¿Que? You're hatred for Taylor is so strong that you're against someone taking issue with Chinese knockoffs? You may not want to be on an Apple-focused forum if you're pro-counterfeiting.
¿Que? You're hatred for Taylor is so strong that you're against someone taking issue with Chinese knockoffs? You may not want to be on an Apple-focused forum if you're pro-counterfeiting.
I am not against counterfeiting! But, I am certainly against fakers like Ms. Taylor, whose motivation is get publicity to make money for herself. Just because she "thinks" she won against Apple because of her letter, she think she can take on any one. She is acting like she is a spokesperson for DRM? The counterfeiting from China has been a problem much older than Ms. Taylor. The problem that whole Music and Film industries haven't been able to fix for so many year, Ms. Taylor thinks she can write a letter to the Chinese Premier and hope to solve it. Please! Chinese Teenagers and Youth has lots for Asian Pop star they can follow - Ms. Taylor is not Michael Jackson!
No I don't own xiaomi. I have been owning iPhone(s) since first generation. Not only am I a Apple product users, but I believe in company so much that I my retirement money is invested in the company.
I am not against counterfeiting! But, I am certainly against fakers like Ms. Taylor, whose motivation is get publicity to make money for herself. Just because she "thinks" she won against Apple because of her letter, she think she can take on any one. She is acting like she is a spokesperson for DRM? The counterfeiting from China has been a problem much older than Ms. Taylor. The problem that whole Music and Film industries haven't been able to fix for so many year, Ms. Taylor thinks she can write a letter to the Chinese Premier and hope to solve it. Please! Chinese Teenagers and Youth has lots for Asian Pop star they can follow - Ms. Taylor is not Michael Jackson!
LOL I'm reading a lot of misplaced hatred for Taylor in your comment. For starters, her open letter to Apple did have the result she wanted. I'm not sure how you can "think" any different.
As for her desire to have counterfeiters stopped, of course it's driven proper compensation, but it's not from not losing a direct sale to a counterfeiter, but also from a counterfeit sale leaving a bad imprint on a buyer when the quality is bad and the customer doesn't realize it's not a fake. Why would you feel any different? I'm not aware of any open letter she's writing to the Chinese government regarding counterfeiting, but even if she did and it was ignoring, again, why would you care. What I read is that she's teaming up with China's two largest retailers, JD.com and Alibaba, in order to sell authentic Taylor Swift goods. That sounds like a brilliant business strategy to me. Were you also upset when Apple partnered with choice retailers when they tried to increase their consumer-base in China?
Finally, if you think that she has no fans in China I would guess you're very wrong. The only thing you're right about is that she is no Michael Jackson, but why is that not anything but a good thing?
PS: Honestly, the only think you should possibly get upset about is that she didn't call her clothing line Taylor Made¡
I believe Swift meant well (probably not just a publicity move) and the outcome is a good one for everyone. Apple responded well too.
- The additional 2 months' free period comes to 1/6 of a year, no effect after year one. It's a flash in the pan.
- Yes, ANY streaming service will reduce song purchases also... but that's happening anyway, with or without Apple. And the difference is, with Apple, people would actually be listening to more music--AND paying more money per year--than the average music buyer. Plus, music buying doesn't just vanish either (in fact, Apple Music is in part a discovery method that leads to purchases. In a "Pandora" way, but also via the DJs.)
- So, in short, Apple offered the same free-trial terms as anyone, but with a 60-day-longer trial period. Culminating in 7x the income to musicians/labels ongoing. I doubt Apple--or the music labels--cared very much either way about the terms of the free period. I bet Apple was like "THIS detail gets an open letter? Shrug."
However, any particular song or artist may be "hot" for just a short time. The difference between giving something away for 1 month vs. 3 could be very significant to a "one-hit wonder."
Right on the heels of Taylor's comments now Iovine is out saying that Apple made the decision to compensate labels the very morning Swift sent her letter to Apple and prompted by her comments. :rolleyes:
“Eddy [Cue, Apple senior VP] woke up on Sunday morning,” says Iovine. “He called me and said, ‘This is a drag’. I was like, ‘Yeah, maybe there’s some stuff she doesn’t understand’. He said, ‘Why don’t you give Scott [Borchetta, Swift’s label boss] a call? I called Scott, I called Eddy back, Eddy and Tim [Cook, Apple CEO] called me back and we said, ‘Hey, you know what, we want this system to be right and we want artists to be comfortable, let’s do it’.”
Right on the heels of Taylor's comments now Iovine is out saying that Apple made the decision to compensate labels the very morning Swift sent her letter to Apple and prompted by her comments. :rolleyes:
“Eddy [Cue, Apple senior VP] woke up on Sunday morning,” says Iovine. “He called me and said, ‘This is a drag’. I was like, ‘Yeah, maybe there’s some stuff she doesn’t understand’. He said, ‘Why don’t you give Scott [Borchetta, Swift’s label boss] a call? I called Scott, I called Eddy back, Eddy and Tim [Cook, Apple CEO] called me back and we said, ‘Hey, you know what, we want this system to be right and we want artists to be comfortable, let’s do it’.”
I don't get your eye roll and "oh geez" comment. That falls inline with the evidence.
I don't know about "evidence" but it certainly follows the popular storyline. I thought I'd read somewhere else that Apple already planned the change before Swift ever sent her letter to Mr Cook. Am I mistaken?
While I originally thought she was completely sincere I'm leaning much heavier towards the publicity-stunt crowd now. Both Apple and Swift talking about it again at the same time doesn't help convince me otherwise. I'd guess that if you did a poll here at AI there's a number of members who would agree with me.
I don't know about "evidence" but it certainly follows the popular storyline. I thought I'd read somewhere else that Apple already planned the change before Swift ever sent her letter to Mr Cook. Am I mistaken?
While I originally thought she was completely sincere I'm leaning much heavier towards the publicity-stunt crowd now. Both Apple and Swift talking about it again at the same time doesn't help convince me otherwise. I'd guess that if you did a poll here at AI there's a number of members who would agree with me.
Sure, people claimed it was a stunt, that Apple orchestrated it, that it was a way to protect them from Spotify for giving a free trial, etc., but all the actual evidence shows that Apple didn't plan on this change until after Taylor's letter. Iovine backs that up. Now you can say his statement is a lie, and you're entitled to that hypothesis, but all the evidence points to a much simpler explanation.
Comments
he owns a xiaomi.
¿Que? You're hatred for Taylor is so strong that you're against someone taking issue with Chinese knockoffs? You may not want to be on an Apple-focused forum if you're pro-counterfeiting.
I am not against counterfeiting! But, I am certainly against fakers like Ms. Taylor, whose motivation is get publicity to make money for herself. Just because she "thinks" she won against Apple because of her letter, she think she can take on any one. She is acting like she is a spokesperson for DRM? The counterfeiting from China has been a problem much older than Ms. Taylor. The problem that whole Music and Film industries haven't been able to fix for so many year, Ms. Taylor thinks she can write a letter to the Chinese Premier and hope to solve it. Please! Chinese Teenagers and Youth has lots for Asian Pop star they can follow - Ms. Taylor is not Michael Jackson!
he owns a xiaomi.
No I don't own xiaomi. I have been owning iPhone(s) since first generation. Not only am I a Apple product users, but I believe in company so much that I my retirement money is invested in the company.
LOL I'm reading a lot of misplaced hatred for Taylor in your comment. For starters, her open letter to Apple did have the result she wanted. I'm not sure how you can "think" any different.
As for her desire to have counterfeiters stopped, of course it's driven proper compensation, but it's not from not losing a direct sale to a counterfeiter, but also from a counterfeit sale leaving a bad imprint on a buyer when the quality is bad and the customer doesn't realize it's not a fake. Why would you feel any different? I'm not aware of any open letter she's writing to the Chinese government regarding counterfeiting, but even if she did and it was ignoring, again, why would you care. What I read is that she's teaming up with China's two largest retailers, JD.com and Alibaba, in order to sell authentic Taylor Swift goods. That sounds like a brilliant business strategy to me. Were you also upset when Apple partnered with choice retailers when they tried to increase their consumer-base in China?
Finally, if you think that she has no fans in China I would guess you're very wrong. The only thing you're right about is that she is no Michael Jackson, but why is that not anything but a good thing?
PS: Honestly, the only think you should possibly get upset about is that she didn't call her clothing line Taylor Made¡
I believe Swift meant well (probably not just a publicity move) and the outcome is a good one for everyone. Apple responded well too.
- The additional 2 months' free period comes to 1/6 of a year, no effect after year one. It's a flash in the pan.
- Yes, ANY streaming service will reduce song purchases also... but that's happening anyway, with or without Apple. And the difference is, with Apple, people would actually be listening to more music--AND paying more money per year--than the average music buyer. Plus, music buying doesn't just vanish either (in fact, Apple Music is in part a discovery method that leads to purchases. In a "Pandora" way, but also via the DJs.)
- So, in short, Apple offered the same free-trial terms as anyone, but with a 60-day-longer trial period. Culminating in 7x the income to musicians/labels ongoing. I doubt Apple--or the music labels--cared very much either way about the terms of the free period. I bet Apple was like "THIS detail gets an open letter? Shrug."
However, any particular song or artist may be "hot" for just a short time. The difference between giving something away for 1 month vs. 3 could be very significant to a "one-hit wonder."
Right on the heels of Taylor's comments now Iovine is out saying that Apple made the decision to compensate labels the very morning Swift sent her letter to Apple and prompted by her comments. :rolleyes:
“Eddy [Cue, Apple senior VP] woke up on Sunday morning,” says Iovine. “He called me and said, ‘This is a drag’. I was like, ‘Yeah, maybe there’s some stuff she doesn’t understand’. He said, ‘Why don’t you give Scott [Borchetta, Swift’s label boss] a call? I called Scott, I called Eddy back, Eddy and Tim [Cook, Apple CEO] called me back and we said, ‘Hey, you know what, we want this system to be right and we want artists to be comfortable, let’s do it’.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tech-gaming/jimmy-iovine-interview-producer-talks-apple-music-zane-lowe-and-taylor-swift-s-wrath-10442663.html
I don't get your eye roll and "oh geez" comment. That falls inline with the evidence.
While I originally thought she was completely sincere I'm leaning much heavier towards the publicity-stunt crowd now. Both Apple and Swift talking about it again at the same time doesn't help convince me otherwise. I'd guess that if you did a poll here at AI there's a number of members who would agree with me.
Sure, people claimed it was a stunt, that Apple orchestrated it, that it was a way to protect them from Spotify for giving a free trial, etc., but all the actual evidence shows that Apple didn't plan on this change until after Taylor's letter. Iovine backs that up. Now you can say his statement is a lie, and you're entitled to that hypothesis, but all the evidence points to a much simpler explanation.