[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Yes so go and see my original post on that, you do drag it out don't you

You clearly think insults reinforce your point, they don't, they emphasise its weakness.

I haven't insulted you, I've just asked you to explain your bizarre posting manner in this thread. Is the difference too subtle for you?

[alanwarwic]

Apples PR department, otherwise known as the Guardian has shed better light on the matter.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...e-stream-drake

Looks like it was the rappers manager who chose to pull the plug on the stream, obviously taking no risks on the lucrative contract, even if it made things look quite bad.

If it is right that each entity is spiltting into exlusive deals then things look bleaker for non crowd pulling artists, celebrities emptying the pot before per play deals kick in.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Apples PR department, otherwise known as the Guardian has shed better light on the matter.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...e-stream-drake

Looks like it was the rappers manager who chose to pull the plug on the stream, obviously taking no risks on the lucrative contract, even if it made things look quite bad.

If it is right that each entity is spiltting into exlusive deals then things look bleaker for non crowd pulling artists, celebrities emptying the pot before per play deals kick in.

Well, it seems my view was correct. It was a publicity stunt by Tidal.

The quotes make it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with Apple or his contract.

Another conspiracy theory torn to shreds.

[alanwarwic]

Well, comments are in, and they are livid about the late reporting of this.
' This whole story is fishy, as is the fact that prior to the statement defending Apple, it received very little coverage. That is to say, coverage when Apple looked like bullies was under reported, coverage implying that Tidal are being dishonest in blaming Apple has been picked up by most of the newspapers.'
http://www.theguardian.com/discussion/p/4cx7d
Sounds fair.

I was curious and Googled Tidal, mainly getting Bloomberg doing a fair few hatchet jobs on them of recent.
Heres one 'feature'
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...een-a-disaster

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Well, comments are in, and they are livid about the late reporting of this.
' This whole story is fishy, as is the fact that prior to the statement defending Apple, it received very little coverage. That is to say, coverage when Apple looked like bullies was under reported, coverage implying that Tidal are being dishonest in blaming Apple has been picked up by most of the newspapers.'
http://www.theguardian.com/discussion/p/4cx7d
Sounds fair.

I was curious and Googled Tidal, mainly getting Bloomberg doing a fair few hatchet jobs on them of recent.
Heres one 'feature'
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...een-a-disaster

There is loads of reporting of this prior to the agents statement, so maybe the person who wrote that one of 6 comments needs to use google more.

I googled 'tidal' and got the one article from Bloomberg, and several from all sorts of sites reporting how it appears to be failing.

I'm sure some conspiracy theory will make it the fault of Apple

[alanwarwic]

I had hardly heard of Tidal until now

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)

So it is an expensive service, but being Pono quality it is for those who want Hi Fidelity sound. Its interesting in that negative Spotify stories abounded at the same time as the negative Tidal stuff.
Life is so weird these days. In the past Pono would have been embraced but similarly we, on the whole got negative Pono stories.

Tidal pay the highest royalties according to that Wiki.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

I had hardly heard of Tidal until now

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)

So it is an expensive service, but being Pono quality it is for those who want Hi Fidelity sound. Its interesting in that negative Spotify stories abounded at the same time as the negative Tidal stuff.
Life is so weird these days. In the past Pono would have been embraced but similarly we, on the whole got negative Pono stories.

Tidal pay the highest royalties according to that Wiki.

Well, maybe there are not enough of those that want HiFi sound at that price point. They may have misread the market.

As for negative Tidal and Spotify stories 'abound at the same time', I wouldn't have a clue if that was true. How do you come to that conclusion ?

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

I haven't insulted you, I've just asked you to explain your bizarre posting manner in this thread. Is the difference too subtle for you?

Quote:

hard for you to comprehend basic English .... makes you look like a deranged juvenile .... like a hysterical adolescent

Of course such aggressive phrasing may be the basic currency of any conversation you undertake, who knows.

[alanwarwic]

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/...arm-to-service

Complaints from Spotify this time. I also saw in an article said elsewhere that Apple makes more off a Spotify ubscription than it does with an Apple music subscription. Whether true, and how many actually subscibe to Spotify via the app store I have no idea.

"The letter says Apple turned down a new version of the app while citing “business model rules” and demanded that Spotify use Apple’s billing system if “Spotify wants to use the app to acquire new customers and sell subscriptions.”
http://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/1206...tore-rejection

[darkjedimaster]

Last year I had an Apple Ipod Touch 3rd Generation which I loved, however the tools at Apple only allowed Spotify to run on devices that were compatible with the latest IOS & unfortunately the 3rd Gen Ipod Touch wasn't on the list of compatible devices for that particular version of IOS.

So I was left with the choice of Selling my Ipod Touch & using the money towards a 4th Gen Touch, or just sell it & use my Note 4 for Spotify. I ended up doing just that as there was a good chance that Apple would repeat history and do the same again, force owners to buy the newer devices.

Because of this I won't ever buy an Apple device again

[alanwarwic]

It is a dilemma.

Apple devices are proprietary so it is fair to pretect their proprieary apps.
However Apple Music is a latecomer to the proprietary platform.

I think Slotify found that 30% fees more acceptable when it was only competing against non Apple services. New, unkowing customers, when comparing, only see that the Apple service is cheaper.
They really do need to be told the #3 surcharge is only there if they pay in-app.

[Roush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkjedimaster

Last year I had an Apple Ipod Touch 3rd Generation which I loved, however the tools at Apple only allowed Spotify to run on devices that were compatible with the latest IOS & unfortunately the 3rd Gen Ipod Touch wasn't on the list of compatible devices for that particular version of IOS.

So I was left with the choice of Selling my Ipod Touch & using the money towards a 4th Gen Touch, or just sell it & use my Note 4 for Spotify. I ended up doing just that as there was a good chance that Apple would repeat history and do the same again, force owners to buy the newer devices.

Because of this I won't ever buy an Apple device again

Firstly, this was more Spotify's choice than Apple's. Spotify chose to update the app to use features specific to a new iOS version.

Secondly, Apple provided a solution 3 years ago that allows app vendors to leave older versions of the app available to users of older iOS versions to solve exactly this problem.