I can't believe people are defending apple, Taylor is sticking up for all musicians. Unbelievable the apple fanboy drones. Apple will turn into the next nazi party & people will defend why it's ok
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
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
These 2 threads are quite the contrast. This one has what seems to be about 85% arguing very hard against the artists per Apple's "pre reversal" stance. The other "Apple reverses it's stance" is filing up with gushing praise for Apple "doing the right thing" with only a minority still offering counterpoint of how terrible this is for Apple. No surprise of course. Apple has set a course and then reversed that course and many of us will go and reverse right with them. 
It is great that Apple came around on this topic. It is the right thing to do. Spending a little money to repair or even enhance the Apple image is almost always a good thing. This particular spend will be fully written off and will be less than the approx. $2.2 Billion worst case that I calculated much earlier in this thread (that assuming 100 million free trials with Apple paying the full $7.20 for every one of them for 3 months, which would be a wildly successful roll out).
What I take out of all of this is that probably that Katie Cotton was much more key to managing Apple's image than she was ever given credit and that her retirement has actually removed something from Apple's management ears that is still missing: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/30/katie-cotton-leaves-apple/ While it could just be coincidence, I don't recall Apple's image seeming to be questioned as much when she was in charge of Apple's PR. I'm guessing she had influence to motivate the bean counters to proactively spend some money when issues like this would be likely to work against Apple. And since, perhaps her replacements are less assertive or influential at motivating the same? Or maybe she was better at anticipating potential PR black eyes than her replacements? Or maybe the bean counters have simply grown much too powerful and are out of touch with touchy-feely aspects like image?
In any event, I'm glad about the reversal. It's great for Apple and great for the "starving artists" who were so worried about this. From a PR perspective, it's a great story to spin, flipping Apple from Goliath-sized villain exploiting starving artist musicians for 3 months to being the gigantic corporation who cares so much for those artists they'll pay them while making nothing from the service during the 3-month term. There's far more positive in this than the relatively small amount of money it will actually cost. And "doing the right thing" can sometimes lead to more ROI for shareholders than pinching every penny while growing bad will. Way to go Apple!
It is great that Apple came around on this topic. It is the right thing to do. Spending a little money to repair or even enhance the Apple image is almost always a good thing. This particular spend will be fully written off and will be less than the approx. $2.2 Billion worst case that I calculated much earlier in this thread (that assuming 100 million free trials with Apple paying the full $7.20 for every one of them for 3 months, which would be a wildly successful roll out).
What I take out of all of this is that probably that Katie Cotton was much more key to managing Apple's image than she was ever given credit and that her retirement has actually removed something from Apple's management ears that is still missing: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/30/katie-cotton-leaves-apple/ While it could just be coincidence, I don't recall Apple's image seeming to be questioned as much when she was in charge of Apple's PR. I'm guessing she had influence to motivate the bean counters to proactively spend some money when issues like this would be likely to work against Apple. And since, perhaps her replacements are less assertive or influential at motivating the same? Or maybe she was better at anticipating potential PR black eyes than her replacements? Or maybe the bean counters have simply grown much too powerful and are out of touch with touchy-feely aspects like image?
In any event, I'm glad about the reversal. It's great for Apple and great for the "starving artists" who were so worried about this. From a PR perspective, it's a great story to spin, flipping Apple from Goliath-sized villain exploiting starving artist musicians for 3 months to being the gigantic corporation who cares so much for those artists they'll pay them while making nothing from the service during the 3-month term. There's far more positive in this than the relatively small amount of money it will actually cost. And "doing the right thing" can sometimes lead to more ROI for shareholders than pinching every penny while growing bad will. Way to go Apple!
Last edited:
They're comparable in certain aspects as I've highlights and not in others ones (as I've pointed out for you). Nothing is usually 100% comparable in every aspect. The point was that you shouldn't expect someone to be cool with just giving away 3 free months of product that they normally charge for just because you want them to regardless of how much work you think went into making that product. That's not relevant to how they should be compensated for their work.
At the end of the day neither you or I know exactly how much each artist is making at every level nor is it our business. We also dont know what their bills and financial situation is. Though none of that is relevant because the bottom line is that they should be compensated for their work just like anybody else. Not based on how much we think they need the money or not.
They would hypothetically be losing 25% of their annual streaming income. How would you feel if someone took 25% of your annual salary ? What if your boss said " We're gonna not pay you for 3 months so we can use that money on marketing the company. We've paid you decently for years, it seems like you have a decent car so it doesn't seem like you're struggling, you should be able to manage " Like who's place is it to not pay you and then try to justify it by saying how much you do or dont need the money ? that's ridiculous.
If your mom was someone whose videos were already selling physical units decently then this new streaming model comes in that not only substantially kills those sales but pays WAY LESS from streaming views essentially shrinking your mom's usual overall income and then a multi billion dollar company wants to cut 25% to help promote their service and basically have your mom foot the bill, I really dont think most would be okay with that. Artists were making WAY more money from retail sales then they are from streaming. Now you want them to be cool with taking a 25% cut out of a check that's already MUCH smaller than the ones that they got from retail sales that these same stream services are killing ?
It's not ONLY about the current reduction in you're usual check, but the principle that if you dont stand up for a dollar being taken here and there that people will see you're not resisting and could potentially take more and more over time.
and she criticized Spotify for NOT paying AT ALL for their free tier which is where the vast majority of their listeners are. She made that clear, If Spotify never had a free tier they would've still had her music just like Beats, Tidal, and any other exclusively paying service did WHEN she made that announcement up until this point. Those services did not lose her music because they had no free tier that was giving it away for free. I think you should really do the research first before you speak on the specifics.
Last edited:
I hear you, but I'm highly doubtful that streaming music services make up a large share of anyone's revenue. They are growing, but there are still relatively few people paying for the services. I believe it's far more likely that Apple Music represents nothing short term and may represent growth in the future. With Apple's reversal the point is moot, but not invalid. Apple can't risk the public damage to their brand image - their most valuable product bar none. Taylor on the other hand, has been staunchly against streaming music from the get go.
Last edited:
These 2 threads are quite the contrast. This one has what seems to be about 85% arguing very hard against the artists per Apple's "pre reversal" stance. The other "Apple reverses it's stance" is filing up with gushing praise for Apple "doing the right thing" with only a minority still offering counterpoint of how terrible this is for Apple. No surprise of course. Apple has set a course and then reversed that course and many of us will go and reverse right with them.
It is great that Apple came around on this topic. It is the right thing to do. Spending a little money to repair or even enhance the Apple image is almost always a good thing. This particular spend will be fully written off and will be less than the approx. $2.2 Billion worst case that I calculated much earlier in this thread (that assuming 100 million free trials with Apple paying the full $7.20 for every one of them for 3 months, which would be a wildly successful roll out).
Just another example of Apple's cult-like following. I agree that Apple has done the right thing, but would had any of this happened if it weren't for Taylor Swift? Or was the entire thing staged and Apple planned on paying artists the entire time?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I suspect Katie Cotton (former PR chief) was much more important to Apple's image building/protection than she was given credit. I think she had enough strength/clout/whatever to head off these PR black eyes before they could get some legs under them. This part of Apple seems a bit weaker since she's been gone.
Would this have happened without Swift? Maybe? Someone else of great popularity might have done the same thing today or tomorrow. She certainly gets some credit for waking up Apple to this topic enough to move them to action. Apple has said as much.
Would this have happened without Swift? Maybe? Someone else of great popularity might have done the same thing today or tomorrow. She certainly gets some credit for waking up Apple to this topic enough to move them to action. Apple has said as much.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Pick up a musical instrument, record some great music, assemble and pay a band, tour (and pay for touring), make music videos (and pay for making them), promote your music and tours (and pay for promoting both), sell it through iTunes and/or Apple Music and count your riches. You too can so easily be the next Taylor Swift, all made upon Apple's impressive generosity.
Last edited:
Sounds like rich people problems to me. She didn't seem to care about her fellow artists that are routinely getting raked over the coals by the record labels, essentially working for nothing, before this announcement. Oh that's right, she was collecting a fat check before this so it didn't matter.
I loved that part of her response as well and she has a totally valid point. It seems as though Apple was strong-arming artists. Either give up your music for free for three months or we'll ban you. They're being bullies. And considering the amount of money they have in the coffers, why would they want artists to foot the bill for their service?We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
Mistrblank, can you clarify what you mean? Sems to me whenever she had an issue with what the record labels were doing, she spoke up. Seems like she doesn't hold her tongue at all. Look at when Spotify wanted to pay artists an amount of money she felt was unacceptable. What did she do? She spoke up and pulled her music.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Here's the bottom line: we ALL want to get paid what we earn. Tim Cook isn't giving us iPhones for free, even though Apple could certainly afford to do so without problem, right? So why would he expect artists to give free music away?
Some might say Taylor Swift is worth $200 million. What is she crying about? Well guess what? Tim Cook is worth $785 million! So let's get the discussion back to what makes sense here. What makes sense is for an artist to get paid for their effort. What if your boss said to you, "Hey, I'm trying to open up a new store and it's going to make me MILLIONS. I need you to go over there and get it going. Btw, for the first three months we're giving away everything for free. And because of that, you don't get a paycheck. If you don't agree to this, you'll never work in any of my stores again!" I mean, that's essentially what Apple was trying to pull.
Now maybe you're about to retire and have $2million in your 401(k) and can afford to be robbed by your boss. But the point is you're still being robbed! Apple is getting pretty greedy here, and I have nothing but love for Apple.
Oh really ?
bi·as
ˈbīəs/
noun
noun: bias; plural noun: biases
noun
1. a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
You're clearly choosing to STRONGLY side with a theory that really has little to no supporting evidence behind it while rejecting the likeliness of the opposing theory which has a MUCH higher case for validity with the presented evidence.
Choosing to strongly support something with little to no evidence over something with MUCH more evidence would indicate an unreasonable opinion or an unsubstantiated stance would it not ? Is that not indicative of some form of bias ?
No, that's indicative of strongly believing in a theory. :|
I have no bias for or against anything dealing with this topic. I have a theory and I'm stubborn. That's it.
a unsubstantiated theory in opposition to one that actually is much more substantiated.
Is that not an unreasonable opinion to try to deny the substantiated in favor of the unsubstantiated ?
All this notion of the Apple Music service and Beats Radio has got me thinking, as the saying goes thanks to Reel Big Fish "Radio Plays what they Want You to Hear"... - Someone in the higher epslion in Apple Radio would have a hidden hand in playing what is "hip, trendy, and in".
So in another simple thought, if the indie artist makes more money from actual performances rather than album/song sales, why aren't we seeing a lot of concerts everywhere? And also, if its true that concerts make a greater percentage of income in general, why not make a concert, something that can be "Pay Per Viewed" much like the Wrestling and Boxing matches?
So in another simple thought, if the indie artist makes more money from actual performances rather than album/song sales, why aren't we seeing a lot of concerts everywhere? And also, if its true that concerts make a greater percentage of income in general, why not make a concert, something that can be "Pay Per Viewed" much like the Wrestling and Boxing matches?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Touring is very expensive. There's typically a lot of people to pay beyond the musicians themselves. There's hotels and venues to book, promotional expenses and so on. I've got what I would consider one of these starving artist musicians in my own family. He's out playing somewhere pretty much every night and trying to write and record new music around that schedule. Tours beyond driving distance means hotels and that is beyond their budget. So they are limited to a region in venues to which they can drive, perform and then drive back home.
They work hard- very long days- often 7 days a week. There's barely any surplus money to pay for anything beyond their bills. They had a fire at their house and it required a collection and some tribute performance donations by other bands to cover the repairs. That's how it is down at that end of the pond. And there's seemingly thousands of small bands and individual musicians just like them... far, FAR from the successes of a Swift or Perry or Bieber. Even a few hundred dollar shift in monthly revenue could be the difference between making a house payment or missing it.
We don't seem to think about this level. Instead, most of this has been rich corporation vs. rich artist (Swift). The latter- whether genuine or not- appeared to be trying to speak up for those kinds of musicians, admitting that she had enough to be able to take care of her own business during the trial. Of course, we generally ignore those parts, along with how softly she made her case among lots of praise for Apple... just jumping on the spoiled, rich brat train trying to be greedy (while ignoring the for-profit motivations of the gigantic corporation that makes more than her each month than she's probably made in her entire career). No surprise, this is MACrumors rather than SWIFTrumors, but it is dazzling to see so many armchair solutions by those outside of the industry of course heavily biased to what's best for Apple.
At this point, Apple has conceded and reversed it's position. So now, Swift and Apple are on the same side of this debate. And still there are those of us apparently wanting a reverse of the reversal. I almost wish Apple would do it just to watch the flip floppers flip again.
They work hard- very long days- often 7 days a week. There's barely any surplus money to pay for anything beyond their bills. They had a fire at their house and it required a collection and some tribute performance donations by other bands to cover the repairs. That's how it is down at that end of the pond. And there's seemingly thousands of small bands and individual musicians just like them... far, FAR from the successes of a Swift or Perry or Bieber. Even a few hundred dollar shift in monthly revenue could be the difference between making a house payment or missing it.
We don't seem to think about this level. Instead, most of this has been rich corporation vs. rich artist (Swift). The latter- whether genuine or not- appeared to be trying to speak up for those kinds of musicians, admitting that she had enough to be able to take care of her own business during the trial. Of course, we generally ignore those parts, along with how softly she made her case among lots of praise for Apple... just jumping on the spoiled, rich brat train trying to be greedy (while ignoring the for-profit motivations of the gigantic corporation that makes more than her each month than she's probably made in her entire career). No surprise, this is MACrumors rather than SWIFTrumors, but it is dazzling to see so many armchair solutions by those outside of the industry of course heavily biased to what's best for Apple.
At this point, Apple has conceded and reversed it's position. So now, Swift and Apple are on the same side of this debate. And still there are those of us apparently wanting a reverse of the reversal. I almost wish Apple would do it just to watch the flip floppers flip again.
I think this was all part of a plan from the get go.
Taylor gets to use her influence, which will make people take notice and gets hoards of media attention. Not odd that this all occurred and wrapped up over the weekend with no affect to the stock? Apple easily could have paid the artists from day one. Hell, they bought everyone who had an iTunes account a U2 album last year and have to imagine that those costs were way higher then what Apple would have to shell out here in free trials. But, having Apple upfront say that they are going to pay the artists for a free 3 months period (3x longer then anyone else) and pay a higher percentage, would/could lead to scrutiny. Unless of course it is the artists, of which she makes two that I had hear of, who are calling to get paid. All you need is one influential artist who is respected by other artists and fans alike to be a spokes person. She looks like a hero for artists as well as for Apple, since it was all wrapped up and solved. Not to mention the PR about Apple Music Service. Don;t be surprised when she send out a new message that her album will now be avail for streaming during the trial period. This too helps Apple with more PR as well as telling her millions of fans that her entire catalog will be avail on Apple Music. Ala a Taylor Streaming reboot, since she pulled her catalog from Spotify late last year.
Taylor gets to use her influence, which will make people take notice and gets hoards of media attention. Not odd that this all occurred and wrapped up over the weekend with no affect to the stock? Apple easily could have paid the artists from day one. Hell, they bought everyone who had an iTunes account a U2 album last year and have to imagine that those costs were way higher then what Apple would have to shell out here in free trials. But, having Apple upfront say that they are going to pay the artists for a free 3 months period (3x longer then anyone else) and pay a higher percentage, would/could lead to scrutiny. Unless of course it is the artists, of which she makes two that I had hear of, who are calling to get paid. All you need is one influential artist who is respected by other artists and fans alike to be a spokes person. She looks like a hero for artists as well as for Apple, since it was all wrapped up and solved. Not to mention the PR about Apple Music Service. Don;t be surprised when she send out a new message that her album will now be avail for streaming during the trial period. This too helps Apple with more PR as well as telling her millions of fans that her entire catalog will be avail on Apple Music. Ala a Taylor Streaming reboot, since she pulled her catalog from Spotify late last year.
But if Apple doesn't pay the labels it shouldnt mean the labels won't pay the artists. The labels should pay the artists even if Apple is not paying them, the problem is the artists are angry because they signed a really bad contract with their labels wich free them of any obligation to pay them.
I did read the article, and the same applies to them. Nobody is forcing them to accept the terms. Apparently Apple got the message that lots of independent artists were upset with the terms and didn't want to agree to them. They caved in. This is the free market working. Apple realized it made more business sense to get as much music on there as possible and just pay the fee instead of launching with a much more limited variety. They refused the terms and Apple reacted. I just want to know if Apple can renege on the higher royalty rate they were going to pay out now that they also have to pay for the free trial. It's only fair if the deal changes in the 11th hour.
I bet my butt apple is not going to pay the labels, they have a contract signed.
This may be stated already - can't read the entire thread.
Read this on NY Times.
Taylor requires photographers who have been hired to take pictures of her at a concert for instance, to turn over their photographs for eternity (other than the one magazine spread they were hired for). They can't use or publish or get paid for these photographs. Photographer can't even use as publicity for themselves.
SO much for supporting the little people - it is OK for people to spend time and effort and not get paid (if the article you are hired for doesn't get published you don't get paid for it) if you work for Taylor but not if you don't want to pay Taylor.
Too bad this won't get 1/100 of the publicity that Taylor vs. Apple got - she is worse than Apple - at least with Apple you would get paid after 3 months, dealing with Taylor you won't get paid at all.
Read this on NY Times.
Taylor requires photographers who have been hired to take pictures of her at a concert for instance, to turn over their photographs for eternity (other than the one magazine spread they were hired for). They can't use or publish or get paid for these photographs. Photographer can't even use as publicity for themselves.
SO much for supporting the little people - it is OK for people to spend time and effort and not get paid (if the article you are hired for doesn't get published you don't get paid for it) if you work for Taylor but not if you don't want to pay Taylor.
Too bad this won't get 1/100 of the publicity that Taylor vs. Apple got - she is worse than Apple - at least with Apple you would get paid after 3 months, dealing with Taylor you won't get paid at all.