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

Spotify files for its IPO

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 218 posts

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#121

Post by BinaryIdiot »

bedhead wrote: post #117
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same reason people don't move from Amazon to Wal-Mart, or Apple to Android, or Netflix The big difference is Apple has its own ecosystem, Amazon and Wal-Mart sell a lot of different stuff, Netflix has a TON of original shows to differentiate itself from Hulu and others. Spotify? They literally offer the identical catalog of music as everyone else. Literally. Sure their apps may be slightly better but who cares? If…

Then why is Spotify so freakin popular? Why do they have more than double the subscribers as Apple Music which arguably has major advantages (resources, pre-installed, etc)?

First mover advantage? Spotify has been around for many, many years before just about anyone else that matters. Since they're all basically the same thing why would you change after new ones came out? I kept with Google Music for the longest time before moving to spotify only because of the family deal (which, if I remember correctly, came before Google's deal and really the only reason why I ever switched).

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#122

Post by rzanella »

on_and_off wrote: post #109
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #76

Anyone feel worried about an environment where your competitor products are basically all propped up by big companies who couldn't care less whether they made money as long as they fly low of the anti-competitive radar? Of course your lemonade stand can sell lemonade for a cent a cup if your rich daddy will pay the other 99 cent from his pocket. For eg. Spotify had to lower their price from $10 per month to $15 per m…

Disclaimer : I worked for one of Spotify and Google competitors. >Most people would agree that Spotify is a better music player while each of Google's music apps are bad in different ways I am not so sure about that. Spotify is on top of its game : adjusting the loudness of tracks, using ogg, .. I am however pretty sure that to almost all the users, it makes no difference. Furthermore, it is very hard to differentiat…

Spotify's radio is a 10-song loop, another service w/ better radio and same price would definitely steal some users.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#123

Post by BinaryIdiot »

hobofan wrote: post #120
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the same problem Netflix & Amazon have been successful in combating. The answer is to become a content owner by competing with the big labels directly. > All Spotify needs to push the big labels back on their heels is to sign a few top 40 artists of their own No way that's going to work. Music is VASTLY different from video. In video it takes more time and resources to produce each one and replays are rare.…

> If Spotify became their own label and signed 100 of the top artists, their old songs are STILL with the previous label and will likely never leave. Spotify still NEEDS those songs or it's SOL. As I pointed out in a sibling comment, I think Netflix actually has the same problem. There is a significant presence of long-running shows that people love to watch on Netflix: Friends, Breaking Bad, Modern Family, How I Met…

> As I pointed out in a sibling comment, I think Netflix actually has the same problem. There is a significant presence of long-running shows that people love to watch on Netflix: Friends, Breaking Bad, Modern Family, How I Met Your Mother, etc..

Is that really true though? As video content gets older it usually gets watched less, becomes cheaper and gets re-aired everywhere it can. Once you watch it many don't re-watch. I'd love to know if there were statistics on this either way!

Music, on the other hand, doesn't show its age nearly as much and old music is constantly replayed even in the latest TV shows and movies. Seems to be music is almost timeless whereas video is not. But, again, I'd love to see some data around these topics to valid (or invalid) what I think to be true.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#124

Post by gizmo385 »

rzanella wrote: post #122
on_and_off wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer : I worked for one of Spotify and Google competitors. >Most people would agree that Spotify is a better music player while each of Google's music apps are bad in different ways I am not so sure about that. Spotify is on top of its game : adjusting the loudness of tracks, using ogg, .. I am however pretty sure that to almost all the users, it makes no difference. Furthermore, it is very hard to differentiat…

Spotify's radio is a 10-song loop, another service w/ better radio and same price would definitely steal some users.

Pandora?

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#125

Post by rvshchwl »

notatoad wrote: post #101
fragsworth wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music is quite a bit different, in that people spend lots of time curating their own playlists and they listen to the same songs repeatedly. It is incredibly annoying to have songs that you want in your playlists but can't get, EVEN if you pay for multiple services. Making their own content for video has the advantage that most people are OK with opening a new browser tab or an app to watch a specific movie or show.…

Yes, i don't think the original content strategy will work out for streaming sites the way it has for netflix and amazon. I'm not willing to open one app to listen to one album and then another app to listen to a different album. I'll use the service that has all the music i want to listen to. Whether that's piracy or youtube playlists or spotify. If any streaming service starts getting too many exclusives, it's goin…

That is basically what happened with Hulu. The service is owned by the major content providers, such as Fox and CBS, and all of the televised content is almost completely exclusive on Hulu now, as opposed to being on Netflix. As more and more shows started to get pulled from Netflix, Netflix had to rely on original shows to make sure that they have a full catalog of streaming content. They paid over $6 billion dollars in creating new shows for 2017.

Unfortunately for music, the exclusivity has started to show up in some cases. Artists that own the Tidal service don't allow any of their music on competing services, and Apple has been signing contracts with musicians to have new content show up on their service several months in advance before it does on other services (like Jay Z and Kanye).

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#126

Post by rohansingh »

oh_sigh wrote: post #67

How will this IPO fare for, say, software developers who worked there for 5 or 6 years? I had an offer on the table from them in 2011 but decided to go with Amazon instead. I'm always curious how the road not taken would have turned out.

As an engineer who accepted an offer from Spotify in 2011, worked there until last year, and am still holding on to a good portion of my grant... it's mixed.

From both my experience and that of folks I've spoken with, the last year or two has been quite good for us. That said, you're probably much better off financially if you accepted an offer from a FAANG-type company around the same time and stuck with them.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#127

Post by bedhead »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #121
bedhead wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is Spotify so freakin popular? Why do they have more than double the subscribers as Apple Music which arguably has major advantages (resources, pre-installed, etc)?

First mover advantage? Spotify has been around for many, many years before just about anyone else that matters. Since they're all basically the same thing why would you change after new ones came out? I kept with Google Music for the longest time before moving to spotify only because of the family deal (which, if I remember correctly, came before Google's deal and really the only reason why I ever switched).

Sorry, not buying it. You don't grow to 60 million paying subs on a generic product that has little more than a first mover advantage. Their subscriber count grew 50% from Sep 16 through Jul 17 alone when everyone was competing aggressively. It grew a ton after Apple Music came out. It grew a ton after Google Music came out. It grew a ton after Amazon Music came out.

Maybe, just maybe, Spotify is actually really great and customers love it.

This reminds me of people debating Apple vs Android circa 2012.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#128

Post by kingraoul3 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #107
kingraoul3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not supported by the data. The lions share of new music discovery is still done via terrestrial radio, and the brand identification people have with their favorite stations is crazy high

Where is the data showing this?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/radio-still-beats-digit...

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#129

Post by hobofan »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #123
hobofan wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Spotify became their own label and signed 100 of the top artists, their old songs are STILL with the previous label and will likely never leave. Spotify still NEEDS those songs or it's SOL. As I pointed out in a sibling comment, I think Netflix actually has the same problem. There is a significant presence of long-running shows that people love to watch on Netflix: Friends, Breaking Bad, Modern Family, How I Met…

> As I pointed out in a sibling comment, I think Netflix actually has the same problem. There is a significant presence of long-running shows that people love to watch on Netflix: Friends, Breaking Bad, Modern Family, How I Met Your Mother, etc.. Is that really true though? As video content gets older it usually gets watched less, becomes cheaper and gets re-aired everywhere it can. Once you watch it many don't re-wa…

I sadly also don't have any data to support my claims. :/

> As video content gets older it usually gets watched less, becomes cheaper and gets re-aired everywhere it can.

That has been the traditional behavior in scheduled broadcasting, but I'd wager that the lifespan of shows is significantly extended when they are available on-demand. In general, there are probably a lot of social shifts/effects related to video consumption that appeared with Netflix for the first time (e.g. binge watching), each with their own economic effects.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#130

Post by joethebro »

on_and_off wrote: post #109
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #76

Anyone feel worried about an environment where your competitor products are basically all propped up by big companies who couldn't care less whether they made money as long as they fly low of the anti-competitive radar? Of course your lemonade stand can sell lemonade for a cent a cup if your rich daddy will pay the other 99 cent from his pocket. For eg. Spotify had to lower their price from $10 per month to $15 per m…

Disclaimer : I worked for one of Spotify and Google competitors. >Most people would agree that Spotify is a better music player while each of Google's music apps are bad in different ways I am not so sure about that. Spotify is on top of its game : adjusting the loudness of tracks, using ogg, .. I am however pretty sure that to almost all the users, it makes no difference. Furthermore, it is very hard to differentiat…

I'd argue however that Spotify's song recommendation engine is one of its differentiating factors. I'm always hearing friends rave about how much they love each weeks discovery weekly playlist.
Post reply on HN