5 ms·

That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won, with users marveling at how good their playlist selections are. When people are usi

That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won, with users marveling at how good their playlist selections are. When people are using Spotify recommendations, they become immune to content creators threatening to terminate deals because their users are listening to “Spotify” rather than going and specifically searching Taylor Swift.

dforrestwilson 9y ago
Immune? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwriter-royalties-from-spotify-apple-music-by-44/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwr...
- ggg9990 9y ago
  That’s a coordinated action (through the courts) which is a good point... if the four major labels collude they can fuck over Spotify and the DOJ sure as shit isn’t going to care one whit.
twblalock 9y ago
Spotify has done well, but what is their moat? If another service becomes better at discovery, won't most of Spotify's users switch to it?
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Their moat is that discovery is fueled by listener data, so it will be very hard to get better at discovery than them. Apple Music tried and failed: their success comes from device bundling and most evaluators of both agree that Spotify’s discovery is far better (I have not personally evaluated Apple Music).
  - e_b 9y ago
    Spotify doesn't have a moat. They're not profitable.
  - timc3 9y ago
    Most evaluators? I have both, and for discovery spotify is way behind Apple Music, and i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify. But one of those factors maybe my taste, but i have one friend with totally opposite taste to me that has had the exact same experience.
    - doikor 9y ago
      > i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify You are not using discovery really if you are doing the finding. It should be automatic in that just play one of the daily or weekly lists and music that you like (some old some new) should be played. I tried Apple Music for its free trial and switched back to Spotify as I just can't be bothered to choose what I listen to myself.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I would believe what the parent is alluding to is that "sufficiently good" discovery is enough, in that if trusted, it turns music into a fungible good. If Taylor Swift pulls out of Spotify, but Spotify's users are listening to "Discover" not "Taylor Swift", then Spotify is afforded with the opportunity to play "something that sounds like Taylor Swift." And god knows there are enough hungry and talented bands out there looking for a break... Admittedly, it's been awhile since I was in grade school and marched in musical lockstep with my peers, but it seems as decent of an idea for disempowering major, advertising-heavy record labels as anything.
nitwit005 9y ago
It's been heading the same direction. There have been a number of artists that pulled out after the Taylor Swift bit, and the Beetles albums are still iTunes only due to an exclusive deal. You'll see there are quite a few bitter complaints online: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-you-keep-removing-songs/td-p/692706 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-yo...
- usuallymatt 9y ago
  The Beatles are not exclusive to iTunes. I can access a tonne of their albums on Deezer.
  - nitwit005 9y ago
    You're right, it seems they only ran some things exclusively temporarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings...
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  The Beatles are on Spotify. Taylor Swift has even rejoined Spotify, obviously it was worth it for her in the end. There are only a few artists who are Apple Music or Tidal exclusive, in an attempt drive users to those platforms.
  - mos_basik 9y ago
    Tool is not on Spotify or Google Play Music. I'm not sure if they are on Apple Music or Tidal. If anyone knows for sure, please do comment, I'm interested to know. Also, Spotify has 3 Volor Flex albums, but is missing the one I usually want - "Unlit". I'm pretty sure that specific album is on Amazon Music though, oddly enough. This isn't a particularly substantiative comment, just some datapoints that irk me about Spotify's inventory.
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
toast0 9y ago
Spotify is a music service with the background of compulsory licensing. If we had compulsory licensing for motion pictures, the landscape would be a lot different.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Only the publishing is compulsory license. The performance is not — if Spotify wanted to carry Taylor Swift songs against her wishes, it would need to hire a musician to re-record the tracks.
  - toast0 9y ago
    Can't they carry anything that was released commercially under the non-interactive rules if they play it in the Radio portion, or a 'Taylor Swift Fan station? I agree they wouldn't be able to play it for on demand without a bilateral agreement.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    I think they're already moving this way. Most of the things in my "Discover Weekly" for the last several months have been covers of popular songs. I haven't opened Spotify in weeks. When I want music these days, I go to Bandcamp.
adventured 9y ago
> That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won Spotify has a horrifically bad business. They're bleeding to death financially, having never earned a profit in their entire existence; they've burned through billions in financing and are still burning at a similarly high rate. Simultaneously Apple is likely to catch up in subscribers in the near future, diluting the leverage Spotify desperately needs to improve its bargaining situation. Apple can afford to burn billions to bury Spotify (likely force them into a sale/acquisition). Spotify is in a no win scenario. They'll never have enough margin to earn a profit via licensing all of their most heavily listened-to content. The content owners will perpetually squeeze Spotify. This is the fate that Netflix understood to attempt to avoid, which Spotify has entirely failed to avoid. Meanwhile all of largest competitors to Spotify actually make money (Sirius as one example is very profitable). Spotify's only possible future is in the belly of one of the tech or media giants.

dforrestwilson 9y ago

Immune? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwriter-royalties-from-spotify-apple-music-by-44/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwr...

ggg9990 9y ago
That’s a coordinated action (through the courts) which is a good point... if the four major labels collude they can fuck over Spotify and the DOJ sure as shit isn’t going to care one whit.

twblalock 9y ago

Spotify has done well, but what is their moat? If another service becomes better at discovery, won't most of Spotify's users switch to it?

ggg9990 9y ago
Their moat is that discovery is fueled by listener data, so it will be very hard to get better at discovery than them. Apple Music tried and failed: their success comes from device bundling and most evaluators of both agree that Spotify’s discovery is far better (I have not personally evaluated Apple Music).
- e_b 9y ago
  Spotify doesn't have a moat. They're not profitable.
- timc3 9y ago
  Most evaluators? I have both, and for discovery spotify is way behind Apple Music, and i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify. But one of those factors maybe my taste, but i have one friend with totally opposite taste to me that has had the exact same experience.
  - doikor 9y ago
    > i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify You are not using discovery really if you are doing the finding. It should be automatic in that just play one of the daily or weekly lists and music that you like (some old some new) should be played. I tried Apple Music for its free trial and switched back to Spotify as I just can't be bothered to choose what I listen to myself.
ethbro 9y ago
I would believe what the parent is alluding to is that "sufficiently good" discovery is enough, in that if trusted, it turns music into a fungible good. If Taylor Swift pulls out of Spotify, but Spotify's users are listening to "Discover" not "Taylor Swift", then Spotify is afforded with the opportunity to play "something that sounds like Taylor Swift." And god knows there are enough hungry and talented bands out there looking for a break... Admittedly, it's been awhile since I was in grade school and marched in musical lockstep with my peers, but it seems as decent of an idea for disempowering major, advertising-heavy record labels as anything.

nitwit005 9y ago

It's been heading the same direction. There have been a number of artists that pulled out after the Taylor Swift bit, and the Beetles albums are still iTunes only due to an exclusive deal. You'll see there are quite a few bitter complaints online: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-you-keep-removing-songs/td-p/692706 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-yo...

usuallymatt 9y ago
The Beatles are not exclusive to iTunes. I can access a tonne of their albums on Deezer.
- nitwit005 9y ago
  You're right, it seems they only ran some things exclusively temporarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings...
toomanybeersies 9y ago
The Beatles are on Spotify. Taylor Swift has even rejoined Spotify, obviously it was worth it for her in the end. There are only a few artists who are Apple Music or Tidal exclusive, in an attempt drive users to those platforms.
- mos_basik 9y ago
  Tool is not on Spotify or Google Play Music. I'm not sure if they are on Apple Music or Tidal. If anyone knows for sure, please do comment, I'm interested to know. Also, Spotify has 3 Volor Flex albums, but is missing the one I usually want - "Unlit". I'm pretty sure that specific album is on Amazon Music though, oddly enough. This isn't a particularly substantiative comment, just some datapoints that irk me about Spotify's inventory.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago

toast0 9y ago

Spotify is a music service with the background of compulsory licensing. If we had compulsory licensing for motion pictures, the landscape would be a lot different.

ggg9990 9y ago
Only the publishing is compulsory license. The performance is not — if Spotify wanted to carry Taylor Swift songs against her wishes, it would need to hire a musician to re-record the tracks.
- toast0 9y ago
  Can't they carry anything that was released commercially under the non-interactive rules if they play it in the Radio portion, or a 'Taylor Swift Fan station? I agree they wouldn't be able to play it for on demand without a bilateral agreement.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  I think they're already moving this way. Most of the things in my "Discover Weekly" for the last several months have been covers of popular songs. I haven't opened Spotify in weeks. When I want music these days, I go to Bandcamp.

adventured 9y ago

> That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won Spotify has a horrifically bad business. They're bleeding to death financially, having never earned a profit in their entire existence; they've burned through billions in financing and are still burning at a similarly high rate. Simultaneously Apple is likely to catch up in subscribers in the near future, diluting the leverage Spotify desperately needs to improve its bargaining situation. Apple can afford to burn billions to bury Spotify (likely force them into a sale/acquisition). Spotify is in a no win scenario. They'll never have enough margin to earn a profit via licensing all of their most heavily listened-to content. The content owners will perpetually squeeze Spotify. This is the fate that Netflix understood to attempt to avoid, which Spotify has entirely failed to avoid. Meanwhile all of largest competitors to Spotify actually make money (Sirius as one example is very profitable). Spotify's only possible future is in the belly of one of the tech or media giants.