5 ms·

Seems pretty fair, since if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it.

by dale_glass 5y ago

falcolas 5y ago
Just like the application developers on Google Play, Apple's app store, and Steam, eh?
- sodality2 5y ago
  The difference is the artificial limitation placed on Play Store listings and Apple App Store, versus the freedom of an artist to sell their music to any other platform (it's just that it would be far less successful). The only "pull factor" Spotify has is the userbase, which is arguably fair. For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store. One could argue (on Android) that it's possible that you can install third-party markets, and that's true, but there's also pretty big roadblocks to installing, whereas selling on another music platform is much easier in comparison. (Don't believe me? Send your father an APK file and ask him to install it. Let alone iOS where this is not possible at all..
  - grog454 5y ago
    > For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store. Couldn't you replace "Google" and "Play Store" with "Spotify"? You can "sell" your app directly to users through your own site (see Fortnite) or dubious sites like https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android but you have the same "pull factor" with the Play Store that you do with Spotify (the user base). The Google + Play Store and Spotify (company) + Spotify (platforms) situations don't seem fundamentally different to me, just different by degrees. Google's monopoly on Android app distribution is unparalleled.
    - sodality2 5y ago
      Spotify is a service whereas GP is an application platform. You distribute apps (services like Spotify) through GP, whereas you distribute product (songs) through Spotify. GP is the only (reasonable) way to get apps on Android, whereas there are dozens of legal licensed alternatives for Spotify. You can try to find alternatives for an app store, but that doesn't change the fact that inherently within Android, there are certain roadblocks that simply don't exist for a Spotify competitor, for example.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  Less problematic actually. If you don't like Google's policies you're a bit screwed since they control the platform very thoroughly. Spotify is just a convenience service in the end. They could sell their music through their own app, site, Magnatune, etc.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  There are plenty of different platforms besides Spotify which have comparable catalogs and are available on all/most platforms (even Apple Music has an Android app). Their subscription prices are almost the same so the market seems to be very competitive and nothing like the iOS App Store.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Similar prices could also suggest cartel-like behaviour
    - trollian 5y ago
      The contracts that the record labels offer to streaming platforms are (or were a decade ago when I was in the business) set up to strictly control the prices seen by end users but I'm sure their lawyers believe they can do this without running afoul of competition laws. Even if the effect is price fixing...
- alickz 5y ago
  Steam doesn't belong there, as it's not the only avenue for developers to distribute games on PC. Even Google Play is iffy, as developers could distribute through 3rd party app stores or sideloading, though Google makes that harder than it should be. Apple is really the only one of the 3 you mentioned that forces a 15/30% cut if developers want to distribute an app on their platform.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Bandcamp takes 10% to 15%, which is still a lot, but definitely closer to "fair" than 30% is.
selcuka 5y ago
> if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?
- HotHotLava 5y ago
  No, the definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.
  - selcuka 5y ago
    I disagree. Spotify is practically a monopoly and is a rent-seeking entity. The reason artists can't go somewhere else is not because Spotify efficiently operates at cost (their gross margin was 26.5% in Q4), but because it's the only brand most customers know.
    - mPReDiToR 5y ago
      Deezer is in competition, Amazon Music, YT Music. Monopoly doesn't apply, does it? Even DAB/FM radio takes their lunch.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
I think it’s worth taking fairness as a separate question, especially when posing the question about alternatives. This classic article by Steve Albini captures what monetizing music was like for artists before the Internet: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music That said, many artists have objected to subscription models like Spotify’s (Taylor Swift notably), or a la carte like Apple’s (Pink Floyd and Beatles’ estates notably). Most paid Internet music services have been a mixed bag of inconsistent payouts and artistic control. Spotify is definitely among them, even if it might be more attractive than a Record Deal^tm. In my experience and inferred from experiences of other artists, SoundCloud has the best exposure benefits for lesser known artists combined with the most freedom to monetize, and Bandcamp is the most straightforward self publishing platform for built in monetization. Comparatively, Spotify is basically, like Apple, filling the void of the record labels they usurped. While their terms are comparably “fair”, it’s easy to understand why they’re not ideal for a lot of artists.

Seems pretty fair, since if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it.

falcolas 5y ago

Just like the application developers on Google Play, Apple's app store, and Steam, eh?

sodality2 5y ago
The difference is the artificial limitation placed on Play Store listings and Apple App Store, versus the freedom of an artist to sell their music to any other platform (it's just that it would be far less successful). The only "pull factor" Spotify has is the userbase, which is arguably fair. For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store. One could argue (on Android) that it's possible that you can install third-party markets, and that's true, but there's also pretty big roadblocks to installing, whereas selling on another music platform is much easier in comparison. (Don't believe me? Send your father an APK file and ask him to install it. Let alone iOS where this is not possible at all..
- grog454 5y ago
  > For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store. Couldn't you replace "Google" and "Play Store" with "Spotify"? You can "sell" your app directly to users through your own site (see Fortnite) or dubious sites like https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android but you have the same "pull factor" with the Play Store that you do with Spotify (the user base). The Google + Play Store and Spotify (company) + Spotify (platforms) situations don't seem fundamentally different to me, just different by degrees. Google's monopoly on Android app distribution is unparalleled.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Spotify is a service whereas GP is an application platform. You distribute apps (services like Spotify) through GP, whereas you distribute product (songs) through Spotify. GP is the only (reasonable) way to get apps on Android, whereas there are dozens of legal licensed alternatives for Spotify. You can try to find alternatives for an app store, but that doesn't change the fact that inherently within Android, there are certain roadblocks that simply don't exist for a Spotify competitor, for example.
dale_glass 5y ago
Less problematic actually. If you don't like Google's policies you're a bit screwed since they control the platform very thoroughly. Spotify is just a convenience service in the end. They could sell their music through their own app, site, Magnatune, etc.
yywwbbn 5y ago
There are plenty of different platforms besides Spotify which have comparable catalogs and are available on all/most platforms (even Apple Music has an Android app). Their subscription prices are almost the same so the market seems to be very competitive and nothing like the iOS App Store.
- 8note 5y ago
  Similar prices could also suggest cartel-like behaviour
  - trollian 5y ago
    The contracts that the record labels offer to streaming platforms are (or were a decade ago when I was in the business) set up to strictly control the prices seen by end users but I'm sure their lawyers believe they can do this without running afoul of competition laws. Even if the effect is price fixing...
alickz 5y ago
Steam doesn't belong there, as it's not the only avenue for developers to distribute games on PC. Even Google Play is iffy, as developers could distribute through 3rd party app stores or sideloading, though Google makes that harder than it should be. Apple is really the only one of the 3 you mentioned that forces a 15/30% cut if developers want to distribute an app on their platform.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Bandcamp takes 10% to 15%, which is still a lot, but definitely closer to "fair" than 30% is.

selcuka 5y ago

> if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?

HotHotLava 5y ago
No, the definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.
- selcuka 5y ago
  I disagree. Spotify is practically a monopoly and is a rent-seeking entity. The reason artists can't go somewhere else is not because Spotify efficiently operates at cost (their gross margin was 26.5% in Q4), but because it's the only brand most customers know.
  - mPReDiToR 5y ago
    Deezer is in competition, Amazon Music, YT Music. Monopoly doesn't apply, does it? Even DAB/FM radio takes their lunch.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

I think it’s worth taking fairness as a separate question, especially when posing the question about alternatives. This classic article by Steve Albini captures what monetizing music was like for artists before the Internet: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music That said, many artists have objected to subscription models like Spotify’s (Taylor Swift notably), or a la carte like Apple’s (Pink Floyd and Beatles’ estates notably). Most paid Internet music services have been a mixed bag of inconsistent payouts and artistic control. Spotify is definitely among them, even if it might be more attractive than a Record Deal^tm. In my experience and inferred from experiences of other artists, SoundCloud has the best exposure benefits for lesser known artists combined with the most freedom to monetize, and Bandcamp is the most straightforward self publishing platform for built in monetization. Comparatively, Spotify is basically, like Apple, filling the void of the record labels they usurped. While their terms are comparably “fair”, it’s easy to understand why they’re not ideal for a lot of artists.