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

The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

blog.chartmogul.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#41

Post by overcast »

hb3b wrote: post #4
runeb wrote: post #2

I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.

The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels. This may be one of the reasons they have double downed recently on their discovery products. If they can continue to divert user interest to artists from less expensive labels, it's a win/win. (Former Spotify employee, have no idea what I'm talking about).

I can't say in my 37 years of life, that I've ever considered what label a band was on, before I listened to them. I couldn't even name four big labels. The statistics point that way, because the four biggest, have the most artists under them.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#42

Post by aidenn0 »

ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

After reading so many good things about spotify, I gave it a spin for the first time this past week. It actually is the best music streaming service I've used before, but I'm still not going to subscribe.

New albums on CD are nearly universally under $10 now, and used CDs are even cheaper, so the price of Spotify is more than an album per month. That's a very steep price, and ultimately I think I'm happier buying 15 CDs per year than paying Spotify's subscription fees.

I don't see such high royalties are sustainable if Spotify can't be profitable under them.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#43

Post by blahman2000 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #42
ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

After reading so many good things about spotify, I gave it a spin for the first time this past week. It actually is the best music streaming service I've used before, but I'm still not going to subscribe. New albums on CD are nearly universally under $10 now, and used CDs are even cheaper, so the price of Spotify is more than an album per month. That's a very steep price, and ultimately I think I'm happier buying 15…

Whoa dude are you serious? You still use CDs?

I think for most people this is a non-starter, maybe you convert them to MP3s and sync them to all your devices?

Right now I use Spotify and can listen to my music at work, home, or on the go using my phone. And that's fine with me. I don't pay for Spotify though which means I have to listen to ads and their mobile experience isn't as good.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#44

Post by dkrich »

ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

I feel the same applies to Prime Video. Horrible, horrible UI and user experience to find programs and then stream them. This is no small thing, either, because the ease of use of Netflix I believe is probably the single biggest reason I use the service, even more than the quality of programming which I believe to be more of a commodity by the day.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#45

Post by ORioN63 »

gnud wrote: post #39
ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

I continue to pay for spotify, and I'm a semi-happy user. But I would pay double for better search/metadata and none of the idiotic suggestions.

I find good music on `Discover Weekly`. Why are suggestions idiotic?

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#46

Post by aidenn0 »

blahman2000 wrote: post #43
aidenn0 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading so many good things about spotify, I gave it a spin for the first time this past week. It actually is the best music streaming service I've used before, but I'm still not going to subscribe. New albums on CD are nearly universally under $10 now, and used CDs are even cheaper, so the price of Spotify is more than an album per month. That's a very steep price, and ultimately I think I'm happier buying 15…

Whoa dude are you serious? You still use CDs? I think for most people this is a non-starter, maybe you convert them to MP3s and sync them to all your devices? Right now I use Spotify and can listen to my music at work, home, or on the go using my phone. And that's fine with me. I don't pay for Spotify though which means I have to listen to ads and their mobile experience isn't as good.

Yes I convert them to MP3s (well ogg) and sync them to my devices. Other than my bluray player, I don't have a working CD player in my house (my 3 disc changer separate died a few years ago).

In any event, DRM free MP3s are usually within about $1 of the album price, and many of the places that sell MP3s have some option to stream from their cloud storage. I go with the shiny plastic discs because a) I'm a Luddite and b) some genres of music have audible distortions in mp3 (mainly pre-echo!) that I find bothersome when listening with headphones.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#47

Post by solarkraft »

aidenn0 wrote: post #42
ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

After reading so many good things about spotify, I gave it a spin for the first time this past week. It actually is the best music streaming service I've used before, but I'm still not going to subscribe. New albums on CD are nearly universally under $10 now, and used CDs are even cheaper, so the price of Spotify is more than an album per month. That's a very steep price, and ultimately I think I'm happier buying 15…

There are few alba I like fully. I also have varying listening habits, like to discover new stuff (great algorithms!), like to just hit play and like the convenience of all the music on all devices - with the state even synced among them very well. Down side: I don't own the music. But apart from DLNA playback not being easily possible it's not really a pain point.

Maybe one day I'll even switch from the free plan to paying them.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#48

Post by solarkraft »

gnud wrote: post #39
ibdf wrote: post #22

The article compares Amazon Prime music with Spotify... I'm a prime member and enjoy many of the advantages it comes with, but Prime Music is not one of them. It's horrible! A few months ago I thought I would give it a try and only use Prime Music because... why pay for two services? After about one month of use, I went back to spotify. The prime player UI is no good, the music selection is horrible, the music recomm…

I continue to pay for spotify, and I'm a semi-happy user. But I would pay double for better search/metadata and none of the idiotic suggestions.

Yes, some of the sorting is inconvenient. Do they even have info on the release year when a song is playing?

They could also expand the social features.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#49

Post by solarkraft »

overcast wrote: post #41
hb3b wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels. This may be one of the reasons they have double downed recently on their discovery products. If they can continue to divert user interest to artists from less expensive labels, it's a win/win. (Former Spotify employee, have no idea what I'm talking about).

I can't say in my 37 years of life, that I've ever considered what label a band was on, before I listened to them. I couldn't even name four big labels. The statistics point that way, because the four biggest, have the most artists under them.

This is true. The work of labels is not hard to replicate digitally and Spotify is a valued brand already with amazing distribution built in. On the physical front however (and bands need concerts to make money) they would be disadvantaged. Seems surmountable too, though.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#50

Post by solarkraft »

EggsOnToast wrote: post #12
runeb wrote: post #2

I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.

It might just be too risky in their minds. I can't speak for every user, but if Spotify dropped the big labels I'd just go elsewhere. There's already enough platforms for discovering new or different artists, Spotify's value to me is being able to pick a song or band I like on a whim and know that they'll probably be there.

This could well be what's pressing them to stay away from the label game.
Post reply on HN