3 ms·

The business of Spotify isn't "streaming music": it is "music licensing"; and, even there, it isn't like most of the music was due to Spotify going out of their

by saurik 4y ago

The business of Spotify isn't "streaming music": it is "music licensing"; and, even there, it isn't like most of the music was due to Spotify going out of their way to contact people and get their music on their service: people--not even "labels", but people--upload their music directly to Spotify. You can compete with that, but it is a massive uphill battle; it is similar to trying to create a new app market competitor from scratch and assuming that all of the apps which exist on someone else's platform--many of which might not even be maintained by people who give a shit anymore--are somehow going to appear on your platform. > There are a dozen VOD services with the same library because the industry has standardized licenses. This is entirely untrue... hell: Apple doesn't even have a lot of the content that exists out there anymore, as numerous titles now can only be purchased from Amazon, as it was essentially uploaded directly. I wish I could obtain all of the movies/TV I consume from Apple, but that just isn't how this industry operates. > There are only three major record labels and if you can get deals with those, you cover most of the music people care about. This wouldn't be sufficient to cause most users to switch from Spotify. It certainly wouldn't get me to switch from Spotify, and I don't even like Spotify! > The smaller labels will come along The long tail of music doesn't even involve "labels" :/.

scarface74 4y ago
Why are you even arguing this? There already exist two major competitors that are treating streaming music as just an insignificant portion of a multibillion dollar business - Amazon and Apple. Also to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. As far as the content that’s unavailable - it doesn’t matter. The long tail theory has been debunked decades ago (https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2018/long-tail-theory/ https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2018/long-tail-theor...). You can’t make money at scale with out having the most popular content. > This wouldn't be sufficient to cause most users to switch from Spotify. It certainly wouldn't get me to switch from Spotify, and I don't even like Spotify! You’re a geek posting to HN (as am I) you don’t represent the mainstream and it doesn’t matter if people switch or not. Spotify needs to be profitable as an ongoing concern and it isn’t and will never be extremely profitable. Its competitors don’t have to have a profitable streaming service. > Amazon, as it was essentially uploaded directly. I wish I could obtain all of the movies/TV I consume from Apple, but that just isn't how this industry operates. Again, a successful business doesn’t depend on the long tail - that’s been debunked by every single market - app stores, music, movies, etc. the vast majority of money is made from hits. You’re also failing to realize that Spotify’s issue of trying to be profitable just streaming music while its competitors can sell at cost to prop up other businesses.
- saurik 4y ago
  > Why are you even arguing this? There already exist two major competitors that are treating streaming music as just an insignificant portion of a multibillion dollar business - Amazon and Apple. Also to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. Amazon, Apple, and Google (to their lesser extent due to YouTube) are also in the content licensing business... the same business Spotify is in. Are you saying that iTunes, or Amazon.com, is also a shitty business? I'm betting you aren't. If you are, I recommend looking at how much money Apple makes on iTunes: it is sufficient to have let them subsidize sales of the iPod. The reason Spotify is in a bad place is because they have bad contracts for their core content (vs. Apple) and a lack of vision for how to change up their business model (maybe by having a feature similar to Amazon Prime / Hulu where you have to pay for add-on subscriptions for various artists), not because "music streaming is a feature": their business isn't "music streaming". > Again, a successful business doesn’t depend on the long tail - that’s been debunked by every single market - app stores, music, movies, etc. the vast majority of money is made from hits. I am not saying the vast majority of revenue comes from the long tail, I am saying having access to a large catalog matters and prevents even large companies from being able to just shut you off as I do believe that people--yes, actual people, like my customers--actually care about access to the long tail, even if it isn't most of their usage or where you book your revenue. > You’re also failing to realize that Spotify’s issue of trying to be profitable just streaming music while its competitors can sell at cost to prop up other businesses. They aren't, though! iTunes is profitable. It has tried (and succeeded!) to add Spotify as a feature, but Spotify can and should respond by adding track sales or artist-specific subscriptions as a feature. There are tons of things they could be doing--because their business is not music streaming: their business is content licensing--to become profitable. Why don't they at least have a built-in Patreon mechanism where people can pay arbitrarily more for their subscription and have it (after they take a cut) doled out to their streamed artists?! They are just dumb. They certainly aren't Dropbox: Dropbox's entire business is just a technological feature and fundamentally continued to be a feature forever. There is no real reason to use their feature over someone else's implementation of that feature except code quality (and I have a queued article to write about how Dropbox is broken ;P). There absolutely is a moat that Spotify has here, and to ignore that is extremely strange. They may be squandering their ability to compete, but they aren't "just a feature". Being a dumb company that needs better leadership to establish a better business model is not the same as being a feature.

by saurik 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

Why are you even arguing this? There already exist two major competitors that are treating streaming music as just an insignificant portion of a multibillion dollar business - Amazon and Apple. Also to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. As far as the content that’s unavailable - it doesn’t matter. The long tail theory has been debunked decades ago (https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2018/long-tail-theory/ https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2018/long-tail-theor...). You can’t make money at scale with out having the most popular content. > This wouldn't be sufficient to cause most users to switch from Spotify. It certainly wouldn't get me to switch from Spotify, and I don't even like Spotify! You’re a geek posting to HN (as am I) you don’t represent the mainstream and it doesn’t matter if people switch or not. Spotify needs to be profitable as an ongoing concern and it isn’t and will never be extremely profitable. Its competitors don’t have to have a profitable streaming service. > Amazon, as it was essentially uploaded directly. I wish I could obtain all of the movies/TV I consume from Apple, but that just isn't how this industry operates. Again, a successful business doesn’t depend on the long tail - that’s been debunked by every single market - app stores, music, movies, etc. the vast majority of money is made from hits. You’re also failing to realize that Spotify’s issue of trying to be profitable just streaming music while its competitors can sell at cost to prop up other businesses.

saurik 4y ago
> Why are you even arguing this? There already exist two major competitors that are treating streaming music as just an insignificant portion of a multibillion dollar business - Amazon and Apple. Also to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. Amazon, Apple, and Google (to their lesser extent due to YouTube) are also in the content licensing business... the same business Spotify is in. Are you saying that iTunes, or Amazon.com, is also a shitty business? I'm betting you aren't. If you are, I recommend looking at how much money Apple makes on iTunes: it is sufficient to have let them subsidize sales of the iPod. The reason Spotify is in a bad place is because they have bad contracts for their core content (vs. Apple) and a lack of vision for how to change up their business model (maybe by having a feature similar to Amazon Prime / Hulu where you have to pay for add-on subscriptions for various artists), not because "music streaming is a feature": their business isn't "music streaming". > Again, a successful business doesn’t depend on the long tail - that’s been debunked by every single market - app stores, music, movies, etc. the vast majority of money is made from hits. I am not saying the vast majority of revenue comes from the long tail, I am saying having access to a large catalog matters and prevents even large companies from being able to just shut you off as I do believe that people--yes, actual people, like my customers--actually care about access to the long tail, even if it isn't most of their usage or where you book your revenue. > You’re also failing to realize that Spotify’s issue of trying to be profitable just streaming music while its competitors can sell at cost to prop up other businesses. They aren't, though! iTunes is profitable. It has tried (and succeeded!) to add Spotify as a feature, but Spotify can and should respond by adding track sales or artist-specific subscriptions as a feature. There are tons of things they could be doing--because their business is not music streaming: their business is content licensing--to become profitable. Why don't they at least have a built-in Patreon mechanism where people can pay arbitrarily more for their subscription and have it (after they take a cut) doled out to their streamed artists?! They are just dumb. They certainly aren't Dropbox: Dropbox's entire business is just a technological feature and fundamentally continued to be a feature forever. There is no real reason to use their feature over someone else's implementation of that feature except code quality (and I have a queued article to write about how Dropbox is broken ;P). There absolutely is a moat that Spotify has here, and to ignore that is extremely strange. They may be squandering their ability to compete, but they aren't "just a feature". Being a dumb company that needs better leadership to establish a better business model is not the same as being a feature.