3 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoAlso, 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 agothat 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 agoOh I agree. Occam's razor gets in the way when I try and consider that this giant conspiracy happened.
- lips 11y agoAnd yet I bet people wouldn't consider Ian Mackaye to be "whining."