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 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. [/QUOTE]
That's deep ... perhaps a little too deep?[/QUOTE]
I think imt1 nailed it, just as EricTheHalfBee and a couple of others.
I'm a bit shocked that even you think that Apple is just winging this and are a mottley bunch of inexperienced bumblers.
Note: not to say it's right or wrong, but Apple has been known to rip the floor right out from under their partners (and content providers... and customers... OMG!) more than a few times. They are ruthless and play to win. This whole thing looks predetermined to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was Plan A, rather than B, C, or any other of the sure a large letter list of possibilities that Apple planned for.
Biggest Apple win: DOJ and it's clients Spotify, Amazon and Google now have to PROVE that Apple negotiated in bad faith in the beginning, that led them to changing their terms... and literally ripping the air out of the room called "streaming music".
Second biggest win: every label will have to come on board or be seen by it's fans as "grubby, greedy, childish, little B-tards".
Go ahead, call me an old fart, and old fogy, luddite... cheap SOB, For me-- I just don't see the value 'paying' for streaming. Ill take the ads on the radio.
That said, I would like to see Apple music - use 'play lists' uploaded from other users etc to create an Ad supported 'Playlist Radio' (is this how 'free' Spotify' works?... told you I m an old fogy). Something other than 'hard rock' or 'classic rock' or something 'genius' made off my purchased music.**
Ad supported as long as its not crazy like on TV like TBS or TV LAND 20-30 minutes an hour of commercials... that's ugly.
**As an aside--- I use the same apple radio station when I exercise. Since I tend to exercise at the exact same time--- guess what-- that Apple radio station plays the same songs near the same time. Geesh. And they tend to be loaded with the LP songs(30 minutes of exercise... 3 or 4 songs... fail). My purchased songs and play lists are much better.
Apple's going to have to reassert themselves if they can. As I've said, no more deals for her. No promotion of any future albums, nothing. Let her see just how much she relies on Apple for income (one record exec said it's over 50%).
Please explain why at your age your such a childish little b*tch?!? Grow UP! :no:
Blah blah blah blah blah. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Don't you ever get tired of smelling your own sh&t? Bash Apple and then throw in you own some Apple products for good measure. You think people don't see through this?</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">BTW, If you're going to insult someone, try to avoid common spelling mistakes. It's dense, not dence.</span>
As you probably know, writing comments on this website on the iPhone is less than stellar. I apologize that I'm not as perfect as you are.
I can still like and use Apple products but I don't have to like everything they do. Some of you get so defensive if someone doesn't like something that Apple does even if they are all in with Apple. You know, it's OK to criticize Apple every once in a while.
I understood Apple's argument that the free trial was there to get people in the door so maybe the benefits would be felt later. My disagreement with them is that while they are free to make that loss-leader decision for themselves, it should be up to the rights holders if they want to partake in loss-leading too. Clearly, many did not. As such, it is only sensible that Apple foot the bill. They can afford it and they're playing the long game anyway.
Taylor Swift is the biggest artist in the music industry right now, and one with an uncommonly powerful position for reasons even beyond her world-leading sales. It only makes sense to use that position to negotiate for what she believes in. Apple clearly concluded her position was ultimately reasonable, and capitulating would do more good than harm. It's patently ridiculous to criticise either side for making a case or for choosing not to be belligerent for the sake of it.
Ultimately it is not in Apple's best interests to antagonise music artists. Their decision to compromise in the face of criticism should be applauded. Contrast it with Spotify, who are stubborn and insistent that they know what's best and everyone else - users, artists, labels - are just along for the ride. There is a place for leadership and decisive action, and Apple has shown it in the past such as with iTunes. But Apple also demonstrated with iTunes then and Apple Music now that compromise is important. Apple capitulated to DRM on iTunes at first not because they agreed, but because they knew they needed to have the labels onside. Here, they are capitulating on the free trial issue because they need the artists on side.
This has resolved satisfactorily for all concerned. This is good news, and it is done. Anyone still complaining and sniping now is badly out of touch with reality.
And that didn't happen just yesterday.... and it's not like she already pulled her music from Spotify... so Apple knew going in almost exactly what she was going to do... IF she wasn't just a BSer.
The girl is clever... but I think Apple played her like a harp and called her bluff... which they knew was "probably" coming. She doesn't have much left in her hand than to throw down her cards, and open up her catalog EXCLUSIVELY to ?Music streaming.
Very smart of Apple to move quickly and reverse course. Other large companies in all realms of big business would do well to learn from this kind of responsiveness.
What a load of crap. There have been numerous times when a celebrity (for example) makes a mistake and then comes back and apologizes for it. After the apology their popularity goes through the roof (within reason, of course, you can't apologize for doing something truly disgusting). You also seem to forget the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press."
This is absolutely a huge win for Apple. They are getting a ridiculous amount of free press for Apple Music, which is now less than 10 days away. NOBODY is talking about their competitors (Spotify). They are giving the impression they made a mistake and are correcting it by helping artists by paying them during the free trial. People LOVE this stuff.
This will do nothing to hurt Apple TV. Quite the opposite, actually. When Apple Music launches, and we see Apple convert untold millions of consumers to their new model for music consumption, it'll give them even more leverage. Nothing the TV industry cronies will hate more than Apple moving an entire industry over to a new model with ease. Something they simply do not have the ability to do themselves while realizing their time is next. Nothing could be worse for the TV industry than a hugely successful Apple Music launch.
Spotify was crapping bricks before. Now they're crapping concrete slabs. Apple Music has ALL the cards in the streaming game now.
You just know I love those poker metaphors... dontcha?! Sing it! :smokey:
Wow Billy Corgan is on CNBC slamming Apple right now. Slamming Apple for being "silent" when indie artists complain but turning on a dime when Taylor Swift speaks out. Says Apple is making the same mistake everyone else makes by catering to the big stars over the smaller guys. Says artists aren't being fairly compensated, that they basically just exist to sell hardware for companies like Apple. Ouch. I'm still amazed by the apparent tone deafness of Apple on this. Jon Fortt kept bring up the acquisition of Beats and how having Jimmy on board was supposed to prevent Apple from having these issues because Jimmy was "the man" in the music business. Pretty embarrassing when the man gets schooled by Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift is an attention-whore, using "indie artists" as a ruse for her greediness. Still, it's pretty incredible and impressive how quickly today's Apple listens to feedback and makes changes, in order to avoid potential further negative PR.
This is business and she did what she thought was right. She has the power and I strongly doubt the amount of money involved had there been no royalty from Apple Music for three weeks would have made much difference to her. Just possibly, maybe, she thought it was wrong and would have strong negative impact on the people who could least afford it. What behaviors has she engaged in that you think justify your characterization of her and her financial motives?
And yet still some people are reducing the tone to ad hominem attacks on Taylor Swift and her music, seeing a successful woman and calling her a whore. Stay classy internet.
If you're referring to me, I didn't call her a "whore", I called her an "attention-whore", which means someone who seeks attention. The term can be applied to a male or female of any age, and has nothing to do with sexuality. But nice try.
I'm not giving them cred, but those are the facts. The twitterverse is full of tweets and retweets with headlines that Apple caved to Taylor Swift. And the people not thinking that are thinking this was some elaborate PR scheme concocted by Apple and Swift.
Who says it was elaborate... or a PR scheme? It very well looks like a good plan to me... that is if they did plan it this way.
I'm just not one of those arrogant fools that takes Apple lightly when it comes to planning something like this, and having multiple plans and time-tables if certain things don't pan out immediately the way they would like them to.
BTW: if the Twitterverse thinks that Taylor just beat up Big Bad Apple... I actually think that is a good thing. Apple has always enjoyed their position as the underdog. I would seriously like them to get back in that train of thought.... and most of all, for the media, blogosphere and other tech competitors to "think that" too.
Let someone else step into the headlights while Apple quietly pulls 90% of every tech and entertainment dollar spent. What's wrong with that?
Wow Billy Corgan is on CNBC slamming Apple right now. Slamming Apple for being "silent" when indie artists complain but turning on a dime when Taylor Swift speaks out. Says Apple is making the same mistake everyone else makes by catering to the big stars over the smaller guys. Says artists aren't being fairly compensated, that they basically just exist to sell hardware for companies like Apple. Ouch. I'm still amazed by the apparent tone deafness of Apple on this. Jon Fortt kept bring up the acquisition of Beats and how having Jimmy on board was supposed to prevent Apple from having these issues because Jimmy was "the man" in the music business. Pretty embarrassing when the man gets schooled by Taylor Swift.
I love that whenever there is any negative news about Apple, you go into your little hissy fit concern-trolling mode. Guess what? There were a **** load of mistakes under Steve Jobs, and most would agree that he was "the man" also. These people make hundreds of decisions a day, does not mean that because they are good at what they do, they are perfect and make the absolute correct decision 100% of the time. Also, I doubt anyone will give a **** about that CNBC segment nor will it have any long term damage on Apple, so stop acting like it will.
Just like the continuous bad press Apple gets week after week? Seems to be having quite the detrimental effect on Apple, with declining sales and revenues. Maybe one of these days if enough press keep repeating Apple is doomed it will finally come true.
Spotify lacks so many things to make it truly successful. They're not nearly as well known as Apple. They don't have the marketing budget to promote it. They won't be installed on hundreds of millions of iOS devices by default. They don't have 800 million customers on a related music service (iTunes) they can add to the new one (Apple Music). They don't have the same music library. They aren't mentioned nearly enough in the press (except as an addendum in an Apple Music article). And remember when Spotify and Taylor Swift had their falling out? Was it ever resolved? No. What happens when Taylor Swift and Apple have a disagreement? They kiss and make up. And get an unreal amount of press coverage to boot.
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.
I love that whenever there is any negative news about Apple, you go into your little hissy fit concern-trolling mode. Guess what? There were a **** load of mistakes under Steve Jobs, and most would agree that he was "the man" also. These people make hundreds of decisions a day, does not mean that because they are good at what they do, they are perfect and make the absolute correct decision 100% of the time. Also, I doubt anyone will give a **** about that CNBC segment nor will it have any long term damage on Apple, so stop acting like it will.
When did I say it will have long-term damage on Apple? Stop putting words into my mouth. And I'm sure just a day or two ago people here would have argued that no one would give a shit about Taylor Swift's tumblr post. But obviously it got Apple's attention as Eddy Cue admitted they did an 180 after he saw it.
If you're referring to me, I didn't call her a "whore", I called her an "attention-whore", which means someone who seeks attention. The term can be applied to a male or female of any age, and has nothing to do with sexuality. But nice try.
Dude... I don't have to think I need to say I'm one of your biggest fans here, but that "unfortunate" use of words didn't sit with me right either. You're far to eloquent in your prose for that to be just a "colloquialism".
And that didn't happen just yesterday.... and it's not like she already pulled her music from Spotify... so Apple knew going in almost exactly what she was going to do... IF she wasn't just a BSer.
The girl is clever... but I think Apple played her like a harp and called her bluff... which they knew was "probably" coming. She doesn't have much left in her hand than to throw down her cards, and open up her catalog EXCLUSIVELY to ?Music streaming.
What are you talking about? Swift doesn't need streaming and she did pull her music from spotify.
If you're referring to me, I didn't call her a "whore", I called her an "attention-whore", which means someone who seeks attention. The term can be applied to a male or female of any age, and has nothing to do with sexuality. But nice try.
How is she seeking attention? She already has it with her album.
So if anyone offered their opinion, they're attention whores?
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.
Wait for the response from Spotify. I guaran-damn-tee you they will claim anticompetitive behavior on Apple’s part. They will claim special sweetheart deals by artists like Taylor Swift who pulled her entire catalog from Spotify. The musicians want the free ad supported tiers gone and the second Spotify or Pandora or whoever stops a free tier the DOJ will pounce on Apple for encouraging it illegally. It does not matter what the artists want. Apple is paying more royalties and the minute the artists/labels start demanding the same from the other streaming services the DOJ will pounce on Apple and the Labels alleging collusion and price fixing. Remember the book fiasco?
Comments
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 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. [/QUOTE]
That's deep ... perhaps a little too deep?[/QUOTE]
I think imt1 nailed it, just as EricTheHalfBee and a couple of others.
I'm a bit shocked that even you think that Apple is just winging this and are a mottley bunch of inexperienced bumblers.
Note: not to say it's right or wrong, but Apple has been known to rip the floor right out from under their partners (and content providers... and customers... OMG!) more than a few times. They are ruthless and play to win. This whole thing looks predetermined to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was Plan A, rather than B, C, or any other of the sure a large letter list of possibilities that Apple planned for.
Biggest Apple win: DOJ and it's clients Spotify, Amazon and Google now have to PROVE that Apple negotiated in bad faith in the beginning, that led them to changing their terms... and literally ripping the air out of the room called "streaming music".
Second biggest win: every label will have to come on board or be seen by it's fans as "grubby, greedy, childish, little B-tards".
Go ahead, call me an old fart, and old fogy, luddite... cheap SOB, For me-- I just don't see the value 'paying' for streaming. Ill take the ads on the radio.
That said, I would like to see Apple music - use 'play lists' uploaded from other users etc to create an Ad supported 'Playlist Radio' (is this how 'free' Spotify' works?... told you I m an old fogy). Something other than 'hard rock' or 'classic rock' or something 'genius' made off my purchased music.**
Ad supported as long as its not crazy like on TV like TBS or TV LAND 20-30 minutes an hour of commercials... that's ugly.
**As an aside--- I use the same apple radio station when I exercise. Since I tend to exercise at the exact same time--- guess what-- that Apple radio station plays the same songs near the same time. Geesh. And they tend to be loaded with the LP songs(30 minutes of exercise... 3 or 4 songs... fail). My purchased songs and play lists are much better.
Please explain why at your age your such a childish little b*tch?!? Grow UP! :no:
As you probably know, writing comments on this website on the iPhone is less than stellar. I apologize that I'm not as perfect as you are.
I can still like and use Apple products but I don't have to like everything they do. Some of you get so defensive if someone doesn't like something that Apple does even if they are all in with Apple. You know, it's OK to criticize Apple every once in a while.
And that didn't happen just yesterday.... and it's not like she already pulled her music from Spotify... so Apple knew going in almost exactly what she was going to do... IF she wasn't just a BSer.
The girl is clever... but I think Apple played her like a harp and called her bluff... which they knew was "probably" coming. She doesn't have much left in her hand than to throw down her cards, and open up her catalog EXCLUSIVELY to ?Music streaming.
You just know I love those poker metaphors... dontcha?! Sing it! :smokey:
Taylor Swift is an attention-whore, using "indie artists" as a ruse for her greediness. Still, it's pretty incredible and impressive how quickly today's Apple listens to feedback and makes changes, in order to avoid potential further negative PR.
This is business and she did what she thought was right. She has the power and I strongly doubt the amount of money involved had there been no royalty from Apple Music for three weeks would have made much difference to her. Just possibly, maybe, she thought it was wrong and would have strong negative impact on the people who could least afford it. What behaviors has she engaged in that you think justify your characterization of her and her financial motives?
Good decision.
And yet still some people are reducing the tone to ad hominem attacks on Taylor Swift and her music, seeing a successful woman and calling her a whore. Stay classy internet.
If you're referring to me, I didn't call her a "whore", I called her an "attention-whore", which means someone who seeks attention. The term can be applied to a male or female of any age, and has nothing to do with sexuality. But nice try.
Who says it was elaborate... or a PR scheme? It very well looks like a good plan to me... that is if they did plan it this way.
I'm just not one of those arrogant fools that takes Apple lightly when it comes to planning something like this, and having multiple plans and time-tables if certain things don't pan out immediately the way they would like them to.
BTW: if the Twitterverse thinks that Taylor just beat up Big Bad Apple... I actually think that is a good thing. Apple has always enjoyed their position as the underdog. I would seriously like them to get back in that train of thought.... and most of all, for the media, blogosphere and other tech competitors to "think that" too.
Let someone else step into the headlights while Apple quietly pulls 90% of every tech and entertainment dollar spent. What's wrong with that?
Wow Billy Corgan is on CNBC slamming Apple right now. Slamming Apple for being "silent" when indie artists complain but turning on a dime when Taylor Swift speaks out. Says Apple is making the same mistake everyone else makes by catering to the big stars over the smaller guys. Says artists aren't being fairly compensated, that they basically just exist to sell hardware for companies like Apple. Ouch. I'm still amazed by the apparent tone deafness of Apple on this. Jon Fortt kept bring up the acquisition of Beats and how having Jimmy on board was supposed to prevent Apple from having these issues because Jimmy was "the man" in the music business. Pretty embarrassing when the man gets schooled by Taylor Swift.
I love that whenever there is any negative news about Apple, you go into your little hissy fit concern-trolling mode. Guess what? There were a **** load of mistakes under Steve Jobs, and most would agree that he was "the man" also. These people make hundreds of decisions a day, does not mean that because they are good at what they do, they are perfect and make the absolute correct decision 100% of the time. Also, I doubt anyone will give a **** about that CNBC segment nor will it have any long term damage on Apple, so stop acting like it will.
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.
When did I say it will have long-term damage on Apple? Stop putting words into my mouth. And I'm sure just a day or two ago people here would have argued that no one would give a shit about Taylor Swift's tumblr post. But obviously it got Apple's attention as Eddy Cue admitted they did an 180 after he saw it.
I'd like to take a moment this morning to congratulate Apple on their "promotion" from David to Goliath.
Dude... I don't have to think I need to say I'm one of your biggest fans here, but that "unfortunate" use of words didn't sit with me right either. You're far to eloquent in your prose for that to be just a "colloquialism".
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?
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.
Wait for the response from Spotify. I guaran-damn-tee you they will claim anticompetitive behavior on Apple’s part. They will claim special sweetheart deals by artists like Taylor Swift who pulled her entire catalog from Spotify. The musicians want the free ad supported tiers gone and the second Spotify or Pandora or whoever stops a free tier the DOJ will pounce on Apple for encouraging it illegally. It does not matter what the artists want. Apple is paying more royalties and the minute the artists/labels start demanding the same from the other streaming services the DOJ will pounce on Apple and the Labels alleging collusion and price fixing. Remember the book fiasco?