This week, Apple lobbed a free U2 album into the online accounts of half a billion iTunes users as part of a major promotion to coincide with the long-awaited release of the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch.
The music — paid for by Apple, reportedly to the tune of $100 million — was styled as a gift. But not everyone is happy — especially if it auto-plays from the cloud, where the album is loaded.
Debate is raging on social media with arguments in favour and against the gesture as varied as the contents of any given iTunes library.
Danny Howell (not to be confused with Danny Howells — English producer and DJ) told his 1.5 million Twitter followers:
i was naked and vulnerable in the shower listening to songs on shuffle and it started playing the new U2 album i feel so violated by apple — Dan Howell (@danisnotonfire) September 11, 2014Yet, many music lovers couldn't understand what the fuss was about, imploring users to "just delete it", while others accused dissenters of "scraping the bottom of the first-world problems barrel", while others again simply extolled the undeniable credentials of the band as if that were somehow a complete justification of the library invasion.
This last offering — if it's to be taken seriously — shifts the argument entirely from the merits of the insertion, to the merits of what is being inserted (score one-nil to the Apple marketing people). And who determines the merits of the album? Sales volume, GOD, Rick Dees, or a society of self-appointed chin strokers. Heaven forbid the choice should be made by users themselves.
What about a new song every week – you know, that you just have to delete? What about a song a day? How would deleting each of those rate on the old tedium/invasion scale? What if the song were a high-selling death metal anthem, a Hillsong Christmas collection or Miley's latest gift to the world — all of which just pop up on your drive to work or when your party's in full swing? The argument that 'U2 is awesome and you can just delete it' is not even close to a well thought-out justification for invasion of a personal playlist.
The authority for insertion is more simple than any of these flights of fancy or objections: Apple can — the authority lies within its terms. That's ball game. Thanks for playing.
Apple has joined the ranks of monopoly/oligopolies Microsoft and Murdoch before it — and Facebook and Google today. Would the free and grateful spirits extolling Apple's absolute right have reacted the same way (honestly, no bullshitting now) if Rupert Murdoch's tentacles had visited their playlists in the dead of night. If you do think there's a difference between Apple and Murdoch doing the same act, then better make that 2-nil to the Apple marketing people.
So yes, it's OK for Apple to insert music into your playlists — but not because they're awesome people or because they have exceptional taste in music. It's just because they can.
Did Apple pick an act that passes the chin stroking test? You bet. Did its marketing people sense any irony in the album's title 'Songs Of Innocence'? Now that is a $100 million question.
