or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Apple came up with a creative thinking-outside-the-box method of dealing with devices with limited storage and large OS updates. Nice work!
Yeah didn't see an ad-supported tier coming, but I guess I should have. Makes sense considering the other music streaming options available or soon to be. So that pretty much fills out the music offerings from Google with:- the new ad-supported and human curated radio service (apparently from their Songza purchase?)- a free cloud music drawer for up to 50,000 songs- ability to transfer/match your iTunes catalog of music- à la carte album and individual track purchases- and...
Oh geez... This sounds petty: "Apple declined to say how much it plans to pay during the trial period, though it said the rate will increase once customers start paying for subscriptions". One source said they may copy Spotify's half-royalties during promotional periods. Copy Spotify? I doubt that would go over great. So Apple has a chance to put it to rest once and for all and lets it pass them by? IMO not smart from a PR perspective to do so if that's what's being...
How about a self-driving app on a smartphone? Land Rover says they have it in their plans and here's a video to show the use cases:
IMO of course it will be available with the change in Apple's policy. It's available on other PAID music streaming services and will be on Apple Music too now.EDIT: Just did a quick look and immediately found three paid streamers with Swifts' 1989 album: Rhapsody, Google Play Music and Beats Music. So some of you may already have it available. I'm sure there are others. As long as they don't have a "freemium" option she's generally OK with it.
Google doesn't knowingly collect data on nor market to children under 13. Neither their published privacy policy nor Federal law permit it. Period. In fact Google does not even permit children under 13 to have their own Gmail accounts. They would have to lie about their age to get one and if Google becomes aware of it the account will be locked and/or deleted anyway.
Apple substitutes "artist" for IP holder.The royalties are paid to the IP holder, generally the label, and a far smaller portion to the songwriter. The reported split up to now has been 88% label and 12% songwriter. The recording artist isn't paid directly by Apple AFAIK unless they are also one of those two things, or in Swift's case both.And if "the other service with two free months" wasn't paying we would have heard about it. They aren't small.
I don't think it will be a problem unless there were things going on that we've no idea about. From anything I've read I don't see anything that the EU should have an official issue with.
Won't happen. Did you read Eddy Cue's billboard interview? I did.Swift also has stated that most of her income is from touring, similar to what other popular artists have said.
If they do this the same way they do for iTunes Match Apple will keep around 28.5% of the total revenue for themselves, approx the same as they get now from apps and music sales. The remaining 71.5% will be divided up between labels and songwriters with the former getting over 85% of it . The one part that confuses me a bit is Apple supposedly pays royalties based on "how many times someone accesses your song". If that's accurate then it would seem the 71.5% for the IP...
New Posts  All Forums: