5 ms·

Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? If your consumption of music amounts to "whatever Spotify tells m

by dools 2y ago

Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? If your consumption of music amounts to "whatever Spotify tells me to listen to" then chances are you were the type of person who used to just have the radio on for background noise anyway. EDIT: If you think about this "scandal" in reverse, that is that Spotify was started as a background, inert restaurant playlist app that paid session musicians to record 50 songs a day for lo-fi chill ambient jazz playlists, and later tried to expand their reach by allowing musicians to upload their songs, it wouldn't be a scandal at all.

pests 2y ago
Its not in reverse though. If a upscale steak restaurant is known for using quality meats and then they decide to include something like Beyond Meat but make it hard to tell that's what you're ordering. Expectations were set. Personally I have no issue with it.
- dools 2y ago
  > If a upscale steak restaurant is known for using quality meats and then they decide to include something like Beyond Meat but make it hard to tell that's what you're ordering. That sounds like an analogy worth belabouring!! I think this is more like if you had an upscale steak restaurant and then they opened up a series of food trucks that used the same branding but sold sausages instead.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  If you walk into a steakhouse and order the porterhouse and you get taco bell Beefy™ meat, that's one thing. If you pay the restaurant a monthly retainer to feed you steak whenever you feel like wandering in and you get such treatment, you weren't really ripped off. Someone tells Spotify "I want to listen to the latest Lil yachty album" and it plays, expectations were met. Someone says "play whatever I just need background noise", expectations were also met. You can't ask for elevator music and be upset that that's what you get. The fact that you can still pay a flat monthly rate and get access to almost any music you'd want to hear, that's like still getting the porterhouse every day for a monthly fee. That's amazing and fantastic. Don't expect it to last much longer. And don't ask for the soup of the day if you want something fresh.
  - foota 2y ago
    I don't know how I feel about this, but the people that are upset about this seem to be upset for musicians. Which, I don't know how I feel. It feels like the outsourcing of the music industry.
    - Yeul 2y ago
      Spotify sends users a notification when their favourite artist has a concert. I think that's a nice gesture. Nowadays you make money with live gigs not snorting coke in a studio making concept albums. And Spotify saved the industry from Napster- yes I still remember.
      - philistine 2y ago
        You don't really remember. Spotify arrived in the US only in 2011. The iTunes Store saved the industry from Napster.
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      I mean, do you feel sad for photographers, painters, digital artists that every stock photo used on every website in the world comes from a stock photo website and wasn't hand made by an artisan? Is it some slight against Duke Ellington that he wasn't selected to write and record the hold music you hear when you call your doctors office? Feel bad for musicians why? They still get their royalties when someone plays their song. It's just they're not getting selected by an algorithm for random background music as often. How is that some wrongdoing against them?
- mort96 2y ago
  Beyond Meat is a weird analogy here. It's relatively expensive, and having a Beoynd Meat alternative to steaks would open up new markets (vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, groups of people who include vegans and vegetarians and pescatarians) so it's something restaurants tend to feature prominently on their menues as a vegan or vegetarian alternative. A better alternative would be a steak restaurant known for using quality meats and then they decide to include cheap meat to reduce cost, and not make it clear that that's what you're ordering.
  - gregw2 2y ago
    I've had this... The Longhorn Steakhouse "kids menu" steak (not cheap) given to my kids was actually inedible.
  - schnable 2y ago
    I'll play along. It's like ordering a beer flight at a bar and they start out with craft beers and 3-4 beers in they start slipping in Natty Lights and Busches.
- xandrius 2y ago
  In that specific scenario, if the customers can't tell, I'd say the beyond meat option is better: still gives you the experience, the proteins, less cruelty and better for the environment. Win win to me. Unlike here the topic in question, I'd assume cows too would prefer you having a beyond meat instead of them. But I'm just projecting, I'm not actually sure about that.
  - christina97 2y ago
    Something something cruelty free music..?
    - defrost 2y ago
      The only thing worse is people who are judgemental: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqX2aqXbwB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqX2aqXbwB0
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? I 1) A supermarket does not bill itself as a neutral discovery platform. It's not comparable to Spotify. 2) A supermarket can't make up fake information about the provenance of its products. The information on the cereal box is regulated to be truthful (well, we hope). 3) Most importantly, this is about discovery. The store has its brand of cereal next to some other non-store brands on the shelf, the customer has the opportunity to discover both. What Spotify is doing is taking the non-store-brand cereals off the shelf and putting them in the stocking room where you only get them if you happen to ask one of the store employees.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > What Spotify is doing is taking the non-store-brand cereals off the shelf and putting them in the stocking room where you only get them if you happen to ask one of the store employees. That's a terrible analogy. Spotify has tons of ways to access the real artists. Often including dedicated playlists for each one of them. They show up in search. In related arists. In radio playlists. In top music playlists. Etc. Spotify isn't taking anything "off the shelf". A more apt analogy is a grocery store with a dedicated section for store-brand goods only. Where everything's still normally on the shelves where you expect -- nothing has been taken off the shelf -- but you can also visit the store-brand-only section. It's hard to see why that would be a bad thing for a supermarket to do.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    you missed what the article was talking about yeah, they're available by search if you know what to look for; that's the same as asking the store employee if they carry X, as opposed to seeing it as you browse the aisle > A more apt analogy is a grocery store with a dedicated section for store-brand goods only No, that's not the right analogy and not what Spotify is doing. That would be like having a section for "undiscovered artists" on the front page where you can browse through them, alongside another section for "Spotify-sponsored artists" which you can also browse through. The point of the article's argument is that unless you know you want Artist X and search for them, you're not going to come across them because they're not being added to Spotify playlists and content discovery mechanisms (obviously you can add them to your own playlist manually). You'll instead come across the content that Spotify owns, allowing it to keep a greater share of revenue and pay less to artists trying to distribute their music through its platform.
lobsterthief 2y ago
You can’t just reorder events and then compare them to the original event. In reverse: Many dictators killed millions of their own people, but then completely stopped and began building roads for the people instead.

by dools 2y ago

pests 2y ago

Its not in reverse though. If a upscale steak restaurant is known for using quality meats and then they decide to include something like Beyond Meat but make it hard to tell that's what you're ordering. Expectations were set. Personally I have no issue with it.

dools 2y ago
> If a upscale steak restaurant is known for using quality meats and then they decide to include something like Beyond Meat but make it hard to tell that's what you're ordering. That sounds like an analogy worth belabouring!! I think this is more like if you had an upscale steak restaurant and then they opened up a series of food trucks that used the same branding but sold sausages instead.
big-green-man 2y ago
If you walk into a steakhouse and order the porterhouse and you get taco bell Beefy™ meat, that's one thing. If you pay the restaurant a monthly retainer to feed you steak whenever you feel like wandering in and you get such treatment, you weren't really ripped off. Someone tells Spotify "I want to listen to the latest Lil yachty album" and it plays, expectations were met. Someone says "play whatever I just need background noise", expectations were also met. You can't ask for elevator music and be upset that that's what you get. The fact that you can still pay a flat monthly rate and get access to almost any music you'd want to hear, that's like still getting the porterhouse every day for a monthly fee. That's amazing and fantastic. Don't expect it to last much longer. And don't ask for the soup of the day if you want something fresh.
- foota 2y ago
  I don't know how I feel about this, but the people that are upset about this seem to be upset for musicians. Which, I don't know how I feel. It feels like the outsourcing of the music industry.
  - Yeul 2y ago
    Spotify sends users a notification when their favourite artist has a concert. I think that's a nice gesture. Nowadays you make money with live gigs not snorting coke in a studio making concept albums. And Spotify saved the industry from Napster- yes I still remember.
    - philistine 2y ago
      You don't really remember. Spotify arrived in the US only in 2011. The iTunes Store saved the industry from Napster.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    I mean, do you feel sad for photographers, painters, digital artists that every stock photo used on every website in the world comes from a stock photo website and wasn't hand made by an artisan? Is it some slight against Duke Ellington that he wasn't selected to write and record the hold music you hear when you call your doctors office? Feel bad for musicians why? They still get their royalties when someone plays their song. It's just they're not getting selected by an algorithm for random background music as often. How is that some wrongdoing against them?
mort96 2y ago
Beyond Meat is a weird analogy here. It's relatively expensive, and having a Beoynd Meat alternative to steaks would open up new markets (vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, groups of people who include vegans and vegetarians and pescatarians) so it's something restaurants tend to feature prominently on their menues as a vegan or vegetarian alternative. A better alternative would be a steak restaurant known for using quality meats and then they decide to include cheap meat to reduce cost, and not make it clear that that's what you're ordering.
- gregw2 2y ago
  I've had this... The Longhorn Steakhouse "kids menu" steak (not cheap) given to my kids was actually inedible.
- schnable 2y ago
  I'll play along. It's like ordering a beer flight at a bar and they start out with craft beers and 3-4 beers in they start slipping in Natty Lights and Busches.
xandrius 2y ago
In that specific scenario, if the customers can't tell, I'd say the beyond meat option is better: still gives you the experience, the proteins, less cruelty and better for the environment. Win win to me. Unlike here the topic in question, I'd assume cows too would prefer you having a beyond meat instead of them. But I'm just projecting, I'm not actually sure about that.
- christina97 2y ago
  Something something cruelty free music..?
  - defrost 2y ago
    The only thing worse is people who are judgemental: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqX2aqXbwB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqX2aqXbwB0

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? I 1) A supermarket does not bill itself as a neutral discovery platform. It's not comparable to Spotify. 2) A supermarket can't make up fake information about the provenance of its products. The information on the cereal box is regulated to be truthful (well, we hope). 3) Most importantly, this is about discovery. The store has its brand of cereal next to some other non-store brands on the shelf, the customer has the opportunity to discover both. What Spotify is doing is taking the non-store-brand cereals off the shelf and putting them in the stocking room where you only get them if you happen to ask one of the store employees.

crazygringo 2y ago
> What Spotify is doing is taking the non-store-brand cereals off the shelf and putting them in the stocking room where you only get them if you happen to ask one of the store employees. That's a terrible analogy. Spotify has tons of ways to access the real artists. Often including dedicated playlists for each one of them. They show up in search. In related arists. In radio playlists. In top music playlists. Etc. Spotify isn't taking anything "off the shelf". A more apt analogy is a grocery store with a dedicated section for store-brand goods only. Where everything's still normally on the shelves where you expect -- nothing has been taken off the shelf -- but you can also visit the store-brand-only section. It's hard to see why that would be a bad thing for a supermarket to do.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  you missed what the article was talking about yeah, they're available by search if you know what to look for; that's the same as asking the store employee if they carry X, as opposed to seeing it as you browse the aisle > A more apt analogy is a grocery store with a dedicated section for store-brand goods only No, that's not the right analogy and not what Spotify is doing. That would be like having a section for "undiscovered artists" on the front page where you can browse through them, alongside another section for "Spotify-sponsored artists" which you can also browse through. The point of the article's argument is that unless you know you want Artist X and search for them, you're not going to come across them because they're not being added to Spotify playlists and content discovery mechanisms (obviously you can add them to your own playlist manually). You'll instead come across the content that Spotify owns, allowing it to keep a greater share of revenue and pay less to artists trying to distribute their music through its platform.

lobsterthief 2y ago

You can’t just reorder events and then compare them to the original event. In reverse: Many dictators killed millions of their own people, but then completely stopped and began building roads for the people instead.