or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by asdasd

Labels are specialised venture capitalists. They give you money to make money. Many of their projects will fail, the few that succeed make their profit. They also have distribution and marketing arms but that's just a side to the main business ( most people think it's the main business). It's possible to make it big without labels,  but most artists need capital to make their album, and the labels hope to make a return on it, just as startups need venture capital in most...
Firstly it's hard to see why anybody would think the Labels would be worried by getting more money from a streaming service. The reason the Music App will take off is because it has the advantage of being on about 500M devices to begin with, and you only need to convert a small enough percentage of that base to paid ( via the free sample) and you are in. The labels will be getting more money. I mean if the labels and artists collapse, then Apple has no music. Apples been...
Maybe people like quality. Nothing strange about that.It's fairly simple to explain Apples potential, to use spotify you have to actively search for it. To use a free trial of the music streamlining on iOS you just have to launch Music and then you get it.
Cue's presentation was extremely unfocused compare to the rest of the demos. Everything else was sharp, he was playing music. I think it will do well. The Siri integration looks cool, particularly playing songs or charts from a different era.
There is no 30% cut because Netflix don't want to pay it.
Verizon have an app to do this, and AT&T. Lots out there, but nice to see apple get onboard. The apps idea is new.
Sounds like feudalism.
Yes. Most of the commentators here seem to forget that simple fact with their inane witherings about how Apple hosts everything. Obviously Netflix hosts its own content and even handles fufillment.
Why would the promo matter to the industry. U2 and the label were paid
In the Yahoo weather app, which is pretty good, the main weather screen per location has Flickr photos. I suppose, since the Flickr terms are similar to google, that these are not paid for even though they say copyright the owner and Flickr on the bottom. That said why would somebody refuse? This is a bit of a nerd-storm. My guess is many photographers wouldn't mind their non-personal landscape photoography getting used in advertising or in apps.
New Posts  All Forums: