Apple Streaming Music Sour Grapes for now
Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/21/2015 11:11:24 AM PDT by dennisw
The superstar said Sunday that she will not allow her album '1989' on Apple's new streaming service
She explained on Tumblr that this was because the tech giant will not pay for songs streamed during free trial period
These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much.'
Swift's '1989' was by far the top-selling US album last year and remains high on charts - insisted that she was speaking for all artists and not just herself.
Swift found the move 'disappointing and completely unlike the historically generous company' Last year, she withdrew her music from Spotify which offers a free tier that is supported by advertisements
Pop superstar Taylor Swift said on Sunday she will not allow her latest album on Apple's new streaming service.
The move by Swift, one of the most outspoken critics of streaming leader Spotify, delivers an early blow to Apple's bid to dominate the booming sector.
Swift said that the tech giant, which is launching the new Apple Music on June 30, will not pay for songs streamed during a free three-month trial period for new subscribers.
'This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt.
'This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The Apple attitude is these starving artists and the well to do ones too should be beating down our doors just to be associated with us whether we deign to pay them or not.
What I see is Apple bullying these lesser artists with the attitude that, “We are the great and mighty Apple and you should be kissing our butts to even be allowed be on our music streaming service working for free”
Hopefully this high handed, imperialistic behavior will blow up in Tim Cooks face. And the rest of the Apple gang too who think their sh!t doesn’t stink.
I never thought I would say this, but Spotify is worth every penny they have an intro offer of $0.99 for three months. Apple Music will be free for three months unlimited, I highly recommend it.
That is really cool. Probably really efficient in working many electronic gadgets.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Oh you have no idea the amount of dirty tricks Dad has up his sleeve, now.
I don’t have to fight, I don’t have to argue, when I turn something off SHE has to come to ME and try to figure out what she needs to do to get it back. None of this crap where I try to figure out how to get her to mind....
Also, my iPhone 6 acts as my control module for the whole family’s access...and it’s fingerprint protected, so getting my password will be a stone cold b!tch.
Apple, the slave labor company.
I'll have to mess around with it more. You're probably right. I think Swift will eventually buckle to Apple.
Funny thing is, my "Taylor Swift Radio" station is one of my favorites on Pandora.
It worked out like this; I have some 70+ stations on Pandora but my wife really likes Taylor Swift so whenever we're driving together it is always on this station. So I would dislike certain songs, like other songs, play my own stations when I was by myself and strangely enough, Pandora's logarithms figured out a really cool playlist.
So my "Taylor Swift Radio" is different than anyone else's. I'll hear a Swift song followed by an Edward Sharpe song, Modest Mouse, West Indian Girl, Dandy Warhols, Mumford & Sons, MGMT, Foster the People, and then Swift again. And then five other songs by bands that don't sound anything like Taylor Swift, yet they're bands I like.
And this is where Pandora really works great!
If Spotify can do this, I'll be impressed.
And while we're talking about Taylor Swift, I happen to think 1989 is a phenomenal album. If Red was Swift's Let It Bleed, 1989 is Swift's Exile on Main Street. If Red was Swift's Houses of the Holy, 1989 is Swift's Physical Graffiti . If Red Was Swift's Revolver (and it was. The title song is straight-up rock and roll) 1989 is Taylor Swift's Sgt. Pepper's.
This 46-year old hard rock listening, Les Paul into a Marshall playing dude happens to sincerely believe that Ms. Taylor Swift's 1989 is a towering musical achievement, the entire album. Seriously. It is that good.
(except for the remixes with rappers).
well, I don’t buy Apple stuff because they’re expensive and I get get the same quality at a lower price (but minus the “apple cool”), but what they are doing to musicians here is just mean.
true for Taylor, but what about less wealthy musicians?
why carpenter’s dream?
Um...Taylor who?
No she’s normal. Not obese like all too many American women.
I suggest you research the rest of the story before you make that conclusion. . . read the rest of the thread paying particular attention to the comments from the non-Apple haters who KNOW the facts, not the rumors.
oh, I did my research and I find Apple products not worth the money — they’re good, but there are equally good products at a lower price.
Real musicians have day jobs
“Never mind”...the drama is apparently over...I wonder if TS is still boycotting Spotify? http://www.cnbc.com/id/102776411
That was not what I was referring to, Cronos. I was referring to Taylor Swift's complaint. It is not what it is represented as being. However I also disagree with your argument on Apple products. If you compare equal level Apple products to equal quality products from main stream computer and phone manufacturers, you will find that Apple products are competitive and often less expensive than the competition.
I have done frequent side by side comparisons builds using Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc, and all the products of equal specifications (as close as possible) are within $100 with the Apple sometimes being higher and sometimes being the lower priced product. . . and in the highness workstation, far less expensive.
The iMac 5k is being sold for the price of the similar sized 5k monitors ALONE from other manufacturers.
Usually in those comparisons, none of the PC side comparisons come anywhere near the package of software that comes with the Apple offerings. . . and all of them require purchasing extra software to come close to what Apple provides free. None of the purchased PC software integrates anywhere nearly as well as the Apple ecosystem does with the other Apple devices. To get any of it working with PCs, phones, tablets, etc. requires finding and tweaking other third party apps, software, and figuring out settings to make it all work together as a kludge. With Apple, it is automatic.
On the cost of the iPhone compared to offerings from other phone makers, the flagship offerings from each of the major manufacturers is again competitive. Samsung's flagship phones are generally more expensive than the Apple iPhone by $50 when sold without contract. On contract, iPhones and other makers can all be had for pricing from zero to $200 for the term of the contract, making them equal in pricing.
When you include the resale value, the total cost of ownership of the Apple products go WAY down as you can often recover the costs of a downpayment on a new contract, and often up to half the cost of an unlocked phone on the resale market with an Apple iPhone. . . while on the Android and Windows phones are essentially throw them away after two years at the end of contract as their resale value is negligible. That is especially true now that it's been revealed that over 600 million Android phones cannot be completely erased of personal data and passwords stored on them so you can't safely sell them or even give them away. The only safe way to dispose of them is to destroy them.
I just turned down a $500 offer from a computer reseller for my eight year old 24" Apple iMac. Can you show me any off-the-shelf eight year old Windows PC system that can be sold wholesale for $500, recovering 30% of its original retail price? I don't think you can. Eight year old Windows PCs systems sell for under $100, if they are still working at all. The reseller's typical markup on used equipment was 50%, so he intended to offer my Mac for $750 on the used market. . . and he'd get it. . . which means I could sell it for that! That means that if I sell it for $750, the total cost per year of owning that 24" Mac was a mere $120 per year, $10 per month. That's a bargain as far as I am concerned.
oh, I did my research and I find Apple products not worth the money — they’re good, but there are equally good products at a lower price.
*****************************************************************************************************
Note to HR: Don’t hire Cronos for any position in our research department.
So once the record companies take care of holdbacks, promotional expenses, production expenses, above the line costs, below the line costs, and double secret costs that would leave the singers approximately nothing.
Are singers all broke, most of them seem pretty wealthy, they are definitely getting paid somewhere along the line
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.