3 ms·
We pay $179 a year for Amazon music. We use Alexa all the time to play music. How is that not a huge revenue success? It sounds like they are not properly fact
by francisofascii 2y ago
We pay $179 a year for Amazon music. We use Alexa all the time to play music. How is that not a huge revenue success? It sounds like they are not properly factoring that in as a downstream impact.
- simonw 2y agoIt takes a LOT of $179/year subscriptions to pay the salaries of 10,000 engineers. Especially since a lot of that subscription revenue for music will go to licensing the content.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y agoThat's not a revenue problem, that's an over-hiring useless employees problem.
- Balgair 2y ago"All problems are people problems" -Gerald Wineberg
- kevingadd 2y agoIn general music is a business you go into if you want to lose money. At Amazon's size they can probably negotiate better deals than smaller companies can, but it's still a painful business to be in.
- graton 2y agoFor $168/year you could get YouTube Premium, which comes with YouTube music and ad-free YouTube (not counting ads inside the videos done by the content creator).
- ghaff 2y agoOr as part of an Apple deal that comes with other stuff you may want. The music subscriptions are all pretty much the same unless you have very niche requirements.
- liveoneggs 2y agocan you stream youtube music on the alexa?
- pchristensen 2y agoMusic rights aren't cheap. Just ask Spotify.
- doubtfuluser 2y agoBut the question you must ask is: how much of the fact that you pay for music can be attributed to Alexa?