6 ms·

Lots of disappointed comments here. Would you guys really prefer seeing bandcamp beeing bought by Apple?

nerdponx 5y ago
I think most people would prefer to see them remain independent and successful as an independent company.
gxqoz 5y ago
For me I'd rather it just remain independent. It already does what it does well enough. There aren't any obvious features that would improve the site for me, just a lot of further monetization crap for users who fall for that stuff.
_bohm 5y ago
I'd prefer seeing Bandcamp continue to grow and prosper as its own company
fundamental 5y ago
Ideally I (and I'd assume other commenters) would have preferred to see bandcamp remain independent. It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships. Bandcamp was an effective way of paying small independent musicians with a good overall website which should have given bandcamp a reliable revenue source. Acquisition likely means the website will get worse, artists will be driven of onto other platforms (i.e. harder to discover ones), and if there's alternative financial incentives then small artists will likely end up making less (e.g. track streaming revenue). I'd be disappointed if apple had made the purchase, though it would be less out of left field.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  I too would have prefered seeing bandcamp stay independent but they were a privately owned company so that would have required a huge amount of idealism (which eventually wanes) or ambitions to compete with spotify. You can‘t always get what you want.
  - fundamental 5y ago
    Personally I don't buy that line of argument. The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market.
    - kevincrane 5y ago
      Hard agree, I really hate the trend of businesses having to have "an exit", be it IPO or get swallowed by one of like 6 behemoth companies. I love a good "we know who we are and are happy being it" success story which I thought Bandcamp was.
    - HellDunkel 5y ago
      Dont get me wrong, I am not happy at all about this silicon valley „winner takes it all“ mindset. Let me explain how i see things. Bandcamp is for djs and indepenent music lovers. Although djing has managed to evaded streaming so far, it is almost inevitable to come. I am sure the folks at bandcamp were very clear about that and were looking to find a way to deal with the situation.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      > The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market. That's been the state of tech ever since Web 2.0 or so.
      - mkr-hn 5y ago
        Bandcamp is almost as old as Web 2.0. That's why people are so confused about this. Why does a profitable 15-year-old company need to sell? They didn't say in the post, so all we can do is be frustrated.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      It kind of is now (and I hate it). If you don't sell, it's likely the large companies trying to buy you will copy you and use their piles of money to undercut you out of business (and if they don't, any VC backed startup can try). So you either survive as small and unnoticed, or become big enough to be interesting (and then bought or killed unless you achieve absurd growth). Tech is kind of a dark forest now (https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-what-the-dark-forest-theory-is-and-why-its-so-terrifying/ https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-...). I've worked for 2 companies that didn't sell and were obliterated this way.
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  > It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships Is "good enough" compatible with "capitalism"? Even ignoring the money aspect of things; you mention the website getting worse but I'm not sure the website has fundamentally changed (for better or worse) in a decade. Their iOS app isn't even compatible with ipads, it's locked to a phone aspect ratio with massive black bars surrounding it. Yet one could make the argument that things were "good enough" tech wise. Bandcamp (in my opinion) was a product/company that was good enough. But there's doesn't seem to be societal incentives to keep companies like that around in today's world... or maybe you just don't hear about them lol
politelemon 5y ago
While that would be worse, being acquired doesn't have to be the only choice. The main reason everyone liked Bandcamp is its independence. That independence translated into an excellent marketplace which was great for users and artists. The preference is that Bandcamp continues to be Bandcamp, not part of an umbrella. Hope that explains it a bit. I'm quite sad and pessimistic about this. We'll see how well our reactions fare in about 2-3 years.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  Give them a chance- epic doesnt have a reputation of blowing their aquisitions. It could be far worse!
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    >epic doesnt have a reputation of blowing their aquisitions. They ditched the Linux version of Rocket League. That counts as a blown acquisition to me.
    - posterboy 5y ago
      presumably it has a fall back in wine. Not supporting linux as a gaming platform is a down to earth decision. It's reasonable, whether necessary or not. As a linux user, I see a difference between the expectation of Linux plus driver vendors to support games and a game vendor to support linux, when it is often depending on a busfactor of 1.
      - p_j_w 5y ago
        >Not supporting linux as a gaming platform is a down to earth decision. Why should I care? It was supported before Epic bought them and Epic decided to axe it. My experience with Psyonix post-Epic is far worse than pre-Epic, which is exactly what the thread is about.
        posterboy 5y ago
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Not everything has to be a buy out. Why can't a business just be a business and make some money for the owners and provide a service for the users and grow organically (or not). I know HN crowd often see that as an unnatural business model but it has worked for small business for eons.
- bluetidepro 5y ago
  I don't care who you are, when you get an offer for millions and millions, I'm sure you'll quickly sing a different tune. I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is just silly. It's always easy to say this kind of thing from the outside.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Sure but not everyone is driven strictly by profit. I prefer to stay naive to not being motivated only by profit in my life decisions. Yes, I've made decisions that turned down large sums of money to maintain my happiness and sense of being a moral human being.
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
I'd rather it remained independent, but if it was a choice between Apple and Epic I'd pick Apple. Of course, Apple would never buy them because they have iTunes. Since you raised the comparison, what do you think Epic is going to do? How do you think being dragged into Epic's war against Apple is going to impact Bandcamp as a service? It clearly isn't being bought so that it just continues as is (despite the promises). It's going to be used as a weapon, which means it's going to have to change. That change is likely to increase costs. Ultimately the day will come were "We are sorry that Bandcamp doesn't meet our customers' needs" [it no longer meets our needs of making enough money, because of all the shit we added] "And so we are adding new features to improve your experience" [ads, tracking, selling your data, subscriptions, increased price].
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  I think the plan is to turn bandcamp into a streaming service.
danShumway 5y ago
Why on earth are those the two options? Somebody breaks into my house and tracks mud all over the floor, and the response is, "well, would you rather they killed your dog? It could have been worse."
bananapub 5y ago
what a bizarre invented dichotomy. what all these "disappointed commenters" wanted was for Bandcamp to continue to provide an excellent service, charging enough to stay in business and grow at a reasonable rate while allowing artists, who did the vast vast vast vast majority of the effort represtented by each sale, to profit and - unironically - connect with fans.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  everyone wanted things to stay as they were, i get that. but i fail to see how that could have been more than a simple wish for anyone not owning any stakes in bandcamp. peolpe wanted bandcamp not to give in to uber-capitalism and expect them to fight an uphill battle against spotify and the likes. That is a bit much to ask for in my view. They are forced to move towards streaming. What if pioneer comes up with a seamless spotify integration tomorrow? Usb ports would quickly become a rarity on dj equipment. i get that you like to „own“ your music and have it on your hd- but you also expect to be able to re-download things if you loose your files, right? so you are basically expecting bandcamp not to change in the future and that is out of touch with reality.

I think most people would prefer to see them remain independent and successful as an independent company.

For me I'd rather it just remain independent. It already does what it does well enough. There aren't any obvious features that would improve the site for me, just a lot of further monetization crap for users who fall for that stuff.

_bohm 5y ago

I'd prefer seeing Bandcamp continue to grow and prosper as its own company

fundamental 5y ago

Ideally I (and I'd assume other commenters) would have preferred to see bandcamp remain independent. It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships. Bandcamp was an effective way of paying small independent musicians with a good overall website which should have given bandcamp a reliable revenue source. Acquisition likely means the website will get worse, artists will be driven of onto other platforms (i.e. harder to discover ones), and if there's alternative financial incentives then small artists will likely end up making less (e.g. track streaming revenue). I'd be disappointed if apple had made the purchase, though it would be less out of left field.

HellDunkel 5y ago
I too would have prefered seeing bandcamp stay independent but they were a privately owned company so that would have required a huge amount of idealism (which eventually wanes) or ambitions to compete with spotify. You can‘t always get what you want.
- fundamental 5y ago
  Personally I don't buy that line of argument. The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market.
  - kevincrane 5y ago
    Hard agree, I really hate the trend of businesses having to have "an exit", be it IPO or get swallowed by one of like 6 behemoth companies. I love a good "we know who we are and are happy being it" success story which I thought Bandcamp was.
  - HellDunkel 5y ago
    Dont get me wrong, I am not happy at all about this silicon valley „winner takes it all“ mindset. Let me explain how i see things. Bandcamp is for djs and indepenent music lovers. Although djing has managed to evaded streaming so far, it is almost inevitable to come. I am sure the folks at bandcamp were very clear about that and were looking to find a way to deal with the situation.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    > The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market. That's been the state of tech ever since Web 2.0 or so.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      Bandcamp is almost as old as Web 2.0. That's why people are so confused about this. Why does a profitable 15-year-old company need to sell? They didn't say in the post, so all we can do is be frustrated.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    It kind of is now (and I hate it). If you don't sell, it's likely the large companies trying to buy you will copy you and use their piles of money to undercut you out of business (and if they don't, any VC backed startup can try). So you either survive as small and unnoticed, or become big enough to be interesting (and then bought or killed unless you achieve absurd growth). Tech is kind of a dark forest now (https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-what-the-dark-forest-theory-is-and-why-its-so-terrifying/ https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-...). I've worked for 2 companies that didn't sell and were obliterated this way.
throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
> It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships Is "good enough" compatible with "capitalism"? Even ignoring the money aspect of things; you mention the website getting worse but I'm not sure the website has fundamentally changed (for better or worse) in a decade. Their iOS app isn't even compatible with ipads, it's locked to a phone aspect ratio with massive black bars surrounding it. Yet one could make the argument that things were "good enough" tech wise. Bandcamp (in my opinion) was a product/company that was good enough. But there's doesn't seem to be societal incentives to keep companies like that around in today's world... or maybe you just don't hear about them lol

politelemon 5y ago

While that would be worse, being acquired doesn't have to be the only choice. The main reason everyone liked Bandcamp is its independence. That independence translated into an excellent marketplace which was great for users and artists. The preference is that Bandcamp continues to be Bandcamp, not part of an umbrella. Hope that explains it a bit. I'm quite sad and pessimistic about this. We'll see how well our reactions fare in about 2-3 years.

HellDunkel 5y ago
Give them a chance- epic doesnt have a reputation of blowing their aquisitions. It could be far worse!
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >epic doesnt have a reputation of blowing their aquisitions. They ditched the Linux version of Rocket League. That counts as a blown acquisition to me.
  - posterboy 5y ago
    presumably it has a fall back in wine. Not supporting linux as a gaming platform is a down to earth decision. It's reasonable, whether necessary or not. As a linux user, I see a difference between the expectation of Linux plus driver vendors to support games and a game vendor to support linux, when it is often depending on a busfactor of 1.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      >Not supporting linux as a gaming platform is a down to earth decision. Why should I care? It was supported before Epic bought them and Epic decided to axe it. My experience with Psyonix post-Epic is far worse than pre-Epic, which is exactly what the thread is about.
      - posterboy 5y ago

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Not everything has to be a buy out. Why can't a business just be a business and make some money for the owners and provide a service for the users and grow organically (or not). I know HN crowd often see that as an unnatural business model but it has worked for small business for eons.

bluetidepro 5y ago
I don't care who you are, when you get an offer for millions and millions, I'm sure you'll quickly sing a different tune. I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is just silly. It's always easy to say this kind of thing from the outside.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Sure but not everyone is driven strictly by profit. I prefer to stay naive to not being motivated only by profit in my life decisions. Yes, I've made decisions that turned down large sums of money to maintain my happiness and sense of being a moral human being.

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

I'd rather it remained independent, but if it was a choice between Apple and Epic I'd pick Apple. Of course, Apple would never buy them because they have iTunes. Since you raised the comparison, what do you think Epic is going to do? How do you think being dragged into Epic's war against Apple is going to impact Bandcamp as a service? It clearly isn't being bought so that it just continues as is (despite the promises). It's going to be used as a weapon, which means it's going to have to change. That change is likely to increase costs. Ultimately the day will come were "We are sorry that Bandcamp doesn't meet our customers' needs" [it no longer meets our needs of making enough money, because of all the shit we added] "And so we are adding new features to improve your experience" [ads, tracking, selling your data, subscriptions, increased price].

HellDunkel 5y ago
I think the plan is to turn bandcamp into a streaming service.

danShumway 5y ago

Why on earth are those the two options? Somebody breaks into my house and tracks mud all over the floor, and the response is, "well, would you rather they killed your dog? It could have been worse."

bananapub 5y ago

what a bizarre invented dichotomy. what all these "disappointed commenters" wanted was for Bandcamp to continue to provide an excellent service, charging enough to stay in business and grow at a reasonable rate while allowing artists, who did the vast vast vast vast majority of the effort represtented by each sale, to profit and - unironically - connect with fans.

HellDunkel 5y ago
everyone wanted things to stay as they were, i get that. but i fail to see how that could have been more than a simple wish for anyone not owning any stakes in bandcamp. peolpe wanted bandcamp not to give in to uber-capitalism and expect them to fight an uphill battle against spotify and the likes. That is a bit much to ask for in my view. They are forced to move towards streaming. What if pioneer comes up with a seamless spotify integration tomorrow? Usb ports would quickly become a rarity on dj equipment. i get that you like to „own“ your music and have it on your hd- but you also expect to be able to re-download things if you loose your files, right? so you are basically expecting bandcamp not to change in the future and that is out of touch with reality.