421–430 of 479 posts
I doubt the current $150/share is sustainable given the waste, fraud, abuse, and royalties. I'm forecasting a wave of layoffs before next quarter's earnings. I'll concede the product is good and the UX is nailed. There just isn't enough innovation or growth to support the need for 5000 employees. Those of you who were users of the product 5+ years ago. How much has really changed? None of the recent acquisitions have…
Please give credible examples.
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.
I'm not convinced. You don't consume music the way you consume TV shows and movies, it's often a more "passive" activity where you start a playlist in the background while you do other things. You can do that with movie/TV shows of course but a movie will last you ~two hours while a TV show can literally last you days or weeks at a time without input if you really like having The Office in the background while you do…
The need for them to be a record label is not for exclusivity, it is so they can operate as an equal partner. At the moment their entire business is based on negotiating deals with record labels, all Spotify can offer is revenue, so they will be squeezed and squeezed as each contract is negotiated and renegotiated.
Every artist that signs up to them will save them this cost in the long run... So I'm sure there'll be seemingly crazy deals like comedians have been striking with Netflix, which in the long run are will be very beneficial to Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of these users are converting from their shrinking iTunes business.
So what’s your point? Apple Music is still overtaking Spotify this year. And just like iTunes, they don’t need to make much money on it.
Maybe they have enough capital now to adjust the Discover Weekly algorithm, which provides a weekly recipe of 30 songs that have no basis in what I listened to or have in my playlists. I do get to discover Millennial sleepily-singing voices to a disco beat and a 'laid back' riff that promises to stay in the background (thanks to a faux garagey sound). Is that what Indy means? For pre-selected music that I listen to f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personalized playlists, artist radios etc. The point is you don't have to sift because they do it for you.
Sort of, but not really. In reality a lot of the streaming contracts with record labels dictate that they must promote certain artists more than others. Spotify playlists and Browse are very bias. My Spotify 'home page' shows me mostly popular/mainstream stuff that I never listen to. :)
There's however plenty of automatically generated customized playlists available next to that. When you create a playlist it also recommends tracks it thinks will fit etc... I haven't found any obvious bias in those so far and they often recommend obscure old tracks that I doubt anybody cares to promote anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s already happening, and it’s less of a problem than I thought it would be. Some of my playlists are 200+ tracks. A few songs go missing from time to time. I can never remember which tracks have gone, I just know something’s missing as the flow from song to song is off. It’s extremely irritating, but not enough to make me go elsewhere as I can’t see any other service not having the same problem.
In case you’re not aware, there’s a setting to show unavailable tracks greyed out in your playlist, so at least you can tell which ones are missing.
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.
They could look at purchasing Bandcamp, which has done a great job of promoting and selling independent music.
Bandcamp's site loooks like it was designed by a schizophrenic person.
A lot of music sites in general seem to prefer form over function IMHO.
Discogs.com is a notable exception of course.
I do love Spotify as a product, however I don't think it will scale the same way Netflix does. Spotify is at the mercy of major record labels, and as their books become more transparent the record labels will squeeze every dollar they can for licensing. That is, unless they find a way to upend the record industry entirely. Spotify has a unique position with their amazing discovery/recommendations engine- they could p…
In my view, Spotify have pretty much "won" the streaming war. They beat Apple to the market with their streaming offering, and they have a good product that people love.
The one area Apple has Spotify beat is in its understanding of the music industry. Apple's acquisition of Beats seemed ridiculous at the time, but getting Jimmy Iovine on your side in a music war is like having Goku on your side in a Universe Survival Tournament. When you've got the likes of Jimmy Iovine and Zane Lowe committed to your cause, you're going to know how record labels work, how the industry works, and given that Iovine recently came out to say that streaming services are similar and need to diversify to succeed I'd be inclined to agree with him.
Apple have failed in the past by trying to make its music exclusive and by having artists on its payroll try to attack Spotify (to backlash on both sides). It makes me think that Spotify could wrap things up by doing what you say, but licensing its own songs equally to all other streaming services. Instead of doing what Apple did, promote availability by ensuring their music is played on competing services.
Of course, to do this Spotify will need their own Iovine, and that's no mean feat. They'd need world-class talent behind them to find musicians, produce them, and market them in the way that Apple potentially could. If Spotify can build that dream team and create their own means of production then, in my view, they've won.
I do love Spotify as a product, however I don't think it will scale the same way Netflix does. Spotify is at the mercy of major record labels, and as their books become more transparent the record labels will squeeze every dollar they can for licensing. That is, unless they find a way to upend the record industry entirely. Spotify has a unique position with their amazing discovery/recommendations engine- they could p…
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.
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…