Taylor Swift posts open letter to Apple Music (And exposes them)

[Psychedelic 1,098]

You might say she is greedy but Apple is much greedier... Go get those mother effers Tay! 

[Kayla 7,595]

The free 3 moths starts when you join the service, not when the service itself starts.

The three month trial starts not at the same time for everyone, but independently as each user "activates" the Apple Music membership. It's not a July-September period for everyone.

 

I agree with Taylor on this one. Some of you didn't even read her letter as evident with your replies. She's saying she can support herself (duh) but she's more worried about the indie artists out there. She's not greedy. I think Apple is on the wrong side of the coin with this one. 

Lastly, this is NOT Apple's material. They are promoting THEIR service, with ARTIST'S material. It doesn't matter if Apple gets paid or not, but the artists should be paid. 

 

Ah! I was mistaken. Thank you for clarifying. :) 

[Guest]

I agree with her. I like the idea of a free trial, but 3 months? One month should be enough for people to decide if they like it or not. I'm glad that her other albums will be up for streaming though...cause I already bought 1989 

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

me before reading the letter: 
me after reading the letter: 

[TheFame Monster 8,924]

She's smart. She's not going go let Apple use her so they can get tons of subscribers and she gets nothing. It makes sense what she's doing. The only greedy one here is Apple. There's no benefit to the artists. 

[MasonGaga 11]

Why Taylor is not opening her own  streaming service instead of complaining all the time

[svvior 61]

The OP should be updated to reflect the part where she talks about how she is making this response for other smaller artists who won't be profiting for a quarter of a year, because it implies she is doing this for herself which she put simply that she isn't. 

[Rae 86]

Anyone who knows me well on here knows I don't particularly like Taylor Swift or her music. But her message seems genuine to me, and she makes a good point about smaller artists suffering as a result of free streaming. If streaming is the future of music, it shouldn't be free and artists should be paid for it.

I'm always suspicious about VERY rich artists' true intentions, but again, this seems genuine to me.

I am  not a fan either, but I started reading all the comments and thought **** this is just wrong. Glad she posted a open letter.  Anyone that really wants to work  for free needs  to get help in self-esteem

[uo111 5,261]

Apple

I didn't know they were doing that. I just can't think of a good thing about this company other than their marketing.

[Bette Davis 12,742]

Does she not have enough money?  queen of being greedy and basic 

[Battle 4 Ur Life 6,704]

the fact that she's clearly making a stand for those who need it the most (the majority of new artists who aren't "Taylor Swift" basically) and some of ya calling her greedy, wtf.

smh. If she's greedy then you're shallow and narrow-sighted.

[George 363]

You guys are making this as if Apple is forcing artists to join the service for free. They are not.

Any big company that makes a new product or brand, actually hopes it becomes a stand-alone. They want Apple Music to survive separately from the electronic brand, iTunes or App Store. The only thing the global group offers is the initial investment. So Apple Music will start with a negative cash-flow, even if Apple as a whole has a giant positive one.

The thing Apple is saying with this is: "So we are the biggest brand in the world. We have the biggest online music seller. We are launching a new streaming service. Our projections say that streaming is on the rise, and in time we will get ahold of a big portion of the industry only because of our name. But in order to compete, we are starting it with initial months of little revenue, for us and for you. But we expect in the future to have a pretty big one. So this is a risk, that can probably pay off big time, will you (artist or label) join us?"

Taylor herself decided NOT to do it with her last album. She decided. I think she is wrong because she is accusing them of something that actually means "omg they offered me to take a risk with their new company". This letter is a foolish move because it demonizes a simple and absolutely normal business move, and will make her look bad if she joins the service after the initial operative "free" months. If you guys want to, one day, make a start-up company, you have to be aware you are putting your time and resources into something that will not pay back for like a year or two, until cash flow becomes positive. But its a risk you decided to take, I see this as sort of the same thing. Simple economy. Not evil greed from any part.

 

OffT: I actually like Taylor, just not agreeing with her on this move, I feel it's making a storm in a glass of water.

[Juanjo 2,139]

Taylor is a queen. I think it's awesome for her to stand up for those who can't. I have a lot of respect for her for doing this. ...C'mon, Apple, you better have that money!

[GHGUY 230]

You guys are making this as if Apple is forcing artists to join the service for free. They are not.

Any big company that makes a new product or brand, actually hopes it becomes a stand-alone. They want Apple Music to survive separately from the electronic brand, iTunes or App Store. The only thing the global group offers is the initial investment. So Apple Music will start with a negative cash-flow, even if Apple as a whole has a giant positive one.

The thing Apple is saying with this is: "So we are the biggest brand in the world. We have the biggest online music seller. We are launching a new streaming service. Our projections say that streaming is on the rise, and in time we will get ahold of a big portion of the industry only because of our name. But in order to compete, we are starting it with initial months of little revenue, for us and for you. But we expect in the future to have a pretty big one. So this is a risk, that can probably pay off big time, will you (artist or label) join us?"

Taylor herself decided NOT to do it with her last album. She decided. I think she is wrong because she is accusing them of something that actually means "omg they offered me to take a risk with their new company". This letter is a foolish move because it demonizes a simple and absolutely normal business move, and will make her look bad if she joins the service after the initial operative "free" months. If you guys want to, one day, make a start-up company, you have to be aware you are putting your time and resources into something that will not pay back for like a year or two, until cash flow becomes positive. But its a risk you decided to take, I see this as sort of the same thing. Simple economy. Not evil greed from any part.

 

OffT: I actually like Taylor, just not agreeing with her on this move, I feel it's making a storm in a glass of water.

very interesting and very true... Apple isn't making money in the first 3 months... The artists, writers, producers, and record labels need to make that investment too 

[Nein 508]

First of all, she is being smart. A smart businesswoman. Many labels, including Adele's, are having doubts about it. She's making a big step by exposing Apple like that.  

Second, there's a text written on the Foreword part of 1989 saying: "These songs were once about my life. They are now about yours." I'm asking, if you gave a big effort on making something big that your experiences in life are included, wouldn't you ask for something back? Her era/album is making good profits, too. If she releases her smash album to Apple Music, people would rush to just stream it. Streaming = small profit, Streaming = not buying albums, Not buying albums = no profit. Selling albums yields benefits.

She's just being rational. Yet, all of you are pressed.  

What about Style? (It's arguably the best on the album but its time went by, and we need to move on for the smash that got away.)

Style not reaching #1 will forever irk my life :emo: