Then people realized there is no need to own when you can rent at a much cheaper cost. Only loss is the tingle down the leg when you look at the size of your library.
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
There still would have been competition. The problem is that Spotify's model isn't sustainable. It'd be stupid to buy a business like that. If they haven't been able to work in the +5 years they've been around, it's unlikely to happen in the future. Additionally, Apple needs competition. It's a good thing. It helps us all as consumers, along with Apple.
Yup, that's what happens when upper management is just waiting by the door until vesting out. Maybe Spotify made a deal with him
Alternatively, many people see no need to rent back what they already own.
[doublepost=1515111835][/doublepost]
Well I've yet to encounter something I've wanted to do with my purchased music that's not been possible so perhaps you would elaborate.
The point is, Apple has .001% of its resources tied to it and can decide to put a pay service of a Spotify out of business whenever they are ready to flip the switch. They might need to improve some before they can, but it is practically inevitable.
Who cares, if owning works for you fine, millions of people feel otherwise. Enjoy that tingle
It was a hyperbole, I just appreciate their algorithms and music search experience. Apple Music is a clunk fest.
In terms of long term viability, this is actually the takeaway:
The more subscribers they sign up, the more money they actually lose. Tidal, Rdio, and Pandora are all dying, and Spotify can’t go on like that forever.
There is Economic preventions which stop Apple from doing something like this.
The notion is considered anti-competitive and is refered to as 'Predatory Pricing'. It is illegal under competition laws, as Apple could essentially kill off all competition and force a Monopoly.
I’m afraid you’re incorrect about the trend. The more users subscribe the more money they lose. See the chart two posts up. Spotify isn’t Facebook, which generates revenue with ads (and probably selling your data) and has no licensing fees. They need to stop the bleeding, which explains the IPO, but even that might not save them in the long run.
Supreme Court has made this very very difficult to prove. Apple is going to give it a go, guaranteed.
I wouldn't be against it. Team Apple all the way, but would be horrendous for what Apple could do with pricing once it has Monopoly
It’s not water or electricity. If it’s too crazy, people will start pirating music again.
The only reason that stopped was Apple made it so easy and convenient to just pay $1/song you actually wanted. No fake music, bad files, unreliable downloads, or malware.
Very good points, obtaining legal music isnt a necessity good so perhaps it wouldnt go so crazy..
It would however make Apple comfortable and less motivated to innovate and push ahead with improving their product, if theyre the only product.
Monopolies make me nervous
Monopolies for unnecessary services don’t make me that nervous. Competition always finds a way.
North Korea makes me nervous.
Apple Music will be the only service fully integrated into the HomePod. If the HomePod really takes off and wipes out Amazon Echo and Google Home in the home assistant market (unlikely IMHO) then it’s possible that Apple Music might get a lift out of that. I doubt Apple will ever integrate any other service with the HomePod so it theoretically could drive up subscribers if it succeeds.
Here's the sad truth about that:
If Spotify has $700 million coming in... they probably have $800 million going out.
Basically... they spend more than they make.
They spend most of their revenue (70% I think) on the music itself. Licensing fees.
Plus they have their own costs and expenses on top of that. The result is a loss. Negative profit.
And the more customers they get... the worse their losses are. It's a vicious circle.
Some people suggest that they get rid of the free tier... as the ads don't even come close to providing enough revenue for all those free listeners. In the end... the paying customers are essentially subsidizing the free listeners. And that could be the reason they lose so much money.
BUT... if someone is on the free tier... they're more likely to become a paying customer. So although they aren't paying anything now... they might someday. You don't just want to push all those people away. It's a tricky situation.
I'm glad I don't have to make decisions for Spotify. It's obviously harder than we think. If there was an easy fix... they'd have done it already.
Last edited:
I use Siri with Apple Music with CarPlay everyday. I also use it with the watch quite a bit as a remote for my iPhone.
However, I wanted to mention Airpods and BeatsX that also have Siri/Apple Music integration. For me, Siri is the main differentiating feature.
Thanks, great explanation. That makes sense. Also, I didn't know they were close to being profitable, but I agree they should go for marketshare right now.
Apple Music is only an option for Apple devices which is why it will never catch up. There are too many Android and Windows users.
"Spotify is also currently facing a copyright lawsuit for allegedly using thousands of songs from artists like Tom Petty, Neil Young, Stevie Nicks, and the Doors without a license from publisher Wixen Music."
Least its good to see then Apple isn't the only one to have lawsuits
Least its good to see then Apple isn't the only one to have lawsuits