What I find strange is that in your example, would you be mad at Catholics/Muslims or would you be mad at Apple? Let's not forget, it was Apples decision to do this, even if U2 were all for it, its Apples software.
Ultimately, the anger is directed at U2 when the onus was on Apple, thats what I find odd.
Also, I completely get that people don't want it but I do not find most of the negative responses(which we hear more of as they are the loudest) proportional. Look at U2s Instagram account under the album cover photo, there is a comment that reads(and I'm paraphrasing) "suck my d*** you <homophobic slur>, get your bulls*** songs off my phone. I hate your a$$hole band".
To me, the issue isn't that people are upset, I get that, it's the extent that they appear to be upset and I don't find that it's that big of a deal.
I agree and have said that the people going crazy over it...i.e. U2 invaded my privacy, etc. is absurd. I understand and respect that some people are annoyed, though I do think the Twitter chatter, etc. has been over the top.
Also, I do think there has been backlash towards Apple, but we just concentrate on the U2 aspect b/c this is a U2 site. And, let's face it, U2 is just an easier target than Apple because people love to mock U2 anyway. Apple's brand, in general, is a lot stronger than U2's, and people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, the host hurtful meme is the one that plays into the preconceived notions people already have of something...so this distribution method just played into the existing image U2 has (among many) as a megalomaniac band that wants to take over the world. So they just played right into that. Perhaps for some other band people would have given them the benefit of the doubt. If New Zealand mailed a t-shirt with the Kiwi flag on it to everyone in the world people would probably think it was cute (well, maybe not in OZ). If the US did it people would think it was obnoxious. As for Apple it played,
reasonably or unreasonably, into people's current concerns about privacy with their personal devices. Again, I'm not saying all these reactions are reasonable (and as I said I think the "privacy" argument is absurd), but as Headache pointed out, that doesn't really matter. All that matters is how people perceive it.
With regards to my Bible example, yeah, people would be annoyed at Apple, including a lot of people here. And if Apple partnered with, I don't know, Joel Olsteen to put a Bible in your iTunes, I imagine people would be annoyed at Olsteen as well. Can you imagine? So to the extent people are annoyed, I think it's rightly directed to U2
and Apple...U2 was well aware of what Apple was doing. Putting the thing uninvited into people's iTunes was the only way they could get the biggest album release in history, which was the kind of splash they wanted. I do think that they probably were a bit unprepared for the backlash, and that they may not have been aware of the technical aspects of auto download, deleting from the iCloud, etc.
I know I'm in the minority here, I'm not saying I'm "right", this is just my opinion. And I'm not under any illusions that I'm going to win a debate about this on a U2 fan site. I guess my point is, like everyone else here I'm fine with what U2 did, I'm not going to criticise reasonable people who have a problem with it, I just try to see their POV as well. So yeah, people over reacting is kind of ridiculous, as is calling people who don't want uninvited stuff in their iTunes library crying babies. I just think a lot of people here are OK with it because they like the
content of what their being given..i.e. U2, and would feel much differently if it were something else (e.g., the Bible, the Koran, a white supremacist metal band, the collected speeches of Sarah Palin, etc.)
Yes, you keep referencing a method that was suggested by a poster here, and no it was not U2girl.
Yeah, it was Earnie Shavers and I still think it was a great idea.
