Apple Music changes policy after Taylor Swift stand

bbc.co.uk

11 points·stuartmemo··6 comments

She has a fair point though, if the tables were turned and I decided not to pay apple for an iPhone for 3 months while using it, they would most certainly have a problem, especially when I could potentially hand it back in 3 months time and say i don't want it anymore.

It is unreasonable for Apple to pass on the cost of promoting it's business to artists.

With more money than god, why does Apple insist on being a asshole?

One one wonders if it's all not just manufactured drama/PR, and Apple has known all along that it's gonna pay artists during trials.

If it was anyone else I'd probably agree, but T-Swizz is easily the most genuine celebrity ever. She wouldn't do that.

No, or why decide to not pay the artists at first place?

Apple fears bad P.R. , because Apple brand is built on good P.R. T.S. has some power right now, she is using it while she is still relevant. I don't think it was manufactured.

The initial decision was bad. If Apple wants to promote its plateform then it should bear the cost of that promotion. Artists shouldn't be taking a haircut because "future benefits".

I don't work 3 months for free for a business because that business his offering its customers 3 months of free service, no professional would be willing to do that, at least if one isn't a company stock holder.

The is a major Dutch bank that expects freelancers to work unpaid for their first two weeks. I expect them to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, but they seem to be having this policy for a couple of years now. For me it's been pretty easy resisting their offers, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com