One of the largest entertainment media companies in the world. I don't really think they need much by way of additional exposure.
Instead of seeing it as competition - see it as supplementary stories. If some fan stuff is good enough, then endorse it instead.
Why? What does Paramount get out of it?
After years of saying it was fine and encouraging them to invest so much time, money and effort into fan series they can't just pull the rug now.
Yes they can. A contract's only good until it expires, and they worked under the terms they were given. They made their choice.
Fat shaming = sexist?
If it's about valuing women based on physical appearance, yes. Women are not objects.
The rules are the same for any company. Spotify wasn't abused or picked on. They want Apple to make special rules for them.
No, they want Apple to allow them to operate on a level playing field in competition with Apple's competing services, because if they don't, Spotify will sink much quicker than they otherwise will. The writing's already on the wall for Spotify, as they're not going to be able to compete with bundled video+music packages in the long run. But as it stands, Apple's fees and policies mean Spotify must be 13% more efficient than Apple's service to be able to offer an equivalent service at the same price.
I would love to see a situation where Apple's policy on commission for all subscriptions is successfully overturned. However, if Apple was only forced to make allowances to apps and services that compete with their own apps, that too would be a good thing. (Consider how many alternatives to Pages, GarageBand, iMovie etc there are, and they all have the double competitive disadvantage that Apple promotes their own apps in the essentials category, and takes a large cut of their competitors' profits.)
Now go back to the days when music occupied the airwaves? How much did they get then? zero. But what was the benefit? It's free advertising. Streaming is no different.
Streaming is very different. Imagine a showroom for washing machines where you can try them out by washing your clothes. There's no limit to the number of times you can come in and try them out. Is that an free advertising for Indesit, Zanussi, Hoover etc? No, because it undermines demand for washing machines. Now imagine that the showroom pays the suppliers a fraction of the usual wholesale cost for their washers. The washing machine makers lose out.
Google, Apple and MS all built huge empires and they have every right to occasionally strong arm competitors.
No, they don't. That's why we have antitrust laws and the like.
Apple was being unfair to artists, not its customers. Spotify customers who are paying through the app itself are the ones affected by the changes in Spotify's app, and Spotify has the gall to paint the situation as though these rules have suddenly changed.
I am no fan of Spotify -- as with all streaming services, they shortchange musicians. However, the fact is that they're operating in a space where margins are exceptionally tight (and all their competitors are shortchanging musicians, too) -- Apple's cut is humungous in relation to most of the other costs in the system, and it takes a dubious business model and makes it unworkable.
And what does Apple bring to the table? People keep saying it brings the customers, but that's a two-way street -- there are plenty of Spotify users whose decision on what tablet or phone to buy would be heavily coloured by the unavailability of Spotify on a given platform. And Apple does not bring users to Spotify -- Apple passively facilitates it. They don't promote many apps, and Spotify has to advertise independently to get any awareness. Apple is trying to make a 500% markup by offering credit card processing facilities that Spotify still have to duplicate from someone else anyway (because Apple do not offer general payments processing that non-iOS customers can access) on customers that Spotify have to get for themselves.
Apple is not a shop. They do not stock the shelves. They rely on third-parties to do that for them, and the third-parties take on all the risk; then they skim the cream off the top of all income while assuming no risk themselves. I'm grateful for the fact that I can trust most apps to be secure on my iPad, but their payment system is crazy.
Bribes are the only way to get things done, it's part of their culture(s) and they see nothing wrong with it.
The question is: was it a part of their culture before white Europeans first bribed them?
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.