4 ms·

People often get frustrated that the famous and the rich are treated differently, but it's literally logistics at some point. This happens for everything, for

People often get frustrated that the famous and the rich are treated differently, but it's literally logistics at some point. This happens for everything, for example Tesla for years had the domain TeslaMotors.com, and look at Musk describing him getting Tesla.com: > "That took us 10 years to buy that Tesla.com domain," Musk said on the podcast. "That cost us like, $10 million." > Musk said in 2018 on Twitter that it actually cost $11 million, and took an "amazing amount of effort," to get the domain name off Grossman. So my overall conclusion from situations like that is, yes, we have to accept that while we're small, or even while we're "medium" we need to play by the rules for everyone else. If you grow up you don't have to. Daft Punk also had to put up with lots of bullshit in their first years, you gotta presume. They've earned this little victory of having no face on the Apple Music account... :) Creative artists tend to thrive on limitations. They use limitations to come up with inventive ways of expressing themselves despite and even through the limitations. So think about it like that, IMHO

echelon 5y ago
I think you're apologizing for Apple. To Apple, this is a business to keep more of their customers locked into the Applesphere. As long as they're retained, they can tax all commerce associated with these people: apps, subscriptions, payments, media, etc. They're operating like a machine with a glazed and polished process. Apple doesn't love music or musicians. If they did, they wouldn't pull this shit.
- historyloop 5y ago
  I've the feeling you brought your generic Apple rant into a specific issue about profile photos, where it doesn't fit.
  - echelon 5y ago
    Apple is a 2.5 trillion dollar company. I think they'll do just fine under criticism. Meanwhile, the person you responded to is a creator and just wants a basic level of service. Maybe you should listen to people raising their voices instead of defending a company that certainly doesn't need your help.
    - historyloop 5y ago
      > Apple is a 2.5 trillion dollar company. I think they'll do just fine under criticism. Wait, so you automatically dislike anything that is above {certain capital amount}? The typical pub argument driven by beer and class warfare memes, I see. How insightful. Apple will be just fine under your vicious criticism even it was bankrupt, because none of this is about Apple per se, it's about us trying to figure out the world around us in a forum. Apple isn't part of this, no one in there will read this noise. But you've figured everything out, apparently: "X rich, so X evil on purpose". I wasn't "defending" Apple, but describing something that happens in virtually any service of scale, be it private or public. It would be an interesting discussion how we can organize our systems to improve on such problems, but that discussion can't really happen, when met with the banality of your premature conclusions.
      - echelon 5y ago
        > Wait, so you automatically dislike anything that is above {certain capital amount}? The typical pub argument driven by beer and class warfare memes, I see. How insightful. You don't need to respond like this. > something that happens in virtually any service of scale, A music and artist focused startup or business has no problem catering to artists. Apple doesn't have the bandwidth, care, or attention to care as much. They're using this service to soak up attention and entrench their moat. Unfortunately, Apple and the FAMGA giants soak up all the revenue and attention. If the DOJ stepped in and required these companies to split along business unit lines, the probability we'd be having this discussion would be much lower. > Apple isn't part of this, no one in there will read this noise. But you've figured everything out, apparently: "X rich, so X evil on purpose". Apple is part of a recent trend of tech monopolies consuming all markets. I'm not trying to reach Apple, I'm talking with my legislators. My hope is that the DOJ will break up these companies so that good, healthy competition can take place again. A company that cares deeply about music and artists would serve everyone better than Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon.
        historyloop 5y ago
        > A music and artist focused startup or business has no problem catering to artists. You forgot to name one. > My hope is that the DOJ will break up these companies so that good, healthy competition can take place again. You think DOJ has to break up Apple Music off so this artist up there will be allowed to post non-face face photos on his account. Nice. A bit killing a fly with a tank, if you ask me. > A company that cares deeply about music and artists would serve everyone better than Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. We have lots of those companies. And I don't see how they're strictly "better" than Apple, Google or Amazon. Each has their fans and users. Your problem is clearly absolutely unrelated to what the artist up there complained about.

echelon 5y ago

I think you're apologizing for Apple. To Apple, this is a business to keep more of their customers locked into the Applesphere. As long as they're retained, they can tax all commerce associated with these people: apps, subscriptions, payments, media, etc. They're operating like a machine with a glazed and polished process. Apple doesn't love music or musicians. If they did, they wouldn't pull this shit.

historyloop 5y ago
I've the feeling you brought your generic Apple rant into a specific issue about profile photos, where it doesn't fit.
- echelon 5y ago
  Apple is a 2.5 trillion dollar company. I think they'll do just fine under criticism. Meanwhile, the person you responded to is a creator and just wants a basic level of service. Maybe you should listen to people raising their voices instead of defending a company that certainly doesn't need your help.
  - historyloop 5y ago
    > Apple is a 2.5 trillion dollar company. I think they'll do just fine under criticism. Wait, so you automatically dislike anything that is above {certain capital amount}? The typical pub argument driven by beer and class warfare memes, I see. How insightful. Apple will be just fine under your vicious criticism even it was bankrupt, because none of this is about Apple per se, it's about us trying to figure out the world around us in a forum. Apple isn't part of this, no one in there will read this noise. But you've figured everything out, apparently: "X rich, so X evil on purpose". I wasn't "defending" Apple, but describing something that happens in virtually any service of scale, be it private or public. It would be an interesting discussion how we can organize our systems to improve on such problems, but that discussion can't really happen, when met with the banality of your premature conclusions.
    - echelon 5y ago
      > Wait, so you automatically dislike anything that is above {certain capital amount}? The typical pub argument driven by beer and class warfare memes, I see. How insightful. You don't need to respond like this. > something that happens in virtually any service of scale, A music and artist focused startup or business has no problem catering to artists. Apple doesn't have the bandwidth, care, or attention to care as much. They're using this service to soak up attention and entrench their moat. Unfortunately, Apple and the FAMGA giants soak up all the revenue and attention. If the DOJ stepped in and required these companies to split along business unit lines, the probability we'd be having this discussion would be much lower. > Apple isn't part of this, no one in there will read this noise. But you've figured everything out, apparently: "X rich, so X evil on purpose". Apple is part of a recent trend of tech monopolies consuming all markets. I'm not trying to reach Apple, I'm talking with my legislators. My hope is that the DOJ will break up these companies so that good, healthy competition can take place again. A company that cares deeply about music and artists would serve everyone better than Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon.
      - historyloop 5y ago
        > A music and artist focused startup or business has no problem catering to artists. You forgot to name one. > My hope is that the DOJ will break up these companies so that good, healthy competition can take place again. You think DOJ has to break up Apple Music off so this artist up there will be allowed to post non-face face photos on his account. Nice. A bit killing a fly with a tank, if you ask me. > A company that cares deeply about music and artists would serve everyone better than Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. We have lots of those companies. And I don't see how they're strictly "better" than Apple, Google or Amazon. Each has their fans and users. Your problem is clearly absolutely unrelated to what the artist up there complained about.