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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#921

Post by FirmwareBurner »

ryloric wrote: post #706
cbozeman wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that makes sense to you . I grew up with someone who is now in the C-Suite of one of America's largest corporations - a company that has been in the Fortune 100 for decades. He has bounced from directorship to C-Suite in Fortune 500s for the past 12 years, and I asked him about this phenomenon over cigars about six months ago, he said this: "cbozeman, you have to understand these people. Most of these people maki…

You know, the older I get, the more the world seems upside down to me and I'm not even that fucking old.

The world has always been upside down, you were just not looking to see it.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#922

Post by commandlinefan »

mrbonner wrote: post #743

I 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 have that many people (9000) ... just gets worse everyday

As much as I hate to see layoffs from an empathization perspective, maybe this is the reason? Remember Brook's Law - adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#923

Post by charles_f »

mrsilencedogood wrote: post #857
charles_f wrote: post #588

> To understand this decision, I think it is important to assess Spotify with a clear, objective lens ... then proceeds to vague MBA word without a single number to support them. > We debated making smaller reductions throughout 2024 and 2025 What was not debated was keeping people they hired. > we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to…

This reads to me like "the darn developers are spending too much time not laser-focused on business impact and keep bikeshedding and doing make-work!" It's impossible to tell if this is what's happening though. It can really go either way. I've seen orgs where the perf-review meat grinder is driven so tight that engineers are essentially punished/PIPd for doing things that NEED to happen even if they aren't sexy busi…

> laser-focused on business impact

If you only knew the PTSD that the expression "laser-focused" is triggering. From an organization that had 12 focuses per quarter, and as many "core-priorities".

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#924

Post by massysett »

bede wrote: post #757
massysett wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"for a few months" - so you went back. Honest question - what is Spotify doing so well that you went back rather than just sticking with, say, Apple Music?

Depth and breadth of electronic music catalogue and switching cost. Former is probably narrowing rapidly. What would you recommend? Building Apple's future streaming monopoly isn't particularly appealing. Small perhaps, but pausing a sub with explanation sends a clear signal.

I use a lot of Apple devices and I’m not picky, so Apple Music works well for me. I highly doubt Apple will get a monopoly since Google is also in this space with YouTube Music, so there’s another option for you.

A lot of the smaller players have dropped out of this space, which might be a hint as to why Spotify is leaning in to the podcasts: maybe it’s hard to be independent here with Amazon, Apple, and Google being willing to not make much money on this as they build their moats.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#925

Post by comprev »

keehun wrote: post #745
mrbonner wrote: post #743

I 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…

If you primarily listen to classical music, Apple's new Classical Music app (part of its Music subscription) is *fantastic*.

Always nice to see Apple Music Classical mentioned on here. I was one of the lead engineers building things before the acquisition and to my knowledge they still use tooling I built around automation of audio ingestion. Streaming music was a fascinating industry to work in

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#926

Post by some_furry »

firecall wrote: post #919
mrbonner wrote: post #743

I 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…

For me it’s the forcing of Podcasts down my throat that I hate. No Spotify, I do not want to listen to Joe Rogan and other right wing podcasts. Just let me hide Podcasts already :-(

Spotify without podcasts would be delightful

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#927

Post by asadotzler »

gedy wrote: post #377
crote wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass firings like these are not normal. In countries with functional labor laws, it's straight-up illegal unless you're basically going through bankruptcy. Mass firings should only happen if either 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on, or 2) the company is doing so poorly its immediate future is uncertain. The Silicon Valley style mass-hiring followed by mass-firing style of management is indicative…

> 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on There is of sorts, with high interest rates and inflation. This is shaking the foundations of how a lot of companies have operated since 2008.

Interest rates are not historically high and neither is inflation.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#928

Post by MichaelZuo »

tracerbulletx wrote: post #918
MichaelZuo wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems false, Whatsapp became 'the business engine through which the vast majority of the world' sends texts on the backs of 20ish employees. Even assuming delivering music, podcasts, royalty payments, negotiations with artists, etc..., takes 100x more headcount in total, that should still be only around 2000 employees. 9000 just means most are not being that productive.

Obviously you can do it leaner, if they couldn't they wouldn't be firing people. My point is that you shouldn't be trying to estimate based on the technical side when most of the head count is negotiating with record companies and producing podcasts. In any case I personally wouldn't be so obsessed with every company running as lean as possible, great way to have 5 people make 10 billion dollars and everyone else jus…

> ...when most of the head count is negotiating with record companies and producing podcasts.

Can you link the source?

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#929

Post by moogly »

emodendroket wrote: post #916
moogly wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daniel Ek and Drake certainly have made money. Smaller artists? Not a chance. They get paid in exposure, which is the #1 rule not to do in the creative arts.

I’m not even talking about artists though. Just Spotify the corporate entity.

Indeed. Personally I think it's somewhat perverse how a huge machine operating at a loss can redistribute so much wealth though, to the top, no less. That was sort of my point.

Like, I could have an easier time accepting Spotify losing money if it actually enriched the masses that produce the majority of its content, but we all know that's not what it is doing.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#930

Post by saaaaaam »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #865
mahmoudhossam wrote: post #199

This isn't about rising costs though, this is about the labels and shareholders being greedy and wanting an even bigger piece of the cake that is already massive. Meanwhile artists are getting paid next to nothing and now even workers are getting the short end of the stick.

Have you looked at the financials? The company runs net losses, every year. Losses are not a "massive cake", they are a "massive hole".

The labels are definitely getting a massive slice of the cake - and recently pushed for more.
Post reply on HN