Have you heard of Amazon or Tesla?
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.
Spotify Now Has 70 Million Paid Subscribers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have you heard of Amazon or Tesla?
I guess those could be important for some. I don't use Siri or CarPlay so they're both out of sight, out of mind. Doesn't CP have Spotify functionality?
Can't you just go to Local Files? I don't know your set up so it would be hard to gauge the difficulty in moving songs.
Everyone here will naysay, but Spotify is well worth the subscription and in my opinion far and away the better experience, except for it not being integrated into Siri which is ’s fault.
Apple Music is just so bad... Spotify is far superior. There really is no competition.
Apple Music is actually the only thing I use Siri for. There is no Polish Siri so I can't do anything else. I can't ask for the weather or send a text message in my native language.
However, with songs, which mainly have English titles and names of the bands is just brilliant. Moreover, due to the fact that I don't have Siri in my native language, I'm not bothered by or frustrated by the fact that Siri is actually monolingual and can't text in one language and play songs in the other language.
When it comes to CarPlay, Spotify is present now but the app is very less stable than Apple Music app, considering that CarPlay stability in general is not perfect, adding another level of instability by using Spotify, is can be irritating.
So you suggest him that for the music he bought he should go to the one app and for the music he rents to the other app?
That's what he's trying to avoid. Google Play Music allows you to upload your music.
No. But they sound cool.
Amazon does make a profit now and Tesla will once they sort out their production issues. Both are in a better position than Spotify. The bigger Spotify gets with their free users, the more they lose.
I subscribe to GPM/Youtube Red Family so I am familiar with it's benefits. My suggestion of local files was an incomplete thought, apologies to all. My inner monologue assumed everyone knew what I was referencing. I was talking about uploading iTunes content into Spotify via the desktop app via local files.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how Apple screwed up the Apple Music interface and recommendation algorithms so badly. Apple Music came from Beats, which came from Mog. Mog was excellent for the time. The interface was simple and the recommendations were spot on. Seriously. How do you screw up something that was excellent to begin with? It's a de-evolution. Also... Apple's huge song database, while impressive, is filled with lots of REALLY BAD covers and karaoke versions.
Also... artists on Spotify are going nowhere. Even though they make less coin per stream with Spotify than with Apple music, that 70 million paid subscriber number is too huge to not stick around. Twice as many streams... twice the cash (albeit less cash)... kind of a no-brainer.
Also... artists on Spotify are going nowhere. Even though they make less coin per stream with Spotify than with Apple music, that 70 million paid subscriber number is too huge to not stick around. Twice as many streams... twice the cash (albeit less cash)... kind of a no-brainer.
You can purchase music today from iTunes and have total unrestricted access to those files.
As long as Apple Music is in this lovine guy that should have gone 2 years ago the app will remain garbage as it is now, full of bugs, terrible user interface, missing album artwork every where and focus on the penny every where instead of the music itself
Ok, but maybe a fivefold+ lead time evens that out a bit.
Maybe. Maybe not. I know plenty of iPhone owners who are using Spotify, Just as I know plenty of iPhone owners who are using Google maps. Default search engine is one thing. Default app is another. Easley downloaded, spread by word-of-mouth. And at launch, Apple Maps helped Google maps adoption!
I wish Spotify good luck going forward, so no hate here. I agree the New Music mix leaves a lot to desire. But Apple Music curators do a better job compiling playlists. Also better user integration IMO. But to each their own. I had Spotify and moved to AM months after it came out
I go back and forth between Spotify and Apple Music. Spotify by far has better music recommendations and playlists. Apple Music Music recommendations are good, but nowhere near Spotify. And the curated playlists? Spotify blows AM out of the water.
I currently have both services as I took advantage of Spotify’s $10 for three month promo. I was on AM exclusively since I have a ton of iTunes credit.
I currently have both services as I took advantage of Spotify’s $10 for three month promo. I was on AM exclusively since I have a ton of iTunes credit.
Love Appe Music for integration with my iTunes and other devices. Still keep a Spotify ad supported version for new music Friday’s and discover. Apple make a station is pretty great though but spotify still helps me find new music more often it seems.
The iPad is my main device at home. My iMac is sitting in a closet. That brings up another point. My entire library is accessible on my work iMac too in iTunes. Not that I love iTunes but just another nice point of integration.
I love Spotify. The user created Playlists are 2nd to none. I can always find any playlist to fit my mood or if I'm a fan of the music in a TV Show or Movie, there will be numerous playlists related to it. Was in the mood to listen to songs of Vietnam era earlier this week, there were 5 mega playlists. Plus it has every artist I want to listen to.
It's easy to use, it's not destructive. Unlike Apple Music which is just a confused mess to use and it destroyed my music library when it first launched, it overwrote my purchased music files with its DRM'd garbage when I downloaded music because it's not smart enough to keep MY iTunes music SEPARATE from its own.
It is a WRETCHED service and I wish it'd die because I know whatever TV Service they launch will be tied to it.
It's easy to use, it's not destructive. Unlike Apple Music which is just a confused mess to use and it destroyed my music library when it first launched, it overwrote my purchased music files with its DRM'd garbage when I downloaded music because it's not smart enough to keep MY iTunes music SEPARATE from its own.
It is a WRETCHED service and I wish it'd die because I know whatever TV Service they launch will be tied to it.
If that is what is needed to make the platform profitable, I don’t mind paying.
As it stands, I don’t think $10 a month is profitable for anyone, and Spotify still has the burden of their free tier.
Why? It's baked into their phones and the a lot of iPhone users would rather just stay in the Apple eco-system then trying out other services.
It’s also available on the Apple TV and the upcoming HomePod.
If you go running with your Apple Watch, Apple Music is pretty much your only option.
I don’t use Siri integration much, but it’s handy in a pinch.
It’s the little things like this.
Don't understand how they can't be making money with those kind of numbers. 70 million people x $10 a month = $700 million a month. Let's assume half those people are paying, that's still $350 million a month. The idea they aren't profitable seems silly to me. Someone must be doing that movie studio, "Hollywood Math."
There are a number of reasons for doing a direct listing rather than an IPO. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both.
For starters, Spotify doesn't really need to raise capital. It has quite a bit of cash (as well as quite a bit in short term investments). It, of course, also has a considerable amount of debt. That's one of the reasons it's lost as much money as it has in recent years. It's raised a lot of capital through borrowing rather than through ownership dilution, so it has considerable borrowing costs. But as it is, Spotify seems to have plenty of money available. And it already has positive operational cash flow. So it shouldn't need a lot of extra capital going forward. It has good (and, based on reports, increasing) gross margins.
Looking through its financial statements, I suspect it could flip the switch and be profitable at any point now if it wanted to. But instead it's continuing to do what it probably should - spend a lot of extra money gobbling up as much of the market pie as it can while that pie is easier to gobble up (than it will be later). Doing that now delays its becoming profitable, but will likely allow it to be more profitable (than it otherwise would have been) later. And, as I've suggested, it can afford to do that - it has enough cash on hand to continue with that general strategy for a bit.
So the first reason for doing a direct listing is the absence of one of the main reasons to do an IPO - the need (or desire) to raise capital. By not issuing new shares for an IPO, Spotify avoids diluting the ownership interest of existing shareholders. They might not want to give away part of what they own for cash that the company doesn't need now.
Another reason could be to avoid some restrictions that would come along with an IPO - e.g., look-up periods on further insider sales that underwriters would pressure them to agree to if they did an IPO. Then there's the hassle of doing the IPO road show itself. Spotify's management might just not want to have to deal with that. There are also the fees you mention. I doubt that's the main reason Spotify isn't doing an IPO, but it might have factored into the decision.
Who knows what effect a direct listing rather than an IPO will have on Spotify's stock price in the early days of trading. I could see it going either way - effectively suppressing or effectively inflating the stock price. It's risky not having the initial pricing mechanism associated with an IPO, where underwriters go through an auction-like process to figure out what a good initial offering price would be. When trading starts, it could be wild - even wilder than what happens with some IPOs when shares open for trading. But if those who currently own the company's shares are confident in its value, and they have the discipline to not sell unless the trading price reflects what they think the company is worth, a direct listing could result in a much higher early stock price than an IPO (with newly issued shares) would. I, for one, am excited to see how this plays out.