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

Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

newsroom.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#71

Post by pembrook »

thiago_fm wrote: post #3

They need a bigger cut. 17% will not have a big enough impact to its bottom line. They need to have enough money to invest in other initiatives, as the business they are in is proven to be margin-thin. Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built

Before trialing the iTunes franken-nightmare that is Apple Music, I would have probably agreed with you.

However, after that experience, I'm starting to think there's no way in hell a massive multi-product conglomerate like Apple/Amazon is going to overtake a single-product music streamer like Spotify.

Apple/Amazon are clearly stretched too thin, and in a worse strategic position on audio due to the way the licensing agreements shook out. In music, everybody basically has access to the same catalog on every platform.

And given that songs are 4 minutes long (vs 4 hours binging TV shows), you spend wayyy more time interacting with the software in audio vs. video. So in audio, it's purely just deciding which UI/features you like best.

Spotify seems to be trying its best to screw up the UI, but no way it ever gets as bad as Apple Music given that's their only meal ticket.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#72

Post by piva00 »

hackernewds wrote: post #55
konschubert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they need to invest? They can also just keep being the most complete music streaming service. That is a low margin business, but it’s a business, and you probably don’t need a lot of people to run it.

their moat is exploiting the copyright system with monopolistic contracts with record labels

Explain. Because as far as I'm aware all of the record labels have deals with all music distributors (it doesn't make sense not to, they are in the business of showcasing their copyrighted properties), you can even distribute instantly to all streaming services through labels and distributors.

I don't think you know what you're talking about...

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#73

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #50
rapsey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seeing more use than ever with a fraction of the staff?

Unless they can somehow turn "use" into money, more use does nothing to help X as a company. And the prior method of turning use into money, advertisements, has been dropping like a rock due to the inability of the company to keep ads away from toxic content no advertiser would ever want their ads near. Can't cut costs to profitability if you are cutting revenue faster than costs.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#74

Post by epistasis »

jamesblonde wrote: post #46

You will hear more about the new term "RIF" not - reduction in force. Nobody likes to say we had layoffs, so corporate speak will be - we did a RIF ...blah blah. It's terrible, because i love playing guitar, and they are screwing with the english language as normal people use it.

There is a semantic difference in the terms:

> In the past, layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved. An RIF, on the hand, did not come with such an expectation; it usually meant that a certain position or an entire department was being eliminated. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/rif-...

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#75

Post by rapsey »

epistasis wrote: post #58
baby wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s a great podcaster.

Good enough to bring in $200M of revenue through subscriptions or ads?

Unless Spotify releases numbers none of us have a clue. Considering his youtube numbers before the move, that number was actually him selling himself short.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#76

Post by stjohnswarts »

anon23432343 wrote: post #16
mvdtnz wrote: post #7

I wonder how those losing their jobs feel about Spotify's reported $200 million investment in Joe Rogan now.

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...

It's simple, different people have different opinions in life and his show is still the most popular podcast on spotify. was it worth $200 million, I have my doubts on that one.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#77

Post by jamesblonde »

epistasis wrote: post #74
jamesblonde wrote: post #46

You will hear more about the new term "RIF" not - reduction in force. Nobody likes to say we had layoffs, so corporate speak will be - we did a RIF ...blah blah. It's terrible, because i love playing guitar, and they are screwing with the english language as normal people use it.

There is a semantic difference in the terms: > In the past, layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved. An RIF, on the hand, did not come with such an expectation; it usually meant that a certain position or an entire department was being eliminated. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/r…

That "semantic difference" is justification for using the word, but the intent behind using RIF is the usual - water down the harshness of the thing.

I don't buy we need a new word for this. Particularly this justification is nonsense - "layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved"

Who said this is true? Like say 30 years ago, IBM fired 30% of people. They didn't need to call it a RIF. Like would they re-hire the people because OS/2 took off?

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#79

Post by stjohnswarts »

mvdtnz wrote: post #24
anon23432343 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...

I feel neither positively nor negatively about Rogan himself (I've never listened to him) but it was plainly a very stupid investment on Spotify's part. Anyone could have predicted (and most of us did) that only a fraction of his audience would follow him behind the paywall and removing him from mainstream free outlets would instantly diminish his cultural relevance.

paywall? all you have to do is sign up for the freemium version of spotify?

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#80

Post by anon23432343 »

Shish2k wrote: post #42
anon23432343 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan. I don't get why people listen to him... He is not funny nor smart. It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...

Are “it was a stupid decision to buy him” and “I don't get why people listen to him” supposed to be related statements? The business decision isn’t about your personal feelings, it’s about his objectively measurably enormous audience

I want to see how they got the 200 million back and as they have to lay off 17% of there people it looks like a stupid decision in the end.
Post reply on HN