stop being a chicken little. Its called negotiations not weakness.
I think Cue's comments to re/code make it pretty clear this was Apple backtracking and scrambling at the last minute because it had the possibility to spiral into a PR nightmare. When an Apple fanboy like Jim Dalrymple puts up a Sunday blog post that Apple executives should give up their salaries for 3 months to pay for this trial it's pretty clear this was a PR issue that needed to be dealt with.
It is hard for me to believe that Tim Cook is that Machiavellian. If this turns out well for Apple, it will be dumb luck. I think they will regret this in the long run, because there will be more instances of PR hostage taking. Already there are people calling for Apple to quit doing business in South Carolina, since Tim Cook has called for SC to stop flying the Confederate flag. The PR hostage takers will compare their issues to that of Taylor Swift and try to shame Apple into a similar caving. Who is going to be the bad guy and say "NO"?
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.
Completely disagree with this statement. Apple was asking individual artist big and small to sacrifice revenue stream for their blood sweat and tears so we can enjoy their songs for free. With 3 months free which was Apples negotiating choice which in my opinion is way too long they are cutting the legs off of artists. The big record labels can say yes to this plan but the smaller labels and specifically artist are footing the bill for the free lunch. And don't tell me people won't rip song they want during the free trial and then never commit to the paid service.
This show of weakness will kill their ability get any kind of leverage on deals going forward. They have effectively given away their ecosystem advantage . . . to Taylor Swift. The TV service will never get off the ground without Apple paying through the nose for it, if it gets off the ground at all. Every little outcry by competitors and Apple-haters will be met with capitulation until the money pile is whittled away to nothing
This has been a PR disaster since the day Apple Music spluttered and limped on stage (at a developer's conference no less!) and culminating in this. The headlines won't read that Apple did the right thing; they'll say that Apple caved, and that's what content providers will remember as they walk smiling into negotiations with Cue. If we create a stink, Apple will cave.
That was uncategorically stupid of them. I probably won't visit JoT for a while.
Damn, you people take this shit too seriously. This isn't life or death; we're talking about for-profit corporation going up against musical artists. If we can't take the time to sit back and find some humor in it all, then we need to remove the sticks from our asses.
The more I think about this the more I hope Apple had this planned from the start: Apple Music didn't really make that big of a splash at the announcement, now everyone knows about it, they associate Apple with Taylor Swift and having a close relationship with artists, and they are aware that they can have a 3 month trial of the free service. If it was planned it was genius!
Ok you certainly have a weird definition of genius. Do a Google news search and pretty much all the headlines are spinning this as Apple caving to Taylor Swift. They're saying the same thing on CNBC this morning. Yet Swift still hasn't said her latest album will be available on Apple Music. This doesn't make Apple look good it makes them look tone-deaf and makes many people wonder why this wasn't Apple's position from the beginning.
Damn, you people take this shit too seriously. This isn't life or death; we're talking about for-profit corporation going up against for profit musical artists. If we can't take the time to sit back and find some humor in it all, then we need to remove the sticks from our asses.
Left out an important detail. Either way, Swift acted like a petulant child here.
You don't get that much money in the bank in the first place if you are a push over in negotiations and part easily with your $$.
Bad PR? Hell no. Most normal people have no idea what happenned between Apple/Swift the last few days.
Not true at all. They just said on CNBC this is what everyone was talking about the weekend. I noticed it yesterday when the people I was with who don't normally follow Apple knew all about this. You underestimate the power of social media and blogs these days.
I'm continuously amazed at how so many here on this board are so blind and inexperienced in negotiations, and for some reason think that Tim Cook and Team are doing this for the first time. Does anyone here really think that they didn't discuss this very scenario in multiple meetings among themselves? That they haven't been through this literally hundreds of times before with all of their suppliers?
Apple has done one of the shrewdest plays I've seen in a long time playing their adversary AND social media to do what they want them to, effectively "killing 2 (or more) birds with one stone" as their goal.
1) as EricTheHalfBee stated, now ALL of the hold-out labels and artists have to be available on Apple Music and can't hold out for anything more, or else they'll be raked over the coals by their own fans as "greedy";
2) any DOJ anti-competitive inquiries... or requests for the same by competitors, Apple has the "Get Out Of Jail" card that Taylor Swift and the labels just handed to them by doing exactly what Apple expected them to. It will now be up to the DOJ to prove that Apple initially negotiated in bad faith to pull this trick.
Why any of you think Apple, it's management and lawyers are on the same level as you negotiating the purchase of a used car, is beyond my comprehension :rolleyes:
Sounds more like Monday morning quarterback spin to me.
Glad Taylor Swift did this and that Apple rethought their position. I came to read these comments to see what kind of Apple lemmings would be hanging out mustering their expert analysis on the situation..typical: Taylor, the "Attention Whore"...classy you tools...let me guess, this is probably coming from one of the million share holders since 1980-something with the inside scoop on everything Apple...the pundits and armchair think-tank quaterbacks? Apple can NEVER do anything wrong. This is kinda like the loyalists to a particular political party: always the other side that is wrong. never, ever our kind or policies or positions. I hope Apple radio streaming service FAILS...SO FAR IT DOES FOR ME. Apple watch...the Newton of 2015...a watch that is dependant on a phone...face it, rub the stuff out of your hazy minds and realize how stupid it actually is. I bet you tools have a oerfect excuse for ALL of Apples failures don't you? Newton, Pong (sounds better than Ping) to name a few.
I haven't read the comments above but looking with hindsight I believe this was Apples plan fro the start.
They knew with the iBooks Antitrust lawsuit that things would be scrutinized with any large music play. As other have stated (not sure if true) that it would be antitrust to pay the artists for this 3 month period. Or maybe its could be seen as antitrust by Apple wielding it position and cash to pull customers away from competitors. Spotify already announced that they pay the artists regardless of free trial periods or tiers. So that helps Apple, if they choose to pay the artists. But, Apple's free window is 3 times as long so there is still a difference. So.... Bring on the Artists disenchantment. By having the artists complain about the unfair treatment, when in reality its the labels that receive the bulk of the funds and decide how its distributed, allows Apple to the step in to say they are doing the right thing, on behalf of the artists. Thus, they weren't using their "influence" but were doing right on behalf of the content owners. When I mean Apple plan from the start it includes Taylor Swifts role. For one it helps the justification of why she pulled hercatalog from Spotify and now would allow it all to be paid on Apple Music. Second, the letters and Apple's "giving in" gave her huge exposure and a direct voice to all of her fans saying indirectly, that if Apple pays for the 3 month trial all of my music, especially new music, will be avail solely on Apple Music.
I haven't read the comments above but looking with hindsight I believe this was Apples plan fro the start.
They knew with the iBooks Antitrust lawsuit that things would be scrutinized with any large music play. As other have stated (not sure if true) that it would be antitrust to pay the artists for this 3 month period. Or maybe its could be seen as antitrust by Apple wielding it position and cash to pull customers away from competitors. Spotify already announced that they pay the artists regardless of free trial periods or tiers. So that helps Apple, if they choose to pay the artists. But, Apple's free window is 3 times as long so there is still a difference. So.... Bring on the Artists disenchantment. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">By having the artists complain about the unfair treatment, when in reality its the labels that receive the bulk of the funds and decide how its distributed, allows Apple to the step in to say they are doing the right thing, on behalf of the artists. Thus, they weren't using their "influence" but were doing right on behalf of the content owners. When I mean Apple plan from the start it includes Taylor Swifts role. For one it helps the justification of why she pulled </span>
her<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
catalog<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> from Spotify and now would allow it all to be paid on Apple Music. Second, the letters and Apple's "giving in" gave her huge exposure and a direct voice to all of her fans saying indirectly, that if Apple pays for the 3 month trial all of my </span>
music, especially new music, will be avail solely on Apple Music.
Sorry, I pressed "Submit" too early. The other thing to get me thinking was what some earlier posters said about how if Apple had done the free trial and paid the artists for the three months then Spotify and all the other subscription-based companies may have had an argument with unit-cometative complaints, now Apple can say they were forced to pay.
As for the media being negative towards Apple, thats pretty much a given on most stories and yet they still manage to succeed. Apple seem to do better when they are the underdog.
This show of weakness will kill their ability get any kind of leverage on deals going forward. They have effectively given away their ecosystem advantage . . . to Taylor Swift. The TV service will never get off the ground without Apple paying through the nose for it, if it gets off the ground at all. Every little outcry by competitors and Apple-haters will be met with capitulation until the money pile is whittled away to nothing
This has been a PR disaster since the day Apple Music spluttered and limped on stage (at a developer's conference no less!) and culminating in this. The headlines won't read that Apple did the right thing; they'll say that Apple caved, and that's what content providers will remember as they walk smiling into negotiations with Cue. If we create a stink, Apple will cave.
This is why it's hard to argue this was good for Apple in any way. The media spin is that Apple was "owned" by Taylor Swift. It makes Apple look tone deaf on the one hand and weak on the other. Not what they want if they're still in negotiations with content providers for Apple TV.
This whole thing has been a PR disaster from the start and Apple isn't going the get rid of the stink by dropping a few million in the indie pockets. Every headline I've read had an 'Apple Caves In' connotation.
Public Relations and MBA schools throughout the country will be using this one next year as a case study. There's plenty to learn here about what can happen to the largest company in the world when they don't have their ducks in a row and the major players on board before announcing an arguably controversial policy. It's not good enough, even for Apple, to say 'shut up, sit down and color because I said so.'
Comments
I think Cue's comments to re/code make it pretty clear this was Apple backtracking and scrambling at the last minute because it had the possibility to spiral into a PR nightmare. When an Apple fanboy like Jim Dalrymple puts up a Sunday blog post that Apple executives should give up their salaries for 3 months to pay for this trial it's pretty clear this was a PR issue that needed to be dealt with.
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.
That was uncategorically stupid of them. I probably won't visit JoT for a while.
That was uncategorically stupid of them. I probably won't visit JoT for a while.
Damn, you people take this shit too seriously. This isn't life or death; we're talking about for-profit corporation going up against musical artists. If we can't take the time to sit back and find some humor in it all, then we need to remove the sticks from our asses.
Ok you certainly have a weird definition of genius. Do a Google news search and pretty much all the headlines are spinning this as Apple caving to Taylor Swift. They're saying the same thing on CNBC this morning. Yet Swift still hasn't said her latest album will be available on Apple Music. This doesn't make Apple look good it makes them look tone-deaf and makes many people wonder why this wasn't Apple's position from the beginning.
Left out an important detail. Either way, Swift acted like a petulant child here.
Aw.. C'mon.. It's cute. Relax.
Left out an important detail. Either way, Swift acted like a petulant child here.
So if Apple is responding "Swiftly" to a petulant child, what does that make it? A spinless parent?
Not true at all. They just said on CNBC this is what everyone was talking about the weekend. I noticed it yesterday when the people I was with who don't normally follow Apple knew all about this. You underestimate the power of social media and blogs these days.
Sounds more like Monday morning quarterback spin to me.
I bet you tools have a oerfect excuse for ALL of Apples failures don't you? Newton, Pong (sounds better than Ping) to name a few.
Great malapropism there
I haven't read the comments above but looking with hindsight I believe this was Apples plan fro the start.
They knew with the iBooks Antitrust lawsuit that things would be scrutinized with any large music play. As other have stated (not sure if true) that it would be antitrust to pay the artists for this 3 month period. Or maybe its could be seen as antitrust by Apple wielding it position and cash to pull customers away from competitors. Spotify already announced that they pay the artists regardless of free trial periods or tiers. So that helps Apple, if they choose to pay the artists. But, Apple's free window is 3 times as long so there is still a difference. So.... Bring on the Artists disenchantment. By having the artists complain about the unfair treatment, when in reality its the labels that receive the bulk of the funds and decide how its distributed, allows Apple to the step in to say they are doing the right thing, on behalf of the artists. Thus, they weren't using their "influence" but were doing right on behalf of the content owners. When I mean Apple plan from the start it includes Taylor Swifts role. For one it helps the justification of why she pulled her catalog from Spotify and now would allow it all to be paid on Apple Music. Second, the letters and Apple's "giving in" gave her huge exposure and a direct voice to all of her fans saying indirectly, that if Apple pays for the 3 month trial all of my music, especially new music, will be avail solely on Apple Music.
That's deep ... perhaps a little too deep?
Sorry, I pressed "Submit" too early. The other thing to get me thinking was what some earlier posters said about how if Apple had done the free trial and paid the artists for the three months then Spotify and all the other subscription-based companies may have had an argument with unit-cometative complaints, now Apple can say they were forced to pay.
As for the media being negative towards Apple, thats pretty much a given on most stories and yet they still manage to succeed. Apple seem to do better when they are the underdog.
This is why it's hard to argue this was good for Apple in any way. The media spin is that Apple was "owned" by Taylor Swift. It makes Apple look tone deaf on the one hand and weak on the other. Not what they want if they're still in negotiations with content providers for Apple TV.
iTunes Music already pays artists the streaming rate. All Apple had to do is apply this to the 3 months of streaming.
So Apple pays what it is already paying. And artists gain some income.
It is a win-win.
Public Relations and MBA schools throughout the country will be using this one next year as a case study. There's plenty to learn here about what can happen to the largest company in the world when they don't have their ducks in a row and the major players on board before announcing an arguably controversial policy. It's not good enough, even for Apple, to say 'shut up, sit down and color because I said so.'
"Apple bows to Taylor Swift on streaming"
Yeah, that's the headline Apple needs.