Yeah, keep moving the goalposts, there you go. You wouldn't want to give Apple any credit or concede that anything is a positive development for Apple Music, so keep changing your argument to prevent that terrifying scenario from happening. The fact is RIGHT NOW that album is streamed nowhere else. Why do all your posts have to be so intellectually dishonest?
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
When we refer to streaming in terms of music, we are talking about rented music, not music you have purchased that is also then available to stream, which you can also do with Amazon and iTunes Match, as well as countless music videos via Vimeo, YouTube and elsewhere. That makes 1989 currently exclusive to Apple Music (although not necessarily in terms of a contractual obligation with Apple).
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
If that's the benchmark, then it's also streamed on iTunes and Amazon. It's not on any other subscription-based streaming service, which is clearly the point of this entire conversation.
Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.
Why does she not have a choice? If other services don't offer what she thinks is reasonable compensation, then she doesn't HAVE to bring it to any of them. All she's saying is there's nothing in her agreement with Apple that makes it exclusive. That doesn't automatically mean it's going to be available on other services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
Not the same thing, as has already been explained. let's put it in plain English for you:
The ONLY place you can stream 1989 without actually paying for it is on Apple Music.
As I said before, you have to buy the album to stream it from Play Music. That is not the same thing.
With regard to the quote, I have no idea what she's talking about, because 1989 is definitely not on Beats Music or Rhapsody. I point you to her own tweet from this morning:
Hmmm. . . You look to be correct. I had to sign our of Google Play Music to see that it wasn't available to stream, or at least not end-to-end. My son apparently has it purchased thru my account which allows it to be streamed. As for the other services I was going by her interview and not looking on the service itself. You are correct about those too. That raises a bit of a issue about her honesty tho. The other services are paid just as Apple Music will be. I came across an article questioning why she's withholding "1989" from Tidal, Rhapsody, etc if the issue with Apple was they weren't paying but now will, at least a tiny amount. One article even claims investigators are looking into whether individual artists have been paid by Apple to remove their catalogs from competing services, tho I can't imagine Apple would do so. That would be a big red flag.
I wasn't originally questioning Ms. Swift's honesty in the Apple open letter but there's some doubt there now. Perhaps she'll explain the conundrum.
Just boycott her music so she does not get the fraction of the $0.2 apple plans to pay in the free period.
This all fell apart for apple when they made the announcement it would be release before having everyone signed up. The music labels knew that apple wanted to make this announcement now and now wait any longer so they were kind of in the driver seat. Some time you just have to walk away and Apple does not seem to be good at this anymore.
Never seen HG stand corrected when cornered by facts. He'll just scape up some more links.
You must be thinking of others obviously like HG. Unlike what a few posters here seem to avoid doing I don't mind being corrected, nor acknowledging I'm mistaken when I am.
Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.
Another reason I'm coming around to this being a PR stunt is other services do pay during free trials so it's not like Apple is doing something nobody else is doing. As far as we know what they're paying during the trial is similar to what Spotify and others pay.
So... everything that [@]Slurpy[/@] already said... plus I would like to ask:
Does this out come of this week-long headline-grabbing situation, make out Apple executives... especially those from the Beats acquisition that you continuously rant/hate against... but also Eddy Cue and Tim Cook... look:
a) clever
or
b) the "Country Yokels" that you claimed were incompetent fools.. and that one or more should be fired?
This is what "Mission Accomplished" really looks like. Win-Win Apple.
Why does she not have a choice? If other services don't offer what she thinks is reasonable compensation, then she doesn't HAVE to bring it to any of them. All she's saying is there's nothing in her agreement with Apple that makes it exclusive. That doesn't automatically mean it's going to be available on other services.
Not the same thing, as has already been explained. let's put it in plain English for you:
The ONLY place you can stream 1989 without actually paying for it is on Apple Music.
Actually you can't as Apple music isn't live yet. And I did say you can stream it from Google Play Music if you bought it. As far as exclusivity there is a reason Swift specifically mentioned it so I would expect this album to come to other services shortly after it's on Apple Music.
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.
Actually you can't as Apple music isn't live yet. And I did say you can stream it from Google Play Music if you bought it. As far as exclusivity there is a reason Swift specifically mentioned it so I would expect this album to come to other services shortly after it's on Apple Music.
Only is she's fairly compensated for it. So no free tiers.
I've been streaming it from my iTunes Match since it released months ago.
If this was a NEW album, it would be different.. this is a staged act by Apple and Taylor's marketing team.
Nearly immediately after Taylor "wrote" her letter, Eddy Cue was already bowing at her feet
This is nothing more than marketing at it's best.
I didn't think so initially but I'm definitely leaning that way now. Especially with the story I saw on The Loop that said Apple has been working on this issue for weeks. And on CNBC the other day Nixxi Sixx from the band Motley Crue said negotiations had been going on for the past 12 days. So Eddy responding to Taylor (and doing it via Twitter) sure seems like PR. Or as a former Pandora executive called it, "theater".
The ONLY place you can stream 1989 without actually paying for it is on Apple Music.
It's difficult to tell exactly what her intentions are going solely by her tweets:
"After the events of this week, I've decided to put 1989 on Apple Music...and happily so.
Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 25, 2015"
"In case you're wondering if this is some exclusive deal like you've seen Apple do with other artists, it's not.
Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 25, 2015"
T-Swizzle may very well be the most powerful person on Earth!
Seriously, though, she certainly is the most powerful person in the music industry. Hell, for all intents and purposes, she IS the music industry these days. This never made a difference to me, except on a theoretical level, as I own all of her music on iTunes anyways. Listening to her right now, as a matter of fact.
But all joking aside from my first line, it really does sort of show how powerful Taylor Swift has become. The woman is really something.
Comments
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
When we refer to streaming in terms of music, we are talking about rented music, not music you have purchased that is also then available to stream, which you can also do with Amazon and iTunes Match, as well as countless music videos via Vimeo, YouTube and elsewhere. That makes 1989 currently exclusive to Apple Music (although not necessarily in terms of a contractual obligation with Apple).
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
If that's the benchmark, then it's also streamed on iTunes and Amazon. It's not on any other subscription-based streaming service, which is clearly the point of this entire conversation.
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
Thanks for solidifying my point, even though that probably was not your intention.
Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.
Why does she not have a choice? If other services don't offer what she thinks is reasonable compensation, then she doesn't HAVE to bring it to any of them. All she's saying is there's nothing in her agreement with Apple that makes it exclusive. That doesn't automatically mean it's going to be available on other services.
Right now it's not streamed anywhere expect for Google Play Music where it can be streamed if it was purchased.
Not the same thing, as has already been explained. let's put it in plain English for you:
The ONLY place you can stream 1989 without actually paying for it is on Apple Music.
Successful troll is successful.
4 responses to a stupid post within five minutes.
I wasn't originally questioning Ms. Swift's honesty in the Apple open letter but there's some doubt there now. Perhaps she'll explain the conundrum.
Anyway sir, you are correct. Thanks!
Go ahead, she won't be hurting.
Overall, great PR as AppleMusic has been in the news almost constantly since announced.
I've been streaming it from my iTunes Match since it released months ago.
If this was a NEW album, it would be different.. this is a staged act by Apple and Taylor's marketing team.
Nearly immediately after Taylor "wrote" her letter, Eddy Cue was already bowing at her feet
This is nothing more than marketing at it's best.
So... everything that [@]Slurpy[/@] already said... plus I would like to ask:
Does this out come of this week-long headline-grabbing situation, make out Apple executives... especially those from the Beats acquisition that you continuously rant/hate against... but also Eddy Cue and Tim Cook... look:
a) clever
or
b) the "Country Yokels" that you claimed were incompetent fools.. and that one or more should be fired?
This is what "Mission Accomplished" really looks like. Win-Win Apple.
Actually you can't as Apple music isn't live yet.
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.
Only is she's fairly compensated for it. So no free tiers.
I didn't think so initially but I'm definitely leaning that way now. Especially with the story I saw on The Loop that said Apple has been working on this issue for weeks. And on CNBC the other day Nixxi Sixx from the band Motley Crue said negotiations had been going on for the past 12 days. So Eddy responding to Taylor (and doing it via Twitter) sure seems like PR. Or as a former Pandora executive called it, "theater".
Right. And Google, Spotify and Rdio have paid tiers.
"After the events of this week, I've decided to put 1989 on Apple Music...and happily so.
Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 25, 2015"
"In case you're wondering if this is some exclusive deal like you've seen Apple do with other artists, it's not.
Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 25, 2015"
T-Swizzle may very well be the most powerful person on Earth!
Seriously, though, she certainly is the most powerful person in the music industry. Hell, for all intents and purposes, she IS the music industry these days. This never made a difference to me, except on a theoretical level, as I own all of her music on iTunes anyways. Listening to her right now, as a matter of fact.
But all joking aside from my first line, it really does sort of show how powerful Taylor Swift has become. The woman is really something.