Mac Casper
@adonnis - pull up, there's refreshments
Dude . . . her father bought a piece of the record company . . .
is that not the plantiest plant of all plants?
Taylor Swift gets Apple to reverse its "no pay policy"
- Thread starter RichYung
- Start date
Dude . . . her father bought a piece of the record company . . .
is that not the plantiest plant of all plants?
FappleMeOff
All Star
There was another thread 2 weeks ago:
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/appl...-out-of-money-with-apple-music-trials.327078/
Mac Casper
@adonnis - pull up, there's refreshments
wrong thread
"
Taylor Swift vs Apple: nobody wins
A heartwarming victory for the status quo
By Nilay Patel on June 22, 2015 05:23 pm
If there's one thing we know about Taylor Swift, it's that she wants to get paid.
The world's biggest-selling artist is not so much a musician as she is a full-body lifestyle experience. You can fill yourself with her Diet Coke and moisturize your skin with her lotions before stepping into her line of Keds and moving to New York, which has been waiting for you.
There isn't a single aspect of Swift's career as an artist that isn't diligently commercial; she's a force of nature, a constant tidal wave of art and business. It's awe-inspiring, even if staying brand-safe means that she might never be able to write a song about anything other than new relationships, ongoing relationships, and failed relationships, in an unending cycle.
So why did Apple think for one second that it could get away with not paying Taylor Swift?
We don't need to get into the depth of the details here; you know them. Apple Music pays higher royalties than competitors like Spotify because there's no free option; you have to pay $9.99 a month to use it. But to entice consumers into signing up, Apple's offering a three-month free trial, and artists like Swift weren't going to see any money during those three months. Last week Adele's label said it wouldn't participate in Apple Music, and yesterday, Swift posted an open letter to her Tumblr saying she would withhold her album 1989 due to this "shocking" and "disappointing" turn of events, and 17 hours later Apple's Eddy Cue apologized on Twitter and completely backtracked. Artists will now collect some royalties during the Apple Music free trial period, but at a different (presumably lower) per-stream rate, according to Apple. Applause and retweets all around. You just can't screw with Taylor Swift; she wants to get paid.
So what was this? A victory for Taylor Swift? A victory for Apple, which turned a day of headlines about Swift withholding 1989 into a day of Taylor Swift victory laps? A victory for consumers? A victory for the music industry?
Turns out it's none of the above. Instead, it's a victory for the status quo, which remains steadfastly in place even as Apple insists that its new music service will save the industry from plummeting streaming royalties just as the iPod and iTunes saved it from piracy.
Apple's frantic fallback still hasn't guaranteed that 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches; the company has to figure out the specifics of those per-stream rates, and presumably has to sign a new deal with Swift. But the speedy damage control ensured that today's headlines would be about Taylor Swift beating Apple, not Taylor Swift being mad at Apple for not paying her. It's a win on many levels, but it also exposes a hard truth about Apple Music: it's offering the same fundamental deal to artists and labels as the much-vilified Spotify.
Here's the basic deal Spotify offers artists: a free service that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by ads but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties.
Here's the basic deal Apple is now offering artists: a three-month free trial that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by Apple's enormous bank account but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties.
Hmm. Not much of a difference there, especially if Apple doesn't convert free users to paid users at a significantly higher rate than Spotify; you'd rather get a little money indefinitely than a little money for three months. But that's the entire bet, if you think about it: the industry is wagering that Apple's marketing prowess and huge iPhone install base will allow it to sign up more paid music subscribers than any other service has seen thus far. It's probably a good bet, but it illustrates the difficult high wire act Apple is trying to pull off as it positions itself as the second-time savior of the music industry while coming up with fundamentally the same ideas as everyone else. And Apple hasn't shown any particular ability to walk that line; Taylor Swift has been pointing the fukk-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked in the face. If Apple had played it correctly, Swift would have launched Apple Music at WWDC with a live performance; instead Eddy Cue was doing damage control at midnight on a Sunday.
It's only when the services have meaningful leverage that artists back down; Swift hasn't said word one about YouTube, the most popular ad-supported streaming service in existence, because taking her videos of off YouTube would be a disaster for her fans. But Apple can't afford to have Swift taking shots at Apple Music, while Swift can just sit back and let her army of ultra-devoted fans actually buy her albums from iTunes proper.
In fact, it's curious that Apple's not overtly taking advantage of its commanding lead as a music retailer to let artists like Swift window their releases against demand. Hardcore fans might buy new records on their release days, while others might wait for them to hit the streaming catalog. Singles might be made available to buy first, or to stream for a while ahead of wider release as a promotional tactic. Apple's already taught millions of people to pay for music on iTunes, but instead of using streaming to support and expand music sales, it seems to be running two distinct services whose overlap hasn't been made entirely clear. To be fair, that's Spotify's problem as well: the company's foolishly religious stance on free streaming means that it hasn't offered any particularly innovative new solutions to the business of selling music to artists beyond yet more playlist types.
Apple is the world's largest music retailer, so Swift was extremely deferential in her open letter yesterday. But last November, when she pulled her catalog from Spotify, she was blunt. "Everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," she said. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music."
We're still in that experimental phase. No one knows how any of this is going to work, or even if paid music streaming services are a realistic path towards making music itself as valuable as tote bags and tour merch has been for Taylor Swift. But unless Apple and Spotify and all the rest try to come up with newer, better ideas, Taylor's just going to stay pissed.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/22/8826509/taylor-swift-vs-apple-nobody-wins
"
Taylor Swift vs Apple: nobody wins
A heartwarming victory for the status quo
By Nilay Patel on June 22, 2015 05:23 pm
If there's one thing we know about Taylor Swift, it's that she wants to get paid.
The world's biggest-selling artist is not so much a musician as she is a full-body lifestyle experience. You can fill yourself with her Diet Coke and moisturize your skin with her lotions before stepping into her line of Keds and moving to New York, which has been waiting for you.
There isn't a single aspect of Swift's career as an artist that isn't diligently commercial; she's a force of nature, a constant tidal wave of art and business. It's awe-inspiring, even if staying brand-safe means that she might never be able to write a song about anything other than new relationships, ongoing relationships, and failed relationships, in an unending cycle.
So why did Apple think for one second that it could get away with not paying Taylor Swift?
We don't need to get into the depth of the details here; you know them. Apple Music pays higher royalties than competitors like Spotify because there's no free option; you have to pay $9.99 a month to use it. But to entice consumers into signing up, Apple's offering a three-month free trial, and artists like Swift weren't going to see any money during those three months. Last week Adele's label said it wouldn't participate in Apple Music, and yesterday, Swift posted an open letter to her Tumblr saying she would withhold her album 1989 due to this "shocking" and "disappointing" turn of events, and 17 hours later Apple's Eddy Cue apologized on Twitter and completely backtracked. Artists will now collect some royalties during the Apple Music free trial period, but at a different (presumably lower) per-stream rate, according to Apple. Applause and retweets all around. You just can't screw with Taylor Swift; she wants to get paid.
So what was this? A victory for Taylor Swift? A victory for Apple, which turned a day of headlines about Swift withholding 1989 into a day of Taylor Swift victory laps? A victory for consumers? A victory for the music industry?
Turns out it's none of the above. Instead, it's a victory for the status quo, which remains steadfastly in place even as Apple insists that its new music service will save the industry from plummeting streaming royalties just as the iPod and iTunes saved it from piracy.
Apple's frantic fallback still hasn't guaranteed that 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches; the company has to figure out the specifics of those per-stream rates, and presumably has to sign a new deal with Swift. But the speedy damage control ensured that today's headlines would be about Taylor Swift beating Apple, not Taylor Swift being mad at Apple for not paying her. It's a win on many levels, but it also exposes a hard truth about Apple Music: it's offering the same fundamental deal to artists and labels as the much-vilified Spotify.
Here's the basic deal Spotify offers artists: a free service that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by ads but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties.
Here's the basic deal Apple is now offering artists: a three-month free trial that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by Apple's enormous bank account but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties.
Hmm. Not much of a difference there, especially if Apple doesn't convert free users to paid users at a significantly higher rate than Spotify; you'd rather get a little money indefinitely than a little money for three months. But that's the entire bet, if you think about it: the industry is wagering that Apple's marketing prowess and huge iPhone install base will allow it to sign up more paid music subscribers than any other service has seen thus far. It's probably a good bet, but it illustrates the difficult high wire act Apple is trying to pull off as it positions itself as the second-time savior of the music industry while coming up with fundamentally the same ideas as everyone else. And Apple hasn't shown any particular ability to walk that line; Taylor Swift has been pointing the fukk-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked in the face. If Apple had played it correctly, Swift would have launched Apple Music at WWDC with a live performance; instead Eddy Cue was doing damage control at midnight on a Sunday.
It's only when the services have meaningful leverage that artists back down; Swift hasn't said word one about YouTube, the most popular ad-supported streaming service in existence, because taking her videos of off YouTube would be a disaster for her fans. But Apple can't afford to have Swift taking shots at Apple Music, while Swift can just sit back and let her army of ultra-devoted fans actually buy her albums from iTunes proper.
In fact, it's curious that Apple's not overtly taking advantage of its commanding lead as a music retailer to let artists like Swift window their releases against demand. Hardcore fans might buy new records on their release days, while others might wait for them to hit the streaming catalog. Singles might be made available to buy first, or to stream for a while ahead of wider release as a promotional tactic. Apple's already taught millions of people to pay for music on iTunes, but instead of using streaming to support and expand music sales, it seems to be running two distinct services whose overlap hasn't been made entirely clear. To be fair, that's Spotify's problem as well: the company's foolishly religious stance on free streaming means that it hasn't offered any particularly innovative new solutions to the business of selling music to artists beyond yet more playlist types.
Apple is the world's largest music retailer, so Swift was extremely deferential in her open letter yesterday. But last November, when she pulled her catalog from Spotify, she was blunt. "Everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," she said. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music."
We're still in that experimental phase. No one knows how any of this is going to work, or even if paid music streaming services are a realistic path towards making music itself as valuable as tote bags and tour merch has been for Taylor Swift. But unless Apple and Spotify and all the rest try to come up with newer, better ideas, Taylor's just going to stay pissed.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/22/8826509/taylor-swift-vs-apple-nobody-wins
"
Last edited:
Aren't plants supposed to be low key
Mac Casper
@adonnis - pull up, there's refreshments
Her PR team has all these news outlets painting her like an underdog
Breh...
Nobody was makin' money off CD sales unless they were doin' Michael numbers. Every major artist was touring, and the ones who didn't were probably making a lot less money than you think they were.
Her fame rose after that incident...Bu...bu...but Taylor Swift wouldn't be big without Kanye
Her dating all these famous white celebs>>>>kanye though .
Last edited:
just my thoughts
Pro
All the experts in here, all the complainers in here, yet you cock suckers don't realize one thing. She has a voice cause her fans buy the music. But you all would rather clown record sales than do your part. Idiots.
You got Russia upset at the latest U2 album cover cause it looks gay, but Apple doesn't budge. This is a country with rockets, fighter jets, tanks, KGB, etc..
Taylor Swift tells Apple to reverse its no pay policy and it's like they cave in like she's the John Gotti of music. No questions asked or hesitation. She's part of the Illuminati. They gave her a pass.
2 Up 2 Down
Veteran
She doesn't write her own songs
if she doesn't. Her songs are teenage girl fluff.Apple Gets a Giant Taylor Swift Concert Exclusive (Because It Paid Taylor Swift)
Remember when Taylor Swift and Apple didn’t get along, and then they patched it up, and then everything was ok?
Well things are even better now: Apple and Swift are syncing up for a multi-pronged deal that will give Apple exclusive rights to a Swift concert video that debuts on Sunday, December 20, as well as her help on a big Apple Music marketing campaign. Swift, apparently, will get a nice check in return.
Here’s Swift’s announcement on Twitter (which, of course, you can also see onInstagram and Facebook)
It’s easy to see what Apple gets out of the deal, because an Apple spokesperson was happy to talk about it: Access to the concert video will be limited to Apple Music subscribers — that includes both the 6.5 million people (or more) who are paying for the music service, as well as anyone in the free, three-month trial.
Apple also gets the ability to use Swift’s name and likeness in promotions at its stores, where it will have big displays as well as Taylor Swift-branded iTunes gift cards for sales; Swift is also going on Apple’s Beats 1 Radio tomorrow to talk about the concert with Zane Lowe, Apple’s chief DJ.
Or to sum it up: Apple gets access to one of the world’s biggest stars to promote its music service and more (the concert will stream on Apple TV, for instance) during the holiday shopping season.
Swift’s side of the deal is fuzzier, since no one is talking about it on the record. But sources say she’s getting paid for it, and I’m assuming that access to one of the world’s biggest stars doesn’t come cheap.
Another important detail: My understanding is that because the deal is about Swift’s concert, not her album, this is a deal between her and Apple directly. Big Machine, the label that owns her stuff, and Universal Music Group, the label that distributes it, aren’t in on it. [UPDATE: Big Machine rep Jake Basden says the label’s rights do extend to concert videos, and that it participated in the deal and will see money from it.]
I told y'all and only @Clutch Robinson @Insensitive and @Pool_Shark had the vision. Yes, this is part of me upping threads from throughout the year and saying I told you so. More to come
Remember when Taylor Swift and Apple didn’t get along, and then they patched it up, and then everything was ok?
Well things are even better now: Apple and Swift are syncing up for a multi-pronged deal that will give Apple exclusive rights to a Swift concert video that debuts on Sunday, December 20, as well as her help on a big Apple Music marketing campaign. Swift, apparently, will get a nice check in return.
Here’s Swift’s announcement on Twitter (which, of course, you can also see onInstagram and Facebook)
It’s easy to see what Apple gets out of the deal, because an Apple spokesperson was happy to talk about it: Access to the concert video will be limited to Apple Music subscribers — that includes both the 6.5 million people (or more) who are paying for the music service, as well as anyone in the free, three-month trial.
Apple also gets the ability to use Swift’s name and likeness in promotions at its stores, where it will have big displays as well as Taylor Swift-branded iTunes gift cards for sales; Swift is also going on Apple’s Beats 1 Radio tomorrow to talk about the concert with Zane Lowe, Apple’s chief DJ.
Or to sum it up: Apple gets access to one of the world’s biggest stars to promote its music service and more (the concert will stream on Apple TV, for instance) during the holiday shopping season.
Swift’s side of the deal is fuzzier, since no one is talking about it on the record. But sources say she’s getting paid for it, and I’m assuming that access to one of the world’s biggest stars doesn’t come cheap.
Another important detail: My understanding is that because the deal is about Swift’s concert, not her album, this is a deal between her and Apple directly. Big Machine, the label that owns her stuff, and Universal Music Group, the label that distributes it, aren’t in on it. [UPDATE: Big Machine rep Jake Basden says the label’s rights do extend to concert videos, and that it participated in the deal and will see money from it.]
I told y'all and only @Clutch Robinson @Insensitive and @Pool_Shark had the vision. Yes, this is part of me upping threads from throughout the year and saying I told you so. More to come
Last edited:
still hate her