4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoSpotify 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 agoNapster and WinAmp both would like to remind you that huge brands don't matter (and mostly don't last) in music.