5 ms·

As a native of Gainesville, FL (where Grooveshark is based), this is really sad news. Certainly they made mistakes, but what few see is how much they contribute

by bmat 11y ago

As a native of Gainesville, FL (where Grooveshark is based), this is really sad news. Certainly they made mistakes, but what few see is how much they contributed to the tech community here. Their CTO has personally mentored many companies in the area, and they have a presence at pretty much every tech-related event. I can't think of any other company within a 100-mile radius that can fill that role now that they're gone. Hopefully they'll spin off some new businesses in the area. Otherwise this will be a huge blow to Gainesville's already struggling tech and startup communities.

zzalpha 11y ago
Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I absolutely grant you their technology was pretty cool, and the community features they built are still unreplicated anywhere. But I'd rather laud businesses who manage to combine cool technology with an ethical, sustainable business model.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I'll be frank: I don't see Grooveshark's business as inherently more shady than some of the other "act first, get permission later" startups that are lauded both in the press and on HN on a regular basis. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of those companies either, but I find it weird that the overall sentiment towards Gooveshark seems to be negative, when there are many other companies that blatantly and openly violate the law as well. And furthermore, while things didn't work out for Grooveshark, it's pretty clear that Grooveshark (or at least business/products like it) have been the reason for services like Spotify and Rdio. I think it's pretty clear that we wouldn't have music streaming services if it weren't for the long line of services operating at the fringes, like TPB, Grooveshark, Napster, etc. So even if they ended up failing as a company, the gap that they sought to fill a decade ago has been mostly filled by services like Spotify and Rdio[0]. All that said, I agree with this statement: > But I'd rather laud businesses who manage to combine cool technology with an ethical, sustainable business model. I just don't think Grooveshark is anything close to the worst offender. [0] Services which, I might add, have been financed by the record industry itself.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But that disruption has happened because of companies essentially violating existing regulations on taxi services. On the other hand, I look at a business like GS, which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Of course, there's an ironic counterpoint here: were it not for the Groovesharks of the world, it's possible demand would never have been generated that now supports legal alternatives (in the same way that I'd claim music piracy is one of the reasons the iPod was ever brought to market). Tricky. :)
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex machina?) > today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. I very strongly disagree with this premise, though perhaps that's getting into a different debate. > Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to I wasn't referring just to the comments on here, FWIW.
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?) That's a good question... I honestly don't know! I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists. About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to. But again, that's my intellectualizing a position I can't honestly explain.
- cryptophreak 11y ago
  Sharing is the most ethical thing there is.
ladybro 11y ago
First Liger, now Grooveshark. I only have a semester left but a large portion of the Gainesville I know and love has vanished pretty quickly in the last month :(
- pvnick 11y ago
  Wait, you talking about Neon Liger? They shut down?
andrewjkerr 11y ago
I completely agree with you. Hopefully something will come to fill the space that Grooveshark left, but Grooveshark did a lot for the tech community there. GroovesharkU, presentations, events, etc. They'll definitely be missed.

by bmat 11y ago

zzalpha 11y ago

Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I absolutely grant you their technology was pretty cool, and the community features they built are still unreplicated anywhere. But I'd rather laud businesses who manage to combine cool technology with an ethical, sustainable business model.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I'll be frank: I don't see Grooveshark's business as inherently more shady than some of the other "act first, get permission later" startups that are lauded both in the press and on HN on a regular basis. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of those companies either, but I find it weird that the overall sentiment towards Gooveshark seems to be negative, when there are many other companies that blatantly and openly violate the law as well. And furthermore, while things didn't work out for Grooveshark, it's pretty clear that Grooveshark (or at least business/products like it) have been the reason for services like Spotify and Rdio. I think it's pretty clear that we wouldn't have music streaming services if it weren't for the long line of services operating at the fringes, like TPB, Grooveshark, Napster, etc. So even if they ended up failing as a company, the gap that they sought to fill a decade ago has been mostly filled by services like Spotify and Rdio[0]. All that said, I agree with this statement: > But I'd rather laud businesses who manage to combine cool technology with an ethical, sustainable business model. I just don't think Grooveshark is anything close to the worst offender. [0] Services which, I might add, have been financed by the record industry itself.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But that disruption has happened because of companies essentially violating existing regulations on taxi services. On the other hand, I look at a business like GS, which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Of course, there's an ironic counterpoint here: were it not for the Groovesharks of the world, it's possible demand would never have been generated that now supports legal alternatives (in the same way that I'd claim music piracy is one of the reasons the iPod was ever brought to market). Tricky. :)
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex machina?) > today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. I very strongly disagree with this premise, though perhaps that's getting into a different debate. > Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to I wasn't referring just to the comments on here, FWIW.
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?) That's a good question... I honestly don't know! I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists. About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to. But again, that's my intellectualizing a position I can't honestly explain.
cryptophreak 11y ago
Sharing is the most ethical thing there is.

ladybro 11y ago

First Liger, now Grooveshark. I only have a semester left but a large portion of the Gainesville I know and love has vanished pretty quickly in the last month :(

pvnick 11y ago
Wait, you talking about Neon Liger? They shut down?

andrewjkerr 11y ago

I completely agree with you. Hopefully something will come to fill the space that Grooveshark left, but Grooveshark did a lot for the tech community there. GroovesharkU, presentations, events, etc. They'll definitely be missed.