Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ucaetano

This article sounds almost childish.

Spotify (the app) is Spotify's (company) product.

Music is the musician's product.

Spotify's (the company) product (the app) is a music delivery system.

People who have a Spotify (the app) account are Spotify's users.

People who listen to music are the artist's listeners.

Someone signed in to Spotify but who never played anything is a user but not a listener.

Someone listening to a song being played on Spotify but without a spotify user account is a listener but not a user.

Going to a meeting and being pedantic about such details shows nothing but your own lack of understanding. And to be honest, a complete lack of maturity as well.

View on HN

How is that either childish or pedantic. It just took you 7 lines to describe your interpretation of the definition of product in this case.

I think it's a reasonable point to discuss. The author's example was good: when at Starbucks, people are ordering a coffee, not a starbucks.

To me, this was an interesting point, not pedantic, because it's not true for all businesses. Unlike Starbucks, when I was a kid, McDonalds wasn't just french fries and a milkshake, the playstructures and happy meal toys made it seem like more than a place for food.

That distinction seems quite relevant to a discussion about how much 'value' Spotify (company) is adding when they take media created by artists and put it on their computers for users/listeners to download/love.

>when at Starbucks, people are ordering a coffee, not a starbucks.

Except that is not true, they decieded to get their coffee at Starbucks. The Starbucks product isn't coffee its "coffee distribution", Just like Spotifys product is "music distribution". Both Starbucks and Spotify provide a distribution channel to attract users, now this doesn't mean reasonable quality coffee/music isn't important to them, but thats not the whole story.

So both are just like McDonalds IMHO, not different as you suggested, its just that their value adds are different.

Maybe I'm missing your point a little, however for me today Starbucks is not like McDonalds when I was a kid.

Starbucks is interchangeable with any of the many coffee chains. The service is fast, prices won't be insanely high, yet it won't be stale coffee sitting for days in a warmer.

So I'll choose Starbucks over a boutique artisan coffee house and over a gas station. But Starbucks vs Other_Coffee_Chain means nothing to me. EDIT: What I mean is I don't "decide to get my coffee at Starbucks". I decide I want to go for a walk and get coffee and I'll probably stop at the closest coffee chain.

Anyways, to bring this analogy back, what is the Spotify value add? The technical competence to host files on the internet? Putting a front end on CDN hosted media?

For me, it is my "adult" McDonalds. I have 5 artisan coffee shops in a two block radius yet I mostly go to starbucks 3 blocks away for a few reasons:

- I can order online and have the order ready for pickup when I get there

- I actually prefer their latte

- They never mess it up

It was similar on my last Asia trip. While I try to avoid any sort of non-local food/restaurant while traveling, I enjoy the familiarity and quality I get at Starbucks and frequent it wherever I go.

I'd say Starbucks business model is coffee distribution, their product is coffee, unless I have to pay an entrance fee for Starbucks. It's a good example, and the article flawed as it might be does highlight the concerns of content creators. Platforms tend to drive down the share of revenue passed on to providers and reduce their bargaining power, this is not specific to Spotify but an unfortunate reality.

The more I think about it Starbucks is a weird example for him to have picked. Dunkin Donuts sells coffee, Starbucks absolutely sells Starbucks.

Let's not forget this gem:

>The average salary at Spotify is $14,000 per month

Yeah... because execs make outrageously more than the median salary.

This article is beyond childish. It should be linked in the Wikipedia article about the Dunning-Kruger effect, and in the dictionary.com entry for arrogance.

Reading that fight-over-semantics-because-words-have-meaning-and-etc reminds me what you learn from Ordinary Language Philosophy: that words have meaning in specific context and we as humans spend inordinate amounts of time arguing with one another over what we THINK are topics of substance, but are ACTUALLY coming from different contexts. Different 'language games'. Example: the musician argues that 'users' are not the 'listeners' of music but are in fact the executives. For a software engineer / product manager / CEO a user is someone who uses their software. For the musician, a user is one who 'uses' people nefariously. There were a number of other language game situations where people talked through one another in that article.

I see your line of logic here and acknowledge the distinctions you make. But I agree with the main point of the author which I read as - A music delivery system that loses access to musicians isn't much of anything. And, Spotify is apparently alienating musicians.

Yes and no. The App is nothing without the music. Spotify's ability to populate the app with works from artists is integral. If they made record players then i would agree. But they really do sell music.

They don't even sell music. They provide access to music for free, and charge you for access to that music without ads.

Amazon's (the company) largest product is Amazon (the marketplace).

Amazon (the marketplace) allows Amazon to sell products to users, but also allows 3rd party merchants to sell products to users.

Pedantisn stops when you realise your life's work is being sold at a massive profit and you're getting crumbs to survive on, or not.

Nice catchphrase, meaningless, but nice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com