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

[HenryDJP]

Real fans do not do that, simple.

I'll bet there's a lot more "real fans" than you think.

 

[psylence2k]

Just chill young lady. You truly need to.

Did I upset you Ma'am ?

 

[Michael Goff]

@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".

And?

Saying it was Taylor Swift that did it belittles everyone else who had an impact. Hers "solidified", which means they were already thinking about it without her letter.

 

[Michael Goff]

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.

I'm not saying she didn't have any part, I'm just saying she didn't do it alone and didn't play as big of a role as others seem to believe.

 

[jeffe]

I'm not saying she didn't have any part, I'm just saying she didn't do it alone and didn't play as big of a role as others seem to believe.

Agreed. I speculate that Apple was most likely worried about gaps in their catalog. This was a business decision...the question is whether it is enough to matter.

 

[psylence2k]

And?

Saying it was Taylor Swift that did it belittles everyone else who had an impact. Hers "solidified", which means they were already thinking about it without her letter.

Well if it belittles everyone else in your opinion, I can't really can't do anything about that. People just need to face the reality that in this world and especially in business certain individuals and companies have more clout than others. ONE individual can be the deciding factor. There is evidence of this everywhere yet with this particular situation people choose to deny it.

When Eddie Cue is giving her letter direct credit as the solidifying factor, saying the discussion happened TODAY, and crediting her name first before "indie/other artists". Then yes, it's safe to say the evidence leans towards her being the main push. Everything is in her favor as being the main and deciding factor.

 

[aressaress]

Congrats to TS for successfully standing up to Apple on behalf of those who create the music Apple will profit from with its Apple Music service.

 

[AlexBerkman]

I'll bet there's a lot more "real fans" than you think.

Then I would state that they are only "real fans" and not real fans.....

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan btw. But I have been using Apple computers since-93, (work wise) on and off that is. And since -10 only apple.

This topic is obsolete now since apple came to their senses and reversed the non payment issue.

 

[psylence2k]

I'm not saying she didn't have any part, I'm just saying she didn't do it alone and didn't play as big of a role as others seem to believe.

How are you going to go contrary to the evidence like you were sitting in on meetings though ? What evidence do you have ?

because the evidence in timing and statements that we actually do have clearly lean towards her playing the biggest role. She brought the publicity to it that made it an issue. Nobody outside of the music world meaning Apple's general consumers were really talking about this today BEFORE Taylor Swift made it a known issue.

TODAY was the day her letter got released then after that TODAY was the day Cook and Cue talked about it and then again TODAY was the day they quickly gave her a PERSONAL call first and credited her to multiple sources.

If you're denying it at this point, your bias is just showing badly. I'm basing this on what we have in front of us, you're going by a "hunch".

 

[Zxxv]

This whole turn of events was a pre planned masterly crafted advertising move/strategy by apple. Can't pay for publicity like this so many more will now use apple music.

Business lesson 101 by apple. Planned and exe'cue'ted perfectly.

 

[adder7712]

I'm not the biggest fan of her music (prefer her older stuff) but this doesn't surprise me after her row with Spotify.

 

[2IS]

I would actually have some respect for Ms. Taylor Swift had she said this in her letter; "Apple, I don't care about my financial needs and I'm not looking to seek any amount of payment, but at least pay the Indie Artists since they are not as fortunate as me or I will pull my music from Music.

Funny how it wasn't put that way. She's just using the Indie Artists as leverage. I'll bet she doesn't give a rat's behind about Indie artists trying to build themselves up. If she did she would've remained true to her own original style of music (Country) rather than selling out and going where the real money is, that pop crap. She gives the word "ARTIST" a whole new meaning. For her it means to sellout and go for the gold.

Well looks like Apple has changed their mind, and since Apple does your thinking for you then you clearly agree with Taylor Swifts original comments because otherwise it would be blasphemy to go against the word of your God.

 

[Andrei90]

So if in a couple of weeks that doesn't happen are we allowed to come back and laugh at you?

Look at all the Facebook and twitter posts, most people are laughing at Taylor right now.

LMAO so hard at this.

 

[Andrei90]

Well looks like Apple has changed their mind, and since Apple does your thinking for you then you clearly agree with Taylor Swifts original comments because otherwise it would be blasphemy to go against the word of your God.

Now it's taylor's move, if she doesn't put her new album on Apple Music she'll get called out.

 

[Andrei90]

This whole turn of events was a pre planned masterly crafted advertising move/strategy by apple. Can't pay for publicity like this so many more will now use apple music.

Business lesson 101 by apple. Planned and exe'cue'ted perfectly.

Or you know... just a big screw up.

 

[HiRez]

So if in a couple of weeks that doesn't happen are we allowed to come back and laugh at you?

Yep.

 

[aroom]

I don't know if the mass media are talking about this issue. Personally, I agree that the artists should be paid during the 3 month trial.

And what I see here is an incredible PR opportunity for Apple to change their mind and go for, at least if not the total cut, a part of it during the trial period. This would state for everyone that Apple stand by musicians, famous or not, successful or not, and that they want to do something different about this streaming service.

Cause nowaday, free streaming should be over.

I guess I was right then

 

[ArmCortexA8]

A couple days ago BuzzFeed reported that Taylor Swift's new album, "1989", would not be available to stream on Apple Music, denying the service of one of the best-selling albums of the last two years. Today, Swift penned an open letter to the Cupertino company explaining her decision.

​

Swift, who calls Apple one of her best partners in selling her music, says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury. She explains that her sentiments about the three-month free trial are echoed by "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much."

She goes on to say that she understands Apple is working toward a goal of paid streaming and that Apple Music could be the first streaming service that "gets it right" in her eyes in regards to artist compensation. However, she also points out that Apple is "astronomically successful" and could afford to pay artists, writers and producers during the three-month free trial. She closes the open letter asking Apple to reconsider its policy.

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

This so-called artist is just a megalomania - she's made a fortune out of the system. I don't support the corrupt system who cares if it was not going to stream on iTunes - I just get it from TPB for free. Fools.

 

[alvindarkness]

Taylor Swift and anyone else who thinks Apple is sticking it to them certainly have a right to their opinion. But they don't have a right to the facts:
Apple is paying a ton to host and stream their content and taking the loss on that. Does Taylor think that actually has zero cost? Does she think the 25-30% that Apple keeps from her music goes straight to the bottom line? What about transaction costs and management? Those people are just as real as some poor roadie or soundman.

It is up to Apple to do the sums and figure out if their business model will work and then go ahead. They arent stupid, and obviously they have done the sums. It is not up to the consumer nor the artists to consider these things. If something isnt profitable for Apple, that is Apple's problem, and their problem alone.

The fact that Apple wasted time at all the music industry should be thankful. I can't believe the money they've wasted on Jimmy and Dre and the nauseating deal making and handholding the entertainment industry requires. I would have let them flail in their own filth and wonder why the masses won't throw a couple bits in their guitar cases.

You seem to think that Apple is doing some kind of altruistic action with their new service. They are a business seeking profits. Artists generally also seek monetary income from their work. There is no difference here. To make available an avenue for the public to obtain an artists work, with no compensation to the artist, for three full months - meanwhile Apple solidifies their position in the streaming music market at the artists expense - doesnt sound like a fair deal. It sounds like a company with a lot of might and power, utilising their position in a very unethical manner. Not for an altrusitic purpose in mind, but purely for future profits.

 

[vladi]

Well Steve Jobs is dead for one thing so his "values" don't have to be upheld by Apple. The rest of your post is senseless. Just because they have money doesn't mean they should foot the bill for your free listening pleasure and to fill the artists pockets while also footing the bill for hosting and promoting unknown and known artists.
Try that logic on yourself and see if you still agree. Just because you can afford to do something does that mean you should get stuck with bill?

I was just being sarcastic as people expect artists to take a paycut because "they already make a lot of money" argument. I don't know whos reply I quote but I did so cause it didn't make any sense.

 

[Andrei90]

It is up to Apple to do the sums and figure out if their business model will work and then go ahead. They arent stupid, and obviously they have done the sums. It is not up to the consumer nor the artists to consider these things. If something isnt profitable for Apple, that is Apple's problem, and their problem alone.



You seem to think that Apple is doing some kind of altruistic action with their new service. They are a business seeking profits. Artists generally also seek monetary income from their work. There is no difference here. To make available an avenue for the public to obtain an artists work, with no compensation to the artist, for three full months - meanwhile Apple solidifies their position in the streaming music market at the artists expense - doesnt sound like a fair deal. It sounds like a company with a lot of might and power, utilising their position in a very unethical manner. Not for an altrusitic purpose in mind, but purely for future profits.

So why sould be Apple's problem that the labels won't pay the artists? They made a deal with the labels to do a free trial for 3 months, if the artists don't get paid, that's the artists problems, and their problem alone. See how it works? It's not Apple's fault that the artists made a bad deal with their label. I know that if the company I work for doesn't get paid for something they still have to pay me.

 

[alvindarkness]

So why sould be Apple's problem that the labels won't pay the artists? They made a deal with the labels to do a free trial for 3 months, if the artists don't get paid, that's the artists problems, and their problem alone. See how it works? It's not Apple's fault that the artists made a bad deal with their label. I know that if the company I work for doesn't get paid for something they still have to pay me.

I agree with you completely, it was a horribly negotiated deal for the artist on the labels behalf. But I was specifically responding to someone stating that Apple runs streaming services at a loss. And that, is Apples problem, and their problem alone.

 

[iConnected]

... I don't support the corrupt system who cares if it was not going to stream on iTunes - I just get it from TPB for free. Fools.

So not only are you stealing, you're proud to boast about it in public.

Imagine if someone stole your iPhone, your iPod and your rMBP.

Then they posted on a forum that they "don't support a corrupt system, they just get their Apple kit for free".

I guess you'd be the first to "like" their post. Oh, you couldn't. They have all of your Apple gear.

 

[Andrei90]

I agree with you completely, it was a horribly negotiated deal for the artist on the labels behalf. But I was specifically responding to someone stating that Apple runs streaming services at a loss. And that, is Apples problem, and their problem alone. See how it works?

Yes, but nobody is complaining about that, certainly not Apple, they decided to run their business model that way. The real issue here is why should Apple have to pay if the labels signed a contract?

 

[nebo1ss]

So E Cue got a phone call from Tim Cooke that went like this. Fix it we don't need this bad publicity.