But certainly, if I subscribe to The Economist I want as much of my money as possible to go to the journalists who actually write the content.
The ad-supported users outnumbers premium users (236 million to 180 million) but bring in only 1/6th the revenue. So that's a factor depressing the payout per stream.
https://investors.spotify.com/financials/press-release-detai...
The only "pull factor" Spotify has is the userbase, which is arguably fair. For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store.
One could argue (on Android) that it's possible that you can install third-party markets, and that's true, but there's also pretty big roadblocks to installing, whereas selling on another music platform is much easier in comparison. (Don't believe me? Send your father an APK file and ask him to install it. Let alone iOS where this is not possible at all..
Couldn't you replace "Google" and "Play Store" with "Spotify"?
You can "sell" your app directly to users through your own site (see Fortnite) or dubious sites like https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android but you have the same "pull factor" with the Play Store that you do with Spotify (the user base).
The Google + Play Store and Spotify (company) + Spotify (platforms) situations don't seem fundamentally different to me, just different by degrees. Google's monopoly on Android app distribution is unparalleled.
You can try to find alternatives for an app store, but that doesn't change the fact that inherently within Android, there are certain roadblocks that simply don't exist for a Spotify competitor, for example.
Spotify is just a convenience service in the end. They could sell their music through their own app, site, Magnatune, etc.
Even Google Play is iffy, as developers could distribute through 3rd party app stores or sideloading, though Google makes that harder than it should be.
Apple is really the only one of the 3 you mentioned that forces a 15/30% cut if developers want to distribute an app on their platform.
Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?
A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.
Monopoly doesn't apply, does it?
Even DAB/FM radio takes their lunch.
This classic article by Steve Albini captures what monetizing music was like for artists before the Internet: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music
That said, many artists have objected to subscription models like Spotify’s (Taylor Swift notably), or a la carte like Apple’s (Pink Floyd and Beatles’ estates notably). Most paid Internet music services have been a mixed bag of inconsistent payouts and artistic control. Spotify is definitely among them, even if it might be more attractive than a Record Deal^tm.
In my experience and inferred from experiences of other artists, SoundCloud has the best exposure benefits for lesser known artists combined with the most freedom to monetize, and Bandcamp is the most straightforward self publishing platform for built in monetization.
Comparatively, Spotify is basically, like Apple, filling the void of the record labels they usurped. While their terms are comparably “fair”, it’s easy to understand why they’re not ideal for a lot of artists.
Anyways, this is a bit like looking at Walmart's COGS and declaring that they've never screwed over a supplier by forcing them to cut prices to the bone.
I think Spotify is an excellent example of labels using a 3rd party to mislead where they money is really going when Spotify is paying nearly 80% of its income as fees to 3rd parties.
They have a license to play music, and they pay for the songs at a rate that the labels charge for. If artists do not get enough money from streaming then their label should negotiate more from Spotify. If they are already taking 80% of Spotifys income then that means that either they aren't charging Spotify enough, and Spotify should charge users more, or they are taking a larger chunk and deflecting blame.
With them using the RIAA for the longest time as a distraction from it actually being Sony et al that was suing it's customers, I would not be surprised if this is misguided blame again.
But again, if artists do not get enough money from streaming music, then that is not Spotifys fault. It has paid for a product that it is reselling. You don't then get to bitch that you sold someone something for below the cost that you wanted to.
Maybe Spotify should offer a discount.
Current:
totalMoney x (totalListenTimeForArtist/totalListenTime)
PerUserMoney x (PerUserListenTimeForArtist/TotalUserListenTime)
"It's much easier not to switch" is just a peculiar way to spell "I don't care enough to switch" in this case.
If someone doesn't care enough to do something as easy as switch music streaming services, do they actually care?
Also, there's far worse people than Joe Rogan who make a full living off YouTube, so yeah just completely ideologically inconsistent if someone is going to reject Spotify because of Rogan and still use YouTube.
So, you don't use YouTube at all?
What video streaming sites do you use as an alternative? Or do you just not consume online video that isn't behind a strict publisher?
My understanding of the YouTube-alternatives is that they tend to be more anti-censorship, so they're likely to host even more "worse" content then Joe Rogan vs. YouTube.
If at all possible! I used to, but mostly either for streaming music (it was a convenient way to play full albums instead of finding CDs I never got around to ripping). I stopped doing that when the recommendation algorithm started trying to show me shit like Alex Jones after I listened to a Pink Floyd album or whatever.
> What video streaming sites do you use as an alternative? Or do you just not consume online video that isn't behind a strict publisher?
I mostly don’t consume a lot of video content at all. Even at times when I have it’s been mostly listening while doing other things. When I do now it’s almost entirely Netflix, and probably half the time I’m just listening while snuggling my pup.
FWIW I don’t think Netflix is any kind of a morally better alternative, either. My distaste for both Spotify for audio and YouTube for video is the same: I don’t like to consume lots of small bursts of information, especially with a lot of context switching and interaction, especially with a lot of sensory input. And I don’t like to pay extra to turn off shuffle.
As far as the moral aspect of content on these platforms, I mostly think they’re all garbage or waiting to be. And yep, consuming the ones I do does make me a hypocrite. But I appreciate the opportunity to put that fact in evidence.
It seems that there is some kind of disparity between how Joe Rogan is being portrayed.
But if you need another example, I'd love to see a single person who stops Rogans randomly inserted anti-trans rants he manages to somehow have on every episode, even if it is not topical. Aside from the fact he had a lot of "anti trans" people on (Debora Soh, Abigail Shrier, Jordan Peterson, Blair White... I mean the list is essentially endless) and not one person who is invited because they're pro trans.
At this point I'm really curious who makes most of the booking decisions for the show. They seem to maximize for right-leaning outrage culture / reactionaries, comedians and some people with very milquetoast politics. I can only remember Bernie as a big left voice on the JRE.
He got popular on YouTube BTW.