I had to change that for ya.
What in Spotify's business model makes you think they are stealing anything ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Trying to Torpedo Spotify's U.S. Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What in Spotify's business model makes you think they are stealing anything ?
And the corporate bully strikes again... Blame others Apple, as usual!
I consider iTunes a bloatware and now I mostly use Spotify for music playback. I can organise my music and listen to tracks free and for a while I even used the premium service. Trust me, dedicated fans with blurred vision, you'd love Spotify and you'd reconsider your position on iTunes completely once you tried a much more flexible and less of a rip-off way of listening to music.
Whoever wants to assist to this corporate bullying and fear game should just get out of Lord Jobs' backside and breath some fresh air!
I consider iTunes a bloatware and now I mostly use Spotify for music playback. I can organise my music and listen to tracks free and for a while I even used the premium service. Trust me, dedicated fans with blurred vision, you'd love Spotify and you'd reconsider your position on iTunes completely once you tried a much more flexible and less of a rip-off way of listening to music.
Whoever wants to assist to this corporate bullying and fear game should just get out of Lord Jobs' backside and breath some fresh air!
Exactly - at worse Apple is probably espousing their personal opinions about Spotify. They are not doing anything to actually prevent the company from existing, There is no proof that Apple is doing anything actionable by say, refusing to carry Warner music for making deals with a competitor (which they are not nor have they ever done to my knowledge).
Apple has every right to voice their opinions about their competitors all they want - it is called freedom of speech. If the record labels disagree with Apple the are certainly free to ignore any input.
which are supported by donations from for-profit businesses and by donations from employees of for-profit businesses
Apple concerned about something being free devaluing the market? They must not realize they are doing the same thing to app developers.
Don't worry Apple, they'll just put ads into every free track you listen to. Then all the musicians can sit back and collect millions by integrating ads into everything!
Don't worry Apple, they'll just put ads into every free track you listen to. Then all the musicians can sit back and collect millions by integrating ads into everything!
i cant with this anymore. everyone screaming "go free" and not realizing that the producers and the engineers in the background of the music industry stand to be destroyed by this business model. its a sad sad day. its not just tunes to listen to. its someone's livelyhood being destroyed.
Maybe you don't quite understand the business model here... Engineers will be paid for their work either way.
Apple's closed approach to iOS development; intentionally putting up roadblocks to those who try to integrate with iTunes; and choosing the either "buyout or crush them" method of dealing with competition will eventually be their downfall.
Maybe not in the short term, but the Internet is far too malleable for Apple to stifle innovation over the long term with their greed.
Maybe not in the short term, but the Internet is far too malleable for Apple to stifle innovation over the long term with their greed.
HOW are they doing the same for app-developers?
They offer app-developers an infrastructure to sell their products - which reportedly is quite a lucrative business for the worthwhile apps. You may want to elaborate on how this pertains to devaluing the market?
No proof Apple involved in this
I have to agree with the question posed by others here (What evidence is there that Apple has done anything here other than express an opinion?). Also, what mystical power do people think Apple has over the music labels to block this? Apple will refuse to sell their music (I doubt that).
My guess is that the labels want to change the monetary sharing agreement they have with Spotify and that is what is blocking the startup. I would be surprised if Apple has any impact on the delays at all (they support almost all of the other streaming services through apps already). Besides, if people use Spotify to download songs to their portable players that still works in Apples favor since they sell portable players.
Also, as others have noted they may have cut a more lucrative deal with Google and are waiting for that streaming service to start instead.
Cheers.
I have to agree with the question posed by others here (What evidence is there that Apple has done anything here other than express an opinion?). Also, what mystical power do people think Apple has over the music labels to block this? Apple will refuse to sell their music (I doubt that).
My guess is that the labels want to change the monetary sharing agreement they have with Spotify and that is what is blocking the startup. I would be surprised if Apple has any impact on the delays at all (they support almost all of the other streaming services through apps already). Besides, if people use Spotify to download songs to their portable players that still works in Apples favor since they sell portable players
.Also, as others have noted they may have cut a more lucrative deal with Google and are waiting for that streaming service to start instead.
Cheers.
Spotify is amazing! I've purchased more music, because of their product, in 9 months than I have in the last 5 years with iTunes. I will be signing up for a premium membership once I get a job. I just wish my American friends could experience it. It's so much better than Pandora, Slacker, etc. When I listen to an artist, i want to hear their music, not someone else's.
I use Spotify here in the UK and it's great. If it was a bad business model why would the labels bother to sign up to it? Either way, it's a free and legal way to listen to music so i'm not gonna complain.
Yeah exactly. I know that there was a lot of people on my course begging for invitations. It's a fantastic way to find music!
There is no money coming in from recorded music! Half the major studios across the world have gone bust - many which used to be operating with very comfortable profits are now operating in the red constantly! Many VERY famous records got 'their sound' from studios.
Abbey Road studios for example, is operating just in the red (I believe), yet they're constantly booked out, the studio is in use full time - there's just far less money available to do recording sessions with.
Yup, I have found loads of new tunes / artists through the 'related music' links. Great service, also the BBC and Gadget Show have mentioned how good it is too
What does this have to do with spotify ? Maybe the studio shouldn't accept jobs at a loss if it doesn't want to operate in the red.
What does this have to do with spotify ? Maybe the studio shouldn't accept jobs at a loss if it doesn't want to operate in the red.
So the choice is between filing for bankruptcy or operate in the red... and go bankrupt anyway.
What does this have to do with spotify ? Maybe the studio shouldn't accept jobs at a loss if it doesn't want to operate in the red.
Spotify is 'part of the problem' of people not paying for music. It's a problem because it involves time/money and huge amounts of effort to put music together, and Spotify is essentially saying to people they don't have to pay for their recorded music, which they unfortunately do if they want it to keep going. If Spotify continues the way it does, there will be much less new music appearing on it's catalogue as musicians simply cannot afford the recording sessions, hence studios go out of business.
At least before Spotify if somebody wanted to listen to music 'legally' they had to cough up for it. Free music is all wonderful, but at the end of the day, if people don't get paid for their work, then they can't spend as much time on it. It's fairly simple really...
I partly blame the record labels though - I'd be all for Spotify if the labels had struck 'limited-availability' deals on the service. 'Album X' is released, it's available on Spotify for a month, two months or however long, and after that, if you want to listen to it, you have to buy it.
Of course people will hate me for saying that because they don't think they should have to pay for music...
in the "recent years"? It's been going on for nearly two decades now.
I would say 90% of the music we hear nowadays doesn't have a human drummer.
Absolutely, but it's seemed to really spiral in the last few years. It's also the whole 'sampled or synthesized because it's the sound we want' vs. 'sampled or synthesized because we can't afford a real drummer' argument - the latter option really is an issue IMO.