4 ms·

Personal anecdote, but it's nice to see the growing maturity of the Indian audience - no one in my circle of friends and family is complaining that big names su

Personal anecdote, but it's nice to see the growing maturity of the Indian audience - no one in my circle of friends and family is complaining that big names such as Linkin Park, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay et al. and rock/metal biggies (Slipknot/Dream Theater/Pantera et al.) are missing. Growing tastes, perhaps? And it's amazing to see Spotify grow so quickly. Almost all of the people I know (I'm guilty of the same) used a US free-tier account, and sideloaded modded applications to listen to Spotify. I used to think that was piracy as usual, but now all of us are on 1-year subscriptions. The price sensitivity ($9.99/month in US vs $1.68/month in India) does obviously make a difference.

Nition 8y ago
So Spotify in India is missing a lot of the big-name artists? That's a little sad as I always felt one of the the big benefits of Spotify is they seem to have EVERYTHING. Video streaming services like Netflix are a joke in comparison.
- r3bl 8y ago
  There are three major music publishers (UMG, Sony, Warner). As long as you have contracts with them, you'll have nearly everything. Spotify's not the only competing service that has almost everything. Tidal, Google Play Music, Apple Music, they've all managed to get a deal with those publishers. Smaller players like Deezer even manage to offer the same service to 180+ countries (compared to Spotify's 20). Netflix and others would also have nearly everything if the majority of the movies was produced by three publishers.
  - caractacus 8y ago
    > There are three major music publishers (UMG, Sony, Warner). As long as you have contracts with them, you'll have nearly everything. If (i) you have mainstream taste and (ii) you're not in a market with a substantial domestic recorded music market like, oh I don't know, India, where the majors hold a minority of what people like to listen to.
- kristianc 8y ago
  > Video streaming services like Netflix are a joke in comparison. Netflix realised quite rapidly that it was a fools errand to try to have everything. Given the choice between paying top dollar for every blockbuster film (which engage people for two hours at a time), Netflix invested in TV series and producing its own material, which works out cheaper and keeps people watching for much much longer. Netflix's movie catalogue has shrunk since 2010 (mostly due to Epix moving its films over to Hulu), but the TV inventory has tripled. Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible, and with a better long tail than music. If Netflix doesn't have a TV show or movie, you'll likely find something else you want to watch. If Spotify doesn't have Taylor Swift, it doesn't have Taylor Swift.
  - lukasLansky 8y ago
    "Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible" Is this really the case? I mean, is there any research on this? I would guess exactly opposite is the case: I personally don't care about background music in most situations, but if I'm watching a film for two hours, I'm going to be very selective. That means that Netflix in its current state is useless for me. As much as I applaud them for some of their production, the combination of half-empty catalogue and forced subscription model is going in the exactly wrong direction. I would pay one-time fee for Roma. I would pay subscription for a good catalogue. Now, I don't state that it's not the case that most consumers does not care about what they watch as much as they care about what they listen. I'm just interested in some empirical data on this.
    - OJFord 8y ago
      I suppose it's different for different people - not everyone is using Spotify for 'background music', they might want to sit and listen to Taylor Swift (per above example) and if it's not on Spotify, it's just like Netflix not having the film we want to watch. Also, I'm not sure if it releases everything as matter of routine, but Netflix certainly releases some of its original content on DVD/BD.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      The way I see it, music is generally something you listen to multiple times, especially for favorite albums. On the other hand, people don't re-watch movies and TV shows at nearly the same frequency. I may be wrong, but that's my observation based on myself and the people I know.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  > I always felt one of the the big benefits of Spotify is they seem to have EVERYTHING Really. Spotify's library is decent, but I find it is missing a fair bit of content that is available on youtube, etc
coldtea 8y ago
>Personal anecdote, but it's nice to see the growing maturity of the Indian audience - no one in my circle of friends and family is complaining that big names such as Linkin Park, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay et al. and rock/metal biggies (Slipknot/Dream Theater/Pantera et al.) are missing. Growing tastes, perhaps? Or merely a circle of friends totally unrepresentative of mainstream Indian tastes?
- oblio 8y ago
  More likely. Or they're listening to the Indian equivalents :) OP, mainstream music is just that, mainstream, it's watered down precisely because most people like watered down music ;)
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Slipknot, Dream Theater and Pantera are watered down? What?
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago
      And say what you will about their respective musical value, they’re not the top sellers/streamers for their genres in a way that merits comparison to Ed Sheeran.
    - oblio 8y ago
      I was obviously referring to the first part of the comment...
    - trumped 8y ago
      those are not mainstream, what... next thing you'll tell me liquid tension experiment is mainstream? people on this sub live in a different world apparently

Nition 8y ago

So Spotify in India is missing a lot of the big-name artists? That's a little sad as I always felt one of the the big benefits of Spotify is they seem to have EVERYTHING. Video streaming services like Netflix are a joke in comparison.

r3bl 8y ago
There are three major music publishers (UMG, Sony, Warner). As long as you have contracts with them, you'll have nearly everything. Spotify's not the only competing service that has almost everything. Tidal, Google Play Music, Apple Music, they've all managed to get a deal with those publishers. Smaller players like Deezer even manage to offer the same service to 180+ countries (compared to Spotify's 20). Netflix and others would also have nearly everything if the majority of the movies was produced by three publishers.
- caractacus 8y ago
  > There are three major music publishers (UMG, Sony, Warner). As long as you have contracts with them, you'll have nearly everything. If (i) you have mainstream taste and (ii) you're not in a market with a substantial domestic recorded music market like, oh I don't know, India, where the majors hold a minority of what people like to listen to.
kristianc 8y ago
> Video streaming services like Netflix are a joke in comparison. Netflix realised quite rapidly that it was a fools errand to try to have everything. Given the choice between paying top dollar for every blockbuster film (which engage people for two hours at a time), Netflix invested in TV series and producing its own material, which works out cheaper and keeps people watching for much much longer. Netflix's movie catalogue has shrunk since 2010 (mostly due to Epix moving its films over to Hulu), but the TV inventory has tripled. Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible, and with a better long tail than music. If Netflix doesn't have a TV show or movie, you'll likely find something else you want to watch. If Spotify doesn't have Taylor Swift, it doesn't have Taylor Swift.
- lukasLansky 8y ago
  "Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible" Is this really the case? I mean, is there any research on this? I would guess exactly opposite is the case: I personally don't care about background music in most situations, but if I'm watching a film for two hours, I'm going to be very selective. That means that Netflix in its current state is useless for me. As much as I applaud them for some of their production, the combination of half-empty catalogue and forced subscription model is going in the exactly wrong direction. I would pay one-time fee for Roma. I would pay subscription for a good catalogue. Now, I don't state that it's not the case that most consumers does not care about what they watch as much as they care about what they listen. I'm just interested in some empirical data on this.
  - OJFord 8y ago
    I suppose it's different for different people - not everyone is using Spotify for 'background music', they might want to sit and listen to Taylor Swift (per above example) and if it's not on Spotify, it's just like Netflix not having the film we want to watch. Also, I'm not sure if it releases everything as matter of routine, but Netflix certainly releases some of its original content on DVD/BD.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    The way I see it, music is generally something you listen to multiple times, especially for favorite albums. On the other hand, people don't re-watch movies and TV shows at nearly the same frequency. I may be wrong, but that's my observation based on myself and the people I know.
nicoburns 8y ago
> I always felt one of the the big benefits of Spotify is they seem to have EVERYTHING Really. Spotify's library is decent, but I find it is missing a fair bit of content that is available on youtube, etc

coldtea 8y ago

>Personal anecdote, but it's nice to see the growing maturity of the Indian audience - no one in my circle of friends and family is complaining that big names such as Linkin Park, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay et al. and rock/metal biggies (Slipknot/Dream Theater/Pantera et al.) are missing. Growing tastes, perhaps? Or merely a circle of friends totally unrepresentative of mainstream Indian tastes?

oblio 8y ago
More likely. Or they're listening to the Indian equivalents :) OP, mainstream music is just that, mainstream, it's watered down precisely because most people like watered down music ;)
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Slipknot, Dream Theater and Pantera are watered down? What?
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    And say what you will about their respective musical value, they’re not the top sellers/streamers for their genres in a way that merits comparison to Ed Sheeran.
  - oblio 8y ago
    I was obviously referring to the first part of the comment...
  - trumped 8y ago
    those are not mainstream, what... next thing you'll tell me liquid tension experiment is mainstream? people on this sub live in a different world apparently