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

Spotify files for its IPO

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#191

Post by bogomipz »

hbosch wrote: post #162
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #108

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 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.…

Well, lets also not forget that Spotify has been slowly steering itself from a pure "music playback tool" to a "music discovery tool", and a trusted one at that. They are heavily promoting things like Discover Weekly, Podcasts, playlists like RapCaviar and their various "n+Moods" and "n+Vibes" playlists. There was a great article[0] posted here some time ago, I think, that likened the algorithmic discovery "products"…

>"Once Spotify achieves a critical mass of listeners that trust their algorithms, and rely on their tastemakers to deliver fresh music, Spotify could easily slot in musicians that they themselves hold the contracts for."

You mean become a competitor to the 3 labels for whom they depend on for their business? Not a chance. If the labels see them as competitors instead of customers they will pull their card and not renew their licenses.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#192

Post by bogomipz »

phirschybar wrote: post #74
_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…

> And Spotify has zero negotiation power here really? with their endless amount of listener history and preference data. IMHO Spotify has gained the upper hand.

How does endless amount of listener history and preference data give them the upper hand? That data wouldn't exist if they weren't able to license content.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#193

Post by bogomipz »

Reeeee wrote: post #118
_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…

Keep in mind that Universal, Sony, and Warner all own a chunk of Spotify.

They weren't investors. They were given a small ownership stake as an incentive to agree to license their content initially.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#194

Post by dglass »

_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…

What if spotify creates their own music label? It's the same situation that Netflix had with licensing content. Spotify has loads of data that the music labels don't. I would hope they will use that data to their advantage. If they don't they're wasting a huge opportunity.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#195

Post by thirdsun »

bhj wrote: post #47
SnowingXIV wrote: post #42

I hope they do get funding so they can support messaging again, one of the reasons I came back to Spotify was for one of my most beloved features. Sending tracks to friends within the application, but then found out it was removed. I still subscribe to Spotify, but the "copy link" send to friend via text is so much worse than being able to just message within.

Yes, I would like to see more social features that aren't tied to Facebook. I know it's not their core competency, but it's odd that the Friends feature requires FB even though they support "standard" non-FB user accounts. And a timeline-esque view of who's been listening to what at-a-glance would be neat.

This is my biggest gripe with Spotify since I had to reluctantly switch to them due to rdio shutting down: The lack of social features. We had an excellent community over there, seeing what's popular among like minded enthusiasts, discussing albums and playlists, sharing them, familiar faces everywhere. We went to great lengths to re-connect with those old rdio users on Spotify using slack channels, but due to the lack of pretty much any kind of social features or feeling of community, following anyone on Spotify is meaningless and everyone's listening in a silo.

That and the abysmal queue handling make me wish rdio was still around.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#196

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

hbosch wrote: post #162
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #108

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 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.…

Well, lets also not forget that Spotify has been slowly steering itself from a pure "music playback tool" to a "music discovery tool", and a trusted one at that. They are heavily promoting things like Discover Weekly, Podcasts, playlists like RapCaviar and their various "n+Moods" and "n+Vibes" playlists. There was a great article[0] posted here some time ago, I think, that likened the algorithmic discovery "products"…

The algorithms of Spotify are what keep me there. I leave but always have to come back, that's how good the Discover Weekly is.

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#197

Post by cyberpunk0 »

bhj wrote: post #47
SnowingXIV wrote: post #42

I hope they do get funding so they can support messaging again, one of the reasons I came back to Spotify was for one of my most beloved features. Sending tracks to friends within the application, but then found out it was removed. I still subscribe to Spotify, but the "copy link" send to friend via text is so much worse than being able to just message within.

Yes, I would like to see more social features that aren't tied to Facebook. I know it's not their core competency, but it's odd that the Friends feature requires FB even though they support "standard" non-FB user accounts. And a timeline-esque view of who's been listening to what at-a-glance would be neat.

No. No. No. I just want a well running, clean looking, audio player. Im sick of companies trying to make apps social and grow them beyond where they are great trying to incorporate bullshit that ruins the app. Spotify is great for local music, streaming, podcasts, etc. All this bullshit video and social crap they push into it ruins it. Imo IPOs kill almost any decency in a product

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#198

Post by sova »

olejorgenb wrote: post #156
e12e wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know, but not having a useful history of tracks is really annoying. Why I've landed on cloudplayer for Android - it allows you to go back to "that nice track three songs back when I was biking down a hill" (when shuffling a large, partially unknown selection).

The play queue view have a history "tab" though

There's a history tab?! Thank you kind friend

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#199

Post by andyhmltn »

TylerH wrote: post #185
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't everyone just go to Apple/Google Music if Spotify raised their prices? None of them have exclusive content or features that rival Netflix's exclusive library, I don't see why Spotify have any meaningful pricing power. I'm one of those people who hit OK this year when Netflix raised their price, but I'll immediately leave Spotify if they raise their prices and the competition don't - they have nothing sti…

Because Apple and Google Music suck? And non Apple fanboys would never go to Apple music, Apple customers are probably already there, and people don't want to give all their business to the big giants which do evil things? (Not that Spotify doesn't do evil things). Spotify also lets you catalog your own tracks from local drives... does Apple Music or Google Music let you do that?

>And non Apple fanboys would never go to Apple music,

I did. Apple Music still has one major selling point: They own iTunes so anything on iTunes is on AM. For spotify and other streaming services you still have to wait a couple hours to a few days for something to appear on the other streaming services

That being said I moved back to Spotify after a year because of how awful and buggy the UI in AM is. If Apple Music could improve the UI and fix the bugs that have been about for years they could really do well. But I have my doubts as to whether that will ever happen

Re: Spotify files for its IPO

#200

Post by andyhmltn »

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…

The Apple Music 'for you' section was something I never really bothered to check. I found the recommendations were poor. I love Spotify's auto-generated playlists. They have a slight problem where if you decide to listen to a new genre for a couple days it suddenly assumes that's all you want to hear, but that's a minor issue
Post reply on HN