Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...l-taylor-swift
The heart of their service was going to highlight and help showcase indie artists, but they (like any other artist on the service) weren't going to be paid under users' 3 month trials. A lot of indie artists don't have a choice but to go with it because they don't have the power to go against it and protest. If they took their stuff off, their loss would likely be greater than if their music was on there. But if its on there, it's not fair that they wouldn't have been getting paid fairly. Which is why Taylor spoke out...she does have the power to speak out on a large scaled and make a change.
|
I'm still convinced it was a PR stunt. Considering the facts that all of Apple Music's competitors pay for the trial period, Apple is the most valuable country in the world, and is known for paying very well (look at the comparisons between iOS and Android developers). Does it make any sense for Apple to refuse to pay? No, it doesn't make any sense. However, now much more people know about Apple Music and that Apple will be paying artists, which puts it in a seat of grace than if they had just announced it at their WWDC that only geeks like me, that want to learn about Apple's new development news, watch.
Then when you factor in how quickly Apple responded, it's all enough to make it evident that Apple was planning on making that announcement (whether Taylor was in on it or not). Apple is a
very cocky company, and Taylor wouldn't be able to convince them to do anything they didn't already plan. Apple's known for being bizarrely stubborn.