6 ms·

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

by jws 11y ago

luma 11y ago
So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.
- tdkl 11y ago
  > So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. Except first features downloading and owning it and the other streaming rights through certain period of time.
- donarb 11y ago
  Apple is giving away three months of its software and servers for the streaming service. After the 3 month period, both Apple and the label/artist get paid.
- jws 11y ago
  Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry… In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system. Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them. Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets. About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    > Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. Of course they do. No music, no product.
fenomas 11y ago
But once Apple's service starts, the costs to develop it are already paid. Therefore it's a sunk cost, and we don't need to consider it here. ...right?

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

by jws 11y ago

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

luma 11y ago

So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.

tdkl 11y ago
> So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. Except first features downloading and owning it and the other streaming rights through certain period of time.
donarb 11y ago
Apple is giving away three months of its software and servers for the streaming service. After the 3 month period, both Apple and the label/artist get paid.
jws 11y ago
Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry… In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system. Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them. Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets. About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. Of course they do. No music, no product.

fenomas 11y ago

But once Apple's service starts, the costs to develop it are already paid. Therefore it's a sunk cost, and we don't need to consider it here. ...right?