Spotify was better when it was EU-only. When they started to expand to the US they ruined it all. Fight me. ;P
For someone who has never used Spotify, what changed?
Spotify files for its IPO
21–30 of 218 posts
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#22Spotify was better when it was EU-only. When they started to expand to the US they ruined it all. Fight me. ;P
> Fight me. ;P
This comment could be a lot more substantial. You might want to check out the commenting guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#23Isn't the point of an IPO generally to raise funds? In this case, it's just allowing people to sell their shares to the public, right? From the company standpoint, this is almost certainly a negative: additional oversight & reporting to do, no funds raised. I guess a positive is that shareholders can cash out, but as an investor, isn't that a giant red flag? I guess as an investor, I don't see why I'd buy Spotify sha…
I don't see how this is a negative signaling issue. When you buy Apple Stock it's not from Apple.
Spotify is going public largely due to terms they agreed to in previous funding rounds, but they are probably not raising money because they either don't need it or believe they can get better funding terms.
If anything, this should be a signal that the company thinks the public stock is under-priced.
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#24Crazy timing with them just getting hit with a $1.6B lawsuit. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-lawsuit/spotify-h...
I can't really figure out what the merits of the case are, or get an idea who these folks are. Not a lot written about them, even though they have been around for some time. Has spotify really been playing these major artists without permission? Or is there more to the story? Not unusual to file for 10x what you think you might collect in the end. If there really are damages, will Spotify just give them 160 million i…
I can't imagine someone wanting stock in a company they are suing for damages, but anything is possible
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the lawsuit was purposefully timed near the IPO announcement, in an attempt to heap extra pressure on Spotify to settle quickly.
Yes, that's precisely how lawsuit strategy works.
I'd be curious to know how much of the strategy on the IPO side takes this kind of "out of the woodwork" stuff into account.
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#26Spotify has been doing one feature wrong for as long as I can recall: The Previous Track button will always navigate to the previous track in the list, no matter what you played before, and if there is nothing in the playlist before that track then the button effectively does nothing. Come on! PREV stands for Previous not List Index - 1. Other than that, Spotify works well enough that I do appreciate the service, eve…
35% [1] is a good market share but certainly no monopoly. Also, some of the competitors are extremely powerful players that are able to put up a fight [1] https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/announcin...
True, a monopoly would be far more exaggerated, but Spotify still holds the individual largest slice of the share pie according to this report. Their revenue almost 3 times that of any other music streaming service. 'Thanks for the helpful link! I'm surprised only 140 million people subscribe to streaming music.
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#27Isn't the point of an IPO generally to raise funds? In this case, it's just allowing people to sell their shares to the public, right? From the company standpoint, this is almost certainly a negative: additional oversight & reporting to do, no funds raised. I guess a positive is that shareholders can cash out, but as an investor, isn't that a giant red flag? I guess as an investor, I don't see why I'd buy Spotify sha…
Index funds might be forced to invest though.
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#28Isn't the point of an IPO generally to raise funds? In this case, it's just allowing people to sell their shares to the public, right? From the company standpoint, this is almost certainly a negative: additional oversight & reporting to do, no funds raised. I guess a positive is that shareholders can cash out, but as an investor, isn't that a giant red flag? I guess as an investor, I don't see why I'd buy Spotify sha…
I don't see how this is a negative signaling issue. When you buy Apple Stock it's not from Apple. Spotify is going public largely due to terms they agreed to in previous funding rounds, but they are probably not raising money because they either don't need it or believe they can get better funding terms. If anything, this should be a signal that the company thinks the public stock is under-priced.
>"When you buy Apple Stock it's not from Apple."
How are these two comparable? When Apple IPO'd back in 1980 you were buying stock from Apple.
>"...but they are probably not raising money because they either don't need it or believe they can get better funding terms."
They lose hundreds of millions of dollars year over year, why would they not need it? Also why would they believe that they can get better funding now when they resorted to selling debt with unfavorable term intheir last round of financing?
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#29Isn't the point of an IPO generally to raise funds? In this case, it's just allowing people to sell their shares to the public, right? From the company standpoint, this is almost certainly a negative: additional oversight & reporting to do, no funds raised. I guess a positive is that shareholders can cash out, but as an investor, isn't that a giant red flag? I guess as an investor, I don't see why I'd buy Spotify sha…
Spotify is a European company, but in the US there are limits to the numbers of shareholders allowed in private companies. Something similar may apply here.
Re: Spotify files for its IPO
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is a negative signaling issue. When you buy Apple Stock it's not from Apple. Spotify is going public largely due to terms they agreed to in previous funding rounds, but they are probably not raising money because they either don't need it or believe they can get better funding terms. If anything, this should be a signal that the company thinks the public stock is under-priced.
>"When you buy Apple Stock it's not from Apple." How are these two comparable? When Apple IPO'd back in 1980 you were buying stock from Apple. >"...but they are probably not raising money because they either don't need it or believe they can get better funding terms." They lose hundreds of millions of dollars year over year, why would they not need it? Also why would they believe that they can get better funding now…
> They lose hundreds of millions of dollars year over year, why would they not need it?
I have no comment on their actual business, just that I don't see them not selling shares as a negative signaling issue.
People would make the same arguments regardless of whether they were selling stock or not.