or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by am8449

 I see.  I read in another AI article that Apple Music "should ultimately pay better than Spotify". http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/23/tidal-loses-interim-ceo-peter-tonstad-on-eve-of-apple-music-launch If true, and depending on how much better AM pays, I'd say that might make up for not paying artists during the free trial period.
 That makes sense to me for "small local/independent artists" who may be struggling. But I certainly wouldn't put Taylor Swift in that category... haha.
I like what this says about Apple.   That they're not rushing to implement something that's not ready yet. And that they are continuing to test Liquidmetal until it is.
 A couple of questions. Are you comparing Apple Music's free trial rate to Spotify's regular rate? If so, isn't that an uneven comparison? Given that Spotify has a free tier and Apple Music doesn't, how does that affect the math?
 I agree that "making a company diverse for the sake of diversity is a fools errand." However, I think it's more nuanced than that. Sometimes there isn't a "best person" to hire. There might be several qualified candidates, each that would bring their own unique strengths to the company. And you might decide to hire one of these candidates over the others because she's a woman and would bring a unique perspective to a tech company that's 90% male.
 I don't think that analogy fits. With the Apple Music trial period, you get to listen to music for free and don't get to download and own it. In your analogy, Walmart would be giving away actual physical products. Also, the artists are not employees working for Apple; they are in essence partners (more akin to the suppliers in your analogy), so the power dynamic is different. The artists can say no, and find another platform for their music, but in your analogy, the...
 I see what you're saying and agree that many people like their free stuff and aren't willing to pay. My question is: in this free trial period arrangement, why should Apple be bearing all of the risk of offering it, while the artists don't? They're in this venture together—Apple needs the artists' music to sell devices, the artists need Apple's platform to reach their audience. So what's the rationale for Apple to concede to paying the artists during this trial period,...
 One could make the point that social initiatives are part of the process of making great products. For example, choosing to hire a diverse work force which includes women, minorities, and gays. I guess it all depends on whether you're for or against a particular issue. Personally, I'm glad that Apple is trying to do good in areas like health care (with Research Kit), where it seems to only tangentially help them sell products, but has the potential to effect positive change.
What's the rationale behind artists getting paid during the trial period?   Apple doesn't make money during the trial period, so why should artists expect to? The way I see it, Apple and the artists are jointly enticing users to subscribe to Apple Music with the free trial period, so shouldn't both parties take on that promotion/risk?   Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong or missing something.
 I haven't tried the new taptic trackpad, but it's great to hear that it performs well. My comments were in the context of an iPhone without a home button at all, as the mock-up photos show. But if Apple's haptic feedback tech is as good as you say, maybe I could see them replacing the physical home button with a virtual one. But what would happen with the rest of the "chin" surrounding the button? Isn't one rationale for removing the home button to gain more screen real...
New Posts  All Forums: