Taylor Swift wins battle with Apple | Hacker News Reader

Taylor Swift wins battle with Apple

bloomberg.com

39 pointsColinWright26 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009

I don't see this as a zero sum game.

Apple have received a huge amount of publicity from this, and are now being viewed as a company on the side of the artists, and, unusually for Apple, as a company which actively listens.

To be honest, it's a win-win no matter how you look at it. Apple wins, Taylor Swift wins, musicians win. To me, I look at this as an example of how Apple does understand public perception and is a master at making themselves look good in the public spotlight.

If this was a intentional decision from Apple from the very start, then it isn't a win for the customers, since they were manipulated.

> If this was a intentional decision from Apple from the very start

Is there any actual evidence of this?

are now being viewed as a company on the side of the artists

Huh? Not by me.

The mainstream media never covered Apple's original policy on this.

But they definitely covered Apple changing policies partly based on Taylor Swift.

So in the eyes of people who don't spend their time on IT sites (Reddit, HN) Apple looks like a company that supports artists.

Really? The front page story on the BBC web site is: "Apple Music in Taylor Swift Backdown"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33220189

I am currently in NZ and this was has been covered on every news station and have confirmed with friends it was the same in Australia as well as in HK as well. Both Taylor Swift and Apple have come out of this smelling like roses. Taylor for fighting for the poor, struggling artist and Apple for listening to consumers and for being a "historically progressive and generous company".

I can't remember the last time a backtrack has worked out quite so well for a company.

Note to self: when there's something I don't like, get a celeb to voice their support!

Yes. That's partly how I got the Alan Turing apology in 2009. Really helps to get celebrities on board, particularly because it gives the media something to write about.

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/09/how-alan-turing-finally-got...

On August 18, 2009 the petition made the national news with a major story in The Independent, and at the same time the first celebrity name appeared on the list of signatures: Richard Dawkins.

With one celebrity name and national press I began to think the petition might really get noticed. The following night Richard Dawkins and I appeared on Channel 4 News to talk about the petition (Dawkins was filmed looking regal in his garden; I was filmed in classic programmer clothing: bad shoes, dirty shorts and a crumpled shirt).

That only works between celebs (Apple is a celeb as well).

The meteoric rise of Eddie Cue hits a bump in the road here as the supposed uber-negotiator at Apple left them in a bad position with no leverage against independents who had literally nothing to lose by withholding their catalogs from the Apple Music launch.

I wonder, given the quick the response has been, if Eddie Cue or Tim Cook wasn't really sure about not paying for 3 months. My guess is that Apple only agreed with labels.

Imagine this (you can replace Tim Cook with Eddie Cue and Eddie Cue with me other people at Apple):

- Tim Cook: I guess we should pay artists during the free trial

- Eddie Cue: We talked with the labels and they seem to be ok with us not paying during trial.

- TC: Are you sure? Well, it will be a lot of money saved, but I'm not sure how well will it be received by musicians.

- EC: I tell you, all the labels seems to say that's fine, it's a little long, but they understand if better on the long term.

- TC: Ok, if you said so, go ahead

Yesterday

- TC: I told you so. Fix it NOW

- EC: Ups, yes...

I don't liked the title of this submission. It wasn't a battle. It was a request from a potential customer, which the company understood and worked upon.

I see this as a company that has decided not to pay their partners, reversed their position. Hardly flattering.

Apple should have done the right thing from the first.

As it is, they're going to have to pay the royalties anyway - without also having to get hit with negative coverage.

The below must have stung:

“We don’t ask you for free iPhones,” she added. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”

Apple's very quick U-turn on the issue is commendable.

Am I the only one who thinks that Apple was turning around independently of Taylor Swift? It seems to me that they had heard the criticism before and then used it as an answer to Swift as a better story.

Keep in mind that Apple has confirmed they will be paying a lower rate during the free trial that they will not disclose currently. So, nobody has won anything.

How did Apple assume they could get away with not paying royalties the artists were legally entitled to? Have I missed something in the story?

Apple controls about 30% of the US smartphone market and their users are locked into the platform. Uniquely, iOS users don't have access to alternate music purchasing apps (Apple's required 30% cut makes it financially untenable) and iOS users can't download and add music to their music library on the go like other platforms. Plus, Apple devices are only high end (read: expensive) and their users have more purchasing power in terms of apps and music. So, Apple controls a larger piece of the monetary pie than their 30% market share would let on.

Apple will use this market power to make themselves more money. The reason Taylor Swift's piece had to be couched in so many "I love Apple" statements is because Apple controls a lot of her music sales in iTunes, so Apple is in a position of power over her income. Apple had previously threatened a couple of indie artists with being banned from iTunes if they didn't agree to stream their music for free. This could have been the result of a few bad apples at Apple and not policy, though.

Apple will use its power at the expense of artists if it suits their business model. Here, it did, until the negative PR proved it could cost them sales. So, they've made a deal to pay artists something during the free period, though it will likely be a lot less than the typical $0.005 per play streaming pays on average today. Apple has confirmed it will be less but won't say what the payment will be.

Thanks. I'm just (and probably naively) surprised that any contract an artist would make with Apple allows Apple to stream the artists music for free if that's what Apple want.

Good job I'm not a music industry boss.

Labels are part of it, since the major music labels control just about everything of the artists signed to them. And the 3 big labels all signed on with Apple Music but the details of what the labels themselves get will likely not be disclosed.

Apple may or may not be engaged in tying. Some indie artists report Apple threatening to boot them from iTunes if they don't sign on to Apple Music. Google did something similar with YouTube a few months back.

Independent musicians have almost no power or money in the industry, so they're stuck taking what they can get for the most part.

Hey Amazon can give your book away for free if they want. Its part of the standard contract, where you give Amazon the right to market your book any way they want, including promotion. Which can mean, bundled with other slow sellers, or even given away as a loss leader.

They weren't legally entitled, just morally so.

Record labels generally own streaming rights for their releases. The labels agreed to Apple's terms, in sufficient quantity that Apple was ready to launch.

Taylor Swift might own her own streaming rights. Presumably so, since she had standing to withhold them. But she's a special case. High profile, to be sure. But very unusual.

> How did Apple assume they could get away with not paying royalties the artists were legally entitled to?

They negotiated for not paying royalties during the free trial period (during when they weren't being paid either), in exchange for higher royalty rates afterwards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com