Spotify Raising Prices in Multiple Countries

iFunk said:
I'll continue using Spotify no matter the cost. It brings a TON of value to my family and I. I still buy physical copies including vinyl, CDs and cassettes however streaming is still great to me. Physical copies, for artists that still drop them - that I am into, do not come out anywhere near release date. I get to enjoy the music prior to physical copies arriving. I do hate that artists are not paid more but much of the music I listen to is very niche and doesn't have a lot of monthly listeners anyways. I have numerous play lists for working in the yard, pool parties, enjoying time on the lake, etc. How someone could complain over even $20 a month.... that brings me so much enjoyment.. I'll never understand. Anyway, to each their own but I will keep on streaming on!
Click to expand...
One more thing to add.. I had Apple Music concurrently with Spotify for a few years as I did not mind paying for both. In that era there were releases that were specific to AM such as Dr. Dre The Chronic which tied into Apple acquiring Beats. Even so often I'd find a track or album or obscure soundtrack that one of the companies didn't have.. even as a HEAVY Apple user I still enjoyed Spotify much more. I am so use to Spotify now I really couldn't even see going back to AM. Just my personal preference. I did like how Apple acquired Shazam and baked it into their eco system. Although many seems to complain about the lack of hi-fi on Spotify I will say I am more than happy with the sound quality based upon my settings. I hard wire into my car via the Lightning port and at home as well... music sounds fantastic. Even on Bluetooth it is really great.
 
johannnn said:
FYI no service pays less $$$ to artists than Spotify.

yet they have the guts to raise prices
Click to expand...

I have read Pandora pays less lol. So that is at least one company. I do hate that artists are not paid more... but the thing happens in TV/movies. Mark-Paul Gosselaar from Saved by the Bell said in an interview he made no money off streaming of the show from a residual standpoint. I mean steaming or "online movies" was never even a thought in the 1980s and 1990s. Similar things happened in the music industry. When Snoop and team took Death Row Records catalog off streaming they were banking on fans spending $400-$500 for an NFT to have access to the entire catalog. Death Row Recoreds (DRR) has a lot of hits from just 1992 to 1996 alone (I have all the releases on physical copies so why would I, as a fan, have wanted to fork out $$$ for an NFT when I could upload it to my YouTube Music for free).... Snoop has been vocal about how low DRR payouts are for streaming.... the challenge is much of the much is 25-30 years old. Yeah some classic hip-hop but when the record company hasn't put out anyting really substantail in 20+ years... their money is going to have to come elsewhere. Merchandise, touring, films, etc. Of course Snoop continues to push the company and do those things.... but to me.... a lot of artists I listen to... I bought thier CD/cassette in 1994 and that was it.... I don't think they were going to make much off streaming anyways.. Just my take.

people.com

Mark-Paul Gosselaar Says Saved By the Bell Cast 'Made Really Bad Deals,' Doesn't Get Residuals

"We made really bad deals," said Mark-Paul Gosselaar
people.com people.com
 
TechnoMonk said:
how about paying artists more to be on par with Apple and others. Spotify is a parasite that leeches on musicians , phone platforms and manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Spotify has 3X the subscribers to Apple Music. They have the market share. Why would they pay equal or more than Apple? And Apple has an advantage to sell the music as well as a digital asset on top of subs.

If that were the case then Apple should lower their developer fees to match that of a smaller App Store. Same for Amazon, Google and so on.

I’m all for artist making money, but do you tell your boss he should pay the workers more because the workers down the street at a smaller business make more, but work less?

It’s about volume of exposure.
 
johannnn said:
FYI no service pays less $$$ to artists than Spotify.

yet they have the guts to raise prices
Click to expand...
RankPlatformApprox. payout per streamApprox. payout per 1M streams
1Qobuz~$0.022~$22,000
2Napster$0.019–$0.021$19,000–$21,000
3TIDAL$0.0125–$0.013$12,500–$13,000
4Apple Music~$0.01~$10,000
5Amazon Music~$0.0040~$4,000
6Spotify$0.003–$0.005$3,000–$5,000
7Deezer$0.0011–$0.0064$1,100–$6,400
8YouTube Music$0.0007–$0.0020$700–$2,000
 
CatalinApple said:
In general companies are never pleased no matter their revenue or profits. At this point we can certainly say they are greedy.
What's worst is that Epic and Spotify were upset because of Apple's 15% and 30% commission but once they can charge customers directly those profits go into the company's pocket and not into the pockets of app developers or musicians.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I’m super tired of hearing „must make more money for shareholders”. It’s actually not a legal requirement like people say. It’s greed.
 
JohnRckr said:
Why would I pay monthly for music that I will never own?
Click to expand...
For playing it - both selection and convenience.

For the price of less than 1 CD/month, you've got almost all music ever recorded at your fingertips... Even curated to help you find new music you like, or aggregated in playlists for moods/purpose/genre/time etc.

I have a massive selection of music I "own" from more 25 years of buying CDs, but I mostly listen to Spotify or (occasionally) Apple Music.
 
In Sweder the price is going up around $1.

I don't use Spotify or Apple Music. But I do subscribe YouTube music. It is only because, I can watch YouTube videos without ads. The music I seriously want to listen, I have my own library.
 
CatalinApple said:
In general companies are never pleased no matter their revenue or profits. At this point we can certainly say they are greedy.
What's worst is that Epic and Spotify were upset because of Apple's 15% and 30% commission but once they can charge customers directly those profits go into the company's pocket and not into the pockets of app developers or musicians.
Click to expand...
In this case, 30 % of the money would go into a competitors pocket for no real reason at all other than Apple wanting to have an even more obscene profit than they do.

I bought the phone at a very high cost, and one of the reason I did that is availability of apps. If the iPhone was as easy to install software on as MacOS or Microsoft Windows, Apple would still support upgrades, developers etc - because if they didn't, they'd have killed the golden goose and all of their profits.
 
TechnoMonk said:
how about paying artists more to be on par with Apple and others. Spotify is a parasite that leeches on musicians , phone platforms and manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Artists get more in total from Spotify than Apple, but less per stream.

A couple of reasons:

1) People play more music on Spotify than Apple Music. The app, music discovery, playlists etc are just a lot better. That results in less money per track played, but not less money in total - and I'd argue that the total is more important.

2) Spotify has a free tier, with ads. This gives less money per track from these users, but more than 0.

I have both (paid) - Apple Music as part of Apple One, and Spotify because it is better. If I want to listen to a specific artist, both are good and Apple Music has better quality with Dolby Atmos if available. If I want to listen to playlists or discover music, Spotify is very much ahead of Apple Music.
 
jz0309 said:
Wait, so if that price increase goes to innovation - GREAT use of users money...
Wait, so if Apple raises prices to use for "innovation" - MR folks would be outraged...
Click to expand...

Spoiler: None of them will use the money for innovation. Especially not Apple, they have enough money for innovation the next decades. Their limitation is bandwidth/focus, and people.

Spotify could save money by dropping their podcasts, or put it into a seperate subscription I wouldn't get.
 
xyz01 said:
People play more music on Spotify than Apple Music. The app, music discovery, playlists etc are just a lot better. That results in less money per track played, but not less money in total - and I'd argue that the total is more important.
Click to expand...
Also depends on the size of the artists. I understood they have been classifying smaller / more marginal artists as hobbyists and not paying. The compensation that would have gone to them is then redistributed to bigger artists.

Of course considering how badly they pay I guess 1000 streams per song per year is very little money, but still it would be fairer to accumulate up to some minimum payout level rather then give it to others.
 
germanbeer007 said:
Europe huh? You mean getting that extra 30% back from not going through the App Store IAP wasn't enough?

Surprise! Love to see people defend that.
Click to expand...
They are not getting anything back. They weren't offering a subscription through the app before the recent EU rules.
It has been almost 10 years since Spotify last allowed new subscriptions through the App Store app, and subscriptions cost 30% more when purchased through the app.

Why are there so many upvotes for comments based on misinformation?
 
Last edited:
JohnnyApple$eed said:
RankPlatformApprox. payout per streamApprox. payout per 1M streams
1Qobuz~$0.022~$22,000
2Napster$0.019–$0.021$19,000–$21,000
3TIDAL$0.0125–$0.013$12,500–$13,000
4Apple Music~$0.01~$10,000
5Amazon Music~$0.0040~$4,000
6Spotify$0.003–$0.005$3,000–$5,000
7Deezer$0.0011–$0.0064$1,100–$6,400
8YouTube Music$0.0007–$0.0020$700–$2,000
Click to expand...
If you want artists to get higher payout per stream, subscribe to a music service and don't stream any songs. That will make the average payout per stream go up a slight bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top