Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokioyoyo | Hacker News Reader

I mean, you can say that Fred again and co. are "sanitised", "corpo music" and etc. But quite a lot of people will happily buy the tickets, and go to the concerts. The only reason I'm bringing him up, is cause Apple featured his live concert.

Obviously Apple is in the game of making money in the end. Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue. But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience. A lot of people will spend a couple of hundred $ for a fun night out, and they don't have to be extremely rich.

View on HN

> Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue.

This is a really tone-deaf straw man caricature of what I am saying, I'm afraid.

> But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience.

It's a pretty solid, not even satirical summary of many of the people who live in that development. It's not really a place for Londoners.

If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.

I don't think Apple hopes to make significant revenue from ticket sales: this venue has seats for only 600. The purpose of the 600 seats is to give musicians optimal conditions for the creation of music (to be recorded or streamed live) and to showcase to selected audiences (e.g., journalists and other influencers) Apple's audio technologies: the venue is outfitted with a custom 48-speaker Spatial Audio sound system.

And like others are saying, it is at Battersea because Apple has about 500,000 sq ft of office space at Battersea. It's their UK headquarters.

> If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.

So I live in California where everything is famously expensive (but I hear the same of London). $225 for a concert with a famous artist on a big tour is pretty standard. Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.

> Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.

Oh dear me, this is funny. But not in a way you will understand.

$225 for GA tickets is actually pretty decent for a big-name band. Billie Eilish charged $900 when she came to my city.

Oasis was going for more here in Tokyo for standing tickets. I know multiple people who went, despite it being way above their budgets. I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford. Keep in mind, the average age is higher than it was ever before. There are a lot of single / DINK people, who can easily shell out some money without a blink, and not have a lot of money in their savings.

> I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford

I am not sure why I am replying to a sentence formulated like this but you surely understand I said nothing about $400, the top 20% of income levels, or even not being able to afford it?

If you’re going to disagree with me it might be better to disagree with what I said, not a straw man you constructed for the purpose.

I know that this is a common way to argue here on HN but it’s just weird.

Sorry, I took it as the main part of your argument is that whatever Apple creates will not be for the general mass “unless your target market is the adult children of emigres with unexplained wealth”. My argument is, people who pay $400+ for a ticket are fairly ordinary people. I guess, I was arguing against that.

> My argument is, people who pay $400+ for a ticket are fairly ordinary people.

I think you’re out of touch.

Normal people are experiencing housing stress, energy price shocks, and wondering who the hell buys a $19 strawberry.

Normal people experience all that, and add Ticketmaster tickets on Klarna for a big gig. This is not about groceries, in which case I would agree with you.

I consider top 30-40% income bracket as ordinary people.

And of the other 60-70% of people? How do you consider them?

Also normal people. It's just that, $400 isn't that big of a number. I personally consider it big, I have to convince myself very hard before I spend $100 on any ticket, but people who has less income than me will use their credit cards without a second thought.

I've been fortunate enough to work in some environments where you kinda get the gist of "how people function", and it has completely opened up my eyes. A single person who is experiencing housing stress, can buy $19 strawberry, be upset about gas prices, and also spend $400 on a concert.

I feel like you're overusing the strawman card to avoid engaging with their argument. I think your take is overall very pessimistic. They likely won't have acts like Oasis in that venue and the pricing will probably be premium but broadly attainable, like their products.

Sorry, but I'm not. It literally was not something I said or was actually representative of my argument, so I don't know how it is something you can say "I don't know why you think…"

Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?

For clarity: I am not talking about affordability. I am talking about the profoundly anti-culture nature of that specific place and the people who can afford to live in it. As I said in my comment, there are other ways Apple could contribute to live music that didn't involve putting a pet music venue in such a soulless place.

> For clarity: I am not talking about affordability

(of a given performance ticket)

If it helps, I found your writing here much easier to follow than whatever the other participants think they’re larping at.

Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?

It's called being charitable. Trying to understand what their point is and responding to that for the sake of advancing the conversation, rather than grinding it to a halt with pedantic quibbles over inaccuracies or poor phrasing.

I've never been so I can't really comment on the atmosphere of the building.

You made a pretty specific point and prediction about the price of tickets, which I responded to, but now you're not talking about affordability. Because the suggestion that they might not be doing the most soulless oligarchic thing ever in this place doesn't fit your doom narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com