Taylor Swift 'happily' bringing blockbuster '1989' album to Apple Music

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    @SolipsismY@ I just hope that someone doesn't need to die, or worse yet for Apple if the DOJ gets suspicious... before we some day get the real story behind this modern-day, very intriguing marketing play.

    Come to think of it, it has all the makings for a bug-on-the-wall inside story/documentary. Characters galore in this one, but I'm sure most would be bored because it doesn't involve guns and murder.... OR DOES IT? Someone needs to look into that:smokey:
  • Reply 62 of 84
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    Of course you are. When have you ever given Apple the benefit of the doubt? Almost all your bashing is based on negative and baseless rumors, and stuff you've concluded in your own mind with zero evidence. You really think Apple would green light a negative "open letter" eviscerating itself as part of a PR stunt? There are much less risky ways of accomplishing things. Try to use facts once in a while on which to base your opinions, not "fictional worst case scenarios" you've completely invented. Seriously, you've better off just posting at macrumors (which you do, of course),as that's the go to place for "Apple fans" that actually hate everything about Apple and twist everything in a negative way as possible. 


    You never post any facts to backup your alleged statements about Apple.  Stop bashing people about things you have no knowledge about.  Apple had sealed the deal with the rights holders to not pay royalties during the trial period.  That was the deal.  Now they have backpedaled and now agree to pay a lower royalty streaming fee to the rights holders during the trial period...hoping they could get people to rent their music for $10 per month, which will allow payment of a higher streaming royalty, consistent with other companies that offer streaming services (Spotify and Pandora).  iTunes Radio has been a flop, and Apple Music likely won't do much better.  People prefer to buy their music, not rent it.

  • Reply 63 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    @SolipsismY@ I just hope that someone doesn't need to die, or worse yet for Apple if the DOJ gets suspicious... before we some day get the real story behind this modern-day, very intriguing marketing play.



    Come to think of it, it has all the makings for a bug-on-the-wall inside story/documentary. Characters galore in this one, but I'm sure most would be bored because it doesn't involve guns and murder.... OR DOES IT? Someone needs to look into that:smokey:



    Was it the company with $200B cash and a Market Cap of nearly $750B that needed the marketing ploy, or was it the singer/songwriter/performer who basically is keeping her entire industry afloat by herself, and is worth over $200M (soon to be $300M) at age 25 who needed it?

     

    Just curious.

  • Reply 64 of 84
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    aaronj wrote: »
    @SolipsismY@ I just hope that someone doesn't need to die, or worse yet for Apple if the DOJ gets suspicious... before we some day get the real story behind this modern-day, very intriguing marketing play.


    Come to think of it, it has all the makings for a bug-on-the-wall inside story/documentary. Characters galore in this one, but I'm sure most would be bored because it doesn't involve guns and murder.... OR DOES IT? Someone needs to look into that:smokey:


    Was it the company with $200B cash and a Market Cap of nearly $750B that needed the marketing ploy, or was it the singer/songwriter/performer who basically is keeping her entire industry afloat by herself, and is worth over $200M (soon to be $300M) at age 25 who needed it?

    Just curious.

    Let's look at it this way, does Apple need a streaming service or does she need Apple's streaming service? Who loses more by not having that need?
  • Reply 65 of 84
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    All the goalposts being moved in here is hilarious!!



    Well so what?!! I can stream 1989 from my car using her CD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    Huh? Can you explain that?

    It is not that hard to figure out.  '1989' has sold over 4.5 million copies.  Fans already own the CD.  They don't need to pay a rental fee each month to Apple Music to hear the album because they already bought the CD.  He made a joke about listening to music by streaming on a data network compared to listening the music from a data stream coming directly off a CD in a CD player.  Why would anyone pay for Apple Music when they already own the CD?

  • Reply 66 of 84
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hillstones wrote: »
    Why would anyone pay for Apple Music when they already own the CD?

    I guess the answer to that is that Apple Music (or any music rental service) has more music than any one person's library, but since I'm not one to rent music (and a result not likely to even try out Apple Music) I can only guess as to why other music rental services have dozens of millions of paying customers.

    But that's not really what I was asking. What goalposts have moved "in here"? What radical change in position has occurred with forum posters that would make him say it's "hilarious"?
  • Reply 67 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

     

     

    It is not that hard to figure out.  '1989' has sold over 4.5 million copies.  Fans already own the CD.  They don't need to pay a rental fee each month to Apple Music to hear the album because they already bought the CD.  He made a joke about listening to music by streaming on a data network compared to listening the music from a data stream coming directly off a CD in a CD player.  Why would anyone pay for Apple Music when they already own the CD?




    Um, I'm a huge T-Swizzle fan, but I'm much older than her typical fans.  And I can guarantee you: They aren't buying her CDs. :)

  • Reply 68 of 84
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elehcdn View Post

     

    I really don't think this was orchestrated, but you can't buy this kind of publicity. For all those people that talked about how this was an embarrassment to Apple ... they just helped to give Apple more press.




    I too don't. She simply has no other choice. Her letter come out as unselfish and stands for indie musicians. Now that indie musicians are happy with Apple term she has no choice but cave too. Otherwise people will question her actual intention in the first letter.

  • Reply 69 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Let's look at it this way, does Apple need a streaming service or does she need Apple's streaming service? Who loses more by not having that need?



    Honestly?  I don't think either of them needs it.  Apple is trying something to expand their ecosystem and lure people in, like a gateway drug.  And T-Swizzle, like I said before, is a complete hardass when it comes to business.

     

    But Apple has been doing just fine without the Music service, and Taylor's been doing just fine without Apple.

  • Reply 70 of 84
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Um, I'm a huge T-Swizzle fan, but I'm much older than her typical fans.  And I can guarantee you: They aren't buying her CDs. :)




    You mean the parents are buying the music for the kids?

  • Reply 71 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    You mean the parents are buying the music for the kids?




    No, I mean that no one buys CDs anymore.  Hell, in the last quarter vinyl sales outnumbered CD sales!

     

    Your typical teenage Taylor Swift fan probably doesn't own a single CD.  She wants a new song or album, say Swift's "1989" she goes to iTunes (or another digital provider) and buys it.

     

    Physical media, while it will never disappear altogether, is very much on the way out.  In some areas (such as music) it's almost out completely now.

  • Reply 72 of 84
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    aaronj wrote: »
    But Apple has been doing just fine without the Music service, and Taylor's been doing just fine without Apple.
    Why do you think she has been doing without Apple?
    She's been in iTunes for years...
  • Reply 73 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post





    Why do you think she has been doing without Apple?

    She's been in iTunes for years...



    I didn't say that she had been doing fine without digital sales.  Obviously that's not true.

     

    But if Apple had never created iTunes, someone else would be the industry leader, and Taylor would have been selling most of her music through them.

  • Reply 74 of 84
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    aaronj wrote: »

    Was it the company with $200B cash and a Market Cap of nearly $750B that needed the marketing ploy, or was it the singer/songwriter/performer who basically is keeping her entire industry afloat by herself, and is worth over $200M (soon to be $300M) at age 25 who needed it?

    Just curious.

    I don't think either Apple and certainly not TSwift "need" Apple Music. However, since Apple has decided to go down this path and is hell bent on making the service succeed, I think this points to the fact that Apple has decided to do everything in it's power to win in this space.

    As many a chagrined commenter here has said time and time again, Apple "needs" to make the purchase of Beats appear a good move IMHO that appearance is more important to it's investors than it's users.
  • Reply 75 of 84
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    I don't think either Apple and certainly not TSwift "need" Apple Music. However, since Apple has decided to go down this path and is hell bent on making the service succeed, I think this points to the fact that Apple has decided to do everything in it's power to win in this space.



    As many a chagrined commenter here has said time and time again, Apple "needs" to make the purchase of Beats appear a good move IMHO that appearance is more important to it's investors than it's users.



    There might be some of that.  But this just seems like another "build up our ecosystem and services structure to make our hardware (where our bread is buttered) more attractive and interesting to potential buyers" move.  If they can sell a few more iPhones and Macs by creating Apple Music, then they've already made a profitable move.

     

    Having T-Swizzle certainly doesn't hurt, of course.

  • Reply 76 of 84
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    aaronj wrote: »

    There might be some of that.  But this just seems like another "build up our ecosystem and services structure to make our hardware (where our bread is buttered) more attractive and interesting to potential buyers" move.  If they can sell a few more iPhones and Macs by creating Apple Music, then they've already made a profitable move.

    Having T-Swizzle certainly doesn't hurt, of course.

    I was answering your main question of who "needs" Apple Music to succeed more.

    Naturally there's a lot more to consider than just investments and perception on Apple's side.... and yes, Apple is hoping to sell and lock in customers with higher margin hardware sales by building out all of the services. Since they've made the investment both with iTunes in the past and Beats recently, I think their just wrapping up loose ends and logically creating a One-Stop Music experience.
  • Reply 77 of 84
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 529member
    hillstones wrote: »
    It is not that hard to figure out.  '1989' has sold over 4.5 million copies.  Fans already own the CD.  They don't need to pay a rental fee each month to Apple Music to hear the album because they already bought the CD.  He made a joke about listening to music by streaming on a data network compared to listening the music from a data stream coming directly off a CD in a CD player.  Why would anyone pay for Apple Music when they already own the CD?
    I think you actually missed the point a bit. You ignored the part about "goalposts moving". The joke was that people were trying to dismiss or diminish Taylor's decision to allow 1989 onto Apple Music by inventing ever more preposterous reasons why it's no big deal:
    "It's already on other services like Beats and Rhapsody lol"

    No, it isn't.

    "But you can already stream it on Google Play"

    No, that's only if you buy it.

    "Yeah, but it's not exclusive so it'll be on Spotify soon"

    Guess again, none of Taylor's catalogue is on Spotify any more. Everyone knows that.

    "She has to let the other services besides Apple Music and Spotify have it eventually though so it's still not important."

    She doesn't HAVE to do anything of the sort.

    And so on and so on. That has been the flow of the thread. Every time someone has tried to dismiss this, someone else has pointed out that their basis for dismissing it is faulty. Then immediately a new faulty basis for dismissing it is fashioned - in other words, they move the goalposts. The bit about the CD is taking the argument ad absurdum by suggesting next they'll be claiming it doesn't matter because anyone with the CD can "stream" the album.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    thrangthrang Posts: 782member

    Does anyone have an idea how streaming payouts work? What constitutes a "listen"? The entire song? 50%, after the first 30 seconds...?

     

    How about repeat listens or partial listens by the same user over time? Same rate, or diminishing?

     

    I know my kids constantly start and stop listening to a number of tracks before settling down and almost listening to one in its entirety (this says more about the quality of the crap they listen to then anything), but it got me wondering how the sausage is made...

  • Reply 79 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,238member
    thrang wrote: »
    Does anyone have an idea how streaming payouts work? What constitutes a "listen"? The entire song? 50%, after the first 30 seconds...?

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">How about repeat listens or partial listens by the same user over time? Same rate, or diminishing?</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I know my kids constantly start and stop listening to a number of tracks before settling down and almost listening to one in its entirety (this says more about the quality of the crap they listen to then anything), but it got me wondering how the sausage is made...</span>
    After 30 seconds it's considered to have been "streamed" in on-demand music subscriptions and royalties are due for the play, that according to reports from labels. For terrestrial radio BMI considers 60 seconds to be the cut-off tho I read labels want that too to be 30 seconds.

    Even that isn't the end of it tho. For companies like Pandora or (free) Spotify who don't offer direct play even a one-second listen gets nailed for the full performance royalty as it's under a different license according to industry sources. That's why skips are limited on free streamers that operate similar to radio stations. One exception would be Apple and iTunes Radio. They apparently swung a deal a couple years ago to pay a bit more in royalties than Pandora does, but also got the labels to give them a 20-second window for a listener to skip a track without royalties being owed. My guess is they end up paying about the same or even a bit less than Pandora once those skips are factored in but dunno.

    Fun facts:
    It's estimated that about a quarter of song plays are skipped in the first 5 seconds, and about half of everything played is stopped/skipped before the song is over.
  • Reply 80 of 84
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,718member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Let's look at it this way, does Apple need a streaming service or does she need Apple's streaming service? Who loses more by not having that need?

    They don't need each other. Tay Tay is doing fine without streaming. Apple Music will do fine without Swift.
Sign In or Register to comment.