Hacker News Reader

Comment by Krasnol | Hacker News Reader

I hate how it gets normal to join some service just to see it becoming worse and worse, or just more expensive.

How is this model still something CEOs go for? Is it because there are enough people stupid enough to keep on paying to make up for those who are leaving?

I wonder if there is a science of that sweet spot where it's still worth to lose people and keep on making more profits from quarter to quarter.

This is a pest. I am one of those who recently turned pirate again for my favorite shows because of this behavior, and I'm teaching all my less IT capable friends how to do it too.

View on HN

if you paid for it, it didn't really change...

Could you elaborate on this?

I don't understand.

(not the poster, just someone earnest explicating at length)

There's an odd dissonant quality to reading a broad-based lament* about "joining a service" and it "getting worse", in response to Spotify putting lyrics behind a paywall.

I get it, I subscribe to the lament.

It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics are paywalled.

* Again, I lament this as well, but the language is sort of over-the-top and obviously unethical in a way that makes it seems more like its mocking people who lament this.

"I hate" "becoming worse and worse" "How is this model still something CEOs go for?" "there are enough people stupid enough to keep on paying" "worth to lose people and keep on making more profits from quarter to quarter." "This is a pest." "I turned pirate again" "I'm teaching all my friends how to do it too."

The language is the result of an utter frustration and sheer anger with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore? It worked so well, but it seems like they can't squeeze enough out of us customers, and it has to be more and more every year.

I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf. Now I somehow not only don't care anymore, I feel like I just want to do the opposite thing. I'm on bandcamp now for music, but I just don't care about movies/TV shows. Honestly, at this point I feel insulted by this model. I'd be ashamed to admit that I pay for x-services to watch my TV shows.

> It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics aren't accessible.

Don't those "free" users still have to endure advertisements? It isn't free then. It is stealing their attention as a price now they're just getting less for the "same" (is it the same? didn't the amount of ads rise?) price.

> I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf.

This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists?

Rest is a bit too much for my bird brain, morning coffee is wearing off, 3 PM EST :( (ex. I can't add anything to the idea free is paid because ads, so removing lyrics for free users with ads means its making the paid service worse, so it justifies dropping the previous ethical stance of paying to get artists money, in favor of pirating)

> This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists?

I'm sure this marketing argument works well with some of the customers as cover up for greed.

Meanwhile, in reality, nobody will start paying just because there are no more lyrics. It's just another thing they hit them with to make the "free" version unattractive.

Maybe it works on the bases of shame with the younger population, where your friends can see the lyrics right away, while you have to google them. Like the colors on chat bubbles thing in the US. I don't know.

> with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore?

Because to have music you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it.

Because to have lyrics you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it.

Because to have videos you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it.

Because to have your app working on some surfaces (think desktop vs phone vs speakers vs TVs vs cars vs...) you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it.

Because if you want to synchronize or show together some, or all, of the audio/video/lyrics/subtitles/etc. you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it.

Disclaimer: I work at Spotify, and it annoys me to no end that these questions are never directed at the people who actually demand all this money: the rights holders.

Oh, please.

These licenses are fixed percentages.

The only thing that is fixed about your employers' greed is that it has no end.

Spotify pays "$0.003-$0.005 per stream. Artists can expect around $400 for every 100,000 streams."

This is disgusting since you know they HAVE to be on your platform, but there is no money to be made there. The IMMENSE share goes to Spotify.

So please...spare me that shift of blame. The only thing that would change if the license holders would demand less is that Spotify would make EVEN MORE, and you know it. No customer would get a discount or something like that. People know that. You can't lie to us.

> These licenses are fixed percentages.

And that makes them irrelevant? Negligible? Insubstantial?

It's common in streaming (that is anything you can think of: music, video, audiobooks) to pay 60-70% of revenue for licenses for content alone (that is, before taxes, before payroll, before infra costs etc.). You're more than welcome to try and start your own music service on those terms and see how far you can get with free/cheap offering.

> Spotify pays "$0.003-$0.005 per stream. Artists can expect around $400 for every 100,000 streams."

Spotify pays the rights holders. Who in turn pay artists. I've never seen the fake outrage directed at Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment.

You're now outraged at Spotify for lyrics, but I don't see it directed at Musicxmatch and other lyrics providers who charge for lyrics.

> People know that. You can't lie to us.

To "know that" you'd first have to know more than zero about streaming, licensing etc.

Seeing that you don't even know who actually pays the artists...

> And that makes them irrelevant? Negligible? Insubstantial?

The context? Did you pay attention? The prices are rising, the service is getting worse. You know...the topic.

> You're more than welcome to try and start your own music service on those terms and see how far you can get with free/cheap offering.

There are alternatives which somehow manage not only to provide a proper service, they even offer FLAC DOWNLOADS. Can you imagine that? Give it a try: https://bandcamp.com/

> Spotify pays the rights holders. Who in turn pay artists. I've never seen the fake outrage directed at Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment.

What is this derailing? Why should I rage on them? Do they own Spotify? Are you from the marketing department because I barely see the topic with all that smoke and mirrors here.

> To "know that" you'd first have to know more than zero about streaming, licensing etc.

Serving this level of arrogance after that cheap derailment show is hilarious.

You, however, still fail to move away the spotlight from that hilariously small amount of money you pay. It's not even a secret. You can google it up.

You work for a greedy example of a service which needs to die.

If you are a paid user you still have access to lyrics, if you are on the free subscription you lost access to it (lyrics also have licencing costs, it costs money to display lyrics to users).

So if you were a paying customer nothing has changed.

Free users already have to suffer through advertisements while the artists get ridiculous amounts of money.

As I wrote below: I doubt many people will start paying if they don't have access to lyrics. It is just another power move to make the "free" alternative worse for those who can't or won't afford the paid version.

Check the financial reports, Q1 2024 has just been released a week ago: ads don't pay much for Spotify, free users are mostly subsidised because it's a conversion funnel for people to try the service and become a premium subscriber.

Makes sense to not pay licencing costs for lyrics as well on top of music for free users, they don't bring enough revenue.

It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.

Ads seem to pay enough to make them squeeze more and more in it.

> It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.

It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.

It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. The best ads revenue would be to have as little as possible ads for the maximum amount of revenue, the opposite is counterproductive after a threshold (which is quite low).

Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify, for most of the ads in podcasts Spotify is not earning anything.

> It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.

Ads on Spotify are much more similar to radio ads than the stuff done by Meta, and Google.

Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? Same for Spotify's free tier...

> It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough.

Not enough for whom? The investors or the customers?

We know it's for the investors who need more and more, but Spotify is a limited service. It offers music, lyrics and podcasts. You can't generate more and more money without making the service shitty if you don't plan to expand into some other service or media, but this is not what is happening here. The only thing you get more of is ads while getting less service for it.

> Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify

I can't even blame them. They barely get any money from Spotify, but they still have to be there because they're being held hostage in a quasi monopoly situation.

> Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily?

With paying customers of course.

The fact remains: it's not free and yes it is the same with radio, however I have more, easy choice. Just switch the station. No need to click links somebody else send you because they want you to listen to their music, for example.

FYI: there are also public broadcasters. Quite a many in less greedy countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com