3 ms·

Sounds less like Spotify is annoyed than record labels are annoyed. Spotify is being paid by its users regardless of what they decide to listen to. On YouTube

by hnbad 3y ago

Sounds less like Spotify is annoyed than record labels are annoyed. Spotify is being paid by its users regardless of what they decide to listen to. On YouTube one of my most-watched videos in terms of watchtime for a while was brown noise overlaid on a recording of ocean waves. The video was three hours long I think and monetized. YouTube probably doesn't care if that share of my YouTube Premium subscription money goes to the guy who uploaded that video, a professionally recorded studio production or some person doing vlogs in their bedroom. Why should Spotify?

Macha 3y ago
It depends on if these users are paying for premium or not. Since the streams are described as having embedded ads, users probably aren't too worried about removing Spotify's own ads, and I doubt track skips or selecting specific tracks in the album are in demand by any primarily white noise users
- prmoustache 3y ago
  I doubt anyone is listening to these from a free account with ads, that would defeat the purpose.
  - Macha 3y ago
    To me the embedded ads which the article identifies as the source of revenue for these white noise streams would also seem to defeat the point for me, but apparently that doesn't bother people so I don't see why spotify's ads would be different.
squeaky-clean 3y ago
My guess is that it's far more likely that major labels start their own music streaming services, mimicking the Netflix/Hulu/Disney/HBO/Peacock etc explosion in video streaming. No idea if it would be a smart business decision by the labels, but they could definitely do it and Spotify would only be left with independent artists and labels who don't join the bandwagon. YouTube has no risk of this. There's no entity, or coalition of entities, capable of pulling content from YouTube that would create a noticeable dip in traffic.
- troupo 3y ago
  > My guess is that it's far more likely that major labels start their own music streaming services They can't. Unlike movies, there's great value in back catalogs. If Die Hard isn't available on a movie streaming service you will likely not care. If Pink Floyd (or Beatles, or Aretha Franklin) isn't available on a music streaming service, a huge number of people will care. There are ~4 big companies that control 70-80% (by different estimations) of music. But individually they own different chunks. Sony can't start a streaming service if they don't have music owned by Warner etc.

by hnbad 3y ago

Macha 3y ago

It depends on if these users are paying for premium or not. Since the streams are described as having embedded ads, users probably aren't too worried about removing Spotify's own ads, and I doubt track skips or selecting specific tracks in the album are in demand by any primarily white noise users

prmoustache 3y ago
I doubt anyone is listening to these from a free account with ads, that would defeat the purpose.
- Macha 3y ago
  To me the embedded ads which the article identifies as the source of revenue for these white noise streams would also seem to defeat the point for me, but apparently that doesn't bother people so I don't see why spotify's ads would be different.

squeaky-clean 3y ago

My guess is that it's far more likely that major labels start their own music streaming services, mimicking the Netflix/Hulu/Disney/HBO/Peacock etc explosion in video streaming. No idea if it would be a smart business decision by the labels, but they could definitely do it and Spotify would only be left with independent artists and labels who don't join the bandwagon. YouTube has no risk of this. There's no entity, or coalition of entities, capable of pulling content from YouTube that would create a noticeable dip in traffic.

troupo 3y ago
> My guess is that it's far more likely that major labels start their own music streaming services They can't. Unlike movies, there's great value in back catalogs. If Die Hard isn't available on a movie streaming service you will likely not care. If Pink Floyd (or Beatles, or Aretha Franklin) isn't available on a music streaming service, a huge number of people will care. There are ~4 big companies that control 70-80% (by different estimations) of music. But individually they own different chunks. Sony can't start a streaming service if they don't have music owned by Warner etc.