Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you’re implying something but I don’t get it.
To spell it out for you, $200 million could pay for well over 1,000 employee-years of salaries.
So you're saying companies shouldn't do acquisitions?
Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
971–980 of 1001 posts
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#972Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#973I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. I’ve been a subscriber for more than 5 years and the app on the iPhone just gets worse everyday. Why? - daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check. - I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subp…
> I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. Having had a wee insight into how it worked at Rdio (obligatory: I miss Rdio!), one big chunk of the answer is they need a literal army of lawyers. A worldwide streaming music library is a hoard of licensing liabilities for every possible country, with deals that expire, renew and change hands daily on every possible mix of business days…
Everyone misses Rdio.
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#974Reminds me of: "Nobody ever got fired for buying cloud". Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did, and everyone said the same thing: "It's not our core competence, it would require more people". I get it, it's not sexy at all to deal in infrastructure, but I've seen their cloud bill and it's significantly higher than 1,600 peoples jobs, even with the discounts they got thr…
> Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did Isn't this what made Spotify success? Yes, they could have build their own datacenters, but someone else could outcompete them in the meantime. They have traded off something for another thing.
No, Spotify's success happened back when they mostly ran on their own metal. Going for the cloud happened at the same time their innovation started to stall.
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#975Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you primarily listen to classical music, Apple's new Classical Music app (part of its Music subscription) is *fantastic*.
The feature I miss that spotify has is being able to control music playing on my desktop from my phone or vice versa
Yeah, Apple has a remote app but you need to be on the same local network and connect to the remote library and then can't add stuff from Apple Music. It all feels so antiquated and inelegant.
Some people are complaining about Spotify UI/UX but at least they provide a lot of features and it works pretty well most of the time. I find the app more responsive and just overall better has a streaming player.
I subscribed to apple music for 5 years but then I just switched back to Spotify this year. It is just better.
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#976Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think so, people want to listen to swift and drake not some ML song with no relevance.
Tbh I would rather listen to a ML song than drake. At least the ML song would sound less robotic.
would need an example of this. drake has many (many) styles but i wouldn't describe him as robotic
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#977I wish CEOs would resign when layoffs happen. It should be like some governments where the whole cabinet resigns. If layoffs are a necessity, then the CEO and the top management should show the example and take responsibility for taking the company into the wrong direction, leading to layoffs. That would be fair and more understable than a "thank you for your hard work and commitment".
Lay-offs aren't necessarily a sign of failure or bad strategy, so your logic does not compute.
Lay-offs happen for all sorts of reasons. It may be very reasonable to have X number of people one year, but changed market conditions, or financing rates, or whatever else mean it no longer does the next year.
People don't have magic crystal balls. But even if they did, it may still make sense to hire people while financing such a thing is cheap, and to lay those same people off when it isn't any more. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that.
You may not like the fact, but getting rid of poor performers makes businesses stronger and better. Rounds of lay-offs undeniably make such decisions easier to make and justify in large companies.
CEOs who do the same (or more) with fewer resources are generally rewarded. As a shareholder in the company you'd want them to do more with less and make you more value, right?
You might as well argue that any CEO who needs to hire more people has failed. That sounds obviously silly, but it's genuinely an almost equivalent argument.
All of this may not be pleasant for those involved and especially those who are losing their jobs, but that's capitalism for you. Big business doesn't tend to optimise for people's feelings - it cares more about the bottom line and being competitive.
In this case there is an obvious and pressing need. The streaming music scene may be a tremendously complex place to operate a business in, with all it's licensing and labels and countless jurisdictions and legal complexities, but both Apple and Google are sitting there ready to eat Spotify's lunch if they can't figure out profitability.
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#978I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. I’ve been a subscriber for more than 5 years and the app on the iPhone just gets worse everyday. Why? - daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check. - I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subp…
They keep changing the design of the app for the worse, just nonsensical stuff. Like how many UX design people do they have? Cause clearly they're just changing stuff to make themselves feel useful. The heart changing to a plus, what the fuck Spotify?
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#979Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh I would rather listen to a ML song than drake. At least the ML song would sound less robotic.
would need an example of this. drake has many (many) styles but i wouldn't describe him as robotic
It is an opinion man. They call it mumble rap for a reason.
Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
#980Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were these blind tests?
I played the same song from random services. They did not see the service nor the laptop. YouTube/Spotify/Apple/Tidal (We did not had access to more). YT usually was the worse followed by Spotify and then depending on the Genre either Tidal or apple won. All of them were in the highest settings. Sony xm4 as headphones.
The xm4 use Bluetooth and thus compress audio during transmission. Everyone of your listeners thus listened to lossy audio.
Fwiw there is not a single scientific listening test ever where participants were able to tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and wav. Not even in perfect studio conditions.