up between Apple and Taylor Swift. You don't have to believe it. But that's what I think is really going on. It's too perfect of a situation to have not been a set up. I just think it was a planned jab against Spotify.

Well let's see if Taylor Swift allows for her album to be on The Apple music store. Apple has now called her bluff. Let's see how she reacts.

So this is supposedly a set-up with Taylor involved YET you're still waiting to see if her album is gonna be involved ? Are you serious ?

At this point man your bias is showing pretty badly.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

She wrote many many many of her songs actually. Her portfolio is huge. I'm sure that it was mostly lyrics. But that's 50% of the writing credit.


Having said that: I'm usually on her side with these things except this time.

Apple is trying to gain business with the initial 3 month free offering that will ultimately benefit both parties if people like the service.

Swift is showing her greed now...

Taylor Swift has written every single song she's ever released and every song on all her 5 albums. Her third album, her most critically acclaimed, was done without any co-writers.

She writes or co-writes all of her own music. She is listed as a writer on every track she has ever released.

Her entire third album, Speak Now, was written and composed entirely by Swift herself and sold over 1 million copies in its first week.

So no, I wouldn't say that she is just a performance artist.

She's written all of her songs since she was 14 yrs old. She's a songwriter.

Well then, I stand corrected. Good for her!

It also seems nobody is taking into account that Apple negotiated deals with the labels that included a higher percentage of payout forever specifically in exchange for not paying for the 3 month trial period. If there is anything the big wig label executives know how to do, it is crunch numbers. I think the indie labels out there would do well to have a little faith in their judgement.

This wasn't Apple playing hardball, it was both Apple and the Labels knowing that if Apple were successful, they were going to be setting the new standard for revenue distribution in the music streaming space, and that the Music industry will ultimately benefit much more from this scenario than Apple itself. It seems like a fair business trade-off to me, looking at it from a purely objective point of view.

Maybe Apple can pay the Indie labels and unsigned artists a smaller percentage forever in exchange for paying them during the short 3 month trial period? I think that would make most of them step back and contemplate what exactly they are complaining about.

 

[HenryDJP]

So this is supposedly a set-up with Taylor involved YET you're still waiting to see if her album is gonna be involved ? Are you serious ?

At this point man your bias is showing pretty badly.

It's all my opinion. Don't call me biased. I'm not biased. I don't appreciate your tone either. The nerve of people have on this forum.

 

[gregrose]

Good for Taylor, **** greedy Apple.

 

[psylence2k]

It's all my opinion. Don't call me biased. I'm not biased. I don't appreciate your tone either. The nerve of people have on this forum.

I think you just dont appreciate the lack of space your argument has to move in now.

and you can tell someone's tone through text ?

You're calling other people liars with "set-ups" yet you have a problem with the "tone" of people on this forum who are simply outlining the clear evidence for you ? Oh yes, the nerve of people on this forum.

 

[AlexBerkman]

Well instead of Apple promoting new artists music helping them to become more noticeable as payment enough I guess the fans can simply go to Bit Torrent and get the music for free to listen to Permanently. Pick your poison.

Real fans do not do that, simple.

 

[macfacts]

The answer is because the free trial will likely bring on board millions, heck possibly tens of millions, of paying subscribers, and in a very short space of time match and likely surpass the current total number of people paying a subscription for a streaming service, and so open up a new and ongoing revenue stream for those artists.

Basically exactly the same benefit as any other free trial offer.

I mean the clue is in the name: free trial. That's kind go how they work.

This is not some devilish ruse dreamt up by Apple, but the oldest marketing trick in the book.

When companies offer free trials or samples, they usually pay for it, not force their suppliers to give it to them for free.

 

[macfacts]

...
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?

Did that car dealership pay for the gasoline in the car for your test drive? Or force some gas station to give free gas?

If the car dealership wants to offer free test drives, it pays for the gas and insurance.

 

[HenryDJP]

I think you just dont appreciate the lack of space your argument has to move in now.

and you can tell someone's tone through text ?

You're calling other people liars with "set-ups" yet you have a problem with the "tone" of people on this forum who are simply outlining the clear evidence for you ? Oh yes, the nerve of people on this forum.

Just chill young lady. You truly need to.