4 ms·

Given the brutal reality of the streaming music business, it would not shock me if Spotify suffered the same fate.

axx 11y ago
The difference is, Spotify has a HUGE brand. When Spotify launched it was like iTunes, but you could listen to everything "for free". Sure, it wasn't free but compared to paying for every Album i'd listen to, a flat rate is basically free.
- inthewoods 11y ago
  Spotify has a great brand, but that doesn't solve the underlying poor economics of their model. With Apple and Google moving in, I'm not sure their brand is a long term advantage at this point. I just started trialing Youtube Music - $9.99 a month (US only at the moment) with free Google Play Music. And it's pretty good. And I'm pretty sure Youtube is a bigger brand than Spotify. Neither Google or Apple has to make money from their service - whereas Spotify must make money. It makes me wonder why Spotify hasn't just gone after artists directly, because that's the only way I see them making money long term.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    > It makes me wonder why Spotify hasn't just gone after artists directly, because that's the only way I see them making money long term. That's partially what Tidal tried to do but it's not going very well for them either, unfortunately.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  Napster and WinAmp both would like to remind you that huge brands don't matter (and mostly don't last) in music.
KingMob 11y ago
Spotify may be somewhat insulated, since the major labels now have a large ownership stake in it. OTOH, I suspect Spotify will jack its prices up over time as the labels tighten the screws.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  It's not like labels pushed one another with sharp elbows in order to get into that financing round. Spotify needed licenses, they had very little cash, they did not have statutory rates like Pandora, so giving up equity upfront with a promise of later payments was the reasonable terms they've arrived at.
reiichiroh 11y ago
I don't know how other also-rans like Dash and Deezer can keep raising funds to pursue the razor-thin streaming music business.

axx 11y ago

The difference is, Spotify has a HUGE brand. When Spotify launched it was like iTunes, but you could listen to everything "for free". Sure, it wasn't free but compared to paying for every Album i'd listen to, a flat rate is basically free.

inthewoods 11y ago
Spotify has a great brand, but that doesn't solve the underlying poor economics of their model. With Apple and Google moving in, I'm not sure their brand is a long term advantage at this point. I just started trialing Youtube Music - $9.99 a month (US only at the moment) with free Google Play Music. And it's pretty good. And I'm pretty sure Youtube is a bigger brand than Spotify. Neither Google or Apple has to make money from their service - whereas Spotify must make money. It makes me wonder why Spotify hasn't just gone after artists directly, because that's the only way I see them making money long term.
- lagadu 11y ago
  > It makes me wonder why Spotify hasn't just gone after artists directly, because that's the only way I see them making money long term. That's partially what Tidal tried to do but it's not going very well for them either, unfortunately.
WorldMaker 11y ago
Napster and WinAmp both would like to remind you that huge brands don't matter (and mostly don't last) in music.

KingMob 11y ago

Spotify may be somewhat insulated, since the major labels now have a large ownership stake in it. OTOH, I suspect Spotify will jack its prices up over time as the labels tighten the screws.

prostoalex 11y ago
It's not like labels pushed one another with sharp elbows in order to get into that financing round. Spotify needed licenses, they had very little cash, they did not have statutory rates like Pandora, so giving up equity upfront with a promise of later payments was the reasonable terms they've arrived at.

reiichiroh 11y ago

I don't know how other also-rans like Dash and Deezer can keep raising funds to pursue the razor-thin streaming music business.