This is what Apple should of done from the beginning, if they had they would of been looked at as noble and a friend of musicians and content owners. That they did it after the fact just makes them look like they caved and will cave like pussy's in the future. Eddie Cue is more trouble for than he's worth...isn't he responsible for Apple's cloud services too...still the one major weakness in all of Apple's ecosystem.
I think what feeds into this meme that Apple can sometimes be tone deaf is having no problem spending hundreds of millions to give away a U2 album to every iTunes customer but then expecting every artist to go unpaid for 3 months while they offer a free streaming trial. Isn't Jimmy supposed to have the pulse of artists and the industry? Isn't that why Apple spent $3B on crappy headphone company?
First off, I don't think this was specifically planned by Apple. Large companies that introduce new products or make changes to services will always discuss numerous "what if" scenarios along with their responses. If negotiations over the free trial were as strained as early reports said, then Apple would have discussed contingencies for things like bad PR resulting from artist complaints or music from top artists being held back. It happened to be Taylor Swift but could just as easily been another famous artist or a large number of smaller ones.
So now instead of people using logic and realizing Apple was prepared for this possible outcome they now think Taylor Swift deserves the credit or that she's so powerful she can force Apple to bend to her will. Which gives the haters another pulpit to preach from.
Nah.... Jimmy & Cue were just lounging around on the corporate bass fishin' boat, when Jimmy I. said to Cue Ball, "watcha say we do a streaming service". Cue was distracted by a Big'N on the line at the time... so Jimmy simply scribbled the idea on the back of a Greasy Poon Bites-n-Bait napkin and hooked it on Tim's chair when they got back. Tim done did declare upon seeing the note, "well I'll be just a cotton-pickin' country boy... but that looks like a might fine idea to me... Let's do it!"
That was it. They invited a few cousins and friends of Apple to demo, talk and shoot the "breeeeze" on stage, and waited for their customers and the musicians to be ooohed, aaahed and flabbergasted at such a Grand Ol' Opry of an idea.
Less than a couple of weeks later though, they were all brought to collective tears that the Lil Darlin' Taylor Swift wouldn't be coming to their "pawdy" They were trying to do something nice for thier cuuuu-stomers and for Taylor, and get this Hoedown hoppin', (not to be mistaken with a hoppin' ho-down) ... so Cue got on the Twitter and wrote, "Dawlin... have we got newwwws for you! Not only we gonna pay whadeva yer pretty little head can conjure up... but we throwin' in free ice cream!"... while thunkin' to himself "top THAT Spoteeerfy!"
And without further ado... that's all-she-wrote!
Done deal by the Happy Honky Hoedown Hillbillies of Cupertino.
Cute satire doc. What I think you and Eric are omitting from your analyses is the influence of egotistical hubris on corporate decision making. Apple's leadership are not slack-jawed yokels, but neither are they immune from making mistakes in judgement. I agree with your identification of Iovine as being key to this fiasco. This whole incident seems to align well with everything I have read or heard about his way of dealing in the music industry.
Even if that were true, the artists should be able to have a card to play in this poker game, and that's what she did. There's no right or wrong when negotiating terms. Her open letter was a shrewd move, because it was picked up and spread around by the mainstream media (not just tech sites), and got repeated with the usual "Apple is evil and stealing from artists" narrative attached, some with more intentional zeal and anti-Apple fervor.
I'm just just glad it's over, and I hope her music can go back to being ignored by all the Apple-haters who, for one day, made her their honorary spokesperson in their negative troll campaign against Apple on the Internet.
We said Apple was cheap, not evil. They tried to save a buck, as is the usual for any corporation. In the end, outcry from artists and labels and negative public image with the consumer was deemed more expensive in the long run, so Apple reversed course.
Business isn't good or evil, it's just business. Even when one does the "right thing," it's general because some number cruncher showed it would be the cheaper or most beneficial thing in the end.
This whole "so and so corporation is good/evil" nonsense needs to stop. Grow up, people. Fanboyism needs to die.
What are you talking about? Swift doesn't need streaming and she did pull her music from spotify.
How is she seeking attention? She already has it with her album.
So if anyone offered their opinion, they're attention whores?
It's what I meant... but I didn't write it correctly.
Yes, I know: Taylor Swift has pulled her catalog from Spotify.
Will she NOW also keep it from her fans on Apple Music is the question.
Since Apple has called her out as the reason for changing their mind about paying artists during the free trial... I would say the ball is on her side of the court and it will be interesting to see what she does now.
I think what feeds into this meme that Apple can sometimes be tone deaf is having no problem spending hundreds of millions to give away a U2 album to every iTunes customer but then expecting every artist to go unpaid for 3 months while they offer a free streaming trial. Isn't Jimmy supposed to have the pulse of artists and the industry? Isn't that why Apple spent $3B on crappy headphone company?
Exactly! Jimmy should of seen that artist backlash coming if he was as connected with the music industry as has been claimed, but he didn't. Also I was put off somewhat by him at the WWDC keynote...he just seemed uncouth and scruffy, and what was that thing with Drake pushing his arms out all the time as if he was having a seizure or something? They both seemed out of place, despite the audience's cheers.
It's what I meant... but I didn't write it correctly.
Yes, I know: Taylor Swift has pulled her catalog from Spotify.
Will she NOW also keep it from her fans on Apple Music is the question.
Since Apple has called her out as the reason for changing their mind about paying artists during the free trial... I would say the ball is on her side of the court and it will be interesting to see what she does now.
Exactly! Jimmy should of seen that artist backlash coming if he was as connected with the music industry as has been claimed, but he didn't. Also I was put off somewhat by him in the WWDC keynote...he just seemed uncouth and scruffy, and what was that thing with Drake pushing his arms out as if he was having a seizure or something? They both seemed out of place, despite the audience's cheers.
The whole music portion of the keynote was out of place. That was not the venue to announce a new streaming service. Apple should have held a smaller event in LA or London and had indie artists on stage pitching the new service. Pitch Apple Music as sort of the quirky underdog service that's all about the artists instead of this massive that tries to be all things to everyone. Or go the complete opposite route and just do what Google did: announce a simple no frills streaming music service that integrated with iTunes Match. They could have announced that at WWDC and not spent more than 10 minutes on it. That's how much time Eddy Cue spent introducing ?Pay and Jony Ive introducing ?Watch at the September event last year. I consider both of those vastly more important than ?Music.
Did I watch a different keynote or AppleMusic ad than the rest here? In one or both of those, it comes very fast and is just a quick line nearly thrown away: AppleMusic will support everyone from the big names to the music artist making songs in his or her bedroom/home studio. To me, that one mention means that AppleMusic eventually hopes to be similar to Bandcamp and CDBaby and the like. They are planning for the artists come to AppleMusic, post their songs, promote themselves using AppleMusic's artist pages, and begin to use it as another tool to sell their music and notify fans about live shows and the like.
That right there tells me that Apple planned all along to pay artists for the three month trial periods (actually pay music labels who would pay the artists) as well as convince artists to come on board as independent of labels so they can get the full 71% of the sale.
Cute satire doc. What I think you and Eric are omitting from your analyses is the influence of egotistical hubris on corporate decision making. Apple's leadership are not slack-jawed yokels, but neither are they immune from making mistakes in judgement. I agree with your identification of Iovine as being key to this fiasco. This whole incident seems to align well with everything I have read or heard about his way of dealing in the music industry.
That Jimmy is a sly one, and anyone looking at his small physical stature and making fun of his hood-brogue would do well to step lightly.
For anyone... especially here on these forums... to think that Jimmy or Eddy doesn't know down to the last digit Taylor Swift's: music sales, torrents, YT views, social media numbers, pre-sold tours... and probably her work-out regime, diet and more personal stuff that could fill a book... and every piece that makes up the modern-musician-pie, is basically calling them idiots... or country yokels as you called it.
These are spreadsheet freaks!
They don't only know just Taylor's... but every single label's hold-out artists to boot, and they can probably run off the Billboard Top 50 statistics without batting an eye. They walk into the negotiations with those in hand and probably show the folks sitting on the other side of the table a thing or 2 about their business they didn't know themselves beforehand.
Have any of you ever been in a big business negotiation before? This is common stuff here in Germany: be prepared to get beaten bad if you don't have your statistics and formulas in order.
Exactly! Jimmy should of seen that artist backlash coming if he was as connected with the music industry as has been claimed, but he didn't. Also I was put off somewhat by him at the WWDC keynote...he just seemed uncouth and scruffy, and what was that thing with Drake pushing his arms out all the time as if he was having a seizure or something? They both seemed out of place, despite the audience's cheers.
This whole deal has zero impact on end users today but may have lasting negative impact . We weren't paying for the 3 month trial before the Swift deal and we're not going to pay for it now. If nothing else this deal reminds us just how powerful social media is today. Whether you stand up for Apple or for Swift on this there's no denying the asymmetrical influence social media has today. The problem with social media as a tool is its lack of precision and coherence. The artists who are losing the streaming game will still be losing the streaming game and the highly successful few who are already cleaning up will only add more gold to their vast wealth. That's all fine and good for the fortunate few from a financial standpoint but what does it mean for those who are still struggling to get their talents discovered? Will Apple Music really make a difference or will the anointed few who have the financial backing of the big music machine coupled with social media critical mass continue to further and more narrowly control the music market? I've nothing against Taylor Swift or any of the current megastars, but they are not and never will be the only source of highly compelling musical entertainment on the planet. There are far more people with equal or better qualities that are overshadowed by the megastars. The more immense the megastars get, both in wealth, airtime, and social media backing the less likely those who are lacking exposure and backing will be discovered.
If you don't think a disproportionate concentration of coverage and media power matters, look no further than the talent free celebrity pool, many of whom have last names starting with K. I'm not implying that TS is talent free, quite the contrary, but the asymmetrical concentration of influence among the "haves" can go too far, and even people with no talent can be propelled to great heights on the merit of nothing tangible with sufficient social and broadcast media. If it wasn't a zero sum game nobody should really care. But it is, there's only so much bandwidth available in current media channels and the percentage of utilization given to the few megastars is only going up. I think Taylor Swift has good intentions and fashions herself as a leader in the industry. Unfortunately her media slam of Apple is largely beneficial to herself and her own best interests. I've always said that it takes an immense effort to create something but only an idiot with a stick of dynamite to blow it up. Apple has attempted to create a place where music can thrive across a broad spectrum by allowing average means, honest people to discover the wealth of music that's out there that doesn't have the immense machinery of Taylor Swift, Incorporated backing it up. I just hope this concession by Apple doesn't drown out the hope of the hidden artists by making it harder for Apple and others to expand music discovery to a broader audience. I'm still hoping that Apple Music is successful despite the challenges and inertia in the music industry.
The whole music portion of the keynote was out of place. That was not the venue to announce a new streaming service. Apple should have held a smaller event in LA or London and had indie artists on stage pitching the new service. Pitch Apple Music as sort of the quirky underdog service that's all about the artists instead of this massive that tries to be all things to everyone. Or go the complete opposite route and just do what Google did: announce a simple no frills streaming music service that integrated with iTunes Match. They could have announced that at WWDC and not spent more than 10 minutes on it. That's how much time Eddy Cue spent introducing ?Pay and Jony Ive introducing ?Watch at the September event last year. I consider both of those vastly more important than ?Music.
Rogi.... I agree with you about the Apple Music preso.
I haven't cringed that much since the last Samsung or Microsoft presentation (or ad). Apple wasn't "quite" as bad as those, but it was.... just.... not.... Apple-like at all, for lack of a better description.
But let's be honest: how many people have any of us witnessed in tech that were ever as good as Steve Jobs? He still sets the bar, and it's a hell of a lot harder than it looks to give a tight, enthusiastic, well-rehearsed... yet fully natural presentation. Tough stuff... which I know from personal experience (I hate it!), so I tend to be a little more tolerant. However... at Apple's level and at that pay scale which you would normally think would add to the confidence of the presenter (what're they gonna do... fire me? Haha!)... I guess we all expect quite a bit more.
Individual presentations aside, the planning (choreography) is what was all screwed up... and THAT can and definitely SHOULD be remedied immediately!
Now Taylor Swift and all the other whiners will have to make all their music available on Apple Music or look like idiots. Apple wins.
Even better, by having artists complain and giving the appearance of "caving in" to them, Apple is now able to use their massive cash hoard to promote Apple Music and make the deals that Spotify can't. All without raising any antitrust or competition issues, since, you know, Apple is doing what the artists want.
Well played, Apple. Well played.
I was thinking the same thing. Here's what my daughter said to me this morning: "Daddy, did you hear about Apple's new music service? Did you hear how Taylor Swift made them pay her to carry her music?"
Sure, on the surface, that quote sounds just like all the other BS that today's media (as well as people on this very thread) is making of Taylor's "victory over Apple". But this is just the knee-jerk, shallow interpretation of what just happened. Media loves drama, and so do we. But we all need to remember this: today's drama will be replaced with something else very soon, and the only thing remaining in a week will be the facts. These are:
(1) Apple has a new music service that many people didn't even know about until this little kerfuffle with Taylor and the indies, and
(2) Taylor Swift's new album will be available on AppleMusic, but not on Spotify.
What many people see as a PR nightmare for Apple (having been "bitch-slapped" by Taylor) is actually a huge marketing win. Many more people now know about AppleMusic than otherwise would have, and they also have learned about the fact that this new service will be more complete than its competitors.
Within a week or two, the media will realize this. Perhaps some of the snarks on this thread will realize it too. Or maybe not.
I think what feeds into this meme that Apple can sometimes be tone deaf is having no problem spending hundreds of millions to give away a U2 album to every iTunes customer but then expecting every artist to go unpaid for 3 months while they offer a free streaming trial. Isn't Jimmy supposed to have the pulse of artists and the industry? Isn't that why Apple spent $3B on crappy headphone company?
IMO, I'd be surprised if Iovine ever appears on stage at any future Apple events and I think he'll no longer be working at Apple within five years.
what!? are you honestly equating amateur musicians with investing in education? what absolute nonsense. no, the music industry is a business, just like any other. the benefits to society are something to turn on in the background of your day, and nothing at all like the importance of well-educated population which can then increase your nation's economic abilities and GDP.
I was talking of 'the arts' generally, not just music, but yes, of course the music industry is a business. As such the business should be investing in itself and in my opinion the place to collect for that purpose is at the point of sale. But as we all know business is useless at taking care of itself and setting and adhering to guidelines that will serve it well in the long run so it must fall to other regulatory bodies that have the interests of the end users at heart. Some, me included, will argue that music belong to the arts, and that arts and culture is worth investing in. To benefit from great art investment is required just like for Apple to create great products Apple needs to invest in r & d. Call it 'art r & d', if you like. For you music, or art and culture generally may be 'something to turn on in the background' but for many it brings value to life. When you go to an 'art event', be that the opera, and exhibition or a concert, do you measure and remember your enjoyment by how you nickel and dime your way through the night, or by the quality of the music (or whatever)?
I've never heard a Taylor Swift song but I have everything Lana (aka Lizzy) has ever released. Her lyrics are very clever. Not just another pretty face.
The whole music portion of the keynote was out of place. That was not the venue to announce a new streaming service. Apple should have held a smaller event in LA or London and had indie artists on stage pitching the new service. Pitch Apple Music as sort of the quirky underdog service that's all about the artists instead of this massive that tries to be all things to everyone. Or go the complete opposite route and just do what Google did: announce a simple no frills streaming music service that integrated with iTunes Match. They could have announced that at WWDC and not spent more than 10 minutes on it. That's how much time Eddy Cue spent introducing ?Pay and Jony Ive introducing ?Watch at the September event last year. I consider both of those vastly more important than ?Music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
And you know that he didn't know...how?
I bugged his offices lol. One of the main reasons Apple claimed to of purchased Beats was for the quality of its 'music industry' people, Jimmy being one of the most valuable of those people. If they valued his input that much and he had mentioned the backlash that would come from a free 3 month trial, maybe they wouldn't of taken the route that ended up biting them in the arse, and potentially weakening their negotiating position in the future. But do I know for sure if he did or didn't? Of course I don't.
So why isn't Swift's latest album on Apple Music then? Why is Billy Corgan going on CNBC basically trashing Apple suggesting they don't care about musicians and just want to use music to sell more hardware? I think there's a simmering pot ready to boil over and Apple Music hasn't done anything to change the equation. That's why I wish Apple wasn't making such a big deal about this and just launched some simple streaming service like Google did. Apple doesn't need the headache of being front and center in this music debate. It's not like Apple Music will have a big impact on the top and bottom line and I doubt it will be a big driver of hardware sales as Apple is already selling record number of iOS devices without it.
- Swifts album will soon be on Apple Music. If not, she'll lose all credibility overnight.
- Who cares what Billy Corgan says? You think he speaks for the entire industry? Eddy Cue even mentioned indie artists in his tweet, yet Corgan is yapping about how Apple doesn't care for them? Did Corgan even watch Trent Reznor talk about Apple Music? Apparently not, based on his stupid comments.
The "pot" has been simmering at Apple for so many years it's dried up. It's not going to bowl over, no matter how much you (and all the other naysayers out there) hope & pray that it does. Seriously, do you operate on the "say it enough times it will come true" principle? Because I really think you need to mention it at least a couple more times for full effect.
It's what I meant... but I didn't write it correctly.
Yes, I know: Taylor Swift has pulled her catalog from Spotify.
Will she NOW also keep it from her fans on Apple Music is the question.
Since Apple has called her out as the reason for changing their mind about paying artists during the free trial... I would say the ball is on her side of the court and it will be interesting to see what she does now.
Everything but 1989 was already slated to be on Apple's service.
Comments
I think what feeds into this meme that Apple can sometimes be tone deaf is having no problem spending hundreds of millions to give away a U2 album to every iTunes customer but then expecting every artist to go unpaid for 3 months while they offer a free streaming trial. Isn't Jimmy supposed to have the pulse of artists and the industry? Isn't that why Apple spent $3B on crappy headphone company?
Cute satire doc. What I think you and Eric are omitting from your analyses is the influence of egotistical hubris on corporate decision making. Apple's leadership are not slack-jawed yokels, but neither are they immune from making mistakes in judgement. I agree with your identification of Iovine as being key to this fiasco. This whole incident seems to align well with everything I have read or heard about his way of dealing in the music industry.
We said Apple was cheap, not evil. They tried to save a buck, as is the usual for any corporation. In the end, outcry from artists and labels and negative public image with the consumer was deemed more expensive in the long run, so Apple reversed course.
Business isn't good or evil, it's just business. Even when one does the "right thing," it's general because some number cruncher showed it would be the cheaper or most beneficial thing in the end.
This whole "so and so corporation is good/evil" nonsense needs to stop. Grow up, people. Fanboyism needs to die.
It's what I meant... but I didn't write it correctly.
Yes, I know: Taylor Swift has pulled her catalog from Spotify.
Will she NOW also keep it from her fans on Apple Music is the question.
Since Apple has called her out as the reason for changing their mind about paying artists during the free trial... I would say the ball is on her side of the court and it will be interesting to see what she does now.
I think what feeds into this meme that Apple can sometimes be tone deaf is having no problem spending hundreds of millions to give away a U2 album to every iTunes customer but then expecting every artist to go unpaid for 3 months while they offer a free streaming trial. Isn't Jimmy supposed to have the pulse of artists and the industry? Isn't that why Apple spent $3B on crappy headphone company?
Exactly! Jimmy should of seen that artist backlash coming if he was as connected with the music industry as has been claimed, but he didn't. Also I was put off somewhat by him at the WWDC keynote...he just seemed uncouth and scruffy, and what was that thing with Drake pushing his arms out all the time as if he was having a seizure or something? They both seemed out of place, despite the audience's cheers.
Ah. That makes more sense.
The whole music portion of the keynote was out of place. That was not the venue to announce a new streaming service. Apple should have held a smaller event in LA or London and had indie artists on stage pitching the new service. Pitch Apple Music as sort of the quirky underdog service that's all about the artists instead of this massive that tries to be all things to everyone. Or go the complete opposite route and just do what Google did: announce a simple no frills streaming music service that integrated with iTunes Match. They could have announced that at WWDC and not spent more than 10 minutes on it. That's how much time Eddy Cue spent introducing ?Pay and Jony Ive introducing ?Watch at the September event last year. I consider both of those vastly more important than ?Music.
Did I watch a different keynote or AppleMusic ad than the rest here? In one or both of those, it comes very fast and is just a quick line nearly thrown away: AppleMusic will support everyone from the big names to the music artist making songs in his or her bedroom/home studio. To me, that one mention means that AppleMusic eventually hopes to be similar to Bandcamp and CDBaby and the like. They are planning for the artists come to AppleMusic, post their songs, promote themselves using AppleMusic's artist pages, and begin to use it as another tool to sell their music and notify fans about live shows and the like.
That right there tells me that Apple planned all along to pay artists for the three month trial periods (actually pay music labels who would pay the artists) as well as convince artists to come on board as independent of labels so they can get the full 71% of the sale.
That Jimmy is a sly one, and anyone looking at his small physical stature and making fun of his hood-brogue would do well to step lightly.
For anyone... especially here on these forums... to think that Jimmy or Eddy doesn't know down to the last digit Taylor Swift's: music sales, torrents, YT views, social media numbers, pre-sold tours... and probably her work-out regime, diet and more personal stuff that could fill a book... and every piece that makes up the modern-musician-pie, is basically calling them idiots... or country yokels as you called it.
These are spreadsheet freaks!
They don't only know just Taylor's... but every single label's hold-out artists to boot, and they can probably run off the Billboard Top 50 statistics without batting an eye. They walk into the negotiations with those in hand and probably show the folks sitting on the other side of the table a thing or 2 about their business they didn't know themselves beforehand.
Have any of you ever been in a big business negotiation before? This is common stuff here in Germany: be prepared to get beaten bad if you don't have your statistics and formulas in order.
And you know that he didn't know...how?
If you don't think a disproportionate concentration of coverage and media power matters, look no further than the talent free celebrity pool, many of whom have last names starting with K. I'm not implying that TS is talent free, quite the contrary, but the asymmetrical concentration of influence among the "haves" can go too far, and even people with no talent can be propelled to great heights on the merit of nothing tangible with sufficient social and broadcast media. If it wasn't a zero sum game nobody should really care. But it is, there's only so much bandwidth available in current media channels and the percentage of utilization given to the few megastars is only going up. I think Taylor Swift has good intentions and fashions herself as a leader in the industry. Unfortunately her media slam of Apple is largely beneficial to herself and her own best interests. I've always said that it takes an immense effort to create something but only an idiot with a stick of dynamite to blow it up. Apple has attempted to create a place where music can thrive across a broad spectrum by allowing average means, honest people to discover the wealth of music that's out there that doesn't have the immense machinery of Taylor Swift, Incorporated backing it up. I just hope this concession by Apple doesn't drown out the hope of the hidden artists by making it harder for Apple and others to expand music discovery to a broader audience. I'm still hoping that Apple Music is successful despite the challenges and inertia in the music industry.
Rogi.... I agree with you about the Apple Music preso.
I haven't cringed that much since the last Samsung or Microsoft presentation (or ad). Apple wasn't "quite" as bad as those, but it was.... just.... not.... Apple-like at all, for lack of a better description.
But let's be honest: how many people have any of us witnessed in tech that were ever as good as Steve Jobs? He still sets the bar, and it's a hell of a lot harder than it looks to give a tight, enthusiastic, well-rehearsed... yet fully natural presentation. Tough stuff... which I know from personal experience (I hate it!), so I tend to be a little more tolerant. However... at Apple's level and at that pay scale which you would normally think would add to the confidence of the presenter (what're they gonna do... fire me? Haha!)... I guess we all expect quite a bit more.
Individual presentations aside, the planning (choreography) is what was all screwed up... and THAT can and definitely SHOULD be remedied immediately!
Now Taylor Swift and all the other whiners will have to make all their music available on Apple Music or look like idiots. Apple wins.
Even better, by having artists complain and giving the appearance of "caving in" to them, Apple is now able to use their massive cash hoard to promote Apple Music and make the deals that Spotify can't. All without raising any antitrust or competition issues, since, you know, Apple is doing what the artists want.
Well played, Apple. Well played.
I was thinking the same thing. Here's what my daughter said to me this morning: "Daddy, did you hear about Apple's new music service? Did you hear how Taylor Swift made them pay her to carry her music?"
Sure, on the surface, that quote sounds just like all the other BS that today's media (as well as people on this very thread) is making of Taylor's "victory over Apple". But this is just the knee-jerk, shallow interpretation of what just happened. Media loves drama, and so do we. But we all need to remember this: today's drama will be replaced with something else very soon, and the only thing remaining in a week will be the facts. These are:
(1) Apple has a new music service that many people didn't even know about until this little kerfuffle with Taylor and the indies, and
(2) Taylor Swift's new album will be available on AppleMusic, but not on Spotify.
What many people see as a PR nightmare for Apple (having been "bitch-slapped" by Taylor) is actually a huge marketing win. Many more people now know about AppleMusic than otherwise would have, and they also have learned about the fact that this new service will be more complete than its competitors.
Within a week or two, the media will realize this. Perhaps some of the snarks on this thread will realize it too. Or maybe not.
IMO, I'd be surprised if Iovine ever appears on stage at any future Apple events and I think he'll no longer be working at Apple within five years.
https://twitter.com/LanaDelRey
I've never heard a Taylor Swift song but I have everything Lana (aka Lizzy) has ever released. Her lyrics are very clever. Not just another pretty face.
The whole music portion of the keynote was out of place. That was not the venue to announce a new streaming service. Apple should have held a smaller event in LA or London and had indie artists on stage pitching the new service. Pitch Apple Music as sort of the quirky underdog service that's all about the artists instead of this massive that tries to be all things to everyone. Or go the complete opposite route and just do what Google did: announce a simple no frills streaming music service that integrated with iTunes Match. They could have announced that at WWDC and not spent more than 10 minutes on it. That's how much time Eddy Cue spent introducing ?Pay and Jony Ive introducing ?Watch at the September event last year. I consider both of those vastly more important than ?Music.
And you know that he didn't know...how?
I bugged his offices lol. One of the main reasons Apple claimed to of purchased Beats was for the quality of its 'music industry' people, Jimmy being one of the most valuable of those people. If they valued his input that much and he had mentioned the backlash that would come from a free 3 month trial, maybe they wouldn't of taken the route that ended up biting them in the arse, and potentially weakening their negotiating position in the future. But do I know for sure if he did or didn't? Of course I don't.
So why isn't Swift's latest album on Apple Music then? Why is Billy Corgan going on CNBC basically trashing Apple suggesting they don't care about musicians and just want to use music to sell more hardware? I think there's a simmering pot ready to boil over and Apple Music hasn't done anything to change the equation. That's why I wish Apple wasn't making such a big deal about this and just launched some simple streaming service like Google did. Apple doesn't need the headache of being front and center in this music debate. It's not like Apple Music will have a big impact on the top and bottom line and I doubt it will be a big driver of hardware sales as Apple is already selling record number of iOS devices without it.
- Swifts album will soon be on Apple Music. If not, she'll lose all credibility overnight.
- Who cares what Billy Corgan says? You think he speaks for the entire industry? Eddy Cue even mentioned indie artists in his tweet, yet Corgan is yapping about how Apple doesn't care for them? Did Corgan even watch Trent Reznor talk about Apple Music? Apparently not, based on his stupid comments.
The "pot" has been simmering at Apple for so many years it's dried up. It's not going to bowl over, no matter how much you (and all the other naysayers out there) hope & pray that it does. Seriously, do you operate on the "say it enough times it will come true" principle? Because I really think you need to mention it at least a couple more times for full effect.
You think this is over?
This show of weakness will have ramifications for years to come now that Apple has demonstrated that it will cave in to social media blackmail.
LOL, Yeah I can't wait for the Miley Cyrus campaign against Apple to gather steam.....
Or.
Not.
It's what I meant... but I didn't write it correctly.
Yes, I know: Taylor Swift has pulled her catalog from Spotify.
Will she NOW also keep it from her fans on Apple Music is the question.
Since Apple has called her out as the reason for changing their mind about paying artists during the free trial... I would say the ball is on her side of the court and it will be interesting to see what she does now.
Everything but 1989 was already slated to be on Apple's service.