[Brinny Baby]

Poor Gaga.

[MadMagical]

I'm sure Apple's got Gaga covered.
After all she is good friends with Jimmy Lovine and sang at his wedding

[Beyonnaise]

Why would anyone want their fave to have their lead single be exclusive to one streaming service, especially one that isn't the most used?

[Lucita]

This is presumably a bad thing imo since the deal with Apple likely would've included heavy promo for the new single. Now without the deal, I'm struggling to imagine how the single will get sufficient promo next month if it just gets a standard iTunes release. I mean I love Gaga, but I don't think she can sell a song with her name alone anymore.

[Samuel.]

Well who cares about Apple Music?

[Jeiboy]

So this explains her not performing in Apple iTunes festival also I guess?

[Darren]

Originally posted by BadMonster

Yep, included banners, radio show, concerts

Gaga can still do a show on Beats 1 without an exclusivity deal. And she can still get all those banners if her team pays up enough.

[Darren]

Originally posted by Jeiboy

So this explains her not performing in Apple iTunes festival also I guess?

Doubtful since a lot of the artists performing don't have Apple exclusivity deals

[StephenNYMonster]

All that power, gone. DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!!

[NaughtyDog]

[Car Radio]

The sabotage!

[Reinvention]

[LadyGagaStan93]

Originally posted by J a y

Why are some people happy about Gaga's business deal with Apple as well as global marketing and exposure, advertising on the however many iTunes stores worldwide, and a possible TV commercial not happening? It's far greater than streaming.

This isn't some Tidal mess where they don't have one of the biggest companies in the world at their disposal. It's APPLE.

It's not apple it's the exclusivity deals that are the issue. At least that's what Lucian is saying. I doubt TV commercials are in any sort of exclusivity contract unless they relate in particular to the streaming aspect of the music. If they do, then I'd say this really screwed her. If not then it's not that much of a big deal but it could harm her release schedule.

[Toxicity.]

Originally posted by Beyonnaise

Why would anyone want their fave to have their lead single be exclusive to one streaming service, especially one that isn't the most used?

Ask Drake

[Lucky#17]

I'm honestly happy with this. I'd rather the song be available everywhere all at once.
I mean, look at what happened with "Rise" - if it was available everywhere it woulda gone T10.

[BadMonster]

Originally posted by Darren

Gaga can still do a show on Beats 1 without an exclusivity deal. And she can still get all those banners if her team pays up enough.

lmao... it's Apple's service, it's their terms... they won't allow her to, otherwise they won't get any exclusives from other label's artists either

[GambleBreauxNews]

You can get banners etc without an AM exclusive, it's not that big of a deal.

[Swag]

Originally posted by J a y

Why are some people happy about Gaga's business deal with Apple as well as global marketing and exposure, advertising on the however many iTunes stores worldwide, and a possible TV commercial not happening? It's far greater than streaming.

This isn't some Tidal mess where they don't have one of the biggest companies in the world at their disposal. It's APPLE.

This. Monsters acting like its a good thing

[Bencharmer]

Well, talent can't always win I guess.

[Darren]

Originally posted by Lucita

This is presumably a bad thing imo since the deal with Apple likely would've included heavy promo for the new single. Now without the deal, I'm struggling to imagine how the single will get sufficient promo next month if it just gets a standard iTunes release. I mean I love Gaga, but I don't think she can sell a song with her name alone anymore.

The only time Apple has ever given anyone significant promotion was with TV ads for Drake's Views. Unless something of that magnitude was planned then this isn't going to have any significant effect on her sales.