5 ms·

I think you’re not accounting for survivorship bias. For example, Grooveshark was a direct competitor for Spotify with similar apps and features around the sam

by caseyy 2y ago

I think you’re not accounting for survivorship bias. For example, Grooveshark was a direct competitor for Spotify with similar apps and features around the same time[0]. It got sued out of existence by the music industry, and back then quite a lot of music on both had that bootleg audio quality that sure points to piracy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark

consumer451 2y ago
I am not young, and I was around for both. What was the difference? I remember going to Europe from the USA around 2012, and everyone was already using Spotify. Their music experience was vastly superior to ours. IIRC, they were based/avail in countries with really loose music copyright laws. Was that what made the difference? They grew huge where they could, before the hammer came down? Then too big to fail? Again, IIRC, when the US music labels wanted to shut them down, they instead said: "hey, why don't you just buy a big piece of Spotify. We are already your distro. F the artists." I remember thinking that this was a gangster move. (btw, I still refuse to subscribe to Spotify.)
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  If you cant beat them, join them..
  - consumer451 2y ago
    As a business practice, yes, exactly. Good idea! As a personal philosophy, please, someone help me avoid nihilism.
- caseyy 2y ago
  The difference could be the attitude towards piracy, especially in the legal system. Between 2006 and 2016, no one in the Nordics and Eastern Europe cared about piracy. By the time Spotify became prominent enough in the West to compete with music sales, it had already mainly been legalized. Grooveshark was in the US, which has a very litigious business climate and is world-leading in copyright enforcement. I can't think of a more plausible explanation. But I will say that breaking laws to later legalize is still only a successful strategy if one doesn't get caught. If anyone thinks this is a good strategy, I'd say there's survivorship bias going on.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    I am totally on-board with your assessment, but also please add at least Spain to the loose music IP regime at that time. > I'd say there's survivorship bias going on. I agree that there is definitely survivorship bias happening here. However, what exactly is the punishment for failure? Is it worth the risk for the founders?
    - caseyy 2y ago
      Well, I suppose one might say there's no risk so long as the corporate veil isn't pierced and the company is limited somehow. But that is a bit cynical and reductive. In cultures that hate piracy, the personal reputational risk is high. Besides, company officeholders are sometimes sued personally for their company’s ills. Even if they can defend themselves, it will cost much money and years of stress. Another risk, I suppose, is various opportunity costs—one wastes time and funding that could have been better used. I also agree with your assessment, by the way.
      - yojo 2y ago
        > In cultures that hate piracy, the personal reputational risk is high. Which cultures are we talking about? I assume not the US. Look at Sean Parker - Napster got sued to oblivion, he became first president of Facebook and made literal billions. His cofounder (Shawn Fanning) didn’t make it quite as big, but still sold a company to Blizzard for $30m. Plus whatever he made out of HNT. Neither seemed to suffer any kind of stigma for their involvement in arguably the highest profile piracy startup.
- shawabawa3 2y ago
  > I am not young, and I was around for both. What was the difference? imo the difference is that spotify at least tried to hide it when you searched for songs on grooveshark you'd get names back like "Tame Impala - The Slow Rush (2020) Mp3 (320kbps) [Hunter]" also IIRC grooveshark never even tried to set up revenue share with labels/artists Spotify cheated behind the scenes and a veneer of following the rules, which eventually transitioned into actually following the rules and paying out artists
  - zyberzero 2y ago
    I was using Spotify Beta way back when, and they absolutely had songs named like that as well. I specifically remember one of Pink Floyd's albums (pretty sure is was a copy of the wall) as such.
  - ilikehurdles 2y ago
    grooveshark aggregated from blogs and other web sources. If I recall correctly you could follow links back to those places. Back then the web was full of decentralized independent writers doing music reviews or producing mixes or capturing new bootlegs from live shows. Grooveshark indexed those and made them playable in one location, but I don’t think it ever hosted any of the files.
- walterbell 2y ago
  https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotif... > Speaking of industry incestuousness, I suggest you read more about Tencent’s 9.1 percent stakeholding in Spotify, which is awe-inspiring in its spider’s web of vested interests. The short version: Tencent Holdings is about to own 10 percent of Universal, which in turns owns around 3.5 percent in Spotify, which in turn owns around nine percent in Tencent Music Entertainment, which in turn is part-owned by Universal’s two main rivals (Warner and Sony), but remains majority owned by Tencent Holdings, which in turn owns 9.1 percent of Spotify. (And, yes, no kidding, that’s the short version.)
  - consumer451 2y ago
    Damn. Thanks for that. Oof. Sorry for the tangent, but I've always wondered: does Tencent's partial ownership of Reddit give them any access to Reddit's internal data? Is that how that generally works, or am I making uninformed assumptions?
    - maccard 2y ago
      > Is that how that generally works, or am I making uninformed assumptions? The answer is probably a bit more nuanced, but broadly, you're making uninformed assumptions. Blackrock own about 5% of Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, and we don't see people throwing around accusations that they're fiddling with their runnings. I used to work for a company that Tencent had a minority (but significantly larger than 9%) share in, and they approximately 0 influence in our operations. Some places will be different, but if you've ever worked anywhere with a parent company you'll be familiar with just how untrusting the subisidiaries are. Honestly, I think the best way of thinking about it is the Larry Ellison Lawnmower joke - they're not out to get you, they don't care. Whether or not that remains to be true going forwards who knows, but that's the same of any organisation anywhere in the world, and as someone who lives in Europe I'm far more concerned about what the US is doing right now.
      - chii 2y ago
        Blackrock does not have any political motives at all, and is purely interested in management competency and money. Tencent, despite being a for-profit company, may still have political motives pushed onto them from the very top. This is true for all chinese companies (because if they don't "comply", the very public example of jack ma is the answer). Now, of course, it doesn't mean this power is utilized all the time or everywhere. It simply means that the opportunity exists for such power to be weld if the state calls for it. Just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean it can't. It's different from Ellison Lawnmower, because the political differences between the countries.
- rchaud 2y ago
  The difference is that Grooveshark was always a pirate product, and didn't try to hide it. The UI had rough edges, but the library was massive, just like the old Napster era. Spotify was a growth hacker startup bro project, influenced by iTunes.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    So maybe without Grooveshark there would be no Spotify? A different context for the proverb "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun YOU!"
    - rchaud 2y ago
      They way I would describe it is, one wolf aspired to domesticate itself, the other remained wild and died by the law of the jungle.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Hah, I rather would say one of the wolves got strong enough to play with the big dogs. And is now making the rules of the music jungle biz.
        Yeul 2y ago
        Disagree. Spotify is not a wolf. The people who actually OWN the content are the wolves. And that is still the music labels. If Spotify was really the wolf they wouldn't have to pay Universal billions. Not that much has changed really.
        rchaud 2y ago
        Spotify had a big library of fully licensed music as early as 2008 in European markets. They were the next evolution of the record label-friendly post-Napster music startups. They were already the teacher's pet. Grooveshark was the one that was always getting suspended, before ultimately being expelled.
        2y ago
- n4r9 2y ago
  Grooveshark had no ads and a much larger library in the early days. Also, you could upload your own tracks into the public listing. Iirc it was quite easy to embed a track or playlist as a widget into your personal website which was very cool in the era of non-walled-garden-internet. But it wasn't advertised as much as Spotify, not as many people used it, and the founders were the subject of tragic circumstances.
bbech 2y ago
I’m curious if GS being located in the US made them a bigger target than an app in beta in Sweden. Also this only talks about its beta period but I’m assuming when it was actually “released” they had the deals in place.

by caseyy 2y ago

consumer451 2y ago

I am not young, and I was around for both. What was the difference? I remember going to Europe from the USA around 2012, and everyone was already using Spotify. Their music experience was vastly superior to ours. IIRC, they were based/avail in countries with really loose music copyright laws. Was that what made the difference? They grew huge where they could, before the hammer came down? Then too big to fail? Again, IIRC, when the US music labels wanted to shut them down, they instead said: "hey, why don't you just buy a big piece of Spotify. We are already your distro. F the artists." I remember thinking that this was a gangster move. (btw, I still refuse to subscribe to Spotify.)

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
If you cant beat them, join them..
- consumer451 2y ago
  As a business practice, yes, exactly. Good idea! As a personal philosophy, please, someone help me avoid nihilism.
caseyy 2y ago
The difference could be the attitude towards piracy, especially in the legal system. Between 2006 and 2016, no one in the Nordics and Eastern Europe cared about piracy. By the time Spotify became prominent enough in the West to compete with music sales, it had already mainly been legalized. Grooveshark was in the US, which has a very litigious business climate and is world-leading in copyright enforcement. I can't think of a more plausible explanation. But I will say that breaking laws to later legalize is still only a successful strategy if one doesn't get caught. If anyone thinks this is a good strategy, I'd say there's survivorship bias going on.
- consumer451 2y ago
  I am totally on-board with your assessment, but also please add at least Spain to the loose music IP regime at that time. > I'd say there's survivorship bias going on. I agree that there is definitely survivorship bias happening here. However, what exactly is the punishment for failure? Is it worth the risk for the founders?
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Well, I suppose one might say there's no risk so long as the corporate veil isn't pierced and the company is limited somehow. But that is a bit cynical and reductive. In cultures that hate piracy, the personal reputational risk is high. Besides, company officeholders are sometimes sued personally for their company’s ills. Even if they can defend themselves, it will cost much money and years of stress. Another risk, I suppose, is various opportunity costs—one wastes time and funding that could have been better used. I also agree with your assessment, by the way.
    - yojo 2y ago
      > In cultures that hate piracy, the personal reputational risk is high. Which cultures are we talking about? I assume not the US. Look at Sean Parker - Napster got sued to oblivion, he became first president of Facebook and made literal billions. His cofounder (Shawn Fanning) didn’t make it quite as big, but still sold a company to Blizzard for $30m. Plus whatever he made out of HNT. Neither seemed to suffer any kind of stigma for their involvement in arguably the highest profile piracy startup.
shawabawa3 2y ago
> I am not young, and I was around for both. What was the difference? imo the difference is that spotify at least tried to hide it when you searched for songs on grooveshark you'd get names back like "Tame Impala - The Slow Rush (2020) Mp3 (320kbps) [Hunter]" also IIRC grooveshark never even tried to set up revenue share with labels/artists Spotify cheated behind the scenes and a veneer of following the rules, which eventually transitioned into actually following the rules and paying out artists
- zyberzero 2y ago
  I was using Spotify Beta way back when, and they absolutely had songs named like that as well. I specifically remember one of Pink Floyd's albums (pretty sure is was a copy of the wall) as such.
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  grooveshark aggregated from blogs and other web sources. If I recall correctly you could follow links back to those places. Back then the web was full of decentralized independent writers doing music reviews or producing mixes or capturing new bootlegs from live shows. Grooveshark indexed those and made them playable in one location, but I don’t think it ever hosted any of the files.
walterbell 2y ago
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotif... > Speaking of industry incestuousness, I suggest you read more about Tencent’s 9.1 percent stakeholding in Spotify, which is awe-inspiring in its spider’s web of vested interests. The short version: Tencent Holdings is about to own 10 percent of Universal, which in turns owns around 3.5 percent in Spotify, which in turn owns around nine percent in Tencent Music Entertainment, which in turn is part-owned by Universal’s two main rivals (Warner and Sony), but remains majority owned by Tencent Holdings, which in turn owns 9.1 percent of Spotify. (And, yes, no kidding, that’s the short version.)
- consumer451 2y ago
  Damn. Thanks for that. Oof. Sorry for the tangent, but I've always wondered: does Tencent's partial ownership of Reddit give them any access to Reddit's internal data? Is that how that generally works, or am I making uninformed assumptions?
  - maccard 2y ago
    > Is that how that generally works, or am I making uninformed assumptions? The answer is probably a bit more nuanced, but broadly, you're making uninformed assumptions. Blackrock own about 5% of Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, and we don't see people throwing around accusations that they're fiddling with their runnings. I used to work for a company that Tencent had a minority (but significantly larger than 9%) share in, and they approximately 0 influence in our operations. Some places will be different, but if you've ever worked anywhere with a parent company you'll be familiar with just how untrusting the subisidiaries are. Honestly, I think the best way of thinking about it is the Larry Ellison Lawnmower joke - they're not out to get you, they don't care. Whether or not that remains to be true going forwards who knows, but that's the same of any organisation anywhere in the world, and as someone who lives in Europe I'm far more concerned about what the US is doing right now.
    - chii 2y ago
      Blackrock does not have any political motives at all, and is purely interested in management competency and money. Tencent, despite being a for-profit company, may still have political motives pushed onto them from the very top. This is true for all chinese companies (because if they don't "comply", the very public example of jack ma is the answer). Now, of course, it doesn't mean this power is utilized all the time or everywhere. It simply means that the opportunity exists for such power to be weld if the state calls for it. Just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean it can't. It's different from Ellison Lawnmower, because the political differences between the countries.
rchaud 2y ago
The difference is that Grooveshark was always a pirate product, and didn't try to hide it. The UI had rough edges, but the library was massive, just like the old Napster era. Spotify was a growth hacker startup bro project, influenced by iTunes.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  So maybe without Grooveshark there would be no Spotify? A different context for the proverb "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun YOU!"
  - rchaud 2y ago
    They way I would describe it is, one wolf aspired to domesticate itself, the other remained wild and died by the law of the jungle.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Hah, I rather would say one of the wolves got strong enough to play with the big dogs. And is now making the rules of the music jungle biz.
      - Yeul 2y ago
        Disagree. Spotify is not a wolf. The people who actually OWN the content are the wolves. And that is still the music labels. If Spotify was really the wolf they wouldn't have to pay Universal billions. Not that much has changed really.
      - rchaud 2y ago
        Spotify had a big library of fully licensed music as early as 2008 in European markets. They were the next evolution of the record label-friendly post-Napster music startups. They were already the teacher's pet. Grooveshark was the one that was always getting suspended, before ultimately being expelled.
      - 2y ago
n4r9 2y ago
Grooveshark had no ads and a much larger library in the early days. Also, you could upload your own tracks into the public listing. Iirc it was quite easy to embed a track or playlist as a widget into your personal website which was very cool in the era of non-walled-garden-internet. But it wasn't advertised as much as Spotify, not as many people used it, and the founders were the subject of tragic circumstances.

bbech 2y ago

I’m curious if GS being located in the US made them a bigger target than an app in beta in Sweden. Also this only talks about its beta period but I’m assuming when it was actually “released” they had the deals in place.