4 ms·
I think more important than the P2P network shutting down is how it allowed Spotify to get up and running with relatively low up-front investment. What they do
by rinon 12y ago
I think more important than the P2P network shutting down is how it allowed Spotify to get up and running with relatively low up-front investment. What they do after this is, ultimately, unimportant and not terribly interesting.
- marshray 12y agoGood point, but I think it is interesting to wonder why P2P so rarely succeeds at delivering the huge efficiency that's suggested by theory. As their service grows, Spotify should be liking P2P superlinearly more. Since they and other services are apparently not, it something is wrong with my conception of the economics of the internet.
- filleokus 12y ago> As their service grows, Spotify should be liking P2P superlinearly more. Only if you assume that the price of bandwidth is linear. It is suggested in other comments that when you buy bandwidth in bulk you can get large discounts. If I don't misremember, back in the early days of Youtube, they came to a point where the network operators wanted to get access to Youtube rather than the other way around. Also, as a company grows and get access to more capital they might be able to invest in other infrastructure that is needed (other than just bandwidth) that combined with the bulk prices, make the opportunity cost of developing the p2p system larger than the opportunity gains.
- rinon 12y agoUnless there are hidden costs to maintaining a P2P architecture. Support costs may grow superlinearly, or the company might decide they want (or need) more central control.
- DonHopkins 12y agoOr a company might decide they want big government contracts in exchange for ditching P2P for a more centralized surveillance system.