Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#61

Post by Sharlin »

andkenneth wrote: post #46
refulgentis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My instincts feel that way, but Apple Music announced they crossed 20 million paid users in 12/2016, 40% of Spotify's 50+ million. Anecdotally, discover weekly is a tremendous hit. Makes you wish for functional public capital markets so we knew the real story.

I switched from Google Play Music to Spotify specifically because of Discover Weekly and the curated playlists that spotify hosts. I pretty much only listen to music from one of those two. Conversely, the "daily mix" playlists seem to be utter crap for me.

Heh, it's the opposite for me. I rarely get anything out of Discover Weekly (just too random) but the daily mixes work well.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#62

Post by ikt »

shmerl wrote: post #54
ikt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My tastes in music aren't mass market by far Neither are mine, I intentionally avoid pop, rap or rnb and other soft mainstream music. > May be it makes it easier for me Certainly would, there's no way I could manage this: https://www.last.fm/user/ikt123/listening-report/week > nothing stops DRM free store to offer you a sync service or anything of that sort Except the insane amount of effort and cost involved in ru…

> Except the insane amount of effort and cost involved in running such a system: If you think it's proper, you can charge for such convenience (i.e. some subscription fee). Why not? Those who want it, will pay for it. If you think you can manage without charging - all the better (GOG don't charge for it for example). Nothing from the above requires DRM. > What would be nice is DRM free streaming Bandcamp offer that t…

> Bandcamp offer that too.

Bandcamp is an online music store, not a music discovery service.

> Nothing from the above requires DRM.

Correct, however there's nothing currently out there that compares to spotify which is my original argument.

What you described as "the benefits of DRM-free media.", I've described as "the current inconvenience of DRM-free media.".

Maybe in the future there will be a DRM free service that has the same features as Spotify, if that's the case I'll sign up, but until then the limitations of DRM free streaming are obvious, I'm just trying to point them out to you.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#63

Post by shmerl »

yellow_postit wrote: post #58
shmerl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many albums on Bandcamp are available fully (or at least partially), so you can easily sample and discover them. If I like something, I buy it. Some albums I bought recently: * https://dbfiechter.bandcamp.com/album/scotland * https://jonathangeer.bandcamp.com/album/owlboy-ost * https://danielamosboots.bandcamp.com/album/neverhood-songs-d... And you are right. Stuff often ends up on Youtube, which is great for discove…

If I have a digital collection I'll be paying storage costs on an ongoing basis for backups so it seems like a wash compared to Spotify and similar services.

Storage is cheap today and it will only get cheaper.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#64

Post by shmerl »

ikt wrote: post #62
shmerl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except the insane amount of effort and cost involved in running such a system: If you think it's proper, you can charge for such convenience (i.e. some subscription fee). Why not? Those who want it, will pay for it. If you think you can manage without charging - all the better (GOG don't charge for it for example). Nothing from the above requires DRM. > What would be nice is DRM free streaming Bandcamp offer that t…

> Bandcamp offer that too. Bandcamp is an online music store, not a music discovery service. > Nothing from the above requires DRM. Correct, however there's nothing currently out there that compares to spotify which is my original argument. What you described as "the benefits of DRM-free media.", I've described as "the current inconvenience of DRM-free media.". Maybe in the future there will be a DRM free service tha…

Not sure what stops you from searching for something. All stores have good search functions. What other discoverability do you need? All of the above is again completely orthogonal to streaming or not streaming.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#65

Post by adventured »

smpetrey wrote: post #13

If anyone thinks Spotify has leverage over record labels, I would challenge you to compare Spotify's operating losses year over year VS. Apple Music's operating losses year over year.

And meanwhile there's SiriusXM with $745 million in net income, up nearly 50% over 2015.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#66

Post by quink »

Can't justify Spotify as I'm paying for YouTube Red/Google Play Music as I can stand YouTube ads less than the difference between Spotify and Google Play Music.

I bet that'll come up more and more.

One important differentiator might be to get the Japanese record labels a bit more aligned, all streaming providers have been faring terribly on that front.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#67

Post by mcintyre1994 »

quink wrote: post #66

Can't justify Spotify as I'm paying for YouTube Red/Google Play Music as I can stand YouTube ads less than the difference between Spotify and Google Play Music. I bet that'll come up more and more. One important differentiator might be to get the Japanese record labels a bit more aligned, all streaming providers have been faring terribly on that front.

Google clearly have the best offer on the table here, it's incredible how little effort they've put into making it available worldwide though. Still not in the UK...

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#68

Post by Itsdijital »

quink wrote: post #66

Can't justify Spotify as I'm paying for YouTube Red/Google Play Music as I can stand YouTube ads less than the difference between Spotify and Google Play Music. I bet that'll come up more and more. One important differentiator might be to get the Japanese record labels a bit more aligned, all streaming providers have been faring terribly on that front.

I'm in the same boat. I actually even have a gpm/ytr subscription paid through 2019 already (I bought a ton of $5/mo coupons and redeemed them all).

Despite that, I'm thinking about getting a spotify sub anyway. The music discovery and especially the user playlists I find to be far superior. GPM is really lacking hard on the social front.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#69

Post by adventured »

shmerl wrote: post #40
robryan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's is highly unlikely there will be no one that you can buy a similar service from in future, if Spotify goes away.

Point is, you'll have to pay again. I prefer to pay once, and then have it in my collection.

Where can you pay a low one-time fee for such a vast amount of mainstream / popular music that you get to keep forever?

Nowhere.

Re: Spotify is gaining leverage over record labels

#70

Post by edblarney »

coldtea wrote: post #24
edblarney wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your logic they are 'bribing' the journalist and 'paying them off' by 'giving them a scoop'? Ergo - every decent news story amounts to 'bribery'? I think you bit your tongue on that one.

> So by your logic they are 'bribing' the journalist and 'paying them off' by 'giving them a scoop'? Yes, it happens often. Journalists get paid with scoops, etc (aka in the industry as "access") and that buys some favorable pieces and a sympathetic ear on the other side. Here's an example (there are countless others from all parties and from tons of companies): http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-…

I'm fully aware of how it works.

And no, it's not bribery.

His comment was an unsubstantiated attack on the journalist who wrote that piece.

That piece is by no means a 'puff piece' - it's just a normal bit of journalism, and it's actually reasonably good.

Making statements like 'oh, they paid them for that piece' is derogatory and crude, and unless there's some obvious reason or merit to the argument, it need not be said.

Post reply on HN