Spotify Said to Retaliate Against Artists with Apple Exclusives
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Burying in the search rankings and not being featured doesn't seem like a good way to handle it. If those artists are among people's favorites if they can't find them as easily on Spotify AND if they can get exclusives with Apple, why wouldn't they just jump ship to Apple Music?
Obviously I don't understand all of the nuances of the music business so I could be completely off base here but it feels like, to me, this would have the opposite affect that they intend.
But Spotify can and is also operating at a loss. They are just doing it with VC money instead of their own. The numbers for 2015 were a loss of almost 200 million dollars!
The keyword is "forever" or at least for the next decade or two. It applies to Apple but not Spotify.
If and when that expectation no longer holds, the money will stop.
Spotify's app works at best ok (I'm on android). But even a good app plus recommendations probably gets you amazon-sized margins.
Just imagine if Amazon or Microsoft bought Spotify... instant marketshare tied in with a larger ecosystem.
... and they tried to promote themselves as a family friendly company.
So it's essentially Spotify's way of saying "if you don't want our customers to listen to the album when it's new, don't rely on us for listeners when it's old".
Although these claims are going to be essentially impossible to prove. Who's to say what should or shouldn't be in a playlist, for example?
Usually you take the stick over carrot approach when you have some leverage.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/04/taylor-sw...
[2] http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-contract-three...
https://medium.com/@sdotglass/apple-music-exclusives-2d5b5ed...
Artists are usually locked by their labels with pretty bad contracts that prevent them from doing anything else on the side. Labels often even can even get the majority of the revenue from live performances.
I am not aware of any artists that "publish direct" to Apple Music. The reason that is a problem for a Spotify is because that is "biting the hand that feeds."
If you start encouraging artists to deal directly to you the streaming company, you can rest assured that when it comes time to renegotiate your licensing deal with the record labels the terms will not be very favorable or at least not as favorable as they were previously.
You mentioned that "Labels often even get the majority of revenue from live performances."
I believe what you are referring to is a "360 deal" I think these are largely the domain of the only biggest artists in the world. I could be wrong though.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-360-deals-in-the-music-indust...
I'm super happy apple music exists because it puts some movement into the space. Before it there was no real competition to Spotify.
What about Google Music (or is it Google Play Music or just Play Music or just Play under a music category? ugh)? They were earlier and have been really good especially lately. Their initial iOS app was awful but I heard it has improved. There is also Groove music (which I guess is now XBox music?) but the Apps are awful for it. I got a Groove music subscription for the heavily discounted black friday sale and stopped using it after a few weeks simply because the apps are all absolutely horrific.
They could release an electron app, but I believe it'd be an identical experience.
I'm on a desktop so I don't care about offline support, perhaps that's the feature that removes the web version from consideration for some people.
That's why they should release a proper native app.
That has worked better for me than Spotify's desktop client, which while is nice is extremely buggy.
Offline usage and media keys.
Another problem is the play music android app. It's probably the worst designed android music player. OTOH Spotify and apple music are so well designed that I consider them actually beautiful.
It has no first-party native desktop client, but...so, what, really? Its streaming content from the internet anyway, so I can't really see what the problem is with using a web client as the first-party desktop client.
(OTOH, there is at least one third-party non-web desktop client for it.)
One way to check what most users care for is to look at subscription numbers. And I couldn't find a reliable source for that. So I guess our discussion is pending until we see user numbers.
And for me, it's not at all about the user base - it's about a specific user - me. If it's not the right service for you because there's no native app luckily you have alternatives and can move on. I think it's an awesome service for 10 bucks a month.
Only really exists on mobile. Spotify exists everywhere (hardware, all mobile platforms, all gaming consoles, etc.).
Google does not give a shit about their software past the barebones experience. Nobody in my family picks up Google software unless I or my brother push them to. It's just too confusing and badly supported in general.
Huh? I use it on desktop every day. https://play.google.com/music/listen
Other than that : youtube, rdio, deezer, soundcloud, pandora, there are a lot of products in the same place.
That being said Play Music is pretty great for me because :
-It lets me upload my own mp3s without needing anything else than the folder where it needs to look for them. You can even ask the app to always monitor a specific folder for new music files. It tries to match these files with its catalogs and if they match they will be automatically added to your library instead of being uploaded. When you upload an unknown file, you can alter its tags and cover if you in Play Music and you can regroup them in Albums anyway you want. As somebody with a huge existing music files collection, many of which are not available on any service, this is a killer feature for me. I understand that it is not going to appeal to everybody though.
- The Android and desktop apps have been constantly great for quite some time. The only complaints I could form is that this orange is not really great and that on Android they should probably get rid of the Transitions. The design idea is great but the platform does not support them really well. I have seen some kinks in the app recently but they might have been caused by the Android N beta build I was using at the time.
- Most of the big music services have the same base features : albums, curated playlists, automatic radios, family plans ... Play Music has these as well for quite some time. The suggestion algorithm has been pretty good for me but that's probably very subjective. Play Music also has nice contextual suggestions based on their Songza acquisition (for example right now : it is sunday afternoon, it proposes running, pokemon, BBQ, beach, ... musics ) .
- So overall it is a great service, IMO absolutely on par with Spotify or Apple Music. The price is the same as any other music service .. but you also get 10% off on all of your Play Store apps & musics purchases and if you are in the USA, it also gives you Youtube Red (= no ads on youtube). The value proposition seems pretty insane to me compared to the other music services.
rdio and Grooveshark were competitors well before Apple/Google Music until both shuttered :(
E.g. I once indicated I liked some electronica by Marek Biliński, a Polish musician, and it took hours to stop the ensuing assault on my ears of 70's Polish pop music.
In general it took very little for their algorithm to start playing music I had no interest in, and a lot of effort to make it stop playing stuff I found awful.
Algorithmic music selection in general still seem to be in a very poor state - I've yet to find any that do great, presumably because a lot of them seem to treat it as a question of solving "people who listened to A also likes B". But it isn't. It's more a matter of "people who listened to some sequence of A,B and C, also listened to D relatively shortly afterwards without skipping/downvoting it" coupled with a lot of other checks (e.g. I might skip D even if it fits in perfectly with both my mood and A,B and C if I have heard it too often lately, or if it's a very loud/intensive track and it's late a night, and any number of othr factors).
I wonder how many of these systems try to take more factors into consideration but just aren't very good at it. And also how problematic the lack of more contextual knowledge is (e.g. I may make different selections when alone, vs. when a romantic partner vs. when with friends, even if the starting type is the same type of tracks - it doesn't mean my taste has changed). Many recommendation systems makes me vary about indicating a preference because they're not clear about how it'll be used and the ones I've used so far gives me little confidence they'll do the right thing...
Oh look! They're doing exactly that with exclusives.
As a listener you have a choice of pay now for access or wait until it's streaming everywhere else.
Spotify, so far, has been losing money. Overall, monetizing music is just a very hard business. I feel that point is often missed by artists who want to put the blame on Spotify as if Spotify is sitting on billions in profits that could go to the artists. Apple temporarily enabling a few artists to make some extra money doesn't change the fact that music is a very hard business to make money in--as much for the broadcasters like Spotify as for the artist.
Tough decisions on the features front, atleast. Exclusives and other crap.. those don't matter to me. Fwiw.
They got me with Coloring Book a few months ago. It wasn't available elsewhere, so I signed up for the free trial. Well before the free trial was over Coloring Book appeared on Spotify (my preferred platform). I prompt forgot about Apple Music until I saw a bill in my inbox. I then couldn't figure out how to unsub without googling the process, it's certainly not readily available as an option in-app (although that just might be the way Apple sometimes tends to obfuscate through streamlining).