or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jungmark

I still don't understand why it could be considered anti-trust issues. Apple can make individual agreements with the labels/artists. Unless Apple forces the labels to redo the contracts for other services, it's perfectly legal.
Please, the MSM says Apple is doomed for 15 years. Can't give them any cred.What? Wanting to be paid for her work? Tell you what, if your company gave away free samples, please volunteer to forgo a portion of your wages during that time.
Because Jobs never changed his mind. /sDidn't new music on iTunes go from .99 to 1.29 under Jobs?Apple did the right thing but this should have been done prior to any announcement.
1. It's Apple's choice to make a free trial. Why should artists not be paid for their work? Do employees also forgo wages during that time as well?2. Swift sells millions of albums and sells out stadiums for concerts. She doesn't need streaming.
This sounds like: I don't get Apple. Its products are expensive and fad-like.
Good job, Apple. This should have been done at the beginning.
If it's not money making, apple should still pay the royalties. So it's definitely about money.
1. She's right, artists aren't getting royalties for three months. Imagine if your workplace offered free samples of its products and won't pay you for three months.2. Is it? That's odd if it is the case.3. Swift understands.
She's not throwing a fit, she's giving her opinion. Um I think she's doing ok by herself.
I see some main stream media headlines: Taylor swift rips Apple Music. This is nothing like that. Apple should pay royalties during the free trial period.
New Posts  All Forums: