creativeone

Aaaa cool so basically it's not possible to make cheap wheels for the Mac Pro...good for them to support Apple's price decision. Stupid.
These look cheap af fo that price.

OMG and don't get me started with how ugly the Mac pro looks on them.

And no I'm not defending Apples Mac Pro prices. I'd never buy something so overpriced like the Mac pro. But THIS here is not it, if you want to offer something more appealing and less expensive.

I'm happy with my current iMac. And also not buying iMacs anymore with this outdated Design. Waiting for the redesign.

Ooooh look how fast the number grew in the last few weeks 
Maybe we'll make it to 10M for the launch weekend 

gatorguy said:

While I don't particularly care for Samsung and their practices in this case they've handled it the way they should IMHO.  They got out in front of it, admitted almost immediately that there could be a problem rather than deny or misdirect.  Instead of delay they did the right thing and recalled the potentially affected units. Not up to "kudos to Samsung" levels but they certainly handled a bad situation responsibly.

Actually they didn't have any other choice than that. Delaying and denying would have ended in serious injuries and would have costed them a LOT MORE.

lolliver said:

goodbyeranch said:

With all due respect, artist payout is so close to zero, streaming on Apple Music is basically free. Only mainstream hit makers can see anything substantial when the payout is .0013 cents per song streamed. An artist would have to reach 23 million streams to make $30,000

I've seen a few charts online that use that 0.0013 figure but I haven't seen any of those sites explain how they get to that figure.

Those same charts also show Tidal paying 0.0070 cents per stream. Even with Tidal charging more per month for their subscription service than Apple I don't see how this is possible. Apple is paying a little over 70% of their revenue from subscriptions back to labels/artists. The amount an artists receives from their label per stream depends on the contracts they have signed with the label. But how can Tidal be paying over 5 times as much to artists when they at most are charging about twice the cost for the subscription?

Apple isn't paying per stream, they are paying based on a percentage of the subscription revenue they stream. If I was to pay my $10 per month for Apple Music and I only streamed 1 song, 1 time for the month that would mean $7 went towards the rights owners (Label, artist etc...) of that single stream of that 1 song. Of course if your paying $10 a month for a streaming service you will be streaming a lot more than a single song but how are these sites coming by an exact figure per stream and what makes it possible for an artist to get so much more per stream from a service like Tidal? I could see an artist getting up to twice the amount per stream from Tidal or maybe a little more if Tidal is keeping far less than 30%. The only other way it could be a larger figure is if the labels take less of a cut through Tidal or Tidal users don't stream very often increasing the payout per stream.

I think there is way too much guess work going into some of those figures. I'm not saying that streaming is or isn't a cash generator for artists. Just that there is far too little factual information to know for certain how much artists could potentially make.

I also think the 0.0013 cents figure has been plucked out of thin air. Especially when it's only slightly above Spotify. Yes Spotify only has a slightly lower split of their revenue going towards content owners (70%) but a larger a share of Spotify's income is generated from advertising which brings in less than $10 per month per user.

I would love to see a well researched article by DED outlining just how much the average artist generally makes from each of these services and have it be based on actual figures rather than imaginary numbers. But maybe those factual figures just aren't available?

Thank you....I always wanted to know that in detail too.