3 ms·
>People hoped for and bet on an endgame similar to Spotify, which holds 33% of the market share for music streaming Who said that Spotify is the endgame? That'
by ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>People hoped for and bet on an endgame similar to Spotify, which holds 33% of the market share for music streaming
Who said that Spotify is the endgame? That's like saying that MySpace is the endgame for social media or that 3Dfx is the end game for GPU tech. Few tech companies survive long term. AFAIK, unlike Netflix, Spotify don't own any of the IP they stream, they just license it from the major record companies, making them effectively just a middleman with commodity tech. So, in theory, if they wanted to, the major record companies who actually own the IP Spotify streams, could join forces and build their own streaming services, and stop licensing their IP to Spotify, effectively killing them over night. And let's not talk about the bad blood between Spotify and many artists who would love to see Spotify burn to the ground.
So, IMHO, in theory Spotify is even easier to kill than Netflix, but as to why that hasn't yet happened, that's up to the execs of the major record companies to answer. Maybe they decided it's easier and more convenient to just sit on their butts and license their IP to Spotify, Apple, Amazon, and have them outbid each outer for the licensing fees and collect rent from them, rather than bothering to assemble armies of picky and expensive SW devs to build their own competing services, since those dinosaur execs at the record companies aren't known to be very tach savvy, and in fact spent most of their lives fighting the tech industry in courts instead of investing in it.
Also, most importantly, music and video distribution and consumption are completely different beasts, so direct comparisons between Netflix and Spotify are pretty difficult even if all other things were to be equal.
- yobbo 4y ago> Spotify is even easier to kill than Netflix, Each of the big media companies hold maybe 25% of the "legacy" catalogue (75% of streams). And playlists are usually mixed, so switching app to listen to a few 15% of songs won't happen. They simply don't have the market power at the moment.
- mschuster91 4y agoIIRC a lot of the profits of the music industry these days comes from live gigs and merchandise sales, or at least it did prior to COVID slaughtering the whole industry for two years. IMO it makes sense for the music industry to shift their focus and attention towards live events anyway - you can't steal or pirate tickets (and scalper profits are often enough rumored to originate at the artists themselves) and merchandise, and the effort not just in development but especially in brand recognition building against Spotify would be immense, not to mention the shitstorm/backlash potential from such a move or the antitrust risk.
- bluepizza 4y agoIf Warner Music built an app thar only plays music in their own catalogue, I would pay 0 dollars for that.
- thetinguy 4y agoSony and UMG are both fairly large shareholders in Spotify.
- e3bc54b2 4y agoWell, lot of music is available on all major platforms (Apple, Google, Amazon, Spotify) while most movies/series was almost always exclusive to platforms. Why spend time and money building your own music platform when you can get paid to not do that 4 times? 4 players also solidifies content owner's position in the market because simple supply x demand.
- Ekaros 4y agoAnd even if you are major label, who says that only your content is enough to pull enough subscribers. You might as well fail and destroy value of the product you are selling due to loss of consumer visibility and spots on charts.