Hacker News Reader

Comment by issa | Hacker News Reader

This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible.

This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.

At the same time artists (especially indies) have a significant interest in Apple succeeding. If Spotify dominates the market to the exclusion of all others, they will have no pressure to keep artist revenue share competitive. Best case for artists is a multitude of streaming services all competing for the most appealing inventory.

There is the third option that rarely gets discussed. No subscription service succeeding in dominating the market entirely.

Alternatively, a two-track system, where subscription services are consistently behind on popular hits, and artists hit record services first.

It was, until one of the biggest "little people" started writing on her tumblr how she would have none of it.

Suppose Apple were to instead finance their free trial by reducing the royalties they pay artists. Would this be morally reprehensible, since it would result in the "little people" losing as much revenue as they would have under the existing scheme? I don't see how it is immoral for a company to reduce the total amount that it pays to artists. Prices are set by negotiation/the market. I think people feel undue sympathy towards musicians because they are cool and beautiful people, and so people don't want the market to apply to them.

Well, in most situations, prices are set IN PART by the market. Usually common decency is involved as well (ie: the minimum wage).

I would argue that supporting the arts is important the same way that protecting minimum wage workers from abuse is (mandatory unpaid overtime, wage theft, etc).

There is a counterpoint to this whole thing, apple doesn't have a free tier, which is to the artists benefit.

It doesn't matter. Think about this for any other profession. This is the big business version of the craigslist ad asking a graphic designer to work for free "for the exposure".

They planned on the backlash too because they get free advertising from some big names in music...but they'll still move forward with the 3-month royalty-free period because most artists will simply roll over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com