Spotify files for its IPO • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#171

Post by pitaj » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

on_and_off wrote: post #140

joethebro wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AFAIK all of the major players have this feature and even developed it a while ago : Google Music have been displaying some kind of 'I feel lucky' button for ages (it is not random but based on your listens). They also had artists maps years ago. Deezer has its Flow Apple Music has 'for you' Etc .. There are many variations in how these recommandations are surfaced to the user though. I would be hard pressed to recom…

Spotify's is based on machine learning working on the actual audio tracks.

It seems to me that Google Play Music's recommendations are based on what artists you like, based on machine learning, but not using the actual music, just pattern matching with other people.

I use Google Play Music, and am actually considering trying Spotify to get better recommendations.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#172

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #108

pembrook wrote: post #54

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. I might be wrong but I remember reading something like 90%+ of streams on music services are of songs currently on the charts. Capture the popular cultur…

> 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.…

But in that world any other player would equally NEED Spotify's artists.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#173

Post by on_and_off » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #171

on_and_off wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK all of the major players have this feature and even developed it a while ago : Google Music have been displaying some kind of 'I feel lucky' button for ages (it is not random but based on your listens). They also had artists maps years ago. Deezer has its Flow Apple Music has 'for you' Etc .. There are many variations in how these recommandations are surfaced to the user though. I would be hard pressed to recom…

Spotify's is based on machine learning working on the actual audio tracks. It seems to me that Google Play Music's recommendations are based on what artists you like, based on machine learning, but not using the actual music, just pattern matching with other people. I use Google Play Music, and am actually considering trying Spotify to get better recommendations.

Do you have sources on this ?

Always interested to read more about how these recommendations work.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#174

Post by dna_polymerase » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:56 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #157

noxToken wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Netflix went to in-house only, then they could significantly (I assume) drop the price. Part of Netflix's big expense is licensing content. If all of the major players are pulling content, then the licensing costs for all of that content disappears as well.

Doubtful since they're pouring every extra dollar they have into making originals.

Also they have pretty high debt accumulated, so they really need some cash.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#175

Post by majormajor » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:02 AM UTC

rvshchwl wrote: post #125

notatoad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dollar…

It's been kinda the reverse in video, if my recollection of the timelines is right. Netflix's big push into originals and dropping of licensed content started to happen 4+ years ago, well before Hulu seemed to have the budget to get big shows into their back catalog.

From Netflix subscriber numbers, it's also not clear that the lost content has dented their subscriber retention at all. The talk among my friends centers much more around new Netflix originals (or even Amazon/Hulu originals) than around back catalog stuff on Amazon or Hulu. I don't understand why -- I'm utterly uncompelled by 95%+ of what they're putting out, since I don't have the motivation to deeply investigate new Netflix shows/movies every week, and however they're advertising, it doesn't really reach me -- but it's what I see happening, much to my annoyance.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#176

Post by majormajor » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:07 AM UTC

bedhead wrote: post #127

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 grea…

Yep. Apple Music is a nonstarter for me because the Android app was pretty shitty when I tried it in early 2017 and didn't integrate into the rest of the OS in native-like ways, especially when it came to things like Android Auto. I find the Google Music interface a disaster, and the Spotify clients seem to have better last.fm integration, which I haven't found in the Google clients. I also hate the desktop Google Music client, it's quite primitive feature-wise. Spotify's desktop app isn't as nice as iTunes (why are play counts and granular ratings gone from everywhere else :( ) but at least it's a start, and last.fm can pick up on play count tracking for me. Amazon's offering seems even more half-assed than Apple's.

If you're gonna ask me to re-create all my playlists and invest the time to train the recommendation engine, your client better be damn good. Otherwise what's an extra few bucks a month for not having to bother relearning shit? $10/month difference would probably get me thinking, though...

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#177

Post by user5994461 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:08 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #54

_whm1 wrote: post #46

I don't think this is a good long term investment. Disclaimer: I worked for a Spotify competitor in the past, so i have a pretty solid understanding of how the business works. I think it is a bad investment for one simple reason: Spotify purchases its main product (music) from a oligopoly. I'd estimate that 95%+ of the tracks streamed (by total playtime) are from one of the 3 major music labels: Universal, Sony or Wa…

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. I might be wrong but I remember reading something like 90%+ of streams on music services are of songs currently on the charts. Capture the popular cultur…

Netflix is a joke outside of north America.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#178

Post by wolco » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:14 AM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #103

nkozyra wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. I think you're saying the same thing as the post you're replying to. The direction would be to own (or "create") the content. In other words, Justin Timberlake or someone with equal clout moves from Sony to Spotify Records (for lack of a better name).

The problem with that is it creates a war for exclusives. If their competitors start doing the same thing, spotify will just end up losing a lot of their content. and personally, unless spotify continues to have the vast majority of the music i want to listen to, i won't continue being a subscriber.

But if they sign the top 30 and you listen to that kind of music you will have to subscribe.

Netflicks is creating there own content which would mean spotify would need to create new bands instead of sign existing ones which most likely would fail because they are all under contract.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#179

Post by majormajor » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:15 AM UTC

qznc wrote: post #151

bedhead wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the "broke college students" quip is wrong. Generally, Netflix's subscribers are fairly well off (in the US anyway). Second, even if that was the case, I can assure you that said college students would suck it up and pay the extra $5-10/month. This extra cost isn't putting anyone into bankruptcy. Netflix has raised prices several times and subscribers keep increasing. And people are just getting more ad…

> Ballmer saying no one would pay $500 for a phone? And he is right. A smartphone is more than a phone. How can Netflix be more than a video player? One way seems to be to become a producer. Back to Spotify: How to be more than a music player?

One way is to be a ubiquitous one. I think the Apple TV is the only major omission for Spotify's footprint? Amazon Echos integrate with Spotify; I think Google Home does too. I don't think you can say that very often for the reverse. People do notice this sort of lock-in, and start noticing that their frends have Spotify and can run it pretty much everywhere, and so Spotify is the first one people check out. Generally people aren't super price-sensitive at this price level, outside of students, and students get some huge discount deals from Spotify.

Roku is the opposite side of the same strategy: everyone keeps buying them even though their interfaces and app ports are generally less polished, the hardware often less capable, than much of the competition. It's offset by being simple and well-understood (ever see someone try to use that Apple TV remote touchpad for the first time?) and by running pretty much every TV/streaming app out there.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#180

Post by majormajor » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

amigoingtodie wrote: post #88

whiddershins wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PR and lots of logistical support. Much of that logistical support is also drawbridge over a moat that makes exposure on a large scale basically impossible without access and backing. The idea that a person can create and maintain a fan base of millions without all that is attractive but infeasible.

Like Louis CK?

He was a writer for established media titans like Letterman and Conan, with other fairly-typical industry projects as well, with a TV show on a major cable network, before he really blew up outside of comedy insider circles, AFAIK.