Labels should charge Spotify the same as Apple. If they go under their clients will just go to one of the other services.
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's Deep Pockets Affecting Spotify Contract Renewals
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its never that simple. Just think that people buying the same car are not charged the same price, same thing here.
I hope spotify sticks around as neither Apple nor Google really care that much about the streaming music business or its users.
This is an age old practice - corner the market - next contract renewal with the music labels, Apple will crush the labels like a pop can.
Just because Apple has the "deep pockets" to pay labels or artists more for their content doesn't mean they're being unfair or doing anything wrong, at least in my opinion. That's sort of the idea behind a free market. No one is forcing you to use Apple Music, you have other alternatives on iOS and Android for that matter.
Milk was not popular to begin with. Samsung just did not grow it. What Samsung really needs to release is a well-designed music app like they used to have in Android's early days that links to all the free music available on servers in countries like China. Forget paying for this stuff.
Because that's not how the free market works. Spotify needs to change their operating structure so they can match or beat their competitors.
I speak for myself on this, but if your product has ads, it's pretty much useless and dead for me.
Please note:
- Spotify has more paying subscribers than Apple or Google
- Even though Spotify is not profitable, their upside is still huge
Also, the role of 'record labels' is changing. Their revance is shrinking and that will effect market dynamics.
Still no one can even given me a slight clue on how many subscribers "Google Play Music" have?? (my streaming music choice for my iPhone 6 SONOS etc).
I remember everyone saying 'apple have so many credit cards on iTunes even with 10% sign up they will have many millions of apple music subscribers.
Fair play 12 months on they have - a lot - 15,000,000 v 30,000,000 Spotify
But hold on if having a 'device' might influence the uptake of the streaming service hasn't android got 80+% market share so on those figurers Google Play Music must have between 15 and 30 million ie 2nd place AT LEAST?
Does anyone know? why is google so cagey with the subscriber figures?
cheers
I remember everyone saying 'apple have so many credit cards on iTunes even with 10% sign up they will have many millions of apple music subscribers.
Fair play 12 months on they have - a lot - 15,000,000 v 30,000,000 Spotify
But hold on if having a 'device' might influence the uptake of the streaming service hasn't android got 80+% market share so on those figurers Google Play Music must have between 15 and 30 million ie 2nd place AT LEAST?
Does anyone know? why is google so cagey with the subscriber figures?
cheers
I really would be surprised if Spotify isn't bought out by someone within the next few years.
I'm afraid they might not be. These music companies need to realize that they need to play ball or Apple and Google will have all the control, which isn't very competitive and ends up worse for them in the long run.
Sorry Spotify. This is business. Any business is free to negotiate contracts as they wish.
you can't afford the same contract that Apple negotiated? try to negotiate your own, but don't blame some other company for offering to pay more than you're willing. The market sets the value
you can't afford the same contract that Apple negotiated? try to negotiate your own, but don't blame some other company for offering to pay more than you're willing. The market sets the value
Come on Spotify, play fair. You're taking a huge cut out of the labels profits just to use your platform to reach their audience. That's monopolistic and uncompetitive behavior. You really need to reduce that to something more reasonable, say 30%. After all, you only provide a way for a label to bring their product to the consumer and you have the largest share of the streaming music market. Play fair Spotify.
Edit: they could reduce their share to 15% after the first year, that would be ever fairer-er.
Edit: they could reduce their share to 15% after the first year, that would be ever fairer-er.
Do you feel that it will be enough to help Spotify stay solvent and relevant in the market?
It does not, and they may not; that's going to depend entirely on what the individual labels have worked out with artists, and probably varies. It's quite possible, however, that the artists get the same fraction of whatever gross the label receives from a streaming service, in which case they'd get very slightly more from Apple than Spotify currently. Regardless, the artist is pretty unlikely to get paid more if the label is making less.
From a consumer perspective, you prefer Spotify's product to Apple's, but since they're apparently having trouble making it profitable at current rates with current levels of service, and it's not unrealistic to assume that eventually all streaming services will be paying about the same amount to labels/artists, the longer-term question would be "Are you willing to stick with Spotify even if their price is increased to compensate for whatever it is in their business model that's causing them to loose money?"
The answer for you might well be yes, but that leaves the broader question of "If Spotify eventually ends up paying the same amount as Apple for content and they raise prices to the point that they can actually make money on their business, will they have enough customers to stay in business?"
Admittedly, UI decisions (which seems to be your primary reason for preferring Spotify) aren't necessarily a cost-affecting part of a business model, but the ultimate question for Spotify is the universal issue in business--it's easy to give customers a superior product at a low price if you're losing money, but doing so while making enough profit to stay in business is the challenge.
I have Spotify premium and have not listened/seen one single ad. Out of interest is YouTube dead to you?
it will come down to how the deals were made.
if Apple made a single 1 on 1 deal with music industry companies independantly, that paid enough for the companies to sign, but had no other influencing factors, than Apple did nothing wrong.
they chose the value they were willing to pay, and the music companies agreed. This is now the new value of that music
Spotify can go negotiate with them 1 on 1 as well. they can even agree to lower rates if the music companies want.
Now, the DoJ would get involved if Apple included in their contracts that nobody could have better deals than them, or more specifically like the e-book scandal, communicated with each of the players and colluded so that the entire industry would price identically (thats collusion and illegal)
Nope if Apple is paying more that's a business decision that only helps musician and copyright holders in the end it's called free enterprise and is hardly antitrust - Antirust would be if Apple did not allow a Spotify app on iPhones
Yep, you can pay for Spotify Premium but if I am going to do so, I'd rather go for the option that suits my needs, which would be Apple Music.
And I am trying to kill off YouTube from my needs, yes.
I think Apple it's trying to bring down Spotify, to tell you the truth I still like Spotify way much better than Apple Music. With Spotify you have the choice of better quality sound than Apple Music, even the interface in Spotfy it's way better. I have done the test with both services and Spotify sounds it's way much better, solid great sound. Apple Music it's way behind and at the end of the month I will cut ties with Apple Music not happy at all.
But wait I thought Apple was cheap and only cared about profits?