Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Spotify Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]

Gasu E. said:
That seems bass-ackwards. The artists want to get more money, which they can do by granting a temporary exclusive.

If you actually think artists "want to hurt Spotify", what is Spotify doing to these artists that makes them want to hurt Spotify back?
Click to expand...

They're not bribing them in the same way Apple and Tidal are.
 
DMH0630 said:
What exactly is wrong with an artist agreeing to an exclusive for more money?

This is like advertising: in exchange for extra money someone gets a special spot. Also this exclusive doesn't include a can't stream the content anywhere else, it just means for the extra money they get an exclusive period just like stores used to do with special game editions.
Click to expand...

For the last time, I was joking! I probably shouldn't of done it sarcastically but I was joking!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeneralChang
Iconoclysm said:
Exclusives are despicable? These are 2 week timed exclusives...
Click to expand...

This is specifically not about two week timed exclusives, as the Spotify execs have stated. They have no issues with short-term exclusives. Did you just read the headline and come here to feel outraged? Educate yourself before running your mouth.
 
Exclusives are bad for labels because labels get paid per-stream, and less streams = less money.

Artists who are big enough to have exclusives don't care about labels, because they're going direct to the source and get paid outside of the process.

Spotify is butthurt because they're losing the war.
 
usarioclave said:
The label is preventing artists from exclusives...because exclusives hurt the labels' bottom line.
Click to expand...

They can't afford it. And they're one decision by the music industry away from bankruptcy. If sales are better with Google, Apple, and other services, then Spotify is going to be crushed-- not by Apple, but by the big companies that can offer promotions and so on. They want music streaming to attract people to the store, the computer or the phone. They can up what they pay for the streaming. Spotify is getting ground up by the big boys.
 
apolloa said:
More like 70 or 80 I would think and you must have money burning a hole in your pocket? your the perfect consumer haha.
Click to expand...

I have disposable income, and I use my iPhone a lot of the time everyday so I consider it worth it. I suppose I'm a great consumer :D especially when it comes to Apple products ;)
 
wickawicka said:
Then you're being blinded by fanboyism. EVEN THE CEO OF UNIVERSAL understands that exclusives are bad for the market and bad for consumers. How in the world can't you?
Click to expand...

The CEO of Universal understands that exclusives are bad for Universal, or at least for the vampire execs who run Universal and don't like the idea of an artist getting paid anything they don't get a percentage of. Exclusives are good for the artists and, at worst, a minor inconvenience for the consumer. Considering how badly the artists have been getting hosed by whole streaming model, I'm more than happy to let them have this win.
 
wickawicka said:
You heard it here first, folks. Standing up for consumers is petty and passive aggressive.

MacRumors mods - can I print off this thread and use it as the script for my new multi-camera sitcom, "This Is Exactly Why Everyone Hates Apple Users"?
Click to expand...

So this is your definition of "standing up for consumers" is it?

A "consumer" who subscribes to Spotify, and likes to listen to one of the artists who Spotify is blackballing is now going to have a harder time finding said artist. Exactly how is that "standing up for consumers"? Make no mistake. This is Spotify lashing out over feeling their own impotence in preventing the inevitable. Not "standing up for consumers."

I tried Spotify a few years ago, and didn't like it. But if I was a subscriber and knew they were doing this to me
I would be pissed.

You may want to consider that you're projecting your own contempt for Apple Users onto others. All of my friends love me. Even my Android and Microsoft friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB1234
We can point the finger all day at the "industry" being to blame for hurting the up and coming artist....but Spotify has crossed a line by doing this. It is simply a flat out stupid move on their part....and now that it's public will just encourage more to do exclusives....with anyone but Spotify. That is the only thing they have earned themselves with this behavior.

Immature, bitter, spiteful, and short sighted. That's the rep they will now have. If I made music at all, or popular enough to have people offering me exclusives...my attitude would be help anyone but Spotify. Some above called this a childish temper tantrum and that about sums it up. Ignorance, sheer ignorance.

Edit: Assuming this is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akadafni
 
wickawicka said:
Then you're being blinded by fanboyism. EVEN THE CEO OF UNIVERSAL understands that exclusives are bad for the market and bad for consumers. How in the world can't you?
Click to expand...

The CEO of Universal dislikes them because they are bad for the CEO of Universal. You accuse me of fanboy-ism, but you just made a CEO-fanboy argument. How long have you been an admirer of music-company executives? Usually, when one of those fellas says something, I tend to believe the exact opposite; as the music companies are about the most abusive and crooked companies in the western world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waitandwait
Exclusives aren't that bad, they exist in all forms of media every day. But Apple intentionally forcing Spotify out of business is bad, very bad, because only the Apple and it's share holders, many of which seem to be on this forum, win, all consumers lose out.
Are people going to be as happy if Apple forces Snapchat out of business? They are rumoured to be working on their own version of it now.
 
tito2020 said:
Spotify is bigger than what you think they have power house investors.
Click to expand...

Who will back out as soon as it's clear they're losing. A streaming label, maybe. Hire some artists and distribute their stuff. The music business could withdraw their support at any time, just by charging more royalties. The margins on Spotify are razor-thin. A new rate card from the labels, and boom! Would you pay $20 a month? $25?
 
rdlink said:
So this is your definition of "standing up for consumers" is it?

A "consumer" who subscribes to Spotify, and likes to listen to one of the artists who Spotify is blackballing is now going to have a harder time finding said artist. Exactly how is that "standing up for consumers"?

I tried Spotify a few years ago, and didn't like it. But if I was a subscriber and knew they were doing this to me
I would be pissed.

You may want to consider that you're projecting your own contempt for Apple Users onto others. All of my friends love me. Even my Android and Microsoft friends.
Click to expand...

I don't have any amount of contempt for Apple users. I AM an Apple user.

And you are massively, hilariously exaggerating the impact of this on users. It affects Spotify users in zero ways. Any band will still show up in search results if you search from them. Spotify can push some to the top of they want to, and they won't do that with bands that have exclusives with competitors. You will never ever ever notice this.
[doublepost=1472240014][/doublepost]
Waxhead138 said:
We can point the finger all day at the "industry" being to blame for hurting the up and coming artist....but Spotify has crossed a line by doing this. It is simply a flat out stupid move on their part....and now that it's public will just encourage more to do exclusives....with anyone but Spotify. That is the only thing they have earned themselves with this behavior.

Immature, bitter, spiteful, and short sighted. That's the rep they will now have. If I made music at all, or popular enough to have people offering me exclusives...my attitude would be help anyone but Spotify. Some above called this a childish temper tantrum and that about sums it up. Ignorance, sheer ignorance.

Edit: Assuming this is true.
Click to expand...

Again, have you read any of these articles, or did you just come here to be angry? SPOTIFY'S STRATEGY IS ALREADY WORKING.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I love you Spotify, but that's a war you're not going to win. Bad business tactics like this won't get them far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DemetriJ
They pull this crap and have the nerve to criticize the way Apple run's Apple Music/the App Store. Pot meet Kettle.

I've never used Spotify and now I definitely never will.
 
wickawicka said:
Please tell me how they can achieve this nebulous goal of "having a better product" when they don't have the cash to bribe artists to artificially limit the availability of their music.

You people are utterly childish and transparent fanboys. Exclusives hurt no one but YOU. Stop defending this awful behavior just because it helps Apple.
[doublepost=1472239047][/doublepost]

Nah, that's not how this works, take your childish strawman elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Can you point out where in this chain you have made a logical, persuasive argument? Because your points have degenerated into shrill name-calling. Other people have actual tried to make logical arguments on the other side, and you just respond with the above. Maybe you can just summarize or link to the places where you did the same, as you've just lost the thread at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdlink
apolloa said:
Exclusives aren't that bad, they exist in all forms of media every day. But Apple intentionally forcing Spotify out of business is bad, very bad, because only the Apple and it's share holders, many of which seem to be on this forum, win, all consumers lose out.
Are people going to be as happy if Apple forces Snapchat out of business? They are rumoured to be working on their own version of it now.
Click to expand...

Apple provides a large number of Spotify customers. And you can sign up at Apple and if you like it, sign up at Spotify for lower rates. They're using Apple for promotion and sales of their product. Demanding that Apple provides the service for free, or at a different rate than any other user of iTunes and the App Store is pure balderdash.
 
djcerla said:
That's indeed all factually correct.

But what was the tangible advantage Apple had from the trial? The damages are almost chump change for Apple, and the trial was a major distraction for the management, not worth it for sure.

Samsung hit their all time high share price yesterday, so the "copycat" tag had little negative effect (in my opinion, the trial was a huge positive for Samsung, solidifying their position as Apple's only competitor).
Click to expand...
Nothing tangible. Just the intangibles. Making Samsung a little more wary of crossing the line. Solidifying their position as the (perceived) innovator. Keeping competitors like Xiaomi from jumping into the U.S. Who knows what else.

There's no evidence of a major distraction for management. We will never know what would have happened if they didn't sue Samsung. But the reality where they did sue Samsung turned out spectacularly well. Better than any manufactured product in history.
 
wickawicka said:
Then you're being blinded by fanboyism. EVEN THE CEO OF UNIVERSAL understands that exclusives are bad for the market and bad for consumers. How in the world can't you?
Click to expand...

The only thing the CEO of Universal cares about is money; the companies and his. Exclusives have little to no real effect on consumers, they just effect his bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back