12 ms·

Spotify Is Crazy To Forecast 50 Million U.S. Users In A Year

20 points by earbitscom 15y ago

rdl 15y ago
Yeah, it's crazy to think it will only be 50mm users in the USA, after people have been coveting this for so long, and Spotify has done so well in Europe.
- jinushaun 15y ago
  If you read the article, it states that in 3 years, Spotify has only managed 10 million users. It's unlikely that they'll gain 50 million users (from one country) in one year, when they barely got 20% of that in three years from an entire continent.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I agree completely with your sentiment, but it's important to note that US music consumption makes up, I believe, more than half of the worldwide market. So, in fact, the US is a larger market than all of Europe. That being said, 50 million registered users by some gorilla math, maybe. Real, active engaged, users - no way.
    - rdl 15y ago
      Yeah, I'm assuming the crazy math (5-10mm real users, the remainder being alternate accounts, abandonware, etc.) Plus, multiple devices per user, which you could be really crazy and count as unique users -- laptop, home, work, ht/game system, iphone, ipad each. Plus, USA = "everywhere"; I'd assume if there were service in Europe and the USA, a lot of people in non-USA non-Europe would be VPNed or otherwise appear as US users for these purposes.
      - earbitscom 15y ago
        I more meant anyone on Facebook who listens to a track streamed from Spotify while on Facebook and not having even been to Spotify's site or having downloaded any client, could be called a "user". 50 million people finally seeing real music integration on Facebook listening to a track or two doesn't seem unrealistic, but if that's what they call a user, they're being very generous to themselves.
  - kalleboo 15y ago
    It's not an entire continent - Spotify is only available in a handful of European countries. They've also spent a lot of time in invitation-only mode. Plus if they tie in with Facebook that will be some amazing marketing incomparable to anything they've done before.
jerrya 15y ago
So, this may mark me as an old fart, but um, does Spotify play The Beatles? If so, I'll switch from Rhapsody. But yes, 50M users in a country of 300M does express a certain confidence.
- pakafka 15y ago
  Nope, no Beatles yet. Still exclusive (via legal means) to iTunes.
  - jerrya 15y ago
    Thanks, that's good (sad) to know. Right now, I use a combination of Rhapsody and Google Music to get The Beatles (from CDs I own and have ripped.)
    - encoderer 15y ago
      While it's a fundamentally different approach -- Pandora has the Beatles. I've been a Pandora One subscriber (no ads for $30/year) and I'm quite happy with it. Sometimes I do want _A_ song, but in general, outsourcing my playlist to their algorithms has worked out great.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
usaar333 15y ago
So I keep hearing about Spotify, but as an American I've never had a chance to use it. I use Grooveshark a lot though. What is Spotify offering over Grooveshark?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- earbitscom 15y ago
  The catalog of mainstream music is larger, it's fully legal (plenty of Grooveshark's content is only provided under shaky DMCA compliance), and supposedly its very easy to use. But that's the point...it's not that different from a whole slew of services that already exist here and don't have anywhere near the kind of traction they're forecasting.
- ladon86 15y ago
  Use it on your mobile phone, offline sync so you can listen to any track at any time even if you're offline. Search for an album, offline sync, you've got the album. Also wirelessly syncs your existing library.
- burke 15y ago
  The biggest difference is that Spotify is curated content. On Grooveshark, if you search for an album, you may get three copies, each missing songs and improperly named. Spotify has one real release of the album.
  - lovskogen 15y ago
    In a lot of cases, three albums on Grooveshark beats the hell out of none on Spotify.
    - evandena 15y ago
      Spotify is fully legal, Grooveshark is quasi legal and may not see another year.
justinph 15y ago
I saw the CEO speak at SXSW a couple years ago. I still can't figure out what the big deal is.
kalleboo 15y ago
IMHO Spotify stopped being interesting when they had to drop their ad-supported all-you-can-eat free tier. That's what really drove growth in Europe and make it ubiquitous here in Sweden. Now that that's gone, they're just another dime-a-dozen paid music streaming services that nobody wants to pay for. edit: For anyone wondering what the big deal with Spotify is, is that it was completely free. Anyone could just download the app, and then listen to any song they wanted to, legally, completely free - there were just short ad breaks every couple of songs. This free legal option meant that there was zero reason to pirate music anymore, so everyone flocked to it. If you paid €10/mo you got a higher bitrate, no ads, offline playing and access to the iPhone/Android apps. The pay option was attractive if you were going to have a party (ads are a turnoff in situations like that), or when you end up requiring the iPhone app since you don't have any music files to put on your MP3 player anymore since you've just been listening to everything on Spotify... The record companies really hated giving away music (despite Spotify being a goldmine for them - Spotify is currently the #1 single source of income for record labels in Sweden, making them more money than any single retailer), so they had to kill it a couple months back (rumor has it they had to kill it in order to secure U.S. rights). Without the completely free tier, they'll have a really hard time getting new users.
- blantonl 15y ago
  That is a heck of an edit. Why didn't you bring this great assertion out in the first place?
- Confusion 15y ago
  It never was completely free: there has always been a limit on the number of hours per month you could stream music. Anyway, your analysis is wrong, because you think your usage predicts everyones usage pattern. It doesn't. I'm a happy paying subscriber and will stay one for a while to come. If I hear one new CD a month, it's already worth it. Even if I don't, I love being able to just legally browse and listen to almost any music I can think of.
  - lovskogen 15y ago
    Are you sure? When I tested it, early on, it was unlimited hours of streaming, with ads now and then.
scootklein 15y ago
what spotify has over its competitors is distribution through facebook [1]. this single factor makes the rest of their competitors numbers (and quite frankly their own numbers) more or less irrelevant. keep in mind, too, that it says "users" and not "paid subscribers" [1] http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/25/facebook-to-launch-music-service-with-spotify/ http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/25/facebook-to-la...
lovskogen 15y ago
My one big gripe with Spotify is that they don't serve up a lot of the music I listen to (WARP-label), and it seems that all music before 2005 is either a karaoke or cover track – when I search. It's just too limiting, for me at least.
- otaku888 15y ago
  I'd check again, they have a load of warp now. I also noticed all the Autechre albums are back on again. Things appear to be more like they were in the early days of spotify.
  - lovskogen 15y ago
    Boards of Canada too?
    - otaku888 15y ago
      Yep. :)
shapeshed 15y ago
an FT.com article put paid subscribers at 1 million, 15% of their user base. They've just closed $100 million of funding. Based on the FT ratio the projections equate to 7.5 million paid US subscribers. They'll need to retain those customers to make a return and the market is very competitive. More crazy valuations.

20 points by earbitscom 15y ago

rdl 15y ago

Yeah, it's crazy to think it will only be 50mm users in the USA, after people have been coveting this for so long, and Spotify has done so well in Europe.

jinushaun 15y ago
If you read the article, it states that in 3 years, Spotify has only managed 10 million users. It's unlikely that they'll gain 50 million users (from one country) in one year, when they barely got 20% of that in three years from an entire continent.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  I agree completely with your sentiment, but it's important to note that US music consumption makes up, I believe, more than half of the worldwide market. So, in fact, the US is a larger market than all of Europe. That being said, 50 million registered users by some gorilla math, maybe. Real, active engaged, users - no way.
  - rdl 15y ago
    Yeah, I'm assuming the crazy math (5-10mm real users, the remainder being alternate accounts, abandonware, etc.) Plus, multiple devices per user, which you could be really crazy and count as unique users -- laptop, home, work, ht/game system, iphone, ipad each. Plus, USA = "everywhere"; I'd assume if there were service in Europe and the USA, a lot of people in non-USA non-Europe would be VPNed or otherwise appear as US users for these purposes.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      I more meant anyone on Facebook who listens to a track streamed from Spotify while on Facebook and not having even been to Spotify's site or having downloaded any client, could be called a "user". 50 million people finally seeing real music integration on Facebook listening to a track or two doesn't seem unrealistic, but if that's what they call a user, they're being very generous to themselves.
- kalleboo 15y ago
  It's not an entire continent - Spotify is only available in a handful of European countries. They've also spent a lot of time in invitation-only mode. Plus if they tie in with Facebook that will be some amazing marketing incomparable to anything they've done before.

jerrya 15y ago

So, this may mark me as an old fart, but um, does Spotify play The Beatles? If so, I'll switch from Rhapsody. But yes, 50M users in a country of 300M does express a certain confidence.

pakafka 15y ago
Nope, no Beatles yet. Still exclusive (via legal means) to iTunes.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Thanks, that's good (sad) to know. Right now, I use a combination of Rhapsody and Google Music to get The Beatles (from CDs I own and have ripped.)
  - encoderer 15y ago
    While it's a fundamentally different approach -- Pandora has the Beatles. I've been a Pandora One subscriber (no ads for $30/year) and I'm quite happy with it. Sometimes I do want _A_ song, but in general, outsourcing my playlist to their algorithms has worked out great.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

usaar333 15y ago

So I keep hearing about Spotify, but as an American I've never had a chance to use it. I use Grooveshark a lot though. What is Spotify offering over Grooveshark?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
earbitscom 15y ago
The catalog of mainstream music is larger, it's fully legal (plenty of Grooveshark's content is only provided under shaky DMCA compliance), and supposedly its very easy to use. But that's the point...it's not that different from a whole slew of services that already exist here and don't have anywhere near the kind of traction they're forecasting.
ladon86 15y ago
Use it on your mobile phone, offline sync so you can listen to any track at any time even if you're offline. Search for an album, offline sync, you've got the album. Also wirelessly syncs your existing library.
burke 15y ago
The biggest difference is that Spotify is curated content. On Grooveshark, if you search for an album, you may get three copies, each missing songs and improperly named. Spotify has one real release of the album.
- lovskogen 15y ago
  In a lot of cases, three albums on Grooveshark beats the hell out of none on Spotify.
  - evandena 15y ago
    Spotify is fully legal, Grooveshark is quasi legal and may not see another year.

justinph 15y ago

I saw the CEO speak at SXSW a couple years ago. I still can't figure out what the big deal is.

kalleboo 15y ago

IMHO Spotify stopped being interesting when they had to drop their ad-supported all-you-can-eat free tier. That's what really drove growth in Europe and make it ubiquitous here in Sweden. Now that that's gone, they're just another dime-a-dozen paid music streaming services that nobody wants to pay for. edit: For anyone wondering what the big deal with Spotify is, is that it was completely free. Anyone could just download the app, and then listen to any song they wanted to, legally, completely free - there were just short ad breaks every couple of songs. This free legal option meant that there was zero reason to pirate music anymore, so everyone flocked to it. If you paid €10/mo you got a higher bitrate, no ads, offline playing and access to the iPhone/Android apps. The pay option was attractive if you were going to have a party (ads are a turnoff in situations like that), or when you end up requiring the iPhone app since you don't have any music files to put on your MP3 player anymore since you've just been listening to everything on Spotify... The record companies really hated giving away music (despite Spotify being a goldmine for them - Spotify is currently the #1 single source of income for record labels in Sweden, making them more money than any single retailer), so they had to kill it a couple months back (rumor has it they had to kill it in order to secure U.S. rights). Without the completely free tier, they'll have a really hard time getting new users.

blantonl 15y ago
That is a heck of an edit. Why didn't you bring this great assertion out in the first place?
Confusion 15y ago
It never was completely free: there has always been a limit on the number of hours per month you could stream music. Anyway, your analysis is wrong, because you think your usage predicts everyones usage pattern. It doesn't. I'm a happy paying subscriber and will stay one for a while to come. If I hear one new CD a month, it's already worth it. Even if I don't, I love being able to just legally browse and listen to almost any music I can think of.
- lovskogen 15y ago
  Are you sure? When I tested it, early on, it was unlimited hours of streaming, with ads now and then.

scootklein 15y ago

what spotify has over its competitors is distribution through facebook [1]. this single factor makes the rest of their competitors numbers (and quite frankly their own numbers) more or less irrelevant. keep in mind, too, that it says "users" and not "paid subscribers" [1] http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/25/facebook-to-launch-music-service-with-spotify/ http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/25/facebook-to-la...

lovskogen 15y ago

My one big gripe with Spotify is that they don't serve up a lot of the music I listen to (WARP-label), and it seems that all music before 2005 is either a karaoke or cover track – when I search. It's just too limiting, for me at least.

otaku888 15y ago
I'd check again, they have a load of warp now. I also noticed all the Autechre albums are back on again. Things appear to be more like they were in the early days of spotify.
- lovskogen 15y ago
  Boards of Canada too?
  - otaku888 15y ago
    Yep. :)

shapeshed 15y ago

an FT.com article put paid subscribers at 1 million, 15% of their user base. They've just closed $100 million of funding. Based on the FT ratio the projections equate to 7.5 million paid US subscribers. They'll need to retain those customers to make a return and the market is very competitive. More crazy valuations.