IssueRaiser

> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period...

> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period... Small nit to pick on this one, but presumably Apple had negotiated this with the artists' labels. My (totally unfounded) assumption is that record labels saw the return on Apple Music being better/more consistent than album sales, and worth foregoing those initial three months of revenue. > ... they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise. I think that we're only seeing adblockers this late in Mobile Safari's lifecycle because advertisements have become such a pain point for users. I'd imagine that Apple saw an opportunity to make ads less intrusive, more consistent, and add them to their revenue stream in one move.

Posted by thelambentonion on Jun 25, 2015, 1:06 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,500 issues0 comments

hackernews (Marketing)

> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period...

thelambentonionJun 25, 2015, 1:06 PM

> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period... Small nit to pick on this one, but presumably Apple had negotiated this with the artists' labels. My (totally unfounded) assumption is that record labels saw the return on Apple Music being better/more consistent than album sales, and worth foregoing those initial three months of revenue. > ... they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise. I think that we're only seeing adblockers this late in Mobile Safari's lifecycle because advertisements have become such a pain point for users. I'd imagine that Apple saw an opportunity to make ads less intrusive, more consistent, and add them to their revenue stream in one move.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue