
Taylor Swift wins battle with Apple - ColinWright
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-22/taylor-swift-wins-battle-as-apple-backs-down-on-royalty-payments
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756009)

------
iMark
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.

~~~
dennisnedry
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.

~~~
opcvx
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.

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

Is there any actual evidence of this?

------
threeseed
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.

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

~~~
jgrahamc
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...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/09/how-alan-turing-finally-got-a.html)

 _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)._

------
Steko
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.

------
jaimebuelta
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...

------
ateevchopra
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.

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

------
noir-york
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.

------
calibwam
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.

------
JohnTHaller
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.

------
kitd
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?

~~~
JohnTHaller
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.

~~~
kitd
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.

~~~
JohnTHaller
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.

