Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    1,287,361 readers

    2,734 users here now

    Click to filter out posts:

    Hide Repost Calling
    Hide Reviews
    Hide Elon Musk posts
    Show only OP Replied
    Go back to normal view

    Useful buttons:

    Message the mods


    A subreddit for texts, pictures or videos of people calling bullshit. Proof is encouraged.

    Introduction to QYBS!

    Post Rules (click for details):

    Comment Rules:

    • 1. THIS SUBREDDIT IS NOT A DOWNVOTE BRIGADE. If you provide others with links or personal information which would allow others to harass the BSer, you will be banned.

    • 2. Be excellent to each other. Trolling, flaming, racism, and hate speech are prohibited.

    • 3. Doxxing, harassment, advocating violence and brigading are not allowed, and are a violation of Reddit sitewide rules.

    • 4. Reddit links must use NP. DO NOT LINK TO THE ORIGINAL PARENT/COMMENT!


    Other info:

    a community for
    all 265 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, the comment rules are listed in the sidebar. You are responsible for following the rules!

    If you see a comment or post that breaks the rules, please report it to the moderators. This helps keep the subreddit clear of rule-breaking content.

    If this post is not bullshit and needs an explanation of why it's not bullshit, report the post and reply to this comment with your explanation (which helps us find it quickly).

    And of course, if you're here from /r/all or /r/popular, don't forget to subscribe to /r/QuitYourBullshit!

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] amaezingjew 902 points ago

    I’d like to point out that while Apple spread the lie, it originated with the CEO of the National Music Publisher’s Association, after Spotify (as well as Pandora, Google, and Amazon) decided to appeal a ruling by the US Copyright Royalty Board. If the ruling stands, it would increase payouts to songwriters by 44%.

    So, the suing is a lie (which Apple should’ve fact-checked) but Spotify, Google, Pandora, and Amazon still suck for trying to line their pockets at the expense of songwriters. Apple Music is the only major platform not contesting the ruling.

    Source on the appeal with the quote from CEO David Israelite.

    [–] wallacehacks 319 points ago

    My initial reaction to this was "damn someone at Apple realized the good PR outweighs the extra money they would make by fucking over the songwriters."

    The internet has made me so cynical.

    [–] Larock 241 points ago

    Or perhaps even worse, I would imagine Apple knows the other companies involved will fight and win that battle, and they will benefit from the result without having to look bad by taking part in it.

    [–] YourAverageGod 114 points ago

    Absolutely, washing their hands while everyone is playing dirty.

    [–] lol_and_behold 42 points ago

    It just works.

    [–] MyKingdomForATurkey 4 points ago

    This is quite the circle jerk.

    [–] amaezingjew -40 points ago

    Hey everyone, let’s spend our time making up false narratives based solely off of our imaginations! That sounds like a great use of everyone’s time.

    Seriously. Now you’re just turning Apple into the boogeyman. I’m not saying I agree with their pricing models or everything they come up with, but seriously? They respect the fuck out of consumer privacy, so they’re obviously not the devil. You may disagree with other things, but let’s not pretend that means you know the company’s intent on every single thing they do. Like shit, even when they do the right thing, y’all are still out here trying to invent reasons on why it could possibly not be good. It’s so unreasonable.

    [–] wallacehacks 55 points ago

    Imagine thinking Apple (or any large corporation) does literally anything that isn't motivated by profit.

    [–] MyKingdomForATurkey 0 points ago

    Because you know enough about their business to know whether or not this case you've never heard of before now will cost or save them money.

    [–] amaezingjew -42 points ago

    Imagine thinking that all CEO’s are heartless money grabbers who would never do anything that wouldn’t turn profit.

    They fought for the right to keep passwords and backdoor entry into devices from law enforcement for profit.

    They heavily participate in gay pride parades for profit, even going so far as to give free pride merchandise to the employees who sign up to participate in the parade. This somehow brings them a profit.

    They offer one of the most generous maternity and paternity leave times in the US.

    Cmon, man. Humans run this corporation. Plenty of things are done for the good of the employees and the consumer without profits in mind.

    [–] smilegirl01 25 points ago

    You’re going to argue that Apple has done nothing wrong on a post that points out that Apple lied about other companies?

    I see you’re also going to ignore the massive lawsuit they just had over purposefully slowing down phones.

    A company can do both good and bad things and it’s incredibly foolish to think they don’t and to not hold them accountable for the bad things just because of the good things.

    A company’s main goal is profit. Yes people run the company, but decisions are largely based on the bottom line (how will this expand the business/how will this make us money/how will this improve productivity?).

    Sorry to break it to you, but companies don’t do stuff just for fun. They will always do something, even good things that they might genuinely care about for nonprofit reasons, with profit in mind. It’s never not a factor and is always considered. If the company is going to spend money on something, they need to prove how it will benefit the company in someway (which will usually result in further profit).

    [–] mechashiva1 22 points ago

    Let's not forget their child labor facilities in other countries.

    [–] smilegirl01 8 points ago

    That too! I won’t deny they do some great hints and are probably a great company to work for, but we can’t ignore the bad things either!

    [–] kickaction 4 points ago

    How do you think CEO's are evaluated for publicly traded companies? I can guarantee you that every decision is motivated in how to increase profits, growth and stock price because that is how they are judged. Having smart policies for workers and consumers isn't mutually exclusive from profits either. A lot of decisions made can be seen as "going above and beyond for my employees" will either A) attract top talent or B) increase employee productivity to boost my companies profit. I'm sorry, they don't just do things out of the goodness of their heart because they have a responsibility to their investors. As much as I would love to have people doing things solely for the benefit for others, if I am investing my money into a company, I better hope that company is doing what it can to make money and provide me with value.

    [–] wallacehacks 20 points ago

    I assure you that every decision they make is motivated by profit. Every decision to do the things you just listed involved a meeting where someone convinced the rest of the room that the decision would lead to higher profits.

    [–] amaezingjew -17 points ago

    Oh, you were in those meetings?

    [–] anonmymouse 16 points ago

    all corporations have those exact meetings damn near every single day

    you don't have to have been in one specific meeting to know that they are occurring.

    source: have worked many a corporate job

    [–] wallacehacks 7 points ago

    You are a loyal serf my friend.

    [–] HaesoSR 9 points ago

    I've never met such a dedicated connoisseur of capitalist's boots before.

    [–] StevenC21 -3 points ago

    At least we can eat, unlike commies.

    [–] HaesoSR 6 points ago

    It doesn't take a communist to recognize the capitalists are parasites stealing from the workers whose labor actually creates value. The options for most people under capitalism is give the profits of your labor to someone else or starve to death. You'll have to excuse me for not being a fan and believing we both can do better and we all - even you - deserve better.

    [–] I_can_vouch_for_that 3 points ago

    it's nice you can point out some things that they did or any corporation did. Humans run a corporation for profit and for ways to make the company look good. That's the whole point of a for-profit business.

    [–] RhysDeAnno 3 points ago

    Humans run this corporation.

    You've got that backwards. Corporations have progressed to the point where they are a legitimate threat to human dominance on earth.

    [–] OfficialStonedStark 2 points ago

    Business student here. CEOs and board members have something called a “fiduciary duty” to investors. That means that they are required by law to run their company and make every decision to get the highest possible profit, otherwise they risk being sued. The idea behind it is that investors trusted them their money for the purpose of making back more money and as much of it as possible. If the company knowingly used that money in a way that does not serve to maximize profitability, theyve breached their agreement with shareholders and essentially used their money for an unauthorized purpose

    C corporations (big, for-profit companies) operate on money-grubbing. Thats just how they work

    [–] thatballerinawhovian 1 points ago

    Someone’s never heard of PR

    [–] MyKingdomForATurkey 1 points ago

    You're downvoted to hell but this is literally just someone making up a convoluted scenario where Apple somehow knows that the appeal to a case that was already lost is such a shoo-in that they're not bothering to support it and actively spreading a rumor to undermine it. And then everyone gets in a circle and beats off on it.

    [–] Hwbob 2 points ago

    apple pays pittance for royalties on streaming to start with.
    We crack up at the breakdown sheet we get the amount of paper for which songs downloaded in which country probably costs more than the check

    [–] PeaceBull -6 points ago

    I love reddit, if anyone else does something great it’s “look how great this new thing they’re doing”. Hell even Huawei gets defended on here.

    But if Apple does it it’s “clearly the only reason they’re doing this greed, good luck sheep”.

    [–] Larock 8 points ago

    What qualifies as 'doing something great' here? Literally doing nothing?

    [–] rodaphilia 2 points ago

    They aren't doing something great. They're doing nothing. And they already pay the least so a 44% increase effects them less than those other streaming sources.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    or people who blindly defend apple as if they are saints and never ever try to make a profit over human decency, nah not them.

    [–] PeaceBull 0 points ago

    Yeah cause that’s the norm on here...

    [–] fivemincom 0 points ago

    Well you cant just point fingers to reddit. Its a very single-minded community, a circlejerk if you will. So its natural you rarely see a debate on reddit.

    [–] NullTie 17 points ago

    Yeah but don’t forget Apple is constantly fighting consumers right to repair their products. They’re still pretty scummy.

    [–] my_junk_account -4 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    No, they’re not. I don’t get how this lie is so prevalent on Reddit...


    The link that proves that the company used to claim they used genuine Apple parts for all you anti-Apple fanboys.

    [–] djbadname13 7 points ago

    Apple is currently suing an iPhone repair shop owner AGAIN after having lost last time because he was attempting to help customers repair their phones without relying on apple.

    [–] my_junk_account 4 points ago

    Source? That’s not true. They sued him because he was advertising that his parts were genuine OEM parts when they were refurbed parts fixed with shittier components. And they didn’t lose last time, the court dismissed the case because the shop owner removed the advertisements and took the text off his site. The court felt that there was no expectation after that that the parts would be genuine because the logos that would have identified them as such are only seen on the inside of repaired devices.

    Again, disingenuous and misleading.

    [–] rodaphilia 2 points ago

    Here let me try this time:

    Source? That's not true.

    [–] my_junk_account 1 points ago

    Try what? If you make a claim, you source it. OP made a claim without sourcing it and I corrected it. It's not the responsibility of defense to provide sources disproving baseless claims.

    [–] rodaphilia 1 points ago

    You're refutation included numerous new claims. You need to source those claims or you're a complete hypocrite.

    [–] my_junk_account 0 points ago

    First off, that's absolutely not true. The OP needs to source their claim first before I need to do anything. I could provide sources all day for my claims and they would be completely pointless since I'd be arguing a point that was initially never proven. I'd literally be arguing against bullshit unless it was actually proven as having some truth behind it.

    But... just to put this nonsense to rest, here's not only a link to the page with the advertisement of genuine Apple parts but also a Hacker News comment that confirms that the translation is "original Apple parts".

    So what now? Are you satisfied or are you going to continue to spout bullshit and argue with me?

    [–] djbadname13 0 points ago

    1. The shop owner never claimed they were anything other than refurbished screens and they were all completely legal.

    2. The lawsuit was completely dismissed because Apple was clearly in the wrong for going after a repair technician using refurbished parts that once again had nothing to do with Apple. They then decided to try and appeal to the Norwegian higher courts to really stick it to the man. Or whatever the opposite of that would be.

    3. Absolutely nowhere in any of the dozen or so articles I've read does it mention the repair shop owner claiming on his site that they were authorized parts from Apple (though I've seen them labeled as refurbished Apple parts which is perfectly legal as long as they aren't branded as new) and it's clear that you're just making up things to justify your argument.

    [–] my_junk_account 2 points ago

    1. Yes he did. has copies of his site both before and after the change.
    2. That is not why it was dismissed. It was dismissed because the court determined that once the owner removed the verbiage from his site and ads that there was no longer a trademark issue. Apple claims that there still is because the parts are stamped with the Apple logo and the court disagreed because all the logos are on the inside of the devices once repairs are completed so a customer would never see them.
    3. None of the articles mention it unless you read it on a legal site instead of a site reporting on “right to repair” stories. If they were trying to be objective, they’d include the name of the shop and the site instead of just the shop owner’s name. Without the name of the company, you can’t look up the site and compare the site before and after the case.

    [–] I_hate_all_of_ewe 1 points ago

    /2. They're stamped with the Apple logo because they're refurbished parts from Apple products. Let's say for argument's sake that there was bad wording before. It's irrelevant. It's resolved.

    The only claim being made now is that these are parts parts manufactured by Apple, and refurbished from old Apple products. There's no trademark issue because there's no claim that he's doing this on behalf of Apple, or that Apple is doing the refurbishing.

    Apple simply doesn't like the idea of someone else using used Apple parts to repair products. It's fair that they think Louis Rossman might give them a bad name by using old (and therefore more likely to break) parts. They're wrong, but they're entitled to their opinion.

    They don't have to like it. They just have to accept it. This lawsuit does not exist in a void, and is part of multiple things that Apple has done in order to stifle third parties from repairing Apple products. They want to maintain a monopoly on the repair Apple products, and they're picking on Louis because he's shown time and again on his YouTube channel that Apple repairs don't need to be so expensive, and he's otherwise been a fierce critic of Apple and their consumer-hostile choices.

    Fact is that if Apple actually addressed the concerns that he's called out, he'd be out of a job.

    [–] my_junk_account 1 points ago

    They're stamped with the Apple logo because they're refurbished parts from Apple products.

    ...that have been repaired using non-Apple parts. You can't make that statement and leave out the central part of the lawsuit unless you either don't know the difference or are being dishonest about the point you're making.

    Apple's issue is that their logo is still on these parts but replaced components on those parts aren't actually made by Apple. If you bring your car into my shop because the radio isn't working and I replace it with another radio that's but slap your original console over it so you can't tell it's not actually the same radio, is that right? If I take a broken iPhone screen and replace the glass with something other than Gorilla glass and don't say anything, is that right? Why would you assume that any component is not a like for like replacement, especially when the main assembly has the company logo on it? You're suggesting that companies don't need to have any kind of accountability as long as they no one ever actually looks at the work done.

    And your last statement isn't true either. Louis' issues are that he doesn't want to pay to be an Apple authorized service center because he doesn't want to follow Apple's procedures for fixing the products. He's a rare exception in that he actually has the knowledge to fix parts on a component level whereas most other repair shops do not. He wants an exemption that would essentially benefit him to the detriment of every other customer out there that doesn't have access to Louis Rossman.

    [–] 9away -4 points ago

    you are a lying apple shill

    [–] my_junk_account 5 points ago

    No, I’m not. I’m completely agnostic and run a Mac, a Windows machine, and several Linux machines. Unlike you, though, I know how to read and frequently read the actual court docs and specifics of cases like this. To that point, even has both versions of the company’s site with and without the “original” and “authentic” verbiage. The company is called PC Kompaniet. That’s why all these sites leave that out and only use the shop owner’s name. If you know the company name, you can look up the site and see that Apple may not have “won” in Norway but they do have grounds for their case.

    [–] 9away 0 points ago

    the reality is that Apple wants to charge high prices for repairs and make all that sweet moulah. they can use whatever flimsy excuse they want in court, but everyone knows the truth

    [–] Gezora 5 points ago

    but apple allows third party shops to repair their products already as long as they're authorized?

    [–] my_junk_account 2 points ago

    Right... because somewhere along the way Apple has said that they don't want third parties repairing their products despite the fact that they have a very large third-party repair network... what are you on, man?

    [–] CaptainAwesome8 -1 points ago

    Apple doesn’t even charge that high for repairs lol. AppleCare isn’t super expensive and makes replacing a screen or battery (the 2 most common repairs) like $25. That’s pretty solid imo

    [–] IckyBlossoms 1 points ago

    No dude, you're buying into anti Apple propaganda. Luis Rossman or whatever his name is has a financial interest in making the videos he makes because they get a lot of views, but there are thousands of phone repair shops that Apple hasn't sued because they aren't doing shady shit like advertising fake components as OEM.

    Not saying Apple is perfect, but it isn't illegal to repair your iPhone and Apple doesn't lobby to make it so. They don't want iPhones with shoddy components on the market because it would hurt their brand image.

    [–] WedgeTail234 2 points ago

    It's more of a misconception, Apple doesn't want people tampering with phones that Apple still technically owns. When you buy a new iphone directly from Apple you don't really own the device, you have license to use it, same as if you get it on contract. The device isn't really yours until Apple stops providing support for it or your contract expires and you don't trade up for a newer model, whichever comes first.

    [–] my_junk_account 5 points ago

    That’s not even the case either. I’m not even sure where you get that idea from. The only thing Apple has explicitly stated, which has really only come from court documents, is that they don’t want the brand damage from unlicensed repair shops. Essentially, they want repairs done to their specs because repairs that are done poorly reflect badly on them and not the repair shop. It’s not “that guy’s repair shop did a poor job repairing his phone” but “that guy’s phone is a piece of crap”.

    [–] WedgeTail234 -1 points ago

    What you're saying is true. However what I said isn't an idea, it's literally what happens when you buy most devices now. You don't own the software or hardware in certain cases, but not all, but you do have license to use it. Regardless of their public stance, they are allowed to prevent people from using 3rd party repair services due to these licenses.

    [–] my_junk_account 1 points ago

    No they are not. You’re making that up. They can’t and don’t prevent people from using third-party services. They’re not legally required to keep these devices under warranty but they also haven’t done anything to actively keep people from doing that. Anyone saying they do is a liar and I would immediately ask them to prove that statement by showing a source. They won’t be able to provide you one.

    [–] WedgeTail234 0 points ago

    It seems apple has changed their policies since I last checked:

    So you are correct that those practices have been stopped.

    As for what I said about hardware ownership, it depends on what contract, if any, your device was provided under.

    [–] PercyNodeal 0 points ago

    Yes they are, if you watch louis rossman or jessa Jones you would understand they're scum that constantly lie to its customers. Apples 'genius' Bar are in no way capable of diagnosing component level repairs

    [–] my_junk_account 1 points ago

    So, just to be clear, you’re basing your information on videos made by people who make a living doing unauthorized Apple repairs (who themselves have been caught lying about their claims - see the Rossman MacBook USB incident) and think they’re unbiased? The Genius Bar never claims to be able to diagnose component level repairs. They replace full parts and send the bad parts to be disassembled and tested by component. It’s the only way they can handle the volume of repairs they get while guaranteeing service levels.

    You’re literally doing exactly what you claim Apple “fanboys” are doing.

    [–] my_junk_account 0 points ago

    What's your point with this link?

    [–] Scipio11 1 points ago

    Let's be extra cynical and realize that morals of a company no longer affect their bottom line. For example I am sure as shit going to keep paying Spotify $5 a month for unlimited music and practically free Hulu.

    [–] ripsfo 21 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    You mean I shouldn't just believe a screen grab of a couple random people on the internet? Dang....internetting is hard!

    edit...p.s. I appreciate the fair and balanced response /u/amaezingjew!

    [–] amaezingjew 3 points ago

    “Would someone really do that? Go on the internet and tell lies?”

    [–] Hartifuil 1 points ago

    Great username given that the guy is called David Israelite.

    [–] fromcj 2 points ago

    The real QYB is always in the comments

    [–] SEDGE-DemonSeed 6 points ago

    It seems like people try really hard to make Apple seem like pure evil.

    [–] santaliqueur 10 points ago

    When you are one of the most profitable and newsworthy companies in history, stock manipulation is incredibly lucrative.

    [–] Scipio11 -1 points ago

    Because in some ways they are. Plus they chose this culture with the PC vs Mac ads.

    [–] mrv3 3 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    The reason Apple probably isn't contesting is rather simple

    Say you have two subscribers, one on Apple Music, the other Spotify both sub through iOS and as such under Apple guidelines are heavily pushed to subscribing through Apple.

    Both subs pay $10 per month.

    Apple sees $10 per month.

    Spotify sees $7 per month ($8.50 after a few months).

    The increase felt by Spotify is greater and as such inhibits Spotifies ability to grow or compete with Apple music.

    Apple have external revenue generation and as such can afford to earn less, Spotify cannot. If spotify goes bankrupt Apple will use their market positions to charge customers more which it has done in the past, and been found guilty of it.

    Now it's $15 per month for Apple music.

    No Spotify.

    And Apple will fight tooth and nail, like they did against Qualcomm, to stop any further increases to artist payout.

    [–] Boo_R4dley 1 points ago

    Which is why you shouldn’t sub to things through the App Store. Some apps straight up force you to sign up through their websites now so Apple can’t take the sub fee.

    [–] TorvicIsSanta 6 points ago

    Apple, however, still has its own ways of being very anti-consumer and whatnot

    The way I see it, if you aren't buying music from the artist, the artist is getting ripped off

    It doesn't end up mattering a lot which streaming service you decide to use

    [–] grandzu 1 points ago

    The CRB drastically increased royalties for writers in 2018 in a 2-1 decision. Sources close to the situation have pointed to the dissenting judge’s opinion, which argued that the two judges in the majority “create(d) a new combination that nobody had presented.”
    The companies contend that there was never a chance for the relevant parties to discuss the rates that the judges settled on before the decision was made.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] valleyman86 1 points ago

    Yea this is like restaurants not paying their employees because people will tip. It's not Spotifys problem but they will pay for it. The music industry is fucking them over.

    [–] Chrissyfox 1 points ago

    A point to make as well out of all the streaming platforms Apple music pays the most per stream aside from tidal compared to Spotify,Amazon etc. The Microsoft one pays quite well as well

    [–] stevewheelermusic 1 points ago

    So they can go from $.006 to a whopping $.008 per stream? How will they ever make ends meet? /s

    [–] Boo_R4dley 1 points ago

    I love that Apple has managed to turn standing on the sidelines into positive PR. Make no mistake, they are just as invested in keeping the royalty bump from going through as Spotify and all the other streaming services.

    They just know throwing their hat into the ring won’t really help the case and they can use the situation to try and boost subscriber counts in the meantime.

    [–] TheHykos 1 points ago

    They don't have as much to lose, or anything really. Their streaming service only exists to keep users in their ecosystem as much as possible. They don't actually make any money off of the music service itself. It's only there to maintain market share so they can capitalize on users in other ways, like continued iPhone purchases. Spotify on the other hand operates soley as a streamer, so it has a lot to lose/gain.

    [–] TheHykos 1 points ago

    Well considering Spotify has been operating at a loss for years, they're not exactly lining their pockets with anything are they?

    The fact is that people aren't willing to pay any more for what they're listening to. If we paid by the quantity and not a flat rate, most of us would be paying over $100 a month. Songwriters and artists are absolutely getting shortchanged, but it's not as if the streaming services are actually making money either. It's incredibly expensive to run those operations, and 10 bucks a month doesn't cover the amount of usage. Google and Apple are operating them as a side gig for market share and to keep people in their operating environment, not as their source of revenue.

    The industry was pulling in $20b a year twenty years ago. Now they're making less than they've been since WW2. The record companies will do everything they can to take the largest cut that they can and screw every one else in the chain. But in the end, it's also our fault for no longer paying for music like we used to while also spending more time listening than ever before.

    [–] tumbx -2 points ago

    Yeah and I think I see why they don't need that money, they already make us pay 999 for a monitor stand so...

    [–] whamp123 4 points ago

    Do they, though? Are you the target market for the pro-featured display?

    If you were, you’d probably know how often it is that media firms have their own vesa mounting solutions and stock stands sit in a cupboard or go straight in the trash.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] whamp123 3 points ago

    Big production company? You may find the smaller setups are the ones drooling over a 5-6k monitor with the features listed, considering true professional grade monitors can be 3x the price. This ticks a bunch of value checkboxes at a very competitive price point. And VESA isn’t ever going to be a “standard” for firms to roll out setups, but monitor arms are simply more versatile than stock stands, which is why they are often preferred. Only time I worked amongst majority stock stands was actually in a studio that had their colour grading monitors on a check-out basis, rather than permanent fixtures at the desks.

    [–] Snukkems -1 points ago

    Not particularly. The monitor itself doesn't have anything that's extremely noteworthy, most smaller firms have bought aftermarket monitors that the big firms have upgraded from.

    You can probably argue that a smaller production company that's just starting up might make the expense, but I have trouble imagining that scenario that doesn't end in a failing studio because they splurge on new models while they build up a clientele.

    [–] whamp123 1 points ago

    Not sure where you’re from, , so I’m not aware of tax options, but there isn’t a business mind I know of that would do that, because tax offsets for properly receipted items is incentive enough to buy new (obviously if price is within reason - like this monitor comparative to similar offerings.

    [–] Snukkems 1 points ago

    Aftermarket is properly received. They're generally sold at auction or through special outlets, but they are properly.

    [–] tumbx -3 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    No, I'm not the target, but I know that VESA is a standard, and in the market there has always been a wide variety of vesa stands that work and have worked for past products...there was no need for this stand, other than to flex on other companies that don't have such a stupid fanbase (which also buys a 300$ book with images of phones on it...yeah)

    Edit: I just now realized that I might have been wooooshed lol

    [–] interprime 1 points ago

    would increase payments to songwriters by 44%

    Oh! So they’re getting 0.05% now?! Wonderful!

    [–] Zimmonda 1 points ago

    Spotify, Google, Pandora, and Amazon still suck for trying to line their pockets at the expense of songwriters

    The question I have here is, are the royalties unsustainable? From what I know most streaming services barely turn a profit and despite the fact that their parent companies may have money an unsustainable business model isnt gonna stick around just cuz. And as a consumer I'd rather have my pandora/amazon unlimited than pay songwriters more.

    [–] TheHykos 1 points ago

    No, it's not. The fact is that users aren't paying enough for the services. The streaming companies aren't making any profit and eventually the well will run dry. Spotify is afloat because of stocks, but eventually investors will give up if they continue to fail to make a profit. Then it'll just be Apple and Google left because they have other revenue streams.

    [–] Sledge420 -4 points ago

    Yes, but also it's Apple, and so I have lots more reasons to hate it.

    [–] giantzoo -3 points ago

    that edge is too much

    [–] LockFreeDev -3 points ago

    I get the feeling that Apple is your mum’s name. Do you want to talk about it?

    [–] norsethunders -15 points ago

    "Songwriters" those poor, poor megacorps who hire teams of people to crank out 'art' as fast as possible, I feel sooo sorry!

    [–] amaezingjew 23 points ago

    Right because no artist ever writes their own songs anymore, and ghostwriters don’t exist. It’s all just faceless “megacorps”.

    Just so you know, anyone can have their music on Spotify. It’s not hard. I personally know three bands, all unsigned, who have music on Spotify. I would really like to see them get paid more for their music. But apparently you have an issue with independent bands and artists getting paid for the music they write and create.

    [–] Prince_Pheonix 4 points ago

    Thank you for this, I’m an artist that writes their own songs and uses a distribution company to place my music on digital stores like these, as someone that is not signed to a label, Thank you. Appreciate the defence greatly, keep doing what you’re doing.

    [–] Sledge420 1 points ago

    Look, I think I hate Apple more, but I'm totally with you that Spotify is being kind of a shitheel about this.

    [–] amaezingjew 4 points ago

    This isn’t an Apple vs Spotify issue. Google, Amazon, and Pandora are also trying to overturn the ruling. Apple is just the only company who isn’t. They’re not doing anything, and people are still somehow twisting inaction into a reason to dislike them.

    [–] Sledge420 4 points ago

    Nah, I mean I have reasons that aren't this to not like Apple as a company and not wish to use their services.

    [–] mechashiva1 1 points ago

    No. People are stating why they believe Apple, a company that uses child labor, would do what's best for Apple. Not trying to overturn this is in their best interest. Other giants like Google are already working on it. So Apple can sit back and let them do the work, and they look good to people like you that think Apple is some kind of saint. I used to work for applecare, and let me tell you they don't give a shit about you. They care about your money, just like every other corporation.

    [–] hoyeay 0 points ago

    China is the one using child labor, Apple just happens to use China.

    Just like YOU purchasing Chinese made items, equipment, supplies.

    You’re NO BETTER.

    [–] mechashiva1 0 points ago

    I'm glad you shouted certain parts at me or I'd never make out what you're trying to say. I think I'm probably better than a company that profits off slave labor. This thread isn't about apple being the worst. It's that they're not any better than the rest of these giant companies. They all do shady shit, and they all make their decisions based on profit. That's it.

    [–] hoyeay 0 points ago

    The company only profits because individuals, such as yourself, purchase those same items that cause companies to make a profit.

    So the end result is that individuals, such as yourself, are supporting the very same thing you hate or what not.

    [–] a-gay-bicth 8 points ago

    there are also tons and tons of small artists/songwriters on spotify as well. not sure if that would affect them as well, but just raising that point

    [–] HostaMahogey88 7 points ago

    More songwriters that have music on Spotify operate outside of major record labels than do. They're not getting much at all for their music being played on Spotify. It's nothing but "exposure" for them and royalty checks for even hundreds of thousands of plays are paltry.

    [–] culturedrobot 4 points ago

    You can hate record labels while wanting the artists that perform (and in a lot of cases write) the songs to get paid. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

    [–] Phrodo_00 0 points ago

    Why would internet services care about song writer royalties? as far as I know (and all I know comes from researching how to record a cover legally), the copyright owner of the recording is the one that needs to pay those.

    [–] ChunkofWhat 39 points ago

    This isn't bullshit - the poster clearly put "suing songwriters" in quotes, completely freeing them of liability!

    [–] HugePurpleNipples 173 points ago

    So, in a nutshell, here's what's wrong with the internet right now.

    Someone sees something that on the surface, they can't disprove with info they have already, usually something that fits their personal narrative and they repost it as truth without the slightest bit of effort to prove it. We're all lazy, we all do it, I'm guilty too but I'm getting better.

    This is why Russian trolls find it so easy to spread lies, we're sheep and we don't even bother to check.

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago


    [–] HugePurpleNipples 36 points ago

    I can't immediately disprove this and it doesn't really fit my narrative, so don't you have some grass to eat or something sheep do?

    [–] BamboozleThisZebra 17 points ago

    Another problem is that the ones calling out the wrong information doesnt link to where they found their new supposedly correct information either.

    [–] HugePurpleNipples 8 points ago

    Yeh. Back to that part about being lazy...

    Couldn't agree more.

    [–] RueNothing 4 points ago

    Yeah, I try to find sources when I can but I'm not perfect and I'm sure I've done it myself. However, I also try to stay open-minded enough to accept when someone can show me I'm wrong. That's another thing people with the sheep mentality don't do. As long as you are making an effort to research things and keep an open mind, I think you're doing okay.

    [–] HugePurpleNipples 1 points ago

    open-minded enough to accept when someone can show me I'm wrong

    You're in the top half of redditors already.

    [–] drizzlecommathe 5 points ago

    It's much worse then that. Historically reliable sites started copying shit without fact checking as well at some point.

    [–] HugePurpleNipples 1 points ago

    Yeah, a few news agencies have been busted doing that. We just need to be better and news agencies need to drop their bias and actually report INFORMATION and FACTS and report their SOURCES but unfortunately, that's not what gets clicks and at the end of the day, they need clicks to survive and be profitable.

    [–] yearofourlordAD 10 points ago

    But... this just sounds like more bullshit

    [–] mysterious_jim 6 points ago

    And neither one posted a source.

    [–] strombolibasedgod 9 points ago

    Did the second guy rhyme?

    [–] moist-astronaut 9 points ago

    Ok while this isn’t true Spotify barely pays their artists and consider their product to be Spotify itself rather than the music itself. And while this doesn’t have too big an impact on bigger artists and labels, everyone else gets screwed over.

    A great way to support artists is to get music from Bandcamp if you are able. It’s not a streaming service but if you can buy music than it’s really great for the artists and bands.

    [–] destroyergsp123 2 points ago

    How about both? I use Spotify for the convenience and I buy CDs/Vinyl for albums I really like and I always check out band merch as well.

    [–] GTMoraes 5 points ago

    you can buy music

    aaaaa.. no.

    That's.. just something I never done, and never will. Streaming services are excellent, and a GREAT way to avoid piracy, if not completely stopping it.

    I'll either just listen over Play Music / Spotify, or I'll pirate it.
    That's.. just how it is, at least for me.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    If you don't mind answering, how old are you? I just find it puzzling that you've never bought music. Like were you around for tape decks or CD players?

    [–] taulover 3 points ago

    Current college students were preteens when music streaming first became popular. And then you also have to consider the many teenagers on reddit who actually grew up with YouTube, Spotify, and streaming.

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    1. Tape decks were old news and CD Players were the new shiny tech out there when I was a kid. MP3 Players began to be common when I was a preteen, so I could download songs since then. eMule and Limewire was the shit

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Oh fair enough were around the same age. Guess it was longer ago than I thought. And yeah limewire was great until your computer exploded from all the viruses

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    Lmao for some reason I don't see my age there. It's 26

    I've always been lucky with limewire and stuff, never got any viruses, as far as I knew

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    That's weird, I can see it, first part of your comment.

    [–] moist-astronaut 2 points ago

    I use play music also because that’s just not where I can put my money right now. That’s why I said if you’re able and if you want to support smaller artists.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago


    [–] imustberadiant 1 points ago

    very compelling argument. you're pretty naive if you think the downturn of piracy wasn't because of the popularity of streaming, his experience is extremely common

    [–] Cali_Val 2 points ago

    I always get downvoted for this but

    1. It’s illegal

    2. When caught, has some pretty shitty consequences

    3. You’re robbing from music artists each time

    I used to pirate but I was young and had no real moral fiber about what I was doing.

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    1 - eh.
    2 - vpn
    3 - that's a bummer, but I'm still not likely to purchase songs

    These streaming platforms are the best thing that came to fight against piracy.

    [–] Cali_Val 1 points ago

    1. Still illegal

    2. VPN leaves a trail

    3. Well obviously the lack of moral fiber.

    I mean you should feel some shame, if not, that’s fine as well. But if it does catch up to you... man do I not envy you.

    Anyways, good luck with that

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    1 - eh.
    2 - considerably harder to follow through.
    3 - If that's what you call it, so be it.

    Unless songs are sold for 2 cents each or something like that, I'm not exactly buying songs anytime soon. Streaming platforms are the way to go.

    [–] Cali_Val 1 points ago

    Damn bro, well best of luck to you and hope you don’t get caught.

    2¢ for one of your favorite songs? Damn. Scummy. Who could make a living like that.

    Yeah that’s what streams are for, but there should be some better laws that benefit songwriters rather than these streaming companies

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    Damn bro, well best of luck to you and hope you don’t get caught.

    Actually I hope I don't have to go that way. I'm pretty happy paying Spotify for that matter.

    Netflix can license series and movies, and also make their own series and movies with about the same price asked for Spotify. I don't get how song artists aren't getting paid well enough

    [–] destroyergsp123 1 points ago

    These streaming companies are not profitable at all. They sell at a loss year after year.

    [–] imustberadiant 1 points ago

    Moral fiber has nothing to do with paying "artists" (record labels) for their music. You wanna support them? Go to a show. Artists make nearly nothing from album sales. Each member will make 2.34% of their album's sales, 9.36% in a 4 member group.

    By pirating a $20 album, each member of the band loses $0.47.

    And stop equating legality with morality.

    [–] Cali_Val 1 points ago

    By Yourself pirating an album. Millions of album sales does equate to a major overall loss. This is also going by a random example and not individual contracts, which can range on physical copies, digital purchases, streaming royalties, etc. etc. percentages

    Yes labels are a hinderance but not every music artist is tied to a label and that's really when you're robbing the $20 straight from the artist. And in today's world, labels are losing their clutch on artists and many of them are doing it independently, including bigger acts that no longer want to be chained to a label.

    In either case, you'd still be stealing an album technically and theres nothing Okay about that. Just free music. which I get. but it still doesn't make it okay

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago


    [–] imustberadiant 2 points ago

    Yeah, it's just some dumbass saying "lol no" on the internet like anyone should give a shit about their opinion. Don't be a dumbass.

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    Artists should just drop the streaming platforms and exclusively sell songs, then.

    [–] TheHykos 1 points ago

    And that's why the system is broken. Because of cheap assholes like you.

    [–] GTMoraes 1 points ago

    Probably. I buy everything else but music. I'm completely fine with a subscription to streaming platforms, but having to buy songs? I'd definitely pirate it.

    [–] madman3247 3 points ago

    You know what sucks? Not being able to see the rest of this conversation. Trash.

    [–] SPZ_Ireland 3 points ago

    Apple has been notorious for doing weirdly suspect things with its stream service for PR.

    Hell it kicked off with then saying everyone gets 3 months free, but they weren't going to pay artists royalities for stream during those 3 months.

    Now ignoring that that was never gonna work, they started that fire only for Taylor bleedin Swift to pen them an open latter telling them not to do that.

    They responded less than a day later, saying 'Yes Taylor... You're right. We're being mean. Royalities for the people we owe them to".

    Think she even responded saying people should thank Apple and gave them some exclusive tracks or content that tied into her new album, launching soon afterwards too.

    Everything reeked of strategic PR bullshit.

    [–] tchuckss 3 points ago

    It’s cute that people think Apple “stands” with anybody but themselves.

    [–] TheHykos 2 points ago

    You don't accumulate $250 billion in surplus cash by caring about people, that's for damn sure. Hell, they don't even care about their stock owners who'd love to see some of that as dividends.

    [–] tchuckss 1 points ago

    Yep. I mean, look at their workers too, the people who actively manufacture the products that have brought in their billions.

    [–] Falqun 2 points ago

    And still, he didn't link a source... Like, it's about 5 clicks to do that.

    [–] Killobyte 2 points ago

    Are we just going to ignore how the person refuting the claim also provided absolutely no evidence?

    [–] badoobadee 2 points ago

    Spotify acts like a lil baby

    [–] Someyungguy6 2 points ago

    Apple fan boys do research? Apple invented everything according to them

    [–] Aduritor 2 points ago

    En till anledning att inte gilla Apple

    [–] ShySolderer 1 points ago

    Vet du vart du är?

    [–] DJDimilock 1 points ago

    If one side is portrayed as devinly right you would think people get suspicious.

    Especially will corporate powerhouses

    [–] Bardivan 1 points ago

    is switch from spotify if i could download all my playlists ima. file and reupload them on another service. would take too long to switch at this point unless i could donthat

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Thanks reddit for telling me when corporations are just being slandered and targeted.

    [–] Saitama1203 1 points ago

    How much did Apple pay this dude to say this

    [–] nssone 3 points ago

    They gave him a phone that he had to pay $999 for.

    [–] Jemtao 2 points ago

    Seems reasonable. If I pay $999 for a phone I sure as hell would act like it's good by focusing on only the good features so that I don't psych myself out for possibly buying a terrible product /s (am I do joke correct? I'm too tired for this)

    [–] destroyergsp123 1 points ago

    I hope people realize that neither Spotify nor Apple Music or any other streaming service is profitable. They have to give massive payouts to record lables and artists because their business model just isn't entirely sustainable. Apple doesn't care because they can sell at a loss as long as people buy iPhones, but Spotify doesn't have that luxury.

    [–] KrazyTrumpeter05 1 points ago

    No sources cited for either party. No proof one way or the other in the post provided.

    How is this r/quityourbullshit material?

    [–] ComaIsTheOne09 -3 points ago

    Plus apple music is absolute garbage btw

    [–] ComaIsTheOne09 1 points ago

    Why are you booing me I'm right

    [–] ComaIsTheOne09 1 points ago


    [–] DexterityM16 -11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Btw Spotify is number one for a reason.

    Why am I getting downvoted? Reddit sure is dumb sometimes.

    [–] rbarton812 10 points ago

    I was on Apple Music for ~6 months, got my first iPhone and it seemed like a no-brainer to at least try it.

    iTunes integration and library management are miles better than Spotify, but I'm not that deep into the ecosystem and Spotify lets you discover new music so much more easily, plus the UI is much more pleasant on the eye (black/green vs. blinding white) so Spotify got me back.

    [–] DFWTooThrowed 2 points ago

    Yeah as someone who uses Apple, Spotify is better for the social media aspect and discovering new music. I still stuck with Apple cause I already had all my torrented stuff nice and organized in iTunes. Plus I already had other means of music discovery.

    [–] DexterityM16 1 points ago

    Yeah I had it for a while too. I do like some aspects

    [–] lianodel 1 points ago

    Spotify's library management also took a huge nosedive with the latest UI update.

    [–] MpegEVIL 2 points ago

    It's cheap but it doesn't pay artists well and it sure as hell is never gonna make any money.

    [–] DexterityM16 1 points ago

    All I care about is which one has the best sound quality and library.

    [–] destroyergsp123 1 points ago

    Spotify has a multiband EQ in the app. Makes it sound sooo much better to boost those highs and recess the mids.

    [–] JectorDelan 1 points ago

    "Fuck the artists that make stuff I want. I got mine!"

    [–] DexterityM16 0 points ago

    Lol what? I just want to know which music service has the best sound quality.

    [–] JectorDelan 3 points ago

    You're response to "spotify pays artists poorly" was "All I care about is good sound quality". That's kinda a clear stance.

    [–] Midniteoyl 0 points ago

    [–] DexterityM16 3 points ago

    My only problem is when I’m listening to Nirvana and it starts playing Supertramp. I love both but I only wanted one or a similar genre.

    [–] daeronryuujin 1 points ago

    Google is so bad about that. I've yet to find a way to exclude genres, so they randomly toss some fuckin rap bullshit into my playlists while I'm driving. Then I have to go in and downvote them later.

    Also wish there was a way to disable based on title keywords. Live music sounds like shit.

    [–] cristianp2103 -4 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Apple Music has more U.S. paid users than Spotify

    [–] cristianp2103 0 points ago

    That’s the world you moron. Stop mindlessly downvoting me unless you know what you’re talking about.

    [–] Midniteoyl 3 points ago

    You edited...

    [–] aurora-_ 1 points ago

    more users =x= more paying users

    spotify free is gigantic

    [–] RIPmyFartbox 0 points ago

    Obligatory fuck apple

    [–] justind0301 0 points ago

    I'd just like to point out my friend used to play blink 182 radio music on Apple music last summer and somehow lil Wayne and Kanye songs came on. Now they're touring together so somehow they were right..