11 ms·

Spotify Shuts Down ‘Unwrapped’ Artist Royalty Calculator with Legal Threats

219 points by cpach 2y ago

zeristor 2y ago
So how do the other streaming services compare, this isn’t sustainable. So pretty much there all the same, SoundCloud though is different https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/how-much-do-streaming-services-pay-musicians-en/ https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/how-much-do-streaming-servic... To pu it another way, what level of Royalties should be paid? It just seems to be market to the bottom. Gigs and merch.
- ProblemFactory 2y ago
  Most streaming services take a similar cut of the revenue. Spotify pays out 70% of revenue they receive to owners of the music, BandCamp 75%, SoundCloud 80%. Could be slightly better, but it's not outrageous. The real problems for artists are: a) they are not the owners of the music, their record label takes most of it, and the rest is split between the artists, songwriters, producers, etc. b) bad deals with (but good for) the customers - ~10/month for unlimited music too good value
  - maccard 2y ago
    One of the (only) things I think Spotify gets wrong as a service is they’re too cheap. I pay for prime, Spotify and Netflix in my house - (we occasionally sub Netflix for Disney). A price rise to Netflix or prime would cause us to reconsider, but I think I would stomach Spotify doubling their price quite easily with no change in service.
    - manfre 2y ago
      Counter example, if they raised their price by more than $1-2, I'd cancel it. The music discovery hasn't been great and it mostly suggests playlists of the songs I already listen to. Inertia is the only reason I haven't cancelled and bought all the songs directly
      - nprateem 2y ago
        They did and I did
      - maccard 2y ago
        See I think how you feel about Spotify is exactly how I feel about Netflix. I don’t use the discovery of Spotify much, if at all. The value is the catalog.
    - Lanolderen 2y ago
      Spotify is already steep in my eyes when I compare it to Netflix. Probably because I'm looking at video bandwidth vs audio bandwidth but paying for music more than you pay for movies feels weird in my monkey brain. No shiny picture, less money monkey say.
      - maccard 2y ago
        For me the value proposition is that there’s zero fragmentation. I know that by paying what I do for Spotify, I have access to pretty much everything. That’s worth a decent premium to me. The problem with Netflix is the same as console exclusives in video games - fragmenting the ecosystem means I look at the service for the content it has vs the other services. But with Spotify it fills that niche entirely.
        threeseed 2y ago
        > I know that by paying what I do for Spotify, I have access to pretty much everything Apple Music, Tidal etc have almost identical libraries. Catalog size stopped being a differentiator years ago.
        maccard 2y ago
        I mean compared to video streaming sites - Netflix and prime have vastly different libraries. If Spotify and Apple Music had different libraries to the same degree, id probably bounce between them both and be more price sensitive. The fact that Spotify (and apple and tidal) have the full catalog mean the network effect is likely to be my main decider.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      Spotify maybe cheap compared to Netflix. But it is way overpriced compared to Apple Music (definitely) and Tidal (arguably). Not having lossless audio and paying artists less is ridiculous.
      - maccard 2y ago
        We have duo for my wife and I, so Spotify is £8.50/month each. Apple Music is £11/mo. 60% of my listening is through a pair of AirPods over Bluetooth, 30% on a Sonos system and 10% using semi decent wired headphones. Lossless isn’t something that is a differentiator for me. I have some music on both Spotify and Apple Music - the reality is that even with a few thousand streams per month we haven’t even made back the cost of 2 hours of rehearsal space. The reality is that for artists making a living off this, the problem isn’t the difference between 75 and 80% that Spotify holds onto, it’s the fact that the artist only sees 15-20% of what’s left over.
  - jzb 2y ago
    Not sure where you get 75% for Bandcamp. They take a 15% cut for digital sales, 10% for physical, plus processing fees. Also, they’re not really a streaming service: you can preview a lot of music on the platform, but it’s primarily about buying music. It’s not really a good comparison to Spotify at all.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Arnt 2y ago
    But does Spotify pay the same rate to each artist, or does the rate depend on what deal an artist's record company has with Spotify?
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    Doesn't Spotify still have a free tier? I think that would account for the biggest discrepancy in their payouts.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    (a) is the real problem for many of the musicians who have vocally complained about this. If you look at most songs produced by record labels, you will see 5 songwriter credits, 10 producers, and a whole band to pay. Not to mention the army of recording engineers and the marketing staff.
    - gwervc 2y ago
      Those people are doing real work, it's normal they're paid too. If musicians want more for themselves they could cut middlemen and produce and commercialize themselves their music.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Absolutely, and they are pretty much all equal participants in the creation of the sound you are hearing. It's just one worker (the headline artist) who gets all the attention.
      - ClimaxGravely 2y ago
        It seems to be happening more and more these days. JPEGMafia is a good example
- jhogendorn 2y ago
  I saw an artist say recently on insta reels that if their fanbase switched to Apple Music it would go from beer money to more than their day job. And apparently even more from Tidal. They acknowledged that spotify is the elephant in the room with 80% of their audience on it.
  - msoad 2y ago
    Let's not assume that in a world where Apple has 80% market share artists are getting paid better...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Snafuh 2y ago
    Both Apple Music and Tidal (and Google Music, Amazon) can afford to lose money as long as leadership want the service to stay online. I don't think it's sustainable for musicians to rely on cross financing via other services or VC money. Further consolidation under under big tech conpanies would be a negative IMO
    - jason_zig 2y ago
      Might want to take a look in the mirror with regard to tech...
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Is there an actual breakdown somewhere on how much, exactly, an artist makes on each platform, similar to this calculator?
  - musictubes 2y ago
    Apple and Spotify both pay 70% but the devil is in the details. Apparently Spotify gives out 70% of its revenues based on what percentage of streams the artist has that month. What that means is that regardless of what you listen to, a percentage of what you pay will go to the heavy hitters like Taylor Swift. There's an excellent chance that the obscure artist you listen to doesn't get much of anything. If Apple actually pays rights holders based on what you actually play that would be a huge difference.
23B1 2y ago
On this topic, I'm sick and tired of Spotify's recommendation algorithm and ready to jump to a superior service, would love to hear HN's recommendations. Happy to pay for a good service. My listening style basically comes down to vibe, e.g. "I want to imagine myself as a jaded ex-con planning my next heist" and "I'm duking it out with an aggressively hegemonizing von Neumann swarm in the asteroid belt"
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  Apple Music is quite good. Better masters, good recommendations, no fuss - and they pay artists more, supposedly.
  - pjm331 2y ago
    Recently made the switch and have been very happy with the service.
  - fundatus 2y ago
    > they pay artists more, supposedly They don't. Spotify pays out roughly 66% of their revenue as royalties, while Apple Music only does about 50%. [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-reveals-how-much-it-pays-when-you-stream-a-song-11618579800 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-reveals-how-much-it... https://archive.is/lRZns https://archive.is/lRZns
    - 23B1 2y ago
      Dang that sucks. Man, I really, really hate this situation.
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        No, they misread.
    - ivanbakel 2y ago
      That percentage doesn’t really explain anything. What if Apple has more revenue? What if Apple users stream less, so royalty costs per subscription are lower? In both cases the AM payout could be fairer for artists and the percentage could still be lower. The article you cite actually claims the latter is true, so it seems looking at just that statistic is misleading.
mstipetic 2y ago
I still don’t get how YouTube (premium + music) isn’t a clear winner here. Why use Spotify if you can get all that for the same price?
- e40 2y ago
  UI/UX? YT is the most hated UX of anything I ever use. It’s different in terrible ways on each platform, too.
  - EduardoBautista 2y ago
    On desktop I use YouTube music because of how bad the Apple Music app is. On mobile, I use Apple Music.
    - 23B1 2y ago
      What about the app don't you like? I ask because I'm done with Spotify and looking for the next service.
      - nothercastle 2y ago
        Apple Music has a really bizarre interface for managing playlists. It’s so cumbersome and takes way too many clicks. Probably as a side effect of being mobile first
        nunez 2y ago
        Can you describe how? I actually find playlist editing to be really easy on Apple Music/iTunes.
        23B1 2y ago
        Wow I just tried it out and it's quite awful, you're right. The way Spotify allows you to see what's in the 'radio' station and then add additional tracks to a playlist is great – there's almost no similar functionality in Apple music. Actually bonkers that discovery is this bad in Apple music
solardev 2y ago
Hot take: Maybe music consumption and production has changed enough that it's basically a commodity now, and maybe not worth paying "full" price for anymore most of the time? There's a tiny handful of artists for whom I'd go out of my way to buy an album directly from them (or a t shirt, or concert or whatever, just to support them). But for most of my day, music is more just a background thing, like having the radio on, and I don't really pay attention to what's playing or know or care who makes it. Most of it could be (or maybe already is) AI generated and I wouldn't know the difference. I would not pay $20 for an album of that stuff. I think it's interesting to compare the music industry with the video games one. Both have a glut of suppliers with many invisible titles and producers trailing behind a few famous ones. Both had physical media and big publishers in the 90s and 2000s before transitioning to downloads and streaming. The PC games market moved to pretty effective market segmentation divided between full price new release titles, Steam sales for older games, and first or third party subscriptions like EA Play or Ubisoft Plus or Microsoft Gamepass. Each reaches a different part of the market and can accommodate both players who rent and those who buy. There's also room for smaller indie games, between Steam and Humble Bundle and GOG. The music market seems archaic, oligopolistic, and predatory by comparison. Where's the Valve of music, offering a great service for both consumers and producers? We do have Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, etc., but why can't they make the finances there work when the also expensive video games market seemed to be doing OK (at least until the post covid bubble burst these last two years)?
- eprparadox 2y ago
  the Valve of music might be Bandcamp.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    The Epic Games Store of music, surely.
    - Dilettante_ 2y ago
      The Gorbino's Quest of music!
dylan604 2y ago
Lots of words about a legal threat, but I didn't actually see what those words were that were so threatening. On what grounds does Spotify have the ability to shut down a satire site? How spineless are Unwrapped to immediately cave? The entire discussion here is people's opinion on the Spotify service compared to its competitors, yet no actual discussion of TFA.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  > How spineless are Unwrapped to immediately cave? Most people are going to back down straight away. Seriously, most people won't even stand up and have local employment laws applied. Many will keep silent about things they saw even when there is no possible retribution. Most people aren't willing to battle over things.
  - popcalc 2y ago
    Because the legal/administrative costs of a lawsuit will bankrupt the poor. It's not worth the risk unless the a group like the EFF expressly backs them. This is systematic.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      Even if it doesn't cost people will generally not fight. Seriously, go look at all the people complaining on Reddit about their Bosses but don't even bother to fight back by looking for a new job.
      - thayne 2y ago
        Not all costs are (directly) money. Looking for a new job costs time, and stress, and possibly the costs of relocating, which can include being farther away from friends and community you currently have.
        that_guy_iain 2y ago
        To me, that's just reaching. Fight or flight is a thing. Not everyone is going to fight. Just face, generally, it's not a cost thing, it's a "they're not a fighter" thing.
alexalx666 2y ago
for $30 you can get Roon + Qobuz subscription, i found that it’s impossible to navigate apple music or spotify if you like listening to albums
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  I struggle with Spotify's anti-album stance as well. I assume it makes them more money because it's easier for them to "guide" you to the songs they make more money on?
  - jackbrookes 2y ago
    Playlists allow spotify to create a moat. It encourages you to listen to (and build) playlists, that wouldn't then be easily available if you try to switch platforms
    - lazycouchpotato 2y ago
      For those unaware, there are services like TuneMyMusic [1] and Soundiiz [2] that allow you to transfer playlists between platforms for a fee. Spotify did shut down certain API endpoints last month [3] though, so there's no guarantee these services may continue working for Spotify. Worst case scenario you'd have to download your data [4] and then figure out a way to create playlists on the other platform. [1] https://www.tunemymusic.com/ https://www.tunemymusic.com/ [2] https://soundiiz.com/ https://soundiiz.com/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42260481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42260481 [4] https://www.spotify.com/us/account/privacy/ https://www.spotify.com/us/account/privacy/
- CharlesW 2y ago
  > …i found that it’s impossible to navigate apple music or spotify if you like listening to albums I can't speak to Spotify, but listening to albums in Apple Music couldn't be more straightforward — (1) choose album, (2) play. Roon's apps give "generic music player". What about it specifically allows you to play albums successfully, where Spotify and Apple Music trip you up?
that_guy_iain 2y ago
The website appears to still be up, I literally used it minutes before posting this comment. Is this the correct URL https://www.spotify-unwrapped.com/ https://www.spotify-unwrapped.com/ ?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  No, this is a copycat - the original was at https://www.spotifyunwrapped.org/ https://www.spotifyunwrapped.org/. (Although it does seem that one of the articles linked in the source made the same mistake!)
mustyoshi 2y ago
I think it's pretty telling that they don't have an option for the ad supported users, when they make up like 70% of Spotifies userbase.
- saaaaaam 2y ago
  Who doesn’t have an option?
theZilber 2y ago
The language of the article implies that Spotify rips artists off while their executives earn millions. The problem is the millions the executives make do not come directly from Spotify's revenue, they come from stocks which are only loosely related. Don't get me wrong, Spotify has many issues. And should be rightfully criticized. but if you are going to parody them makes sure it is a humoristic pretence that most people would understand. Juxtaposing CEO stock selling revenue with how much artists actually make, is more misleading than it is humoristic - as stocks prices are merely loosely linked to company income, and by extension loosely linked to the artist's cut. So I would assume that if a case to be made for taking down the website - it is because it did not convey it is a parody and was edging defamation.
- miunau 2y ago
  Who do you think created all that stock value for him?
  - theZilber 2y ago
    What creates stock value is public hype and arbitrary numbers. Company revenue is only loosely related to stock value, and more strongly related to the trend of the stock. Also a big part of a stock price is how much currently is circulated by big funds in that particular investment sector. If you want to compare how much yhe company actually takes away from creators - you should substract income from ads and subscriptions from money paid to creators. Not stock selling price which are are speculative at best.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Who do you think creates all the stock value for social media companies? Do you think such users should be equally outraged that their social media site has billions in market capitalization but paid them $0?
    - pas 2y ago
      um, many users are absolutely. this is still one ot the most frequent critique of these sites. for example Reddit with its IPO, and their bossing around of their unpaid mods, and so on. at least YT pays some money to creators.
maeil 2y ago
Serious question - is there no "lite" version of bulletproof hosting where they're not as willing to host e.g. silk road but happy to throw cease and desists by the likes of Spotify for this sort of nonsense in the bin? Surely this is a good opportunity for some enterprising Russians? With how relations are nowadays, it's hard to imagine Putin would give a toss.
boredemployee 2y ago
in a serious society, Spotify (and related business models) would never exist. the profession of music producer is almost a voluntary job with negative ROI
- rsanek 2y ago
  It's not like revenues from streaming are that bad these days, they're the highest they've been in ~20 years. The late 90s massive profits of CDs were more of an aberration rather than some natural order. https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-format/ https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-for... https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
- gruez 2y ago
  Why? The underlying business model of "being a middleman and take a 30% cut" seems pretty solid. Is it because nobody would be musicians? This almost sounds like "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". If nobody wants to produce music because the ROI is too low, then some musicians will drop out, and the ROI for the remaining musicians will go up because there's less competition. The only way this will fail is if people aren't willing to pay any amount for music, but that seems unlikely.
  - boredemployee 2y ago
    >> Why? because the streaming business model and the convenience of having any song from any artist in the palm of your hand has canabalized any and all other possibilities for musicians that would otherwise pay better. you have a few people/fans that insist on paying for the music in platforms like bandcamp, but thats uncommon. from the user's point of view, it's the perfect world, where he pays a little to have access to the entire musical catalog on the planet.
Animats 2y ago
They had to call it "Spotify Unwrapped". Bad move. Too close to a trademark. If they'd called it "Crappy Streaming Service Royalty Calculator", Spotify would not have had any legal grounds to complain. Even if they used a Spotify logo to identify the Spotify calculation option.
- m463 2y ago
  Honestly getting it shut down is a much much better move. Don't banned books or movies benefit from increased attention?
  - terminalbraid 2y ago
    Yeah, this Streisand Effected itself and probably wouldn't have garnered as much attention here otherwise.
    - NBJack 2y ago
      This is how I learned about it!
  - paxys 2y ago
    Yes but only because books and movies are easily accessible after being banned. If no one can use this calculator then the added buzz does nothing.
    - m463 2y ago
      but the calculator's math equation is shown right there and the idea will get out.
o999 2y ago
Reminder: A frontend-only web app can be anonymously deployed for free on Github pages, Gitlab pages, Netlify, Zeronet (with a proxy?). No reason to tip your opponents about your real identity, even if you break no laws, we have the developers of Tornado Cash in prison for crimes they didn't commit, OpenAI's and Boeing's whistleblowers where found dead in mysterious circumstances.
pigeons 2y ago
Do you get all the audiobooks included with Spotify premium if you use YT music? Spotify is worth the price just for the audiobooks.
- paxys 2y ago
  It's not "all" audiobooks but there's a massive collection available with your subscription. Definitely worth it in my opinion.

219 points by cpach 2y ago

So how do the other streaming services compare, this isn’t sustainable. So pretty much there all the same, SoundCloud though is different https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/how-much-do-streaming-services-pay-musicians-en/ https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/how-much-do-streaming-servic... To pu it another way, what level of Royalties should be paid? It just seems to be market to the bottom. Gigs and merch.

ProblemFactory 2y ago
Most streaming services take a similar cut of the revenue. Spotify pays out 70% of revenue they receive to owners of the music, BandCamp 75%, SoundCloud 80%. Could be slightly better, but it's not outrageous. The real problems for artists are: a) they are not the owners of the music, their record label takes most of it, and the rest is split between the artists, songwriters, producers, etc. b) bad deals with (but good for) the customers - ~10/month for unlimited music too good value
- maccard 2y ago
  One of the (only) things I think Spotify gets wrong as a service is they’re too cheap. I pay for prime, Spotify and Netflix in my house - (we occasionally sub Netflix for Disney). A price rise to Netflix or prime would cause us to reconsider, but I think I would stomach Spotify doubling their price quite easily with no change in service.
  - manfre 2y ago
    Counter example, if they raised their price by more than $1-2, I'd cancel it. The music discovery hasn't been great and it mostly suggests playlists of the songs I already listen to. Inertia is the only reason I haven't cancelled and bought all the songs directly
    - nprateem 2y ago
      They did and I did
    - maccard 2y ago
      See I think how you feel about Spotify is exactly how I feel about Netflix. I don’t use the discovery of Spotify much, if at all. The value is the catalog.
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    Spotify is already steep in my eyes when I compare it to Netflix. Probably because I'm looking at video bandwidth vs audio bandwidth but paying for music more than you pay for movies feels weird in my monkey brain. No shiny picture, less money monkey say.
    - maccard 2y ago
      For me the value proposition is that there’s zero fragmentation. I know that by paying what I do for Spotify, I have access to pretty much everything. That’s worth a decent premium to me. The problem with Netflix is the same as console exclusives in video games - fragmenting the ecosystem means I look at the service for the content it has vs the other services. But with Spotify it fills that niche entirely.
      - threeseed 2y ago
        > I know that by paying what I do for Spotify, I have access to pretty much everything Apple Music, Tidal etc have almost identical libraries. Catalog size stopped being a differentiator years ago.
        maccard 2y ago
        I mean compared to video streaming sites - Netflix and prime have vastly different libraries. If Spotify and Apple Music had different libraries to the same degree, id probably bounce between them both and be more price sensitive. The fact that Spotify (and apple and tidal) have the full catalog mean the network effect is likely to be my main decider.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Spotify maybe cheap compared to Netflix. But it is way overpriced compared to Apple Music (definitely) and Tidal (arguably). Not having lossless audio and paying artists less is ridiculous.
    - maccard 2y ago
      We have duo for my wife and I, so Spotify is £8.50/month each. Apple Music is £11/mo. 60% of my listening is through a pair of AirPods over Bluetooth, 30% on a Sonos system and 10% using semi decent wired headphones. Lossless isn’t something that is a differentiator for me. I have some music on both Spotify and Apple Music - the reality is that even with a few thousand streams per month we haven’t even made back the cost of 2 hours of rehearsal space. The reality is that for artists making a living off this, the problem isn’t the difference between 75 and 80% that Spotify holds onto, it’s the fact that the artist only sees 15-20% of what’s left over.
- jzb 2y ago
  Not sure where you get 75% for Bandcamp. They take a 15% cut for digital sales, 10% for physical, plus processing fees. Also, they’re not really a streaming service: you can preview a lot of music on the platform, but it’s primarily about buying music. It’s not really a good comparison to Spotify at all.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Arnt 2y ago
  But does Spotify pay the same rate to each artist, or does the rate depend on what deal an artist's record company has with Spotify?
- kalleboo 2y ago
  Doesn't Spotify still have a free tier? I think that would account for the biggest discrepancy in their payouts.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  (a) is the real problem for many of the musicians who have vocally complained about this. If you look at most songs produced by record labels, you will see 5 songwriter credits, 10 producers, and a whole band to pay. Not to mention the army of recording engineers and the marketing staff.
  - gwervc 2y ago
    Those people are doing real work, it's normal they're paid too. If musicians want more for themselves they could cut middlemen and produce and commercialize themselves their music.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Absolutely, and they are pretty much all equal participants in the creation of the sound you are hearing. It's just one worker (the headline artist) who gets all the attention.
    - ClimaxGravely 2y ago
      It seems to be happening more and more these days. JPEGMafia is a good example
jhogendorn 2y ago
I saw an artist say recently on insta reels that if their fanbase switched to Apple Music it would go from beer money to more than their day job. And apparently even more from Tidal. They acknowledged that spotify is the elephant in the room with 80% of their audience on it.
- msoad 2y ago
  Let's not assume that in a world where Apple has 80% market share artists are getting paid better...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Snafuh 2y ago
  Both Apple Music and Tidal (and Google Music, Amazon) can afford to lose money as long as leadership want the service to stay online. I don't think it's sustainable for musicians to rely on cross financing via other services or VC money. Further consolidation under under big tech conpanies would be a negative IMO
  - jason_zig 2y ago
    Might want to take a look in the mirror with regard to tech...
- int_19h 2y ago
  Is there an actual breakdown somewhere on how much, exactly, an artist makes on each platform, similar to this calculator?
- musictubes 2y ago
  Apple and Spotify both pay 70% but the devil is in the details. Apparently Spotify gives out 70% of its revenues based on what percentage of streams the artist has that month. What that means is that regardless of what you listen to, a percentage of what you pay will go to the heavy hitters like Taylor Swift. There's an excellent chance that the obscure artist you listen to doesn't get much of anything. If Apple actually pays rights holders based on what you actually play that would be a huge difference.

23B1 2y ago

On this topic, I'm sick and tired of Spotify's recommendation algorithm and ready to jump to a superior service, would love to hear HN's recommendations. Happy to pay for a good service. My listening style basically comes down to vibe, e.g. "I want to imagine myself as a jaded ex-con planning my next heist" and "I'm duking it out with an aggressively hegemonizing von Neumann swarm in the asteroid belt"

Schiendelman 2y ago
Apple Music is quite good. Better masters, good recommendations, no fuss - and they pay artists more, supposedly.
- pjm331 2y ago
  Recently made the switch and have been very happy with the service.
- fundatus 2y ago
  > they pay artists more, supposedly They don't. Spotify pays out roughly 66% of their revenue as royalties, while Apple Music only does about 50%. [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-reveals-how-much-it-pays-when-you-stream-a-song-11618579800 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-reveals-how-much-it... https://archive.is/lRZns https://archive.is/lRZns
  - 23B1 2y ago
    Dang that sucks. Man, I really, really hate this situation.
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      No, they misread.
  - ivanbakel 2y ago
    That percentage doesn’t really explain anything. What if Apple has more revenue? What if Apple users stream less, so royalty costs per subscription are lower? In both cases the AM payout could be fairer for artists and the percentage could still be lower. The article you cite actually claims the latter is true, so it seems looking at just that statistic is misleading.

mstipetic 2y ago

I still don’t get how YouTube (premium + music) isn’t a clear winner here. Why use Spotify if you can get all that for the same price?

e40 2y ago
UI/UX? YT is the most hated UX of anything I ever use. It’s different in terrible ways on each platform, too.
- EduardoBautista 2y ago
  On desktop I use YouTube music because of how bad the Apple Music app is. On mobile, I use Apple Music.
  - 23B1 2y ago
    What about the app don't you like? I ask because I'm done with Spotify and looking for the next service.
    - nothercastle 2y ago
      Apple Music has a really bizarre interface for managing playlists. It’s so cumbersome and takes way too many clicks. Probably as a side effect of being mobile first
      - nunez 2y ago
        Can you describe how? I actually find playlist editing to be really easy on Apple Music/iTunes.
      - 23B1 2y ago
        Wow I just tried it out and it's quite awful, you're right. The way Spotify allows you to see what's in the 'radio' station and then add additional tracks to a playlist is great – there's almost no similar functionality in Apple music. Actually bonkers that discovery is this bad in Apple music

solardev 2y ago

Hot take: Maybe music consumption and production has changed enough that it's basically a commodity now, and maybe not worth paying "full" price for anymore most of the time? There's a tiny handful of artists for whom I'd go out of my way to buy an album directly from them (or a t shirt, or concert or whatever, just to support them). But for most of my day, music is more just a background thing, like having the radio on, and I don't really pay attention to what's playing or know or care who makes it. Most of it could be (or maybe already is) AI generated and I wouldn't know the difference. I would not pay $20 for an album of that stuff. I think it's interesting to compare the music industry with the video games one. Both have a glut of suppliers with many invisible titles and producers trailing behind a few famous ones. Both had physical media and big publishers in the 90s and 2000s before transitioning to downloads and streaming. The PC games market moved to pretty effective market segmentation divided between full price new release titles, Steam sales for older games, and first or third party subscriptions like EA Play or Ubisoft Plus or Microsoft Gamepass. Each reaches a different part of the market and can accommodate both players who rent and those who buy. There's also room for smaller indie games, between Steam and Humble Bundle and GOG. The music market seems archaic, oligopolistic, and predatory by comparison. Where's the Valve of music, offering a great service for both consumers and producers? We do have Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, etc., but why can't they make the finances there work when the also expensive video games market seemed to be doing OK (at least until the post covid bubble burst these last two years)?

eprparadox 2y ago
the Valve of music might be Bandcamp.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  The Epic Games Store of music, surely.
  - Dilettante_ 2y ago
    The Gorbino's Quest of music!

dylan604 2y ago

Lots of words about a legal threat, but I didn't actually see what those words were that were so threatening. On what grounds does Spotify have the ability to shut down a satire site? How spineless are Unwrapped to immediately cave? The entire discussion here is people's opinion on the Spotify service compared to its competitors, yet no actual discussion of TFA.

that_guy_iain 2y ago
> How spineless are Unwrapped to immediately cave? Most people are going to back down straight away. Seriously, most people won't even stand up and have local employment laws applied. Many will keep silent about things they saw even when there is no possible retribution. Most people aren't willing to battle over things.
- popcalc 2y ago
  Because the legal/administrative costs of a lawsuit will bankrupt the poor. It's not worth the risk unless the a group like the EFF expressly backs them. This is systematic.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    Even if it doesn't cost people will generally not fight. Seriously, go look at all the people complaining on Reddit about their Bosses but don't even bother to fight back by looking for a new job.
    - thayne 2y ago
      Not all costs are (directly) money. Looking for a new job costs time, and stress, and possibly the costs of relocating, which can include being farther away from friends and community you currently have.
      - that_guy_iain 2y ago
        To me, that's just reaching. Fight or flight is a thing. Not everyone is going to fight. Just face, generally, it's not a cost thing, it's a "they're not a fighter" thing.

alexalx666 2y ago

for $30 you can get Roon + Qobuz subscription, i found that it’s impossible to navigate apple music or spotify if you like listening to albums

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
I struggle with Spotify's anti-album stance as well. I assume it makes them more money because it's easier for them to "guide" you to the songs they make more money on?
- jackbrookes 2y ago
  Playlists allow spotify to create a moat. It encourages you to listen to (and build) playlists, that wouldn't then be easily available if you try to switch platforms
  - lazycouchpotato 2y ago
    For those unaware, there are services like TuneMyMusic [1] and Soundiiz [2] that allow you to transfer playlists between platforms for a fee. Spotify did shut down certain API endpoints last month [3] though, so there's no guarantee these services may continue working for Spotify. Worst case scenario you'd have to download your data [4] and then figure out a way to create playlists on the other platform. [1] https://www.tunemymusic.com/ https://www.tunemymusic.com/ [2] https://soundiiz.com/ https://soundiiz.com/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42260481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42260481 [4] https://www.spotify.com/us/account/privacy/ https://www.spotify.com/us/account/privacy/
CharlesW 2y ago
> …i found that it’s impossible to navigate apple music or spotify if you like listening to albums I can't speak to Spotify, but listening to albums in Apple Music couldn't be more straightforward — (1) choose album, (2) play. Roon's apps give "generic music player". What about it specifically allows you to play albums successfully, where Spotify and Apple Music trip you up?

that_guy_iain 2y ago

The website appears to still be up, I literally used it minutes before posting this comment. Is this the correct URL https://www.spotify-unwrapped.com/ https://www.spotify-unwrapped.com/ ?

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
No, this is a copycat - the original was at https://www.spotifyunwrapped.org/ https://www.spotifyunwrapped.org/. (Although it does seem that one of the articles linked in the source made the same mistake!)

mustyoshi 2y ago

I think it's pretty telling that they don't have an option for the ad supported users, when they make up like 70% of Spotifies userbase.

saaaaaam 2y ago
Who doesn’t have an option?

theZilber 2y ago

The language of the article implies that Spotify rips artists off while their executives earn millions. The problem is the millions the executives make do not come directly from Spotify's revenue, they come from stocks which are only loosely related. Don't get me wrong, Spotify has many issues. And should be rightfully criticized. but if you are going to parody them makes sure it is a humoristic pretence that most people would understand. Juxtaposing CEO stock selling revenue with how much artists actually make, is more misleading than it is humoristic - as stocks prices are merely loosely linked to company income, and by extension loosely linked to the artist's cut. So I would assume that if a case to be made for taking down the website - it is because it did not convey it is a parody and was edging defamation.

miunau 2y ago
Who do you think created all that stock value for him?
- theZilber 2y ago
  What creates stock value is public hype and arbitrary numbers. Company revenue is only loosely related to stock value, and more strongly related to the trend of the stock. Also a big part of a stock price is how much currently is circulated by big funds in that particular investment sector. If you want to compare how much yhe company actually takes away from creators - you should substract income from ads and subscriptions from money paid to creators. Not stock selling price which are are speculative at best.
- gruez 2y ago
  Who do you think creates all the stock value for social media companies? Do you think such users should be equally outraged that their social media site has billions in market capitalization but paid them $0?
  - pas 2y ago
    um, many users are absolutely. this is still one ot the most frequent critique of these sites. for example Reddit with its IPO, and their bossing around of their unpaid mods, and so on. at least YT pays some money to creators.

maeil 2y ago

Serious question - is there no "lite" version of bulletproof hosting where they're not as willing to host e.g. silk road but happy to throw cease and desists by the likes of Spotify for this sort of nonsense in the bin? Surely this is a good opportunity for some enterprising Russians? With how relations are nowadays, it's hard to imagine Putin would give a toss.

boredemployee 2y ago

in a serious society, Spotify (and related business models) would never exist. the profession of music producer is almost a voluntary job with negative ROI

rsanek 2y ago
It's not like revenues from streaming are that bad these days, they're the highest they've been in ~20 years. The late 90s massive profits of CDs were more of an aberration rather than some natural order. https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-format/ https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-for... https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
gruez 2y ago
Why? The underlying business model of "being a middleman and take a 30% cut" seems pretty solid. Is it because nobody would be musicians? This almost sounds like "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". If nobody wants to produce music because the ROI is too low, then some musicians will drop out, and the ROI for the remaining musicians will go up because there's less competition. The only way this will fail is if people aren't willing to pay any amount for music, but that seems unlikely.
- boredemployee 2y ago
  >> Why? because the streaming business model and the convenience of having any song from any artist in the palm of your hand has canabalized any and all other possibilities for musicians that would otherwise pay better. you have a few people/fans that insist on paying for the music in platforms like bandcamp, but thats uncommon. from the user's point of view, it's the perfect world, where he pays a little to have access to the entire musical catalog on the planet.

Animats 2y ago

They had to call it "Spotify Unwrapped". Bad move. Too close to a trademark. If they'd called it "Crappy Streaming Service Royalty Calculator", Spotify would not have had any legal grounds to complain. Even if they used a Spotify logo to identify the Spotify calculation option.

m463 2y ago
Honestly getting it shut down is a much much better move. Don't banned books or movies benefit from increased attention?
- terminalbraid 2y ago
  Yeah, this Streisand Effected itself and probably wouldn't have garnered as much attention here otherwise.
  - NBJack 2y ago
    This is how I learned about it!
- paxys 2y ago
  Yes but only because books and movies are easily accessible after being banned. If no one can use this calculator then the added buzz does nothing.
  - m463 2y ago
    but the calculator's math equation is shown right there and the idea will get out.

o999 2y ago

Reminder: A frontend-only web app can be anonymously deployed for free on Github pages, Gitlab pages, Netlify, Zeronet (with a proxy?). No reason to tip your opponents about your real identity, even if you break no laws, we have the developers of Tornado Cash in prison for crimes they didn't commit, OpenAI's and Boeing's whistleblowers where found dead in mysterious circumstances.

pigeons 2y ago

Do you get all the audiobooks included with Spotify premium if you use YT music? Spotify is worth the price just for the audiobooks.

paxys 2y ago
It's not "all" audiobooks but there's a massive collection available with your subscription. Definitely worth it in my opinion.