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

Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

resonate.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#31

Post by smegcicle »

bscphil wrote: post #21
smegcicle wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving someone what they deserve/earn is serving Justice, not Charity

Vouched for your comment because I thought it was an interesting view. Not sure why it was downvoted. Why can't it be both? Suppose I buy t-shirts from Walmart. At the checkout counter, the cashier asks me to donate $5 to feed hungry children in Malaysia. I take a quick look at the tag on my $3 t-shirt. Turns out it was made by hungry children in Malaysia. In this case, giving the $5 would be both justice and charity…

you're not wrong, but to explain- i was cheekily referencing g k chesterton's discourses on charity as a paradoxical virtue:

> It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity, which means charity to the deserving poor; but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice.

the usefulness of the distinction comes about if eg someone were to say, "that person doesn't _deserve_ charity", then they'd be making a judgment call, and therefore be acting in a way counter to the universal goodwill that charity is really about.

so like i said, a cheeky nitpick in this context, but i think an important one to keep in mind.

anyway, my comment was hidden because this account is hellbanned, so thanks for the charity lol

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#32

Post by nivenkos »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #28
Kye wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is your $10 isn't split among artists you listen to. Your $10 is tossed into a pool with all the other $10s and split depending on deals made with Spotify, not based on listening. That means the vast majority goes to the most popular artists' labels, many (maybe most) you never listened to. Most artists make pennies at best because already successful artists have labels that negotiate better per-stream ra…

I think GPs point is, given their streaming habits and what Spotify charges, it’s not possible to pay 1cent per stream on average. Though my math would be slightly different. Assuming: * 3 hours (180 minutes) per day * 30 days in a month * $10 subscription * 3.5 minute average song length 180 * 30 / 3.5 = 1543 streams per month $10 / 1543 = $0.0065 per stream So for a listener listening on average 3 hours per day, if…

Yeah, to achieve that you're looking at a minimum of $25+ per month, and probably more like $60 once you take in to account payment processing fees, the service overhead, label overhead, etc.

And despite all the virtue signalling, there is no way the majority of users would be happy to pay an average of $60+ a month to stream music.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#33

Post by nivenkos »

agluszak wrote: post #4

The idea seems sweet. I registered immediately, but the catalog seems to be pretty empty for now. For me the biggest feature is being able to write a new client. Oh, how I wish Spotify or Tidal had open APIs...

There are alternative Spotify clients, and it has an API.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#34

Post by peteratomic »

0des wrote: post #3

> Our unique Stream2own model splits the cost of a digital download into 9 plays. > Plays start off cheap when you're discovering and as you fall in love with a song, you come to pay the full price. > There's no transition out of Resonate to buy a song or album. Purchase it directly, or just keep listening. > Resonate pays artists directly and per-play. For listeners, the overall cost is similar to that of the averag…

TBH I just liked the number 9. Subtle Beatles reference I guess. But the model also reflects the process of falling in love with an artist or an album, meaning the payout to the artist goes up the more I repeat listen.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#35

Post by peteratomic »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #5

Hmm, you have to pay to become a member, and additionally pay for each song you listen (if you exceed the "new user" credits). Can you sign up as a listener and an artist? I tried but it says "This username is already registered" and "This email address is already registered".

We're about to launch an long-anticipated User API which is going to solve this double account type problem (listener + artist + etc). Supposed to drop in December.

And the other comment is correct... co-op membership is optional.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#36

Post by peteratomic »

agluszak wrote: post #4

The idea seems sweet. I registered immediately, but the catalog seems to be pretty empty for now. For me the biggest feature is being able to write a new client. Oh, how I wish Spotify or Tidal had open APIs...

Once the User API is launched (expected in Dec 21) then we'll finally be able to automate profile and catalog creation for the many distributors standing by. Expecting 20-50X in catalog size then.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#37

Post by itisit »

> It's also about resisting the urge to treat music as nothing more than audio wallpaper.

Having music on doesn’t require an active listening experience, nor should it. And if I really want to engage with an artist, I’m going to see them live or buy their work on a medium I own whose playback I control. Sorry, but for me this stream credit system would be more of a pain than a benefit.

Re: Resonate: A music streaming service structured as a cooperative

#38

Post by jrm4 »

dandelany wrote: post #20
jrm4 wrote: post #17

The intent is great, but this isn't going to happen. I'm a big Spotify hater, frankly -- but one thing they understand is that the marginal cost of streaming OR downloading a song is effectively zero. It's weird to pretend that it isn't -- and it's REALLY weird to promise that you're going to automatically lose more money the more you listen to a song. I think there's legs in the idea of "hey, you've listened to this…

"marginal cost of streaming OR downloading a song is effectively zero" - only if you don't consider royalties to be part of the marginal cost? What's weird to me is the seemingly pervasive idea that the cost of everything should be 100% directly related to its marginal cost + some small fixed percent. Things are priced based on what consumers will pay, which is related to how much value they derive from it. Personall…

No, royalties are objectively not part of the marginal cost, by definition. Marginal cost refers to things that must be paid for before the thing is made. This isn't a "should," it's essentially a principle of "the science of economics" (which isn't always much of a science, but this one holds up pretty well over time.)

The one that doesn't is the bit about "how much value they derive from it." All sorts of real-life experimentation/psychology, etc shows that people don't much know or understand or generally follow this thing of "a person develops a sense of how much something is worth to them and makes purchases accordingly," I mean, a moment's thought reveals that if this were true, advertising (and perhaps, google and facebook et als entire business models) wouldn't exist.

I have idiosyncratic music preferences like you, but we much don't matter.

Post reply on HN