Yet she still thinks it is ok to use the work of others (Photographers) without paying them if she pleases...maybe you should read that contract again before celebrating...in the end she does to photographers what she complained about when apple did it...i realy hate hypocrites
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 Shares Behind-the-Scenes Details of Her Apple Music Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The letter came about because she was loves to play the victim card. It seems her day revolves around finding ways to look like a victim. Witness her recent beef with Minaj.
Then you didn't have to read and comment on the article.
Maybe you should check why musicians weren't paid before. Apple shouldn't have backed off. This service is a joint venture and Apple isn't getting paid for their hard work during the trial period. However, that doesn't bother anyone, apparently.
Also, saying that a company "can afford it" is such preposterous nonsense. Heck, Swift can also afford it.
I know that you are TRYING to be either clever or funny, but you miss the mark... since she is praising Apple's response, as everyone else has & they're more like bffs at this point.
I believe Swift meant well, and the outcome is a good one. Apple responded well too.
But, as I understand it, things were never so "shocking" as she believed from reading that one phrase. It was NEVER musicians giving up their livelihood in some evil-greedy-Apple way:
- The free-period terms were the SAME as with all the other streaming companies. (Just a longer timeframe: 3 months vs 1.) In other words, the musicians get no money for that particular temporary subsegment of trial music listening (NOT for "all their work"). But the streaming service (Apple in this case) ALSO gets no money for that subsegment. All partners, not just on the music side, are giving away their joint product for free. Not unreasonable to me.
- The additional 2 months' free period comes to 1/6 of a year, no effect after year one. It's a flash in the pan.
- The terms that Apple is now paying for that 60 days are apparently similar to what any company's free tier pays--which is to say, almost nothing. It NOT going to make or break a large artist or a small one. (Plus Apple's paying for the additional 30 days--the one month other services offer as free trials, "without paying musicians." Apple has done more than match the standard scenario, they have exceeded it.)
- Apple's service pays WAY better than any other in the long run: 7x as much, is the figure I have seen. This is because they do NOT have a free tier after the trial (not to mention, paying a slightly higher % even on the paid tier). And this near-worthless-to-musicians free tier that other companies offer forever via ads, Apple is cutting off after the trial. That is huge. THAT is going to make or break musicians. Apple is a savior to musicians in this scenario, not a robber baron, and anyone who thinks about the actual numbers knows it.
- People who say it would take ages for a musician to recover that lost 60 days of free-tier streaming revenue aren't thinking clearly. The lost amount (now regained) was vanishingly small, and the 7x boost to come is not.
- A longer free trial entices more customers. That's the purpose of any sale or giveaway or promo. It helps ALL partners in the venture--Apple and musicians/labels alike. NOT just Apple.
- Yes, ANY streaming service will reduce song purchases also... but that's happening anyway, with or without Apple. And the difference is, with Apple, people would actually be listening to more music--AND paying more money per year--than the average music buyer. Plus, music buying doesn't just vanish either (in fact, Apple Music is in part a discovery method that leads to purchases. In a "Pandora" way, but also via the DJs.)
- So, in short, Apple offered the same free-trial terms as anyone, but with a 60-day-longer trial period. Culminating in 7x the income to musicians/labels ongoing. I doubt Apple--or the music labels--cared very much either way about the terms of the free period. I bet Apple was like "THIS detail gets an open letter? Shrug."
But, as I understand it, things were never so "shocking" as she believed from reading that one phrase. It was NEVER musicians giving up their livelihood in some evil-greedy-Apple way:
- The free-period terms were the SAME as with all the other streaming companies. (Just a longer timeframe: 3 months vs 1.) In other words, the musicians get no money for that particular temporary subsegment of trial music listening (NOT for "all their work"). But the streaming service (Apple in this case) ALSO gets no money for that subsegment. All partners, not just on the music side, are giving away their joint product for free. Not unreasonable to me.
- The additional 2 months' free period comes to 1/6 of a year, no effect after year one. It's a flash in the pan.
- The terms that Apple is now paying for that 60 days are apparently similar to what any company's free tier pays--which is to say, almost nothing. It NOT going to make or break a large artist or a small one. (Plus Apple's paying for the additional 30 days--the one month other services offer as free trials, "without paying musicians." Apple has done more than match the standard scenario, they have exceeded it.)
- Apple's service pays WAY better than any other in the long run: 7x as much, is the figure I have seen. This is because they do NOT have a free tier after the trial (not to mention, paying a slightly higher % even on the paid tier). And this near-worthless-to-musicians free tier that other companies offer forever via ads, Apple is cutting off after the trial. That is huge. THAT is going to make or break musicians. Apple is a savior to musicians in this scenario, not a robber baron, and anyone who thinks about the actual numbers knows it.
- People who say it would take ages for a musician to recover that lost 60 days of free-tier streaming revenue aren't thinking clearly. The lost amount (now regained) was vanishingly small, and the 7x boost to come is not.
- A longer free trial entices more customers. That's the purpose of any sale or giveaway or promo. It helps ALL partners in the venture--Apple and musicians/labels alike. NOT just Apple.
- Yes, ANY streaming service will reduce song purchases also... but that's happening anyway, with or without Apple. And the difference is, with Apple, people would actually be listening to more music--AND paying more money per year--than the average music buyer. Plus, music buying doesn't just vanish either (in fact, Apple Music is in part a discovery method that leads to purchases. In a "Pandora" way, but also via the DJs.)
- So, in short, Apple offered the same free-trial terms as anyone, but with a 60-day-longer trial period. Culminating in 7x the income to musicians/labels ongoing. I doubt Apple--or the music labels--cared very much either way about the terms of the free period. I bet Apple was like "THIS detail gets an open letter? Shrug."
Last edited:
This had to be a huge positive PR coupe for Apple. Responding to her letter in such as positive way, and treating her with respect, would definitely endear her millions of fans to Apple. Regardless of your feelings toward the artist, she his a popular right now with the consumers who Apple would like to subscribe to Apple Music, and this is worth more than millions in advertising might achieve.
You have to wonder if Apple gave her a watch in return for writing the letter that they could respond to. This is not the first time Apple has changed its policies in response to requests, and come out smelling of roses as a result.
You DO realize that photographers aren't slaves - they are independent contractors and can CHOOSE who they work for. If the don't like Taylor's policies, they can just work a different concert.
These photographers CHOOSE a place to take photos where they can make money - obviously they're still making money or they wouldn't be doing Taylor Swift concerts in the first place.
Let me give you a personal example - I officiate football as a side job. Rates for officiating are all over the board. Some teams pay $25 a game, some pay $500, and anywhere in between. I choose where to officiate based on pay, location, time and level of play. When the lingerie football league comes to town and asks us to referee for $50 - it's my choice to do it or not. I can weigh the benefits/prestige of doing it or not. It's MY choice.
Last edited:
Just here to read the "This was a staged PR stunt" and the "Im too cool for school they aren't going to fool me" conspiracy theorists that run rampant here. Oh the music snobs are always entertaining too. The "I only like bands that sell 5,000 records, screw Taylor Swift and her 5 million" ones.
Well.... from the point of providing service why would Apple NOT listen to artists ? If all artists felt the same way, Apple wouldn't have a service..... and all of would be gone. Apple music wouldn't have existed.... Just Best 1
That's the view i look at it from..... Apple wants a good service... The source is the artists or labels. Give us want we want or else
And if Apple denies this, and more follow, then its no surprise.
It may be on Apple's terms, but ultimately they don't really have a choice.
That's the view i look at it from..... Apple wants a good service... The source is the artists or labels. Give us want we want or else
And if Apple denies this, and more follow, then its no surprise.It may be on Apple's terms, but ultimately they don't really have a choice.
Reminder that taylor swift sued her guitar teacher for saying that he taught her and her fans for making etsy fan merch.
She is not some selfless darling out to defend artists. She acts in her own interest and that's all.
She is not some selfless darling out to defend artists. She acts in her own interest and that's all.
But Apple are the ones providing this service. They want people to join up, they have to saddle the costs not the musicians.
How can I put this in it's simplest form?
Say you're an artist and a friend wants to start up an art gallery. They're going to host your work and normally you'd hope to sell pieces. But instead the host wants to bring people in, gather emails, gain support, so they start to give away your product. The artist gets no benefit from this especially when they're already getting paid from other places, why should they give away work to benefit another entities business?
Your replies brighten my day, unlike those fools at Channel 4.