To get nearly unlimited exposure and access to a library of music you could never own otherwise. There is a reason to buy and a reason to lease. Choose based on your need, maybe both.
Last edited:
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 Raising Prices in Multiple Countries
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Im fully on board with this increase. My wages also increased by €1/month.
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.
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
Never did, never willWhy would I pay monthly for movies and TV shows that I will never own?
And yet... people subscribe to video streaming services for exactly that.
Did you ever pay monthly for cable TV? You never owned that content either...
I will gladly stay subscriptions free thank you
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.
They could save hundreds of millions to defer costs, if they didn't waste so much money on "celebrity" podcasters.
That's true, and I don't even know why they are doing it. None of them are exclusive anymore.
| Rank | Platform | Approx. payout per stream | Approx. payout per 1M streams |
| 1 | Qobuz | ~$0.022 | ~$22,000 |
| 2 | Napster | $0.019–$0.021 | $19,000–$21,000 |
| 3 | TIDAL | $0.0125–$0.013 | $12,500–$13,000 |
| 4 | Apple Music | ~$0.01 | ~$10,000 |
| 5 | Amazon Music | ~$0.0040 | ~$4,000 |
| 6 | Spotify | $0.003–$0.005 | $3,000–$5,000 |
| 7 | Deezer | $0.0011–$0.0064 | $1,100–$6,400 |
| 8 | YouTube Music | $0.0007–$0.0020 | $700–$2,000 |
Well subscription prices rise all the time unfortunately. Having said that I will never use Spotify.
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.
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.
These companies gotta stop using this bs excuse. What exactly is spotify innovating in? The only ones adding value are the artists
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, they’re definitely giving more money to the songwriters and artists, surely!
I’ve come to realise (being from an older generation) that I never spent €120 a year on music in a record shop and I’m not sure why I am now . Bring back record shops and when there profits start to fall they will come running back.
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:
Biggest issue is that this money is going toward to pay for $100mil+ contracts that they have with people like Joe Rogan.
That’s why I am not paying a dime to Spotify.
That’s why I am not paying a dime to Spotify.
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.