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

SoundCloud's Collapse

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 331 posts

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#271

Post by vinceguidry »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #130
ryanbrunner wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "precise meaning" is not universally accepted (or even really all that popular). Paul Graham proposed it once, some people subscribe to that, but it's not universal, and I'd say YC and the greater VC community have a vested interest in ensuring companies like the one this comment chain is about are not viewed as startups.

It's not just quibbling. If you don't use that definition, then the word "startup" loses all meaning. It doesn't matter what other people call themselves. I think companies that don't follow that definition have an agenda: startups are now prestigious, so they call themselves a startup in order to seem impressive.

You're just not going to get anywhere trying to argue word definition on the Internet, even (especially) where it matters the most, like where if you're wrong you've done wasted a decade of your life. You're just going to get drowned out by people with way more invested in their failure than you have in your success.

Sad, but it's just human nature.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#272

Post by mcguire »

bogomipz wrote: post #163
skrebbel wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Spotify managed just fine. They didn't have those billions when they started out in Sweden.

Did they manage just fine? They had to cut the same extortionate deal with the big 4 records labels and give them an equity steak in the company as well[1]. Given the recent figures I think the jury is still out on whether Spotify and this whole "the more we make the more they take" business model is actually sustainable: "In 2016, Spotify lost just over $600 million ($601.4 million), up significantly from 2015's los…

"...give them an equity steak..."

I think I love that phrase.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#273

Post by skewart »

vec wrote: post #210
wolco wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is the big loss. Having a place where one could discover new music has so much value over being served the same songs by the same few artists

Does it though? I'd like this to be true, but in practice it seems like most people (me included) strongly prefer hearing songs they already know most of the time, enjoy songs more with repetition, at least up to a point, and are more than willing to learn to like almost anything with high enough production value. Some people are music snobs as a hobby and most go on discovery quests from time to time, but it honestl…

> ...most people most of the time want music they don't have to think too much about or devote toouch attention to.

I agree with that statement - dedicating significant energy to finding new music is a fairly niche hobby.

However, I don't think easy-to-find necessarily equals label-owned music.

I often listen to music for hours at a time in the background while I'm working or relaxing at home. I'll aim for an artist or mood and then I'm happy to let 'related tracks' from artists I've never heard of play indefinitely. If there's a track I really like I'll look at who the artist is and make note. I listen to a ton of "indy" music this way. Mostly, I never know who the artist is. Sometimes I discover new artists. All of this is very low effort on my part.

In fact, it would be significantly more effort to listen to megastar pop music or classics. I'd have to find a way to play the tracks - YouTube most likely, which means a ton of poorly thought out ads, or else paying for the songs directly, which usually is just slow and annoying.

I'd wager the biggest hours of music listening are for background music - at work, in stores and restaurants, while studying, while lounging around the house. I'm sure some people always want to listen to the same ten albums on repeat every day, but I suspect most people are driven more by ambiance. Indy music will do that job just fine.

Of course people will always want to play nostalgic hits. But I suspect that's a smaller driver of music consumption by hour of attention (or at least partial attention) than many people assume. That means the labels have way less power than people assume.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#274

Post by mcguire »

flycaliguy wrote: post #270
fnord123 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Songs aren't physical things; they are ideas. And you cannot own ideas. Allowing people to own it in the first place was a compromise by the commons so people could make some money from creating things by owning it for a short time. The copyright extensions have stolen these ideas from the commons.

A song in this context is not an "idea". They are a recording made by skilled technicians of a performance by skilled musicians. Creating a recording of a song that people want to listen to requires a lot of professionals who deserve compensation.

Many people deserve many things. The world, unfortunately, does not give everyone what they deserve.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#275

Post by bogomipz »

nitrogen wrote: post #259
bogomipz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? There's two copyrights - the copyright for the physical recording which is now 35 years and there is the songwriter copyright which is country by country but generally 50 to 70 years. The latter favor the artists so that they can receive royalties for their lifetime. Without that the songs would fall into the public domain while they artists was likely still alive. See: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep…

Without that the songs would fall into the public domain while they artists was likely still alive. That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing? And US copyright is definitely longer than 35 or 50 years -- try uploading an Elvis track to YouTube; I bet someone would notice.

>"That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing?"

For centuries? Given that commercial recordings weren't widely available until the end of the 18th century I am not sure where you are getting this from.

You are mixing different things - there is a songwriter copyright and the recording copy right.

A song being in the public domain(the expire of the songwriters copyright) doesn't mean you get to use the recording however you see fit. It means you can use the song as in record the song yourself and not pay royalties to Elvis's estate or whoever actually authored the song.

The terms of the recording copyright determine who owns the physical recording. Often after a number of years these can revert back to the original performer. This is known as a "reversion." Upon a reversion the original performer can then license the original recording as they please - as reissues, for inclusion on compilations etc. This is why you can't upload an Elvis song to youtube - because Elvis Presley Enterprises own the recording.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#276

Post by sethrin »

codegladiator wrote: post #99
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read stories like these, I actually feel good about my bootstrapped, down-to-earth startup. We don't make millions, we don't "disrupt" the industry, yet we solve our customers' problems and delight them. We won't ever run out of money, as we carefully check each and every expenditure, and have growing savings in the bank. When I read stories like these, I actually feel good about my bootstrapped, down-to-earth…

> For it to be a startup, you have to have a large target market. Making up your own definition of startup ? A start-up is just a newly established business.

startup, n: an otherwise normal business that isn't making money.

But more seriously, the term is somewhat vague and is often misapplied.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#277

Post by mcguire »

rrdharan wrote: post #51
thinbeige wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is SoundCloud worth a billion dollars? This reminds me of the current ICOs and the token economy. Early adopters try to push new currencies like crazy to cash out once popularity peaks. SoundCloud was never thought as a real business. Everybody involved in the music industry should have known that it's not possible to build a solid business based on the oligopoly of three music labels and with Spotify having a head…

Traditionally pump and dump meant taking advantage of unsophisticated retail investors. I don't think this qualifies as pump and dump unless you mean the earlier stage VCs somehow managed to cash out at the expense of some later naive shareholders? In this case sounds like everyone (except maybe Ljung) lost out..

I suppose my take on the most rational explanation of the VC/startup environment is the entrepreneurs playing pump-n-dump games.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#278

Post by flycaliguy »

mcguire wrote: post #274
flycaliguy wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A song in this context is not an "idea". They are a recording made by skilled technicians of a performance by skilled musicians. Creating a recording of a song that people want to listen to requires a lot of professionals who deserve compensation.

Many people deserve many things. The world, unfortunately, does not give everyone what they deserve.

Thankfully society gave the world a legal system. Now when a business distributes music belonging to another business, compensation through the courts can be pursued in cases of piracy.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#279

Post by sillysaurus3 »

bogomipz wrote: post #252
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry but where is that criteria codified? http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

Exactly, that article was written by a VC. That does not make it a universal definition.

If an ad hominem is the best criticism you can come up with, it seems correct to me.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#280

Post by pjmlp »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #263
pjmlp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then they go and write a blog entry about how much productive they are now, instead of what was the actual business impact if any, to the company customers or revenue.

I don't follow. If they are coding the right things, then a real increase in productivity means better business impact. If they are coding the wrong things, then language doesn't matter. How can a programming language choice hurt the business through some mechanism other than productivity? You could say that such a behavior is "indicative of poor choices" but that's begging the question.

No it doesn't mean a business impact at all, unless it is proven by accounting.

Programmer hourly rate * amount spent on doing such tasks = project money spent

Now how has the project money spent impacted the overall project costs, compared with the solution that everyone else is using, including the training costs for the rest of team, setting up a new build infrastructure, possible extra tooling support, salary rates for new hires?

Somehow I feel many coders would profit to learn a bit more about business and project management.

Post reply on HN