371–380 of 479 posts
Apple Music can run break-even as a platform feature, like the App Store was (at least in the early days). Or they could pay artists more with that margin and get more exclusives. Either way, it's a fundamental long term competitive disadvantage for Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are flat out wrong. 65% of those 50 million streams in the first 48 hours were by people under the age of 34. See: https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-time... So yeah, catalog is king.
And you don’t think those folks weren’t streaming because they were heavily pushed towards it? First 48hrs is completely irrelevant, I want to see sustained numbers. I’m not saying the later numbers don’t show them leading still, I’m just saying your choice of facts doesn’t support the argument you are making.
It's very bizarre that you don't understand the magnitude of the The Beatles. They are not something that requires a push.
So here's some number regarding the first 3 months of their catalog being available on Spotify:
"24 Million Hours Of Beatles Music Has Been Played In Their First 100 Days On Spotify
The company revealed today that in just over three months, people around the world have played 2,793 years worth of Beatles tunes.
Yes, that’s right — years. When that figure is broken down, it can be better understood as about one million days, or over 24 million hours. Considering that the average Beatles song is less than five minutes long, those 24 million hours multiply into several hundred million plays."
In fact, a conservative estimate of total Beatles plays on Spotify is still over a quarter of a billion. [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-thei...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A streaming service that has no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC etc is going to shed users pretty quickly. I disagree. I think for most people music is fungible; they just want something to listen to. I think Spotify can afford to have gaps in it's library. Sure, if a large enough portion of the music industry cut them off it would be an issue, but I don't think they're in imminent danger of that.
Spotify's catalog is so spotty that it is borderline useless for me. Most small indie labels still do not publish to Spotify If you are the kind of person that will sometimes strongly desire to listen to only one song/style/artist, and that desire is so strong that nothing else satisfies it, then Spotify not having your track can be a big deal. If I can't build a decent playlist because Spotify's lack of coverage, th…
It's like complaining about the lack of techno (especially remixes) on Spotify, that's what Beatport is for.
Not enough people talking about this: The fundamental challenge for Spotify is they have to make money while Apple Music doesn't. Apple Music can run break-even as a platform feature, like the App Store was (at least in the early days). Or they could pay artists more with that margin and get more exclusives. Either way, it's a fundamental long term competitive disadvantage for Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how much business 21st Century Fox does compared to your numbers, but Disney is buying "most of" them[1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/media/disney-fox-deal/index....
If the acquisition goes well, it could keep Disney ahead of Netflix's scale for another three or four years (on an apples to apples basis). The Fox assets they're acquiring are substantial, however there's zero organic growth in the Fox business (it's closer to a contracting business with 2017 sales below 2015 sales). An acquisition like that might be as likely to throw Disney into chaos as anything and give Netflix…
Not enough people talking about this: The fundamental challenge for Spotify is they have to make money while Apple Music doesn't. Apple Music can run break-even as a platform feature, like the App Store was (at least in the early days). Or they could pay artists more with that margin and get more exclusives. Either way, it's a fundamental long term competitive disadvantage for Spotify.
I know it’s just an acecdote, but I don’t know a single person that uses Apple Music. Spotify already has a huge library and mindshare. It was too little too late for Apple IMO
[1] Apple Music is set to surpass Spotify in paid US subscribers this summer https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/4/16971436/apple-music-surpa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A streaming service that has no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC etc is going to shed users pretty quickly. I disagree. I think for most people music is fungible; they just want something to listen to. I think Spotify can afford to have gaps in it's library. Sure, if a large enough portion of the music industry cut them off it would be an issue, but I don't think they're in imminent danger of that.
Spotify's catalog is so spotty that it is borderline useless for me. Most small indie labels still do not publish to Spotify If you are the kind of person that will sometimes strongly desire to listen to only one song/style/artist, and that desire is so strong that nothing else satisfies it, then Spotify not having your track can be a big deal. If I can't build a decent playlist because Spotify's lack of coverage, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify tried poaching higher-level strategy people from Netflix.
>"Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them." This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely. Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mai…
Indie and emerging artists aren't going to sign with a label if it means their music isn't available on Spotify, the #1 streaming service.
Music labels may have modestly more leverage, but it is not impossible for Spotify to start their own label while also maintaining relationships with existing ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's already happening, that's why I brought it up. Right now it's not a huge problem, because it doesn't happen too often or on a large scale. Like you said, it's usually a couple of songs in a larger playlist. Now, imagine the scenario comparable to what @bogomipz said above: "no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC". I'm betting all of us would be a lot more frustrated and irritated than we are right now…
I’m curious. Do a lot of people actually use a single music streaming platform? As an avid music lover, I get my new doses from various services. Spotify is the only one that I pay for. I mainly use it to discover the latest mainstream stuff from genres I don’t typically listen to. But the Beatles? Come on, why isn’t that saved in your hard drive somewhere?
I just don't see how this can be a successful company long term. If the labels see any profit they will demand more fees at the next deal negotiation. To become music's Netflix they would have to produce their own music which people want to listen to, which is a lot easier said then done. The easiest route is probably to become Tidal and give the company away to a few big artists in exchange for exclusives.
I would not be surprised if the long term goal is to not just produce but to be THE market place for all music. They already promote tickets to concerts, why stop at promotion, they could easily displace ticketmaster, and with ticketmasters lack of goodwill I am sure lots of people would be happy for this to happen.