Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

In article , RichA wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.



--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists
complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't
get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.

In article , PAS
wrote:

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.

swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

RichA:
Scum. Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

Sandman:
So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free
and during that time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist,
several artists complained and Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

nospam:
they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they
didn't get paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

PAS:
If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch
too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".

Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three weeks ago.
Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple changed the policy as a
direct response.

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them. They
handled this as perfectly as they could.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they
didn't get paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

PAS:
If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch
too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".

Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three weeks ago.
Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple changed the policy as a
direct response.

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them.

yes it is.

They
handled this as perfectly as they could.

that part is true.

apple figured that in exchange for a higher royalty (which everyone is
ignoring), apple would not pay during the free trial. that's what was
*negotiated* with the music industry, so if you want lay blame, you
have to blame *both* parties.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:17:58 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
. ..
In article
,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists
complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't
get
paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining
taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".

No!!! Apple would never try a stunt like that, they are a kind and
benevolent company.

On 2015-06-22 16:31:40 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they
didn't get paid during the free trial.

it's the artists who are greedy bitches.

and now that apple is going to pay during the free trial, the
whining taylor swift still won't allow her album to be streamed.

now who is the scum?

PAS:
If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch
too.

Apple expected the artists to support their market expansion. They
were shocked into submission when the artists said "Fund your own
program!".

Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three weeks ago.
Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple changed the policy as a
direct response.

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them.

yes it is.

They
handled this as perfectly as they could.

that part is true.

apple figured that in exchange for a higher royalty (which everyone is
ignoring), apple would not pay during the free trial. that's what was
*negotiated* with the music industry, so if you want lay blame, you
have to blame *both* parties.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Here-s-how-much-Apple-Music-is-going-to-pay-6341370.php

--


Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them. They
handled this as perfectly as they could.

That is not how the news reported the timeline.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-s...ple-music-1434
916050

"Ooops, she's probably right" was revealing an omission that they were
aware of, and should be "Ooops, we got caught".

they didn't get caught at anything and you missed this part:

Post trial-period, Apple is paying slightly more than Spotify to
music owners. Apple is paying 71.5% of revenue vs. 70% from Spotify
(premium tier).

where's the anger towards spotify for paying less?

How much of that royalty revenue actually gets paid to musicians
varies, depending on the deals they have with the record labels that
distribute their music

in other words, it's the record labels who are stiffing artists.

On 2015-06-22 20:23:55 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:17:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them. They
handled this as perfectly as they could.

That is not how the news reported the timeline.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-s...ple-music-1434
916050

"Ooops, she's probably right" was revealing an omission that they were
aware of, and should be "Ooops, we got caught".

they didn't get caught at anything and you missed this part:

Post trial-period, Apple is paying slightly more than Spotify to
music owners. Apple is paying 71.5% of revenue vs. 70% from Spotify
(premium tier).

I didn't miss it. It's a different issue.

where's the anger towards spotify for paying less?

Why should I direct anger at Spotify? Let Taylor Swift direct her
anger at Spotify. It's a different issue.

She did. She pulled her music from Spotify last year.

How much of that royalty revenue actually gets paid to musicians
varies, depending on the deals they have with the record labels that
distribute their music

in other words, it's the record labels who are stiffing artists.

It's a different issue.

Stick to the subject: Apple tried to stiff the artists. They got
caught.

Yup! Why should the artists subsidize the launch of Apple's streaming service?

--
Regards,

Savageduck