or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

This was done to benefit Apple, both with ecosytem tie-in and a few billion in profit over the next few years. It wasn't done to help the music companies. Paying the content owners is a cost of doing business and the negotiations were meant to see how little they might accept to make the product available. Typical everyday business.
Another competing paid music service has a 2 month free intro. Apple has absolutely no antitrust issues to be concerned about with their free 3 month trial. Zero.That whole "Apple can't pay the artists because... ANTITRUST!" spiel was simply an imaginative but silly talking point from the mind of someone looking for a way to explain away Apple's initial plan. Whether it made sense didn't matter apparently as there were enough fans to grab hold and talk it up as a banner...
Well of course that was Apple's clever plan all along. How devious! /sIsn't it great how we can come up with these convoluted explanations in hindsight to explain away anything that disagrees with a talking point?
Riiight... Antitrust issue. It was never an antitrust issue as shown by Apple's course reversal. Anti-trust was just going to be an AI invented cover, not something backed by fact.Anyway, Apple should be lauded for acting so quickly to correct the original error in judgement. That's the Apple I expected to step up.
...and just a day later Apple does change course. Kudos to them for recognizing their judgement error so quickly and correcting it. Well done Apple.
I found that Spotify was mentioned but not that the royalties Apple agreed to would be the highest of all services. Maybe it just wasn't explained very clearly.
Apple didn't say they were paying a higher royalty than any other music streamer did they? I thought the rumor was it was higher than the industry average. Perhaps I was mistaken? Found it. They will pay more than Spotify does. Don't see where they'll pay more than anyone else but perhaps so.I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
Antitrust charges?? Really?? Google Play Music is free for two months. Apple not paying artists wouldn't make any difference that I can see. If anything requiring the labels to all agree to forego any royalties when they don't make the same offer to other music streaming services would be more likely to get Fed or EU attention over unfair competition concerns IMO. The books issue wan't all that long ago.
I don't know about HG's point but if Sirius does one of their free two-week (or is it 10 day) promos, as they do a couple times a year for previous subscribers, there's no indication that the music owners/performers don't get paid. When HBO or Showtime runs a free preview weekend or week there's no indication the movie owners/performers don't get paid. Can you think of other paid/premium streaming music providers or paid/premium movie channels who expect the content to be...
Their business plan? In any event I won't be surprised at all if Apple changes course. They'd receive more praise from musicians for paying royalties during the free period. Instead they're getting uncustomary bad PR from them. This isn't the typical Apple I perceive them as being.
New Posts  All Forums: