jSnively

If you think Jay-Z wasn't, and isn't, important to rap, hip-hop, and popular music and culture then you really have a lot of research to do. You may not like his music, or his personality, or whatever, but his impact is pretty undeniable.

Other services are worse for not having his oeuvre, but it makes sense he's working to double-down on Tidal given his personal stake in it.  At the end of the day, however,  there's still plenty of other ways to get the music, and it probably only hurts him to not have it as readily available as it could be.

nhughes said:

[..]
Further explanation can be found in AppleInsider's commenting guidelines:

https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/184333/appleinsiders-updated-commenting-guidelines/p1

*pours another shot*
Nobody bothersh reasdsing the guidilines, Neil. NOBODY! *hiccup*

1) Editorial's are just that, editorial. If you disagree with Dan's politics or his writing upsets you that much, then either don't read the article, or go somewhere else. Dan is an important and established part of this team, we will continue to publish his work.

2) We have a diverse mix of staffers on the political spectrum here. When we moderate people call us out for having a right-wing bias, when we don't moderate all we get is the right-wing contingent calling us leftist. It's lose-lose. In a way it's healthy because it means we have a good mix in our user base, but at the end of the day we end up being the bad guy to someone. Such is the way of things. We do not moderate on political lines, we moderate according to our guidelines. If you feel something is violating a guideline, and we missed it, then we encourage you to flag it as that brings it to our attention on the backend.

3) We're immediately going back to disabling comments on anything we think will be too political. This was an interesting experiment, but it's now over. I will speak to Neil and Dan about maybe leaving them on for editorial content, but no promises. Haranguing our editorial staff is a great way to make them disengage, and I don't blame a single one of them for taking a look at the comments and walking the other way.

4) I will talk to Neil and Mikey (who wrote this article, not Mike) about the imagery we use. A little levity never hurt anyone, and the overreaction to the picture choice is ... well it's expected, I suppose. I think that is probably a fair criticism.

5) As for my comment about the pictures... I should have ended it with a /s so it was more obvious. It was me poking fun at an all-too-easy target, one who just happens to be the President. Maybe if Clinton somehow falls back into the news cycle I'll even it out with some goofy and creepy pictures of her. In the meantime, here's a stupid gif of Hilary being amazed by balloons.

6) We're not going to print retractions or apologies  for anything, there is nothing to retract. Everything was and is factual inside of the article. It was a pretty dry article.

7) Our coverage will continue as-is. Apple has historically been a very culture-driven company, and we cover that aspect of it as much as we cover their hardware and software offerings. That's a key part of Apple, and it's a key set of information for fans and investors. When it comes down to governmental politics specifically, right now Apple is directly at odds with the administration regarding issues of encryption, privacy, human rights, immigration, manufacturing, the environment, and more. All of that stuff is important to how Apple operates and behaves -- both as a company and as a publicly traded stock.

Metriacanthosaurus said:

[...]

We all know that. We know very well since you insist on repeating it again, and again, and again, in every Trump related article posted on this site.

I have made no false assumptions. He's the first POTUS to use an iPhone. Fairly interesting and definitely article-worthy. But you blew it. You had the opportunity to write an article about that. Instead you made it about a dead topic. But, I can't say I'm surprised, because, you use that as a footer to every Trump related article posted on the site.

You can't see the relevance in pointing out that a man who called for a complete boycott of a company is, a not-so-long-time later, using their flagship product? You're suggesting we make an obvious and glaring omission in our coverage because what? You feel like we mentioned it too much already? If you think reminding people of basic facts and providing context undermines our integrity, then I honestly don't know to grok that critique.

macxpress said:

Could AI have found a more insulting picture for this article? 

Yes, absolutely. How about this one or this one, or this one, or if we wanted to really skeevy how about something like this. I mean, take your pick really. We could go lots of ways with it.