4 ms·
Or they could compete in the marketplace w/ a better product, an integrated product strategy, and a long term understanding of the market and talent. In doing s
by Gorbzel 10y ago
Or they could compete in the marketplace w/ a better product, an integrated product strategy, and a long term understanding of the market and talent. In doing so, they deliver shareholder value without burning unnecessary cash.
Oh look! They're doing exactly that with exclusives.
- zaidf 10y agoExclusives provide a monopoly of sorts to Apple by removing choices for consumer. That makes exclusives a bad thing for the consumers and the market.
- yardie 10y agoIt works both way. The producers want to be paid for their work and they've said so many times, in uncertain words. Spotify is still at the point that they rely on new signups at the free tier. Apple doesn't do free, they pay better, and they are willing to give artists the white glove treatment. As a listener you have a choice of pay now for access or wait until it's streaming everywhere else.
- zaidf 10y agoI get that artists want to make more money but at the end of the day, that is simply a function of the total pot size and the money that has to be spent to get a pot that size. Spotify, so far, has been losing money. Overall, monetizing music is just a very hard business. I feel that point is often missed by artists who want to put the blame on Spotify as if Spotify is sitting on billions in profits that could go to the artists. Apple temporarily enabling a few artists to make some extra money doesn't change the fact that music is a very hard business to make money in--as much for the broadcasters like Spotify as for the artist.
- disantlor 10y agoThey are far far behind on the "better product" part at least.
- Spivak 10y agoI agreed with you until you talked about exclusives which is the definition of anti-competitive. Paying labels for exclusive content is probably the largest signal that your product isn't as good as your competitors.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]