3 ms·
> They're willing to put up with ads and reduced quality for just $10 a month. I see two reasons for this: 1) Free is huge. Most people are willing to put up
by jobu 11y ago
> They're willing to put up with ads and reduced quality for just $10 a month.
I see two reasons for this:
1) Free is huge. Most people are willing to put up with a lot of bullshit for free.
2) Netflix. We pay $7.99/mo for essentially infinite TV on multiple devices, but $9.99 only gets me audio on one device at a time. It seems like a worse deal, so why would I pay?
- martian 11y agoAlso: never underestimate laziness. Typing in a credit card takes work. Re: Netflix/Spotify price differences. The relative size of the libraries (vs all content in the domain) is something to keep in mind. Netflix gives users access to some videos, but Spotify gives users access to almost all songs [1]. [1] Can't find precise estimates for sizes of libraries, so apologies for the argument from anecdotal evidence.
- ghaff 11y agoOTOH, $120/yr for music is, depending on your assumptions and how you measure, actually pretty high compared to what people have historically spent on recorded music. [1] I know I've been on the fence about paying for a subscription given that I already have a big library of most of the music I care about. It's not so much that I'm too lazy to subscribe but I'm very slow to sign up for services that are going to hit my credit card every month. Netflix video streaming is close to worthless for movies. But combined with DVDs it's pretty good. [1] http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/ http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/
- ececconi 11y agoI guess it's because I value music much more than TV and movies. I listen to music all day at work, but I may watch a movie or show once every couple of weeks.
- gohrt 11y agoBecause I consume more music than video -- music is on all day, movies are not.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]