Huh? How come our designated favorite Apple fanboy didn’t post this article? ;P
I’m sure he’ll ping the list later. He does that for all Apple articles he finds here, pro or con. We can’t expect him to be the one to post everything. I’m sure he has a day job.
Sam's right. I post only about 35% of the Apple related articles. . . pinging the group to almost all of them. The rest are posted by other Freepers. Some are even posted by members of the Anti-Apple hater Brigade. I will usually even ping the group to those, unless they are posted for the mere purpose of slamming Apple or Apple users.
This Taylor Swift kerfuffle is all about a misunderstanding by her and several other artists not realizing that Apple would be paying them for the plays generating subscription signups during the trial period, just not immediately. The revenue has to be realized before payment, but it would have been paid. Now Apple will pay in advance of realization.
I can understand how the indies would want to be paid "Right Now", rather than "pie in the sky" later, but this is Apple, not a promise breaking fly-by-night producer; they would have been paid when the revenues were actually collected. It was probably an error to use standard business practice of "accrual based accounting", when these indies were expecting "Cash based accounting", but Apple actually charges credit card transactions when they start providing services, not when someone provides the card number. Subscriptions would not start for 90 days. . . at which point the revenues would be booked and the trial period artists would have been paid. Taylor Swift want her money, cash, NOW.
Apple is now merely going to advance that by cash accounting, charging it against future revenues. No change in policy of paying the artists and never intended to not pay them. The basic question was when they would receive their payments.