
Crunch Time for Spotify - relix
http://jacquesmattheij.com/crunch+time+for+spotify
======
JonnieCache
Although this will likely cause outrage from the entitlement brigade, I think
it's pretty reasonable.

If you feel the need to listen to a track more than five times a month then
that's surely an indication that it's worth chucking the artist/label ~£1 to
get the MP3/FLAC. Once you you've done that you can move on to finding another
new track to obsess over on spotify, with no opportunity cost.

In short, this emphasises spotify's suitability as a discovery service for new
music, rather than as a way to avoid having to curate your own music
collection. This was always it's strength anyway.

The problem is that spotify is probably banking on the latter use case to
support their business.

~~~
chris_j
You raise a good point about the distinction between a music discovery service
and a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. My personal use
of music streaming services (we7 in my case) is built around the latter. If I
have a party at my house, it's pretty useful to plug the laptop into the
stereo and let people choose music from we7 rather than me having to
specifically go out and buy any song that gets played.

It sounds like Spotify are probably shooting themselves in the foot by
destroying a good part of their value for a lot of their customers.

~~~
semanticist
If their users aren't paying them money, then they're not Spotify's customers,
they're the product Spotify is selling to advertisers.

Spotify's audio adverts can be really intrusive - it's definitely not
something you'd want to cut in during a party.

------
larrik
Over the years, I have had a ton of people approach me about doing various
startup ideas. For some reason, 90% that are pitched related to music.

I immediately say no to any startup involving music. I know pg has the same
policy now, but I've been saying it for about 10 years now, and my reasoning
is a bit starker than pg's.

Basically, there are only a handful companies making good money off of music,
and you aren't going to be one of them. (the labels and Apple, basically)

* This is slightly less true when you are including instrument makers, but musicians are an AWFUL market to try to sell to, since the only ones who actually make money tend to get everything free anyway through sponsorship deals. IE. musicians can't spend money, and if they can they won't anyway.

P.S. To the guys in Glastonbury I recently spoke to through email and who I
know read HN, this isn't directed at you, even if it may sound like it.

~~~
ra
As a customer, paying a monthly subscription roughly on par with the price of
a CD for "all you can eat" music is, I think, bloody good value.

It seems to me that Spotify are killing it.

~~~
JonnieCache
There may be some confusion here, ra means "killing it" in the inverted slang
sense. "Killing it" here means "laying waste to all before them," rather than
"destroying their own business model."

~~~
ra
_"laying waste to all before them"_

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for the clarification.

------
w1ntermute
I don't know about anybody else, but this is exactly why I'm leery about any
of these "cloud services". With my local music collection, I know that future
developments are of no concern.

Another area in which this is very important is gaming - Steam has a near-
monopoly on online sales of PC games, and if they were to go under, a lot of
people would get screwed over. I rarely (if ever) play video games, but I've
bought all the Humble Indie Bundles just to support an option that doesn't put
customers at the mercy of the retailer's servers operating properly.

~~~
justincormack
I see Spotify more like a radio service, albeit one I do pay for. If the radio
station shuts down I find another way of listening to music. I still buy some
music in addition. I dont feel I own the music in Spotify so if it went away I
havent lost it... I could never afford to own that much music.

------
michael_dorfman
I agree with Jacques's analysis. What will be interesting to watch is the
uptake rate of the paid version in countries where they have extremely
widespread usage (like here in Norway.)

I'm already a paid subscriber, and gladly pay 100NOK/month for the premium
service. I'd be disappointed (but not completely surprised) to find that
people don't think the service is worth that.

~~~
swombat
I don't find that a service for simply listening to the radio is worth paying
for on a monthly basis. If I can't download it and listen to it whenever I
want and wherever I want, it's not mine, and it's worth paying for.

I would happily pay a significant amount of money every month (say about
£30-40) for an all-you-can-eat buffet of DRM-free downloads covering all the
released music (since the beginning of recorded music) by all the major
labels.

This would translate into some £480 of income from me for the recording
industry, versus £0 at the moment. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I wonder how
much money they're leaving on the table by offering inadequate products like
Spotify.

~~~
urbanjunkie
So, for £40 you want the ability to download every piece of music ever
released and own it for ever? Once you've spent your first month downloading
everything you've ever wanted, what's the incentive to re-up your subscription
the following month? Are you really going to pay that subsequent fee to
download a few new releases?

Not sure your model works.

~~~
fwdbureau
well, the model works for others: millions (or hundreds of thousands) gladly
pay a monthly fee of £40 on usenet + rapidshare accounts, and i'm pretty sure
most of them renew month after month

~~~
EwanToo
I'm pretty sure most of them aren't using rapidshare for the music alone, but
the movies, tv shows, games, and porn they carry.

------
erikstarck
My guess is this is a requirement from the record companies for a US launch.

So, might actually be good news for Spotify - and you americans who can't
access this excellent service.

------
muyuu
I can see myself uninstalling Spotify by the time it starts failing to play
the music I want to play more often than not.

This sums it up, I think (quote from the link):

The blog ends with "Above all, this means we can continue making Spotify
available to all in the long-term." which suggests this move is made out of
need rather than of want and effectively that translates in to 'an advertising
supported free music service is not viable'.

