4 ms·

It seems this sort of debate goes on continuously with ideologues. Statements like > Spotify doesn't make anything and > Your product is music are flat wro

It seems this sort of debate goes on continuously with ideologues. Statements like > Spotify doesn't make anything and > Your product is music are flat wrong. Spotify, the company, makes Spotify, the music distribution service. Music is their deliverable. Of course it's true that Spotify would be nowhere if musicians weren't making music, just as it's true that musician's would be nowhere if instrument-makers didn't make instruments. Spotify, the product, is a mechanism that allows for (perhaps too) user-friendly music consumption. Artists, through whatever means, enter into music arrangements that allows Spotify to be able to do so. The relationship may or may not be predatory. Salaries at Spotify may or may not be inflated. Regardless, those are valid critiques -- but assertions that Spotify doesn't make anything, or doesn't know what their product even is are wrong, and reveal an inability to understand that different parts of an ecosystem make up the whole thing.

tptacek 9y ago
It's interesting the different standards we have for ownership of entertainment media versus our own work product. There are zero programmers who feel Intel owns a stake in our work because without their computers, we wouldn't be able to make programs. But even though musicians in fact can create music that people will pay to listen to without instruments, you just tried to take them down a peg from us by suggesting that they're just another rung on a ladder of value that I suppose starts with, what, logging to get the wood for the instruments?
- bmelton 9y ago
  A fair criticism. I did not intend to imply that musicians were in any way less valuable than instrument makers, recording studios, distributors, et al. My statement would better have been expressed as "guitarists wouldn't make guitar music if nobody made guitars." The flip side of the coin, of course, is that you can self-distribute music without a distributor. People have done it. As a web developer, I could build web pages that do things and distribute them via hard drives if ISPs did not exist, or I could start my own ISP. Musicians have it even easier, as they can just self-distribute on the internet -- but, whether by choice or by representative proxy, musicians have chosen to allow their product to be distributed by Spotify. They're of course free to haggle over the terms of that arrangement, and there are likely valid criticisms of Spotify, or the agents who negotiated their terms on behalf of the musicians... the only point I intended, despite whatever inartful phrasing I may have used, is that "Spotify doesn't make anything" is not a valid criticism of Spotify.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
abritinthebay 9y ago
I think you'd confusing business with product. It's a common conflation because with many companies it's the same thing. But in this case I think it's important to note that Spotify's business is distribution via software. Their consumer product is absolutely music (via streaming). It's no different to, say, a book publisher - their business is marketing and delivery/distribution but their product is (obviously) books. The article is a little childish in tone (and clearly written by an interested party to one side of this argument) but his central point here is not wrong.
- bmelton 9y ago
  There's probably room for semantic interpretation here. > an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale The Spotify service is a product that is manufactured, and its purpose is to distribute music. Depending on how you parse that definition, I can see arguments that either of us is correct. Moreover, I see a distinction between product (that they make) and product (that they distribute). I don't disagree that (as the article assets) "Starbucks is coffee", but, to be fair, Starbucks actually does make the coffee that they then also sell and distribute. That said, I think the author's central point is that Spotify adds no value to the ecosystem, which I think is very much wrong. That isn't to say that they couldn't be replaced, but I can't think of anyone who can't be, in any industry, vertical, what have you.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Ah, yes - the Spotify app is a product of work within the company but it's not the product. Language isn't prescriptive so it's irrelevant anyhow but the problem here is you're using Google's first result (which is the awful dictionary.com results). Using a not-awful dictionary (Merriam-Webster) gives us a much more normal (and broader) set of definitions, including: > something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (such as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity. Spotify certainly produces the software (it's their distribution method) but what they market and sell as their commodity is music. Music is, even dictionary definitionally, their product.
nxsynonym 9y ago
Yup, I also don't think it's Spotify's responsibility to make sure recording artists are making a "fair living". Comparing the average Spotify artist's earnings to a Spotify is comparing apples and oranges. Successful artist's (except the top 5% maybe) aren't making fortunes off of streaming services. They make money from merch, touring, endorsements, and physical sales (although dwindling). This article is a cringe filled, immature rant. The author didn't expose a flaw or put the execs in their place, he threw a tantrum in the name of justice. Work on a real solution instead of bragging about how you got invited to a closed door meeting and threw a fit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 9y ago

It's interesting the different standards we have for ownership of entertainment media versus our own work product. There are zero programmers who feel Intel owns a stake in our work because without their computers, we wouldn't be able to make programs. But even though musicians in fact can create music that people will pay to listen to without instruments, you just tried to take them down a peg from us by suggesting that they're just another rung on a ladder of value that I suppose starts with, what, logging to get the wood for the instruments?

bmelton 9y ago
A fair criticism. I did not intend to imply that musicians were in any way less valuable than instrument makers, recording studios, distributors, et al. My statement would better have been expressed as "guitarists wouldn't make guitar music if nobody made guitars." The flip side of the coin, of course, is that you can self-distribute music without a distributor. People have done it. As a web developer, I could build web pages that do things and distribute them via hard drives if ISPs did not exist, or I could start my own ISP. Musicians have it even easier, as they can just self-distribute on the internet -- but, whether by choice or by representative proxy, musicians have chosen to allow their product to be distributed by Spotify. They're of course free to haggle over the terms of that arrangement, and there are likely valid criticisms of Spotify, or the agents who negotiated their terms on behalf of the musicians... the only point I intended, despite whatever inartful phrasing I may have used, is that "Spotify doesn't make anything" is not a valid criticism of Spotify.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

abritinthebay 9y ago

I think you'd confusing business with product. It's a common conflation because with many companies it's the same thing. But in this case I think it's important to note that Spotify's business is distribution via software. Their consumer product is absolutely music (via streaming). It's no different to, say, a book publisher - their business is marketing and delivery/distribution but their product is (obviously) books. The article is a little childish in tone (and clearly written by an interested party to one side of this argument) but his central point here is not wrong.

bmelton 9y ago
There's probably room for semantic interpretation here. > an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale The Spotify service is a product that is manufactured, and its purpose is to distribute music. Depending on how you parse that definition, I can see arguments that either of us is correct. Moreover, I see a distinction between product (that they make) and product (that they distribute). I don't disagree that (as the article assets) "Starbucks is coffee", but, to be fair, Starbucks actually does make the coffee that they then also sell and distribute. That said, I think the author's central point is that Spotify adds no value to the ecosystem, which I think is very much wrong. That isn't to say that they couldn't be replaced, but I can't think of anyone who can't be, in any industry, vertical, what have you.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Ah, yes - the Spotify app is a product of work within the company but it's not the product. Language isn't prescriptive so it's irrelevant anyhow but the problem here is you're using Google's first result (which is the awful dictionary.com results). Using a not-awful dictionary (Merriam-Webster) gives us a much more normal (and broader) set of definitions, including: > something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (such as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity. Spotify certainly produces the software (it's their distribution method) but what they market and sell as their commodity is music. Music is, even dictionary definitionally, their product.

nxsynonym 9y ago

Yup, I also don't think it's Spotify's responsibility to make sure recording artists are making a "fair living". Comparing the average Spotify artist's earnings to a Spotify is comparing apples and oranges. Successful artist's (except the top 5% maybe) aren't making fortunes off of streaming services. They make money from merch, touring, endorsements, and physical sales (although dwindling). This article is a cringe filled, immature rant. The author didn't expose a flaw or put the execs in their place, he threw a tantrum in the name of justice. Work on a real solution instead of bragging about how you got invited to a closed door meeting and threw a fit.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]