8 ms·

Wow, this analysis just seems right. They sign a deal with TS, get her to be "outraged" then Apple does a 180 and then says it will pay the artists. TS looks g

• 001sky 11y ago
  Record labels attack Apple deals that would leave them 'completely screwed' Independents claim they could be forced out of business by free trial of new streaming service and withold popular artists such as Adele http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/11679030/Record-labels-attack-Apple-deals-that-would-leave-them-completely-screwed.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol... This was the british press about 5 days ago, so I don't think it was that cynical. TS seems to have been the straw tha nudged the issue over the top. Losing adele and taylor swift starts to give the product a black eye at some stage. Apple has $$$$ plenty in the bank to subsidze a 3 month operating loss (or whatever).
• jen729w 11y ago
  You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here. Apple screwed up, Swift is influential, they probably thought they could get a bit of good PR from changing their minds, and they did. End of story.
  • chinhodado 11y ago
    > think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work TS, her lawyer, some top guys in Apple and their marketing division? It could very realistically be less than 5 people. I don't say I support the theory, just want to point out that it doesn't take much to write an open letter and then respond to it on Twitter.
    • _asummers 11y ago
      Does TS really have to know? I think her outrage would be more believable if she didn't.
      • sangnoir 11y ago
        How sure are you the outrage is 'hers' in the first place if it was in written form on a blog? Believe me, her tirade was edited, vetted and revised by multiple parties six ways to Sunday. It matters very little if the original author was TS herself.
        • protomyth 11y ago
          And your proof of that is?
          • sangnoir 11y ago
            No proof. This is the role of artist management companies. Taylor Swift has her own management company. All this gs being equal they managed her post. I could similarly claim "OS X El Capitan is being QA tested six ways to Sunday" without being in Cupertino. You could ask me for proof and I would have none.
        • obstinate 11y ago
          > Believe me From what authority do you speak on this topic?
          • sangnoir 11y ago
            no authority whatsoever. My statement is unfalsifiable unless TS/her team steps fprward.I admit it's all conjecture, but I should note that TS had a publicist handling her public relation for 7 years before moving that function in-house to her management company. TS has so far given me the impression of being business savvy and if I'm charitable to assume competence of her management company, I'd assume she would shy from legal minefields Given the above priors, my estimation is that her lateat blog-post (like all others) was vetted by publicist(s) & legal advisor(s). YMMV.
  • justindocanto 11y ago
    Although I dont think this was all intentional (see: letter sent to news companies re: news app), lets play devil's advocate. It doesn't require everybody to be in on it to execute this. It only requires one entity and that's apple. Apple pings indie artists they know will get mad. The singer of the brian jonestown massacre is known for his rants. They get a bunch of people pissed off "Free music.. free music..." and wait for it to go viral. Then, flip the script and campaign done. But again, i think they just did a good job of turning this nightmare into a positive.
    • madeofpalk 11y ago
      Also, over at /r/apple it became 'fact' that it would actually be illegal for Apple to have a three month free trial due to anti-competitive behaviour - it could be seen as them using their large cash resources to dump or flood the market to gain an unfair advantage. Wearing my altruistic tin-foil-hat, I would argue that Apple wanted to pay indie artists all along (because it's art and they respect them!), but were afraid of the antitrust implications of doing that (re: ebooks litigation). So they made this deal (of not paying artists) to go public, knowing it will 'backfire' and Apple would have the grounds to 'reverse' their decision and pay artists.
      • jrs99 11y ago
        that they wouldn't pay artists initially is pretty bad press, to me, at least. Even with the 180, apple doesn't look good here, in my opinion. swift has a lot of influence on her fans. It's not a minor threat that apple is facing.
        • madeofpalk 11y ago
          Oh I agree. Occam's razor gets in the way when I try and consider that this giant conspiracy happened.
        • lips 11y ago
          And yet I bet people wouldn't consider Ian Mackaye to be "whining."
  • Eric_WVGG 11y ago
    Occam's Razor, man… the problem with conspiracy theories is that they require everything to work flawlessly and EVERYONE to keep their mouths shut. nonsense.
    • hellgas00 11y ago
      NSA was spying on people for years before it was made public, tens of thousands of people had managed to keep their mouths shut. Collusion is a thing that happens all of the time, and considering the money involved its bound to happen again.
      • icebraining 11y ago
        No, it wasn't. In fact, many of us were surprised at the outrage of people around here, since we thought it was common knowledge. Even the European Parliament had issued a report back in 2000 about the widespread communications/internet spying. See ECHELON. See also Mark Klein's denouncement of their AT&T spying, which prompted a lawsuit by the EFF back in 2006, charging them with having created an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance". There had been plenty of leaks over the years.
    • WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      So there's never been a conspiracy, ever? It's nonsense to think Occam's Razor is a kind of proof.
  • notatoad 11y ago
    I don't believe the conspiracy theory that they colluded with Taylor Swift either. But I don't think they would have had to - she's been fairly vocal about free streaming the last couple months, this reaction should have been easily expected. Far more likely than apple planning this with her is apple anticipating her reaction (or if not her, somebody. Jay Z likes to make noise about streaming royalties too). Either they get a reaction from a celebrity and get to dominate the news cycles with their new product for a while, or they get to set a new precedent of not paying artists. Either way, apple wins.
    • XorNot 11y ago
      Eh. Conspiracy theories thrive because people just can't believe that morally-grey area people seem to keep making out like bandits from bad situations. No one did anything. A thing happened, it backfired, some people sat down and figured out a solution, are still richer then you will ever be at the end.
  • infamouscow 11y ago
    By your logic: non-disclosure/secrecy agreements would never work either.
    • jen729w 11y ago
      Do they work? I'm thinking out loud, but I see two types of case: 1. People care enough about what's being kept secret, e.g. the Apple Watch. As a result, it leaks and the agreement didn't work. 2. People don't actually care about what's being kept secret because it's really boring, e.g. almost every corporate agreement. So yeah, nobody talks, but that's because nobody cares.
  • mistermann 11y ago
    > think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. a) Successful secrecy of new product development at Apple b) Snowden revelations c) Other things that we don't know about because people can keep their mouths shut
    • interpol_p 11y ago
      > a) Successful secrecy of new product development at Apple Now days pretty much every Apple product leaks in some way prior to announcement. From manufacturing CAD schematics to actual hardware prototypes.
  • KevanM 11y ago
    You only need three people to form a conspiracy; two people to conspire against a third party. Tim, Taylor and the public.
  • calibwam 11y ago
    I don't think Swift is so influential as everybody thinks. Apple turned so fast after her open letter, it makes me think they were already thinking about it. Not that Swifts letter was meaningless, but stuff usually takes a bit longer in the corporate world.
  • golergka 11y ago
    Oh, they could easily let things slip: but it's not the kind of information that would create a sensation from an anonymous tip. If someone would go on record and tell the journalists the whole story, yes — but Apple is known to successfully avoid this kind of disclosure. And if some PR person would tell it a friend over a drink in a bar, I don't believe that this could potentially explode.
• mattmc 11y ago
  I mean, that sounds feasible, but I seriously doubt that is what actually occurred. I would give Apple the benefit of the doubt here, until WikiLeaks turns up some incriminating emails or something.