5 ms·
Hosting audio is a multiple orders of magnitude easier then video, which means platforms don't have as much value to add.
by ohples 5y ago
Hosting audio is a multiple orders of magnitude easier then video, which means platforms don't have as much value to add.
- Spivak 5y agoThis completely ignores the fact that hosting costs don't really matter. If Spotify can make more money on new subscriptions than they paid some content creator for exclusivity then it's worth it to them. And if the content creator gets more money by selling their exclusivity to some platform than they got for ads then it's worth it to them too.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoAnd if listeners don’t cancel their subscriptions in response, then Spotify bet correctly. But it’s nearly trivial to record audio of yourself talking to someone, so if a sufficient number of people want to consume the content Spotify doesn’t want to host, I’m betting they will be able to find it elsewhere by a different podcast.
- IneffablePigeon 5y agoThey don't need to add value for the end user if they can control the scarce resource (content) by buying it up and providing more lucrative monetisation options for creators. Their play is a hybrid of a streaming service and an adtech giant, and I imagine they're keeping their options open to see whether it pays to keep both sides of that model open or to pick one. Either way, one of the reasons I don't like what they're doing is because I can see it working. Besides all that, there is some value to having all of your audio in one app.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoAssuming enough listeners put up with it. I don’t see it lasting though, the barrier to entry is low and I bet talking to other people is a talent that many people have.