7 ms·

I've been told by people in the position to know that the 2010-era streaming services (Rdio, Spotify, Mog) were all effectively the same company: owned mostly b

I've been told by people in the position to know that the 2010-era streaming services (Rdio, Spotify, Mog) were all effectively the same company: owned mostly by the music studios (in exchange for licenses) with a minority stake for each's particular founders/investors. As Dalton Caldwell cautioned in 2011, licensing costs make music startups are nigh impossible [1]. For people who are willing to pay for a music service, it seems pretty hard to beat Google Music's value proposition. Because it's a Google service, it can afford to compete as much as it needs to on price, and it also includes ad-free access to all of YouTube. I certainly wouldn't want to be a startup vying for that same $10 per month against one of the most popular content plays in the history of the Internet. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTOlrN5-UGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTOlrN5-UGU

jmtulloss 11y ago
As an Rdio shareholder I was told that the labels did have equity, but certainly not a majority stake. I'm not sure exactly how much they had.
- bsimpson 11y ago
  You'd certainly know better than I would. It seemed strange to me as well (esp after seeing how much outside funding they had raised), but the people I heard it from seemed both credible and adamant. It's also possible that the cap table has changed since I heard this (years ago) and now.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Any chance we'll get to see the cap table now that Rdio is being liquidated?
- uzi 11y ago
  I guess this is a good place to give a shout out to jmtulloss, who is one of the many talented engineers responsible for implementing the Rdio web interface... ... as well as plug https://spotbot.qa/ https://spotbot.qa/, which he is working on with another early Rdio employee.
6stringmerc 11y ago
As little as I actually count on the service, and have yet to update my files with tracks since about 2013, Radio Reddit is one of the few I know of that legitimately side-steps the licensing issue. It's more of a discovery service than streaming service, so to speak. Niche market. Heck, if ReverbNation or BandCamp wanted to get into the 'stand-alone, broadcast/streaming, exposure and small payment per play' market, they could have a distinct advantage in that their content sources are, predominately, unsigned and able to negotiate in good faith (in theory). Could be a great way for new bands to get noticed...could also be an unlistenable mess of garbage without human curation. Sort of a counter-community to SoundCloud, which I see as more of dealing with label pressures in ways ReverbNation/BandCamp would avoid.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Heck, if ReverbNation or BandCamp wanted to get into the 'stand-alone, broadcast/streaming, exposure and small payment per play' market, they could have a distinct advantage in that their content sources are, predominately, unsigned and able to negotiate in good faith (in theory). Yeah, but also the very big disadvantage that nobody cares for those artists [1], even for the better ones among them. This kind of "long tail" [2] idea never panned out, because it turns out most people mostly go for the few acts at the top -- and, heck, even those today are not doing very well, sales and streaming licenses wise. [1] Using "nobody" as an emphasized "very few". [2] Referring to this Friedman/Gladwelian notion that the long tail is big enough to be profitable, as in: http://www.thelongtail.com/about.html http://www.thelongtail.com/about.html
  - mbrock 11y ago
    Maybe nobody cares yet because nobody has made a sufficiently compelling alternative. Almost everyone I know has at least some bands they like that aren't one of the few acts at the top. Local bands, side projects, anti-establishment punk bands, whatever. My little working class town is a miniature hotbed for small bands. They don't all make weird punk or whatever, tons of them make music that would be really nice for café ambience. But from visiting cafés around here, it does seem like the only music that exists is the repeating top 20. I don't think anyone actually likes this, though. I certainly don't. Somebody could make it fun and easy for cafés and friends and whoever to play that music. That would have a very real value.
matwood 11y ago
I agree with you about Google Music. For those lucky enough to sign up early and get the $7.99 price, it is easily the best pay for streaming service out there.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Best is subjective. Google Music is definitely a great music store. For those wanting a social music experience Spotify is the "best". For those wanting curated music and a digital radio experience Apple Music is the "best". For those wanting a hands off service Pandora is the "best".
  - free2rhyme214 11y ago
    This.
  - Artistry121 11y ago
    I find Google Music has better playlist and radio functionality than all others - probably because of the songza acquisition.
    - sahaskatta 11y ago
      I've used Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, Xbox Music (Now Groove Music), and I find Google Music's recommendation engine by far the best. They even have a "I'm feeling lucky" feature that plays a set of curated music to your interest randomly.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    This make a lot of sense to me. Every time this discussion comes up, I'm stuck wondering what the hubbub is, since I've never wanted for anything more than Pandora. In fact, Pandora is perfect for me, since I very specifically do not want to curate my music at all beyond choosing a song, artist or genre and letting it pick stuff I might like. Letting me thumbs up/down stuff to get it better to my tastes is just gravy. I sure as hell don't want to actively pursue and catalogue music new to me, that just sounds tedious.
jobu 11y ago
It's interesting that the music studios are pushing for consolidation in the streaming audio market. Even if they do own a piece of the companies it seems like that could come back to bite them in the future.
matart 11y ago
I really like spotify because I can use it on my phone, PS3, laptop, etc. My phone can be the remote to my sound system in another room. I also have a small data plan on my phone so I do not stream music. Spotify allows me to download their songs for playing offline. Does Google Music provide these or similar?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fernandotakai 11y ago
  (i also prefer spotify) google music also allows you to remote stream music, as long as it has a chromecast plugged in (there's no support outside that afaik) it also allows you to download music you can use on your phone and laptop, but i don't think there's console support right now.
  - bsimpson 11y ago
    You can also cast to anything by Sonos, though it's a bit buggier.
- sjs382 11y ago
  I use Google music, mostly because I got in on it early and get it at small discount for $7.99/mo. I use it on my phone, in my car (via bluetooth from my phone home stereo (via bluetooth from my phone), television (via chromecast from my phone), and laptop (via the web). It also allows me to upload my offline library, which was unique when it came out (I think?) but isn't so much now (right?). My wife has Spotify, and she uses it the exact same way. Eventually we'll decide on one based on something trivial (like me being willing to switch, and she being not willing) and do a family account. And once we do, that will be that until the service closes or changes drastically. The services aren't that much different.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    No uploading your offline library was not unique when it came out nor unique now. Initially Apple's implementation was much better since it fingerprinted the song and linked it to their library so you only had to upload songs not in their library. And actually the services are quite different if you spend a lot of time with them. I switched from Spotify to Apple Music and now considering buying both.
jbigelow76 11y ago
For people who are willing to pay for a music service, it seems pretty hard to beat Google Music's value proposition. Because it's a Google service, it can afford to compete as much as it needs to on price I thought something similar about XBox Music, I figured with Microsoft's money it would never go away and it would have at least as good a selection of music as other music only services. I am right on the former, wrong on the latter. When I gave Spotify a shot I found they had a larger catalog of songs than XBox Music (particularly indie bands). I guess it comes down to XBox Music is probably a loss leader or at least a runt service that doesn't get much love at MS but at Spotify, it's their ONLY business. Maybe Google is different than MS as far as how much attention they put into their music licensing (and there is the added YouTube benefit you mentioned) but it's something to consider (or at least really compare catalog access).
- qq66 11y ago
  For indie bands, it's not so much Spotify's efforts as the bands' effort themselves that has gotten them on Spotify. If you're an indie band, you're going to take the effort to make sure that your music is showing up correctly on iTunes, Spotify, and other popular services.
orik 11y ago
I wonder if Google or Apple is in a stronger position to compete on price, and if either of them can accomplish what Amazon tried to accomplish with books until the Hatchette dispute.
caractacus 11y ago
Your people in the know are wrong. The labels own a very small part of e.g. Spotify - around 5% - and the rest is VC and the founders. Deezer's IPO documents were clear on where the ownership of that service lies.
- bsimpson 11y ago
  Sadly the edit window has passed for that comment. Apologies for spreading old/erroneous information.
  - wodenokoto 11y ago
    I read it more like, because the music startups are so dependent on the licenses they are practically owned by the music industry ( though not technically) which I thought was kinda insightful. But I guess you meant litterally.
- davidu 11y ago
  But royalty payments are far more than 5%.
- qq66 11y ago
  It's not that the labels own Spotify -- it's that by issuing limited-term licensing deals, and owning all of the music, they'll be able to charge whatever they want for their music, leaving just a little bit on the table to keep Spotify in business. Spotify reports $100m in profit? Just raise licensing fees by $90m at the next contract. Spotify won't have the leverage to walk away. Similar to Netflix, Spotify will need to create some reason for consumers to stay with Spotify, likely with some kind of music or music experience that is Spotify-exclusive like Netflix-exclusive TV shows. Also, Spotify has invested a lot of effort into its curated playlists -- this is an attempt to get people to listen to Spotify the way they watch Netflix -- fire it up and watch/listen to "whatever's on," instead of searching Taylor Swift and getting angry when they can't find it.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    For every $1,000 in music sold the artist gets average musician gets $23.40 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

jmtulloss 11y ago

As an Rdio shareholder I was told that the labels did have equity, but certainly not a majority stake. I'm not sure exactly how much they had.

bsimpson 11y ago
You'd certainly know better than I would. It seemed strange to me as well (esp after seeing how much outside funding they had raised), but the people I heard it from seemed both credible and adamant. It's also possible that the cap table has changed since I heard this (years ago) and now.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Any chance we'll get to see the cap table now that Rdio is being liquidated?
uzi 11y ago
I guess this is a good place to give a shout out to jmtulloss, who is one of the many talented engineers responsible for implementing the Rdio web interface... ... as well as plug https://spotbot.qa/ https://spotbot.qa/, which he is working on with another early Rdio employee.

6stringmerc 11y ago

As little as I actually count on the service, and have yet to update my files with tracks since about 2013, Radio Reddit is one of the few I know of that legitimately side-steps the licensing issue. It's more of a discovery service than streaming service, so to speak. Niche market. Heck, if ReverbNation or BandCamp wanted to get into the 'stand-alone, broadcast/streaming, exposure and small payment per play' market, they could have a distinct advantage in that their content sources are, predominately, unsigned and able to negotiate in good faith (in theory). Could be a great way for new bands to get noticed...could also be an unlistenable mess of garbage without human curation. Sort of a counter-community to SoundCloud, which I see as more of dealing with label pressures in ways ReverbNation/BandCamp would avoid.

coldtea 11y ago
>Heck, if ReverbNation or BandCamp wanted to get into the 'stand-alone, broadcast/streaming, exposure and small payment per play' market, they could have a distinct advantage in that their content sources are, predominately, unsigned and able to negotiate in good faith (in theory). Yeah, but also the very big disadvantage that nobody cares for those artists [1], even for the better ones among them. This kind of "long tail" [2] idea never panned out, because it turns out most people mostly go for the few acts at the top -- and, heck, even those today are not doing very well, sales and streaming licenses wise. [1] Using "nobody" as an emphasized "very few". [2] Referring to this Friedman/Gladwelian notion that the long tail is big enough to be profitable, as in: http://www.thelongtail.com/about.html http://www.thelongtail.com/about.html
- mbrock 11y ago
  Maybe nobody cares yet because nobody has made a sufficiently compelling alternative. Almost everyone I know has at least some bands they like that aren't one of the few acts at the top. Local bands, side projects, anti-establishment punk bands, whatever. My little working class town is a miniature hotbed for small bands. They don't all make weird punk or whatever, tons of them make music that would be really nice for café ambience. But from visiting cafés around here, it does seem like the only music that exists is the repeating top 20. I don't think anyone actually likes this, though. I certainly don't. Somebody could make it fun and easy for cafés and friends and whoever to play that music. That would have a very real value.

matwood 11y ago

I agree with you about Google Music. For those lucky enough to sign up early and get the $7.99 price, it is easily the best pay for streaming service out there.

threeseed 11y ago
Best is subjective. Google Music is definitely a great music store. For those wanting a social music experience Spotify is the "best". For those wanting curated music and a digital radio experience Apple Music is the "best". For those wanting a hands off service Pandora is the "best".
- free2rhyme214 11y ago
  This.
- Artistry121 11y ago
  I find Google Music has better playlist and radio functionality than all others - probably because of the songza acquisition.
  - sahaskatta 11y ago
    I've used Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, Xbox Music (Now Groove Music), and I find Google Music's recommendation engine by far the best. They even have a "I'm feeling lucky" feature that plays a set of curated music to your interest randomly.
- kbenson 11y ago
  This make a lot of sense to me. Every time this discussion comes up, I'm stuck wondering what the hubbub is, since I've never wanted for anything more than Pandora. In fact, Pandora is perfect for me, since I very specifically do not want to curate my music at all beyond choosing a song, artist or genre and letting it pick stuff I might like. Letting me thumbs up/down stuff to get it better to my tastes is just gravy. I sure as hell don't want to actively pursue and catalogue music new to me, that just sounds tedious.

jobu 11y ago

It's interesting that the music studios are pushing for consolidation in the streaming audio market. Even if they do own a piece of the companies it seems like that could come back to bite them in the future.

matart 11y ago

I really like spotify because I can use it on my phone, PS3, laptop, etc. My phone can be the remote to my sound system in another room. I also have a small data plan on my phone so I do not stream music. Spotify allows me to download their songs for playing offline. Does Google Music provide these or similar?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fernandotakai 11y ago
(i also prefer spotify) google music also allows you to remote stream music, as long as it has a chromecast plugged in (there's no support outside that afaik) it also allows you to download music you can use on your phone and laptop, but i don't think there's console support right now.
- bsimpson 11y ago
  You can also cast to anything by Sonos, though it's a bit buggier.
sjs382 11y ago
I use Google music, mostly because I got in on it early and get it at small discount for $7.99/mo. I use it on my phone, in my car (via bluetooth from my phone home stereo (via bluetooth from my phone), television (via chromecast from my phone), and laptop (via the web). It also allows me to upload my offline library, which was unique when it came out (I think?) but isn't so much now (right?). My wife has Spotify, and she uses it the exact same way. Eventually we'll decide on one based on something trivial (like me being willing to switch, and she being not willing) and do a family account. And once we do, that will be that until the service closes or changes drastically. The services aren't that much different.
- threeseed 11y ago
  No uploading your offline library was not unique when it came out nor unique now. Initially Apple's implementation was much better since it fingerprinted the song and linked it to their library so you only had to upload songs not in their library. And actually the services are quite different if you spend a lot of time with them. I switched from Spotify to Apple Music and now considering buying both.

jbigelow76 11y ago

For people who are willing to pay for a music service, it seems pretty hard to beat Google Music's value proposition. Because it's a Google service, it can afford to compete as much as it needs to on price I thought something similar about XBox Music, I figured with Microsoft's money it would never go away and it would have at least as good a selection of music as other music only services. I am right on the former, wrong on the latter. When I gave Spotify a shot I found they had a larger catalog of songs than XBox Music (particularly indie bands). I guess it comes down to XBox Music is probably a loss leader or at least a runt service that doesn't get much love at MS but at Spotify, it's their ONLY business. Maybe Google is different than MS as far as how much attention they put into their music licensing (and there is the added YouTube benefit you mentioned) but it's something to consider (or at least really compare catalog access).

qq66 11y ago
For indie bands, it's not so much Spotify's efforts as the bands' effort themselves that has gotten them on Spotify. If you're an indie band, you're going to take the effort to make sure that your music is showing up correctly on iTunes, Spotify, and other popular services.

orik 11y ago

I wonder if Google or Apple is in a stronger position to compete on price, and if either of them can accomplish what Amazon tried to accomplish with books until the Hatchette dispute.

caractacus 11y ago

Your people in the know are wrong. The labels own a very small part of e.g. Spotify - around 5% - and the rest is VC and the founders. Deezer's IPO documents were clear on where the ownership of that service lies.

bsimpson 11y ago
Sadly the edit window has passed for that comment. Apologies for spreading old/erroneous information.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  I read it more like, because the music startups are so dependent on the licenses they are practically owned by the music industry ( though not technically) which I thought was kinda insightful. But I guess you meant litterally.
davidu 11y ago
But royalty payments are far more than 5%.
qq66 11y ago
It's not that the labels own Spotify -- it's that by issuing limited-term licensing deals, and owning all of the music, they'll be able to charge whatever they want for their music, leaving just a little bit on the table to keep Spotify in business. Spotify reports $100m in profit? Just raise licensing fees by $90m at the next contract. Spotify won't have the leverage to walk away. Similar to Netflix, Spotify will need to create some reason for consumers to stay with Spotify, likely with some kind of music or music experience that is Spotify-exclusive like Netflix-exclusive TV shows. Also, Spotify has invested a lot of effort into its curated playlists -- this is an attempt to get people to listen to Spotify the way they watch Netflix -- fire it up and watch/listen to "whatever's on," instead of searching Taylor Swift and getting angry when they can't find it.
- austenallred 11y ago
  For every $1,000 in music sold the artist gets average musician gets $23.40 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml