The CEO of Universal Music was also vehemently opposed to the end of copy protection on music, but his anger cooled when Apple let him charge $1.29 rather than .99.
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 Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The CEO of Universal Music was also vehemently opposed to the end of copy protection on music, but his anger cooled when Apple let him charge $1.29 rather than .99.
Then you can continue to listen to "I ain't sorry" 50x a day on the 'free' radio"
Mr. / Ms. Snippy,
Not angry one bit. If that tactic is true, my opinion stated is one that I think is a fair criticism of a tactic. Anger when typing however is typically reflected by using all caps as you did above. Calm down.
So Spotify protecting its business interests and profit margins is now considers to be balderdash? Do you own Apple shares or just believe no one else should exist or provide services and devices?
Apple should be seriously penalised for its practices towards Spotify whilst offering its own competing service. It's anti consumer.
Unquestionably? Maybe in a different universe.
But if Spotify is taking explicit actions against artist to affect their promotion in their catalog because they signed a deal with Apple, then that's not okay. Revenge is basically what that is
I'm trying to deconstruct your language to figure out what you are saying.
When I ask "what is Spotify doing that makes artists want to hurt them?", you respond "they are not bribing them." Now, the only thing I can imagine you mean by "not bribing" is "Spotify is not paying the artists for exclusives". Am I correct in that interpretation?
However, you previously said that artists are granting the exclusives specifically in order to hurt Spotify.
See the problem here? You are saying the artists are granting the exclusives in order to hurt Spotify, in revenge for Spotify not paying them for exclusives.
And then you use that to justify Spotify acting in retaliation.
Call me a fanboy, but you seem pretty loose on this cause-effect relationship concept.
Err, no, there's 1000's of free radio stations on the internet now, and for normal broadcast Radio, there are stations which won't play the same music over and over again, actually, I hate those stations.
Let's look at the logic. An "exclusive" means a work is available from one source and not from another. You find that despicable. Spotify "punishes" the artist by hiding them from their platform. So suddenly not just an album, but everything by the artist is available from one source only and not from the other. And you don't find this despicable, but actually say it should be applauded.
[doublepost=1472241140][/doublepost]
You make me laugh. What profit margins is Spotify protecting? There are no profit margins.
I understand the analogy. I just think that the tactic in play on Spotifys part in no way helps them defeat Goliath. It helps make the possible future downfall of David more possible.
Those powerhouses have "invested" $2.3 BILLION in total over the past 8 years. But when will they get that money back?
Venture capital should not be a source of income forever.
Yes... Spotify has been given some cash to play with... but they can't keep riding that train.
How big will Spotify be when their money dries up?
Yes, they have. And these power house investors having been losing more and more and more and more money.
Exactly. Spotify's business model was doomed from the start. They never should have offered a free tier and they set the price of the pay tier way too low. They can barely afford to pay the rock bottom royalties as it is and left themselves zero wiggle room to compete. So what happens when a company comes along that doesn't need this line of business to be profitable to work? Well, this is what happens.
I think one thing in this thread should be made clear: just because one criticizes Spotify for employing a poisonous tactic doesn't make one an Apple fanboy. If Chevy sold cars that caught fire, and someone says "Hey Chevys cars shouldn't catch fire".... It would not make them a Ford zealot by default.
Is it a monopoly when a movie studio gives their movie to the theaters before releasing it to streaming services? Is it a monopoly when I can only watch a television show on one network?
[doublepost=1472241601][/doublepost]
Fifty thumbs up for that.
Funny how Spotify never had any problems with exclusives when they had no competition. Now that the competition is eating their lunch they are standing up "for the fans"? Yeah, ok.
Because here in the Uk we tend to let Apple get away with a lotalso after we voted to leave the EU we just don't care
We know and you still drive on the left
That's some serious hyperbole... Exclusives have been around for ages. One platform getting access a week or 2 early is not egregious anti-consumer behavior.
Hurting your own customers by burying artists in search results is not only bad for users but just bad business. Spotify already has a poor reputation amongst artists and this obviously won't help.
