The album reportedly cost Apple $100 million, a figure the company is likely to eat. Rather than generating the kind of hype Apple is accustomed to, Songs of Innocence generated a huge Twitter backlash, with the company posting a guide on how to remove the album from your library on its support page. Most damningly, Wired’s Vijith Assar called the “devious giveaway” no better than “spam.”Actually, he said it was "Even Worse Than Spam."
September 19, 2014
"How U2 became the most hated band in America."
U2's Songs of Innocence "was released as part of Apple’s keynote event, dished out to iTunes subscribers for free."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
That move made no sense to me. Radio stations discovered long ago that people have highly individualized taste in music. That's why they divided themselves into genre stations. No one wants to have music they don't like forced into their personal music platform. If I wanted to hear random music I might not like, I would listen to the radio, not my Apple device.
I have no particularly strong opinions on U2 one way or the other, but that article focused on how the band is perceived by hipsters and not on the music they actually make. They focus on whether the name wrote is music in an attempt to be more popular, not whether the music is good. If anything, it is criticism of pop culture more than the band.
What a lame method to set a distribution record for U2.
Talk about first world problems. Oh my god! I got my unnecessary shiny brand new expensive gadget the second it came out and it had something extra that I didn't want and had to go out of my way to remove it! Life is so unfair!
U2 needs to reply to this by recording a video cover of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"
Go the full Rick-Roll to make fun of the backlash, and the counter backlash.
Imagine if it was a Jay-Z album that got forced into everyone's music library: you can practically hear the howls of old whites going on about how inappropriate it was -- oh no! Their widdle children would be exposed to such horror! And, well: blackness!
A group of over-the-hill white guys, however: that's just a misguided promotional stunt, that's all. Because everyone all over the world loves over-the-hill white guys, right? They're white: they meant well...
And Bono: it hasn't been forgotten that you couldn't even get the timing of MLK's death right on "Pride (In the Name of Love)". I don't know, maybe you were distracted by a light bulb up your ass at the time...
It is turtles all the way down...
The iPod had a really nice UI, but I decided long ago that I would never own one as long as someone else got a say in what music was added to or removed from my device.
I go with a bare-bones mp3 player and still buy my music on CDs so that I know I have control.
Apple has shown itself to be fairly insulated and prone to groupthink. This much is clear from ex-employees who've moved on to other companies. I'm not surprised that their upper management was taken by surprise; anyone who had objections probably either kept their mouth shut or was too "unimportant" in the company to be listened to.
One wonders if this misstep would've happened if Jobs were still alive. The guy was a dictatorial jerk, and wasn't as smart as he thought himself to be (let alone as smart as others tried to paint him as), but he was able to discern what would go over well with Apple users and what wouldn't. I'm hard pressed to think he would've given this stunt his go-ahead had he still been around.
I don't much care for U2, but I like gifts, promotions and free stuff. I'm lame that way.
Anyways, thanks.
Henry Rollins was ahead of his time: 'I Hate U2', from A Boxed Life.
I don't hate you. I hate weakness...
The most hated band in America? I'd love to know how many people are even vaguely familiar with this Apple-U2 incident. My bet is that it is maybe 10-15%, at most, and that U2's next tour will be another blockbuster. (Their 2009-2011 tour was the highest grossing tour in history: $700+ million.)
The headlines are just more tiresome hipster narcissism.
I've never been keen on U2, but I can't fathom this outrage over being given a free album. Don't want it? Remove it.
"Talk about first world problems. Oh my god!"
True.
"I got my unnecessary shiny brand new expensive gadget the second it came out and it had something extra that I didn't want and had to go out of my way to remove it!"
It wasn't just installed on the new iPhones. I have an iPhone 5 (two years old), and it appeared in my iTunes cloud. (This means it isn't on my device until I download the individual tracks to listen to them.)I don't know if this happened when I upgraded to their latest software, iOS 8, or if this was pushed to everyone.
Am I outraged? No. Will I bother listening to the album? Probably not. Will I bother removing it from my cloud? Probably not.
Bono. Blech.
It should be asked whether U2's manager from day one, Paul McGuinness, who sold his Principle Management last year, would have bought into the idea without Oseary taking over hoping to make a splash.
All change at U2 Inc as Paul McGuinness plans to step down
The position of U2′s fifth man to be taken by Madonna’s manager Guy Oseary
It’s what you’d call a very big deal. Per the New York Times, Paul McGuinness, who has handled U2′s management affairs since the year dot, is in the middle of negotiations to sell Principle Management to Live Nation. The purported $30 million deal, which would also see the live music giant buy Madonna’s entertainment company Maverick, would then see Guy Oseary take over U2′s day-to-day management.
While the deal is still in negotiation, McGuinness nonetheless released a statement to the Times which put his spin on things:
“It could be seen as slightly poor etiquette for a manager to consider retiring before his artist has split, quit or died, but U2 have never subscribed to the rock and roll code of conduct. As I approach the musically relevant age of 64 I have resolved to take a less hands-on role as the band embark on the next cycle of their extraordinary career."
U2's next tour will be another blockbuster. (Their 2009-2011 tour was the highest grossing tour in history: $700+ million.)
Sure, they'll be fine, but they are turning into the Bruce Springsteen for the next generation. I remember watching Matt Lauer practically wet himself over The Boss on Today some years ago as a teenager. I was completely mystified, because he sucked so bad. U2 is becoming like that. The rich middle aged people will still shell out the big bucks, but that's it.
I may hate hipsters, but on this, I can say, "good work."
I am more sensitive than most to the bandwidth concerns that have been raised elsewhere--that it isn't "free" if it burns through data for which one is paying. That Californian tech companies' staffs are incapable of imagining that people might use their products differently than they themselves use them is pretty well-established.
But my general take on people giving me a gift for free, a gift that they worked to produce, is gratitude.
So I suppose that my message to the complainers is "fuck you," and my message to Vijith Assar is that he is very much correct to say that this matters as much as Condi Rice's appointment to the dropbox board, which is to say "this doesn't matter."
This reminds me a lot of what happens when a parent starts singing along to one of their teenager's songs, thus instantly rendering it forever uncool.
Apple was like Mom handing teenage you an album of old people music in front of your friends, the kiss of death to any coolness that age had not already taken from U2.
Questions abounded even a year ago. More...
UPDATE: As you could imagine, the story about Paul McGuinness stepping down has dominated the news cycle in the last 24 hours or so. However, there are still many unanswered questions around what’s happened. Whatever about what I think about U2′s music of late, I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for their business acumen and how they’ve ran a tight ship over the course of their career. This move, though, is a little all over the place and doesn’t have quite the 360-degrees-attention-to-detail that we’ve come to regard as standard from Planet U2.
For instance, does anyone else think it’s strange that the band haven’t issued a statement on all of this? You’d think they would have some very kind, flowery words to say about their long-time manager – and the man most responsible for their business success – stepping down after 35 years to go along with McGuinness’ own statement. Also, isn’t it odd that Guy Oseary has already been at work on deals and meetings for the band, per Billboard, and there hasn’t been any statement from Bono saying “hey Guy, welcome to the gang, tell Madge we’ll be around for tea and sandwiches later”? And when exactly did Oseary move into the driving seat and why was that kept quiet for so long?
Furthermore, what exactly are Live Nation’s shareholders buying here? Remember that Live Nation have had a lucrative 12 year deal in place with the band since 2008 so purchasing Principle seems a mite over-the-top unless they’re that desperate to get their mitts on Paddy Casey’s old contracts.
Of course, there are also many other questions which will only be answered in time, such as will Oseary move his loyal lieutenants into place to replace long-standing U2 Inc executives? It’s very rare that a new manager, be it in sports or music, doesn’t do something to exert his own influence, be it dropping a player or sacking a drummer. While I can’t see Oseary firing Larry Mullen, he will no doubt be keen to have his own men and women watching his back. This is a fascinating story which is far from over.
U2bots are amongst my most despised fan groups (them and Broncos fans).
The level of Bono worship is scary with them.
Stupid people complaining about bad music they get for free because they prefer worse music.
Apple looks best in all this, but they could have saved a great deal of money, and some trouble, if they had put in something actually worthwhile like say Elina Garanca singing pieces out of Carmen.
Any complainers would have looked even more like fools.
"I've never been keen on U2, but I can't fathom this outrage over being given a free album. Don't want it? Remove it."
Have you ever tried to remove something from an iPad?
I liked Joshua Tree when it came out. That makes me old, right? But not as old as Bono.
betamax3000 said...
Imagine if it was a Jay-Z album that got forced into everyone's music library: you can practically hear the howls of old whites going on about how inappropriate it was -- oh no! Their widdle children would be exposed to such horror! And, well: blackness!
A group of over-the-hill white guys, however: that's just a misguided promotional stunt, that's all. Because everyone all over the world loves over-the-hill white guys, right? They're white: they meant well...
And Bono: it hasn't been forgotten that you couldn't even get the timing of MLK's death right on "Pride (In the Name of Love)". I don't know, maybe you were distracted by a light bulb up your ass at the time...
It is turtles all the way down...
Ha ha
Crack hidin' in the boys room 'till beta goes home.
One hundred million? Yikes!
I prefer undiscovered alt/indie bands. I like my music to be good but obscure and my concerts in a club venue. I would not appreciate an Apple-decided gift of U2 music to be brought into my collection. I'm glad I download from Amazon mp3 and not iTunes.
The sort of people who write for and read Salon vastly overestimate their incidence in the broader population.
"I prefer undiscovered alt/indie bands. I like my music to be good but obscure and my concerts in a club venue."
I don't know how old you are, Danno, but this was the kind of attitude I had when I was younger. Now that that I'm in my "late youth,"** (as I like to call it, heh!), I know there is no such thing as "cool" or "uncool" music. There is only music that one enjoys and music that one doesn't enjoy.
**(I'm about three months older than Johnny Rotten/Lydon, a musical hero of mine in his--and my--youthful heyday.)
Robert Cook wrote: I know there is no such thing as "cool" or "uncool" music.
"If it sounds good, it is good." -- Duke Ellington (via Peter Schickele)
I was happy about the free album-- I'd been feeling nostaligic for my long-lost pirated cassette of Joshua Tree, and my BMG Music club cassette of Achtung Baby...... So... the free U2 fills a hole, albeit imperfectly.
Thanks, Apple!
Apple and U2 jump the shark together, though Bono probably did that years ago when he was palling around with Jesse Helms. Quite the torrid affair they had.
I saw U2 open for J. Geils Band back in...1982? Bono was climbing all over the rigging. God knows why. Then Peter Wolf and his band utterly blew them off the stage, out the door, and into the street.
If there were justice in the universe, J. Geils would have made it as big as U2....
If there were justice in the universe, J. Geils would have made it as big as U2....
True.
But it's okay, I understand this ain't no never never-land.
The Wired article makes a couple decent points that seem mostly lost on the people here. First, in addition to not being free (as noted above), it's also not so easy to delete (and if not deleted properly, will continually re-load, making it ever-increasingly not free).
Second, it is an ominous own-goal by Apple, who have the ability to predict fairly well which of their users would want this album, but chose not to bother.
Madison Man FTW
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Next for U2: Superbowl Halftime!
Ugh. All I need to know is that Salon.com thinks U2 is abominable. That's enough to make me actually like them again. I think I'll give the previously downloaded music a listen. Finally.
I think if you ask ANY band in the world what their ultimate goal is, they should tell you: to make millions and have worldwide adulation. If they tell you anything different (such as: they're out to Save the Planet), you can smile at them knowing that they're full of shit and either too young to know or too ______ (fill in the blank).
In the case of U2, they lost me years ago because their music had a shelf life that had been well passed. But, they are one of the very, very few who started from nothing and became as big around the world as you can get- for a moment in time. A lot try it. VERY FEW do it. That should not be slighted. It should be recognized, in some ways, celebrated. At the very least, acknowledged.
Instead, we have the usual suspects dragging any individual or group that has risen above the rest, back down to the rest. The nerve of the success of Apple AND U2- together? We can't have that. A pox on all of them.
Or…we can download and enjoy listening, knowing that someone at Salon.com is grinding his/her teeth at night. Schadenfreude.
I'm still not clear on what happened since I've heard different accounts from iTunes people. Some say that the album was free, but not downloaded, other say it automatically downloaded, others say that it downloaded only if you have "download all updates" checked while others claim that wasn't true either.
Regardless, a provider inserting their own content into your private list is a bit creepy. It's more than, say, sending a free magazine through the mail, but having the company walk into your house and put that magazine on your coffee table.
It makes Apple's 1984 ad rather ironic.
The better approach would have to have just made the album free to anyone with iTunes, but they would still have to click on "buy".
(To me, this incident reinforces the attitude by Apple that their uses are simply borrowing Apple's technology and that Apple still runs the show. The previous post about passwords is indicative of this.)
Seems like Apple and U2 were thinking about "First I Look at the Purse".
"For the first week, it was literally impossible to delete the U2 album, because it had been registered as a “past purchase” for every user of the iTunes Music Store."
So, the problem isn't the free-but-mandatory download, it's that once you're in Apple's proprietary universe you have to live with iTunes.
On just about any other type of device, you can just delete what you no longer want.
I can see where unwanted downloads could be a problem if they were so frequent they spammed up your device, thus requiring a continuing low-level effort to clean up.
But this is just one (OK, one album) download. The problem isn't the download but iTunes tripping over itself along with Apple's design that requires the use of iTunes for media downloads.
"It makes Apple's 1984 ad rather ironic."
The ad was ironic even when it was new.
In that year, IBM dominated the personal computer market yet there was a riot of third-party hardware and software products available for it. Indeed, IBM's control of this market was so weak that just a few years later it lost control of the PC market entirely, and was forced out of it.
Whereas the Apple Mac of that year was a closed box; no matter how much you paid for it, Apple controlled what you could do with it.
Why would anyone at the time that ad aired have associated the IBM PC market with Big Brother, and Apple with freedom when reality was the opposite?
But this is just one (OK, one album) download. The problem isn't the download but iTunes tripping over itself along with Apple's design that requires the use of iTunes for media downloads.
I think the issue people had with not being able to delete it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it could show up when you set it to shuffle play. So amidst a playlist of all grindcore, death metal, and crust punk you'd suddenly get Bono wailing and warbling.
"If there were justice in the universe, J. Geils would have made it as big as U2.... "
I liked J. Geils when I was younger, but listening to them now, I can't help but think they suck. There stuff just doesn't hold up. Their best album was Full House and the only song I continue to like is Whammer Jammer. Probably because that idiot Woofer Goofer with the Green Teeth isn't on it. (Not to mention Magic Dick's outstanding harp work).
And I'm from Boston, too! Sacrilege!
I fell in love with U2 when I heard the song "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" for the first time.
My oldest son was born in 1987 and is named Joshua partially because the big album at that time was "The Joshua Tree."
I saw U2 perform at a three-day concert at Nurburgring (a racetrack with a HUGE infield) when I was stationed with the US Air Force in Germany. It was the "War" tour.
During the performance of "Gloria," Bono climbed up in the rigging, got onto the pit buildings and ran up and down the length of the crowd leading and exhorting them to join in the chorus with him. That went on for about 15 minutes. It was GREAT! I don't know about today, but back then he was an awesome showman.
I kinda dig "The Original of the Species" but the rest of their new stuff is just Meh.
I would not turn down the free download, but I wouldn't go out and buy it either.
So, not a fanboi, nor someone opposed to free shit. But thanks for the discussion that triggered those memories of a good time in my life.
Just my two cents
I thought Nickleback and Creed were the most hated bands in America? Damn Irish, America just can't compete anymore.
Nit-Twitter is joined by a-Twitter to make a comeback in the popular lexicon.
Wired is crap, has been for ages.
But it was a terrible idea, both because U2 is a giant has-been, and because people feel very strongly about personally curating their music libraries.
(Contra people complaining about "people whining about getting a free album", well - they didn't want it, and it felt like an invasion, because someone's music library is a private, personal space.
I just don't, per Wired, view giving the album away as "devious", just "a stupid miscalculation".
Just like the old "U2 iPod".
U2 and Apple means stupid decisions, evidently.)
I have liked U2 since the very early 1980s. It was about the music and the videos and live concerts just added to the appeal. I still like the music, and couldn't care less about the Apple thing. If you don't like them, so what? Don't listen to them. This is a trivial issue. Somebody needed something to write about.
Bono lost like $500,000,000.00 dollars in a green energy company.
I like that so much you can't imagine.
I saw U2 on their first tour at The Agora in Atlanta, it was all ringing guitars and yelling. I liked that.
Every single thing they've ever done since then has sucked so bad I can't believe it.
U2 and Springsteen. Bleh.
I saw the Sex Pistols first show in Atlanta Robert.
Stood right in front is Sid and even though I not a musician, I realized he could play. It didn't matter. He was so fucking cool that night. Johnny (I'm a Facebook friend) was obviously overwhelmed by everything leading up to them walking on that stage and was exhausted.
I was 18 man, I'll never forget and I still listen to that music.
That should read couldn't play.
"I think the issue people had with not being able to delete it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it could show up when you set it to shuffle play. So amidst a playlist of all grindcore, death metal, and crust punk you'd suddenly get Bono wailing and warbling."
THIS.
Except for me the U2 got shuffled into the Dave Brubeck and Miles Davis playlists on my iPad.
I'll probably keep the U2, but I was just ticked-off about it messing up my existing playlists.
Robert Cook, I am not exactly a young one around here, as I believe I am a couple months younger than Meade and about two years younger than Althouse. However, I am not one to dwell on groups that are known for oldies, and do not like lidstening to the supergroups' stadium sound. I prefer the intimate club size indie groups (which means not super popular) & shows. The one exception is the Rolling Stones, which I like even more as the years go by, but I would never pay the $$$ for one of their concerts.
Danno,
So, you and I are close to the same age, both in our "late youth."
"War" was the first album (cassette) I bought that changed my life. It seemed so important (yes, the ignorance of youth and all that). And it was damn good. It was raw and electric, but instantly accessible. It was fully of angry and weird and chaotic energy without descending into disharmony.
I grew up on the outside of music (probably much like Cook and Danno) listening to stuff like The Jesus and Mary Chain, The Smiths, and The Clash/Ramones/The Cure, among others. Whatever made me weird in high school, I suppose.
U2 was probably the most mainstream band I was listening to by the early 90s. Acthung Baby was their last true foray into originality, but I cannot blame them one ounce for trying to change who they were on nearly every record since. Only after watching the documentary "From the Sky Down" will one realize the entire recreation of the band post-Joshua Tree. They had become TOO BIG. They had stopped having fun. They became self-important. Thus, the overblown ego-fueled tours that followed that, at their deepest, mocked the price and perils of celebrity, and roiled in their own self-indulgence as one big joke. If you were in on it, stuff like 'Discotheque' was fun. If you were not, well then you probably thought they had become their own worst enemy.
Musically, they are an incredibly tight and sound band, but the latest release is clearly their laziest in years. The drums and bass are severely under-mixed and Bono and company seem to have run out of lyrical ideas.
'No Line on the Horizon' was a semi-comeback album, the first half being among the best songs they've built in years, and the latter half being wholly indicative of how far they've fallen.
Most people rarely mention the band's ongoing tales of faith and redemption, and the fact that they truly are not the world's biggest band but the world's biggest christian rock band of all time. Whether it's the obvious Gloria, to the slightly more nebulous 'With or Without You', the band has never strayed too far from their Irish Catholic roots. The band sings about God more than any other to capture the mainstream I've ever heard.
I've never been their biggest fan, but I like a lot of their catalog, from before they were U2 (Bono Boys) to "Every Breaking Wave" on the newest release. The hits for me, however, have been getting farther and farther apart. I suppose that happens with anything that lasts as long as U2 has.
Every Disney has its Black Cauldron.
I prefer undiscovered alt/indie bands. I like my music to be good but obscure and my concerts in a club venue."
The reason for this is: LESS PEOPLE. Arena shows are torture. And absurdly expen$ive. The last show I saw was Drowners and Temples at a venue that 'sat' about 200 people.
Overrated.
1) The way Apple handled this was horrendous. If they wanted to give people a free album, they should have just made it available for $0.00. Problem solved.
2) Having said that, the album is actually pretty good. On a track by track basis, it's their best in years.
3) It's kind of a shame that point 1) will completely overshadow point 2).
As someone who mooches every free iTunes song I can get, the problem here was not as much as the U2 album is free . The problem was it was pushed on everyone. iTunes offers free songs every week. Right now the pattern is there will be one "mainstream" song by some artist you probably have never heard and one Latino single. The thing is you have to actively go to iTunes and download the songs. Otherwise after a week there are two new free songs and you have to pay for the previously free songs if you didn't snag them when you had a chance. (This is not always trivial as iTunes has featured songs that became hits in its free bin.) The key here is you get to choose. The U2 stunt gave you no choice.
I think the most aggravating factor in this case are the users that have setup their device(s) for automatic download. I wouldn't want songs downloaded to my device unless I decided I wanted to download them to my device, even if I really liked the music that was downloaded. Personally I don't allow iTunes to do such things and pick exactly what I want on my device, so to me this is a welcome freebie by a band I like. If it has been Jay-Z I would do the same thing: give the album a listen and add the songs that I liked. I suspect U2 would have a higher percentage.
The other annoyance that until this album there was no way to delete a song out of your library. Not only did all iTunes users get this album added to their library, there was no way to get rid of it, which can be an issue for certain configurations. Now there is a way to get rid of it as a response to the uproar. (I suppose this wasn't a problem in the past given you had to actively add a song to the library.)
For the record "One" by U2 was the best song of the 90s.
I've never liked U2, and my problem with their sound is the diva-ness of Bono's voice. His voice imposes itself on the song, and if the "sincerity" sounds to you like faux-sincerity, like acting, imposed show-business, a pose -- then you as a listener will find them hard to bear. Like enduring Barbra Streisand or later-career Patti LaBelle.
The singer buries the song.
You know music's in trouble when a free album by a major band only moves 200,000 units (and I find out here that most of them were "pushed" and not even freely downloaded)
Being an old fart, I will blame the problem on the quality of the recording/playback system rather than any inherent fault of talent available today.
Let's face it, the iPod has ruined music.
From glorious recording played back through equipment trying to reproduce a lifelike experience in your home, we now listen to toneless MP3 (and other just as poor digital compression schemes) that the best you can hope for is a hint of a melody and a bit of a beat played through a cell phone.
(Or, if you're "sophisticated", a Bose clock radio with a docking station for your iPhone)
A decent amp and some decent speakers can make all the difference in the world.
An example:
Many moons ago, (1986) Paul Simon released Graceland (a masterpiece for those not familiar) and the first single released to radio was a tune called "You Can Call Me Al" .
Now I had a decent car stereo at the time, but I was NOT impressed. Just a silly little ditty (I thought).
But upon hearing the title song, I went on to buy the album.
Putting it on the turntable I thought, "Eh...if I want to I can get up and move the tonearm over "You Can Call Me Al".
Too late....I'm too lazy and let it play on....and I was FLOORED!
The little buzzy horns and mushy bass line that came through the car speakers turned into a groove with blasting horns that would make Tommy Dorsey weep and a slap fretless bass that forced your spine and feet to move.
IOW...a "lousy" song was actualy a great song...when heard properly.
And don't get me started on how iTunes killed works of art we used to call albums to take us back to pop singles.
I thought we had left Bobby Vee and 45s behind long ago.
I am so happy that I use Android and can keep enjoying all my older U2 music without hipsters disturbing my peace.
I'm a sort of fan of U2. They had a few good albums back in the day, and I enjoy their greatest hits. Don't really have a need to buy all their newer albums. But really, IT"S FREE. Stop whining. For most people, unless you have automatically download turned on it's not even on your iPhone. And it were it would be a matter of hitting the delete button and there it goes. Its in the cloud in case you want to ever get it again. But if you don't, who cares?
this is what people are getting up in arms about? That Apple gave them free music? Really?
agree that it would have been better if they had simply provided a free link. But whatever,its not the end of the world, and you're getting free stuff at the end of the day.
What I really hope happens is that someone gets their panties in a wad and demands that Apple remove it from their purchases list. But then a few months from now hear a song off the album that they really like and want to get it for free again. AND THEY CAN'T.They have to pay the normal price to download what only a few months prior they had for free.
Joe wrote:
I'm still not clear on what happened since I've heard different accounts from iTunes people. Some say that the album was free, but not downloaded, other say it automatically downloaded, others say that it downloaded only if you have "download all updates" checked while others claim that wasn't true either.
Regardless, a provider inserting their own content into your private list is a bit creepy. It's more than, say, sending a free magazine through the mail, but having the company walk into your house and put that magazine on your coffee table.
it probably depends on your settings. If you have it set to download purchases automatically then, because it's technically a purchase it will download. However, you can play the music from thecloud so don't ever need to download it. As such if it's in the cloud its just a purchase, like any movie or app or song you bought in iTunes. You have access to it so don't need to save a copy to your computer and can use if you have the ablility to see streamed content.
As to the analogy of it being comparable to someone dropping a magazine on your coffee table not really. Because it's really not your house. It's a shared system. Anything purchased by Apple they keep a record of in cause you should lose it or want to download it or play it, or put on a new computer or iPhone. Because of this they need access to your phone so that all this connectivity is seamless.
About a year ago I bought a hard drive for an xbox 360 and the hard drive contained demos to games I didn't ask for. How is this ultimately different? It's not big deal I dump the ones I don't like, and keep the ones I do. I actually found a few games that were decent. (never bought the full version but the demos were ok)
Post a Comment