I do love Spotify as a product, however I don't think it will scale the same way Netflix does. Spotify is at the mercy of major record labels, and as their books become more transparent the record labels will squeeze every dollar they can for licensing. That is, unless they find a way to upend the record industry entirely.
Spotify has a unique position with their amazing discovery/recommendations engine- they could potentially start their own "label" and promote their own artists that sign on. Small/independent musicians could see more exposure and Spotify can deliver more music tailored for individual tastes. I've personally found myself listening to lots of small/indie artists as a result of their algorithms, to the point that these now make up the majority of my listening experience.
I think getting into concert tickets/streams, merchandise etc could help them potentially capture quite a bit of value in the future as well.
I know the comparison is similar to original content & Netflix - but keep in mind there's an opportunity cost with media (one can only consume X amount of shows/songs within a period of time). The more attention Spotify can divert away from the major record labels the better.
Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify tried poaching higher-level strategy people from Netflix.
I agree they should sign exclusive deals with artists which would give them leverage in their negotiations with the record labels with an eye on the long-term hope of breaking that reliance on them.
They won't be able to get into concert tickets at the present time in any significant way due to the exclusive agreements between Ticketmaster and venues. Though maybe the could start with some smaller acts and venues and work their way up.
Live performances is where the money is for the artists which is why record labels are now signing acts up for complete deals which include not just the music rights but the concert and merch rights as well.
Edit: as somebody who has tried to buy tickets to a hot show on Ticketmaster the second they go on sale and watched the servers melt, it is Amazon that I would like to see get in the ticket game.
Netflix could be in the same position. With Disney launching their own streaming services next year, the situation could get dire for Netflix, too, if Netflix' own productions don't take off as much as they want.
Didn't record labels complain some time ago that Spotify had supposedly commissioned music for its instrumental playlists (presumably to save money on royalties)?
There's probably a danger that large record labels will threaten to revoke their licensing agreements if they think that Spotify may start competing with them on that front. Not sure if that will be a problem, though, I'm not familiar with the whole streaming market.
This seems to be an area where they are limited compared to Apple.
In my view, Spotify have pretty much "won" the streaming war. They beat Apple to the market with their streaming offering, and they have a good product that people love.
The one area Apple has Spotify beat is in its understanding of the music industry. Apple's acquisition of Beats seemed ridiculous at the time, but getting Jimmy Iovine on your side in a music war is like having Goku on your side in a Universe Survival Tournament. When you've got the likes of Jimmy Iovine and Zane Lowe committed to your cause, you're going to know how record labels work, how the industry works, and given that Iovine recently came out to say that streaming services are similar and need to diversify to succeed I'd be inclined to agree with him.
Apple have failed in the past by trying to make its music exclusive and by having artists on its payroll try to attack Spotify (to backlash on both sides). It makes me think that Spotify could wrap things up by doing what you say, but licensing its own songs equally to all other streaming services. Instead of doing what Apple did, promote availability by ensuring their music is played on competing services.
Of course, to do this Spotify will need their own Iovine, and that's no mean feat. They'd need world-class talent behind them to find musicians, produce them, and market them in the way that Apple potentially could. If Spotify can build that dream team and create their own means of production then, in my view, they've won.
This should be considered when making points about what the Record Industry will allow spotify to get away with. They own a lot of the shares at play here.
> Spotify has a unique position with their amazing discovery/recommendations engine- they could potentially start their own "label" and promote their own artists that sign on. Small/independent musicians could see more exposure and Spotify can deliver more music tailored for individual tastes. I've personally found myself listening to lots of small/indie artists as a result of their algorithms, to the point that these now make up the majority of my listening experience.
Have you ever used last.fm? I would be interested to hear if people still think that last.fm gives better recommendations than spotify can. I use last.fm with various music streaming services, currently Google Play Music, previously Amazon, but always using last.fm for discovering.
With the amount of users spotify has, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that it has eclipsed last.fm in terms of recommendation quality.
I honestly hope they don't take that approach. One of the biggest benefits of spotify is that they have damn near everything. If suddenly music becomes fragmented across a bunch of different services (like video), spotify loses their value.
This Exponent episode on Spotify is excellent and they discuss how they don't have quite the same power as Netflix but still more than people appreciate - http://exponent.fm/episode-144-90s-alt-forever/
Spotify has many "session" recordings from a variety of artists, they also have live albums from concerts that aren't available anywhere else on the internet. Trust me, I've been scouring every dark corner of the net for a recording of Run The Jewels Sxsw 2015 concert to no avail.
I like Spotify too. But in the end, it will just be another MegaCorp controlling music, especially when shareholders are involved. So I'd rather see the delicate balance between all parties maintained as-is.
I think a different interesting comparable is Uber. Both have really promising revenue growth stories, but (unlike Netflix) have no control over content/supply costs. For both Spotify and Uber ~80% of that gross revenue number goes straight to either record companies or driver commissions and rider subsidies. And the 80% does not diminish with scale.
Uber's 2017 gross revenue was 37B to Spotify's 4B, but the valuations are 50B to 30B. Think Spotify's valuation is a little overheated?
How is Netflix not at the mercy of major movie studios? Their originals, while popular, are not a proven business model. No tech company to my knowledge has proven that taking content 'in house' improves the bottom line, yet. Pandora attempted to get into tickets and I don't think that went well although I am not sure a true stratechery style analysis of that has ever been done to my knowledge.
Netflix was at the mercy of the content producers but it managed to work out of the hole by making its own content. Even if Netflix dropped the entire third party content repo, their current production content is enough to justify a subscription for many people. Spotify could easily follow Netflix's playbook by identifying musical trends that people enjoy and crafting new music.
starting a new label would be a massive undertaking. maybe partner with Google and snag popular YouTube channel sign and distribute only within the Spotify ecosystem.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM: Spotify doesn't pay shit to artists. They will have to increase the level of financial contribution to artists if they take this avenue.
Maybe my perception is off, but it seems like we're getting lots of tech IPO's in a relatively short time. Stitch Fix, Dropbox, Blue Apron, Snap, and Roku to name a few.
For a long time we weren't seeing too many big tech IPO's. Did something fundamentally change in the market to lead to this, or did all these companies just happen to make it to "market maturity" around the same time?
I just don't see how this can be a successful company long term. If the labels see any profit they will demand more fees at the next deal negotiation. To become music's Netflix they would have to produce their own music which people want to listen to, which is a lot easier said then done. The easiest route is probably to become Tidal and give the company away to a few big artists in exchange for exclusives.
I'm not quite clear on why people are choosing spotify over google play music - to me the google option is superior in UI and offerings (including ad-free youtube).
Am I missing something? Is it just one runs better on iPhones or is more hip (like why people choose snapchat over instagram or something)?
Maybe they have enough capital now to adjust the Discover Weekly algorithm, which provides a weekly recipe of 30 songs that have no basis in what I listened to or have in my playlists. I do get to discover Millennial sleepily-singing voices to a disco beat and a 'laid back' riff that promises to stay in the background (thanks to a faux garagey sound). Is that what Indy means?
For pre-selected music that I listen to frequently, I use playlists with Spotify.
For truly discovering music with algorithms that work, I use Pandora.
I do notice there is NOT a lot of overlap at times, due to bizarre licensing restrictions and deals.
I am a closeted hobbyist musician in a rather small niche (contemporary christian music in Spanish LOL)but I don't want to live off my music. I just want to be heard by somebody. And today, trough distrokid plus spotify this is sooo posible. Which wouldn't have been in my wildest of dreams 20 years ago when I wanted to start a band with my friends. Or even 10, when I toured with a small time ska band. And since my goal is being heard and not profit I would be glad to pay for listeners.
I doubt the current $150/share is sustainable given the waste, fraud, abuse, and royalties. I'm forecasting a wave of layoffs before next quarter's earnings. I'll concede the product is good and the UX is nailed. There just isn't enough innovation or growth to support the need for 5000 employees. Those of you who were users of the product 5+ years ago. How much has really changed? None of the recent acquisitions have provided any valuable gain to the company's core competencies. The company culture is a shell of what it once was, with a leader of HR hellbent on neutering the minds of employees to hire unqualified -but- DIVERSE! candidates.
I personally have supported them since beta (when they charged more) so I will probably pick up a share or two. They are certainly worth NFLX money. Music is insanely easy to produce, it is certain they will start courting artists directly, and if they can find an acquisition that fills the DIY punk music scene that was Soundcloud they will be just fine. They need more DIY content to go along with the curated big label stuff. And by DIY I mean letting every small Bandcamp DJ and artist on there. Might as well swallow everything right?
The experience on the platform was always stellar and just keeps getting better the more data they collect. It's a good example where big data isn't creepy at all, it's amazing. They constantly filter my preferences and show me the key types of songs I like to listen to, impressive in itself but the song radio aping Pandora is also impressive and way more interactive than Pandora itself.
Basically I'm mega bullish Spotify and am not even going to front like I'm not. You don't need to buy it but I doubt it goes anywhere bad. /end-activist-investor-rant
Can it be a problem for Spotify that it will be hard for them to increase the revenue they extract even from the most loyal customers? If streaming music becomes a commodity and price sensitive people switch to competing services what will happen? Some companies like Apple are in nice position, because they can just sell more stuff to the loyal customers. Phone, pad and watch instead of just phone. And then more expensive variants of these.
Is there something Spotify could do to differentiate, something that matters even for those who don't value the sophisticated playlists? Should they go the Netflix route and start producing their own music? Or would it make sense to produce some other audio content? Think programs like "Serial" [1]. Or maybe some radio drama [2]?
Contrasting this offering, where there were no underwriters and things proceeded spectacularly, with the Dropbox IPO, where the underwriters added negative value, speaks profoundly to the future role of private markets in the capital markets for technology companies.
Disclaimer: I bet my career on private markets supplanting public ones, in respect of certain technology companies, many years ago.
Spotify paid bankers roughly 40 million euros to run this direct listing and did not raise any additional funding in the process (because it's not really an offering). Dropbox paid bankers about the same amount in fees and was able to raise a bunch of capital in the process. I wouldn't necessarily call one of these events spectacular and the other not spectacular. They are just different...
I don't get this argument. Don't the underwriters provide an obvious service that will always have utility for some private companies: risk management?
biggest jump ball: Apple/Google/Amazon competing services. spotify deserves real credit for changing how people consume music, and I think that story will serve them well in the short-term, but their biggest risk is Apple/Google/Amazon who provide competing services that don't have any current pressure to turn a profit - Tim Cook basically said "we don't plan to make money"[1], a bad thing to hear from your primary competitor who also happens to be the most valuable company in the world. as i've said before on diff threads, I would not be surprised if Apple announces a big price decrease or other apple music news right before Spotify's first or second earnings report.
still, impressive for them to make it this far, if they can really find a path to profitability that also fairly compensates artists, I wish them the best! I think it's more likely that as apple/google/amazon force them to continue to operate at a loss, downward pressure on their stock will make them a good acquisition target for one of the big tech companies looking to compete with Apple Music (Amazon seems like a real possibility here - a spotify acquisition feels similar in size and scope to their recent WF acquisition, essentially another double-down on their "everything store" vision/story).
I for one would not switch to Apple Music. No web app, no desktop app for Linux.
Google Play Music could be an option, at least they have a functional web player, but neither it nor the Android app are anywhere close to Spotify's apps.
Apple is not even close to a competitor to Spotify, they don't even have a web interface for listening to music..do you think everyone in the world is Apple product user?
1/ Spotify is not Netflix. There won’t be a Netfix for music.
2/ Netflix, with almost 118 million subscribers worldwide, has allayed concerns about its slowing growth by reminding analysts there are more than 700 million broadband households. Spotify, with 71 million paying users, touts an even larger number in its filing: 1.6 billion payment-enabled smartphone owners expected by 2021. #Growth
3/ Spotify delivers more than 70 percent of its sales to music rights holders, despite efforts to improve profit margins.
4/ Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Merlin (the representative for many independent labels), which own 87% of the music on Spotify as measured by streams.
5/ It seems highly unlikely Spotify’s Cost of Revenue will improve much in the short-term: those record deals are locked in until at least next year.
6/ It means once the growth of Spotify starts to slow even a bit, it will has very serious trouble.
7/ Netflix is building its own studio to produce shows on its own. Spotify says it has no interest in signing artists, or paying for artists to record. (They don’t have the capital)
8/ However, it has another plan to reduce its reliance on its main suppliers: by making them less relevant. “The old model favoured certain gatekeepers. Artists had to be signed to a label,” chief executive Daniel Ek wrote in a letter included in the filing.
“They needed access to a recording studio, and they had to be played on terrestrial radio to achieve success. Today, artists can produce and release their own music. Labels, studios, and radio still matter, but in a cluttered landscape, artists’ biggest challenge is navigating this complexity to get heard. We believe Spotify empowers them to break through.”
(Ref 4/: Those labels own 85% of the music on Spotify as measured by streams. Progress of empowering: 15%.)
9/ This goal sounds like “the Podcast model” started in 2005, unfortunately, by their biggest competitor: Apple.
Not enough people talking about this: The fundamental challenge for Spotify is they have to make money while Apple Music doesn't.
Apple Music can run break-even as a platform feature, like the App Store was (at least in the early days). Or they could pay artists more with that margin and get more exclusives. Either way, it's a fundamental long term competitive disadvantage for Spotify.
Congrats to them, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand renting music. I can understand Netflix’s success because movie content is much less replayable and more expensive, but music is relatively cheap to own your own collection. I love music, but I don’t understand the appeal of Spotify and Pandora—I’d rather take the cost of subscription and build out my library over time.
I'm afraid about what will happen as more of these streaming services compete. It seems to be mirroring the Netflix/Hulu/Disney battleground -- subscription platforms which start differentiating themselves by owning exclusive content. Spotify has started this, and Jay-Z & Co have refused to give streaming rights to their competitors, such that Spotify doesn't have access to any Jay-Z, or, oddly enough, any Metallica.
The problem here is that I purchase these subscriptions so that I can have access to all of the music I haven't decided that I want to own forever yet. If this trend continues and streaming platforms become more and more exclusive, I will likely cancel my subscriptions, buy my music from the artists directly, and say goodbye to renting rather than owning music.
Nothing to celebrate. My CDs from twenty years ago still work. Why would I invest time in Spotify when one day all the music just disappears, or they raise prices, etc.?
If this is the future it doesn’t feel like progress.
[+] [-] synaesthesisx|8 years ago|reply
Spotify has a unique position with their amazing discovery/recommendations engine- they could potentially start their own "label" and promote their own artists that sign on. Small/independent musicians could see more exposure and Spotify can deliver more music tailored for individual tastes. I've personally found myself listening to lots of small/indie artists as a result of their algorithms, to the point that these now make up the majority of my listening experience.
I think getting into concert tickets/streams, merchandise etc could help them potentially capture quite a bit of value in the future as well.
I know the comparison is similar to original content & Netflix - but keep in mind there's an opportunity cost with media (one can only consume X amount of shows/songs within a period of time). The more attention Spotify can divert away from the major record labels the better.
[+] [-] _zachs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wj|8 years ago|reply
They won't be able to get into concert tickets at the present time in any significant way due to the exclusive agreements between Ticketmaster and venues. Though maybe the could start with some smaller acts and venues and work their way up.
Live performances is where the money is for the artists which is why record labels are now signing acts up for complete deals which include not just the music rights but the concert and merch rights as well.
Edit: as somebody who has tried to buy tickets to a hot show on Ticketmaster the second they go on sale and watched the servers melt, it is Amazon that I would like to see get in the ticket game.
[+] [-] gm-conspiracy|8 years ago|reply
Consumption is different, as well - several minutes at a time versus dedicated visual attention for a minimum of 22 minutes.
[+] [-] foepys|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|8 years ago|reply
For now. They have a large enough reach to essentially "become" a major record label, all they need is to start signing artists to contracts.
[+] [-] Asdfbla|8 years ago|reply
There's probably a danger that large record labels will threaten to revoke their licensing agreements if they think that Spotify may start competing with them on that front. Not sure if that will be a problem, though, I'm not familiar with the whole streaming market.
[+] [-] EnderMB|8 years ago|reply
In my view, Spotify have pretty much "won" the streaming war. They beat Apple to the market with their streaming offering, and they have a good product that people love.
The one area Apple has Spotify beat is in its understanding of the music industry. Apple's acquisition of Beats seemed ridiculous at the time, but getting Jimmy Iovine on your side in a music war is like having Goku on your side in a Universe Survival Tournament. When you've got the likes of Jimmy Iovine and Zane Lowe committed to your cause, you're going to know how record labels work, how the industry works, and given that Iovine recently came out to say that streaming services are similar and need to diversify to succeed I'd be inclined to agree with him.
Apple have failed in the past by trying to make its music exclusive and by having artists on its payroll try to attack Spotify (to backlash on both sides). It makes me think that Spotify could wrap things up by doing what you say, but licensing its own songs equally to all other streaming services. Instead of doing what Apple did, promote availability by ensuring their music is played on competing services.
Of course, to do this Spotify will need their own Iovine, and that's no mean feat. They'd need world-class talent behind them to find musicians, produce them, and market them in the way that Apple potentially could. If Spotify can build that dream team and create their own means of production then, in my view, they've won.
[+] [-] antishatter|8 years ago|reply
This should be considered when making points about what the Record Industry will allow spotify to get away with. They own a lot of the shares at play here.
[+] [-] nickysielicki|8 years ago|reply
Have you ever used last.fm? I would be interested to hear if people still think that last.fm gives better recommendations than spotify can. I use last.fm with various music streaming services, currently Google Play Music, previously Amazon, but always using last.fm for discovering.
With the amount of users spotify has, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that it has eclipsed last.fm in terms of recommendation quality.
[+] [-] dude_abide|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skadamat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azemetre|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bln_wgc|8 years ago|reply
Uber's 2017 gross revenue was 37B to Spotify's 4B, but the valuations are 50B to 30B. Think Spotify's valuation is a little overheated?
[+] [-] jonbarker|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moistoreos|8 years ago|reply
HERE'S THE PROBLEM: Spotify doesn't pay shit to artists. They will have to increase the level of financial contribution to artists if they take this avenue.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylemh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rafiki6|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itakedrugs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linkmotif|8 years ago|reply
It seems like they can and are on their way already.
[+] [-] owly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yonkshi|8 years ago|reply
https://www.thelocal.se/20180403/spotify-swiss-or-swedish-wh...
[+] [-] froindt|8 years ago|reply
For a long time we weren't seeing too many big tech IPO's. Did something fundamentally change in the market to lead to this, or did all these companies just happen to make it to "market maturity" around the same time?
[+] [-] guelo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] komali2|8 years ago|reply
Am I missing something? Is it just one runs better on iPhones or is more hip (like why people choose snapchat over instagram or something)?
[+] [-] mancerayder|8 years ago|reply
For pre-selected music that I listen to frequently, I use playlists with Spotify.
For truly discovering music with algorithms that work, I use Pandora.
I do notice there is NOT a lot of overlap at times, due to bizarre licensing restrictions and deals.
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] armandososa|8 years ago|reply
And I don't think I'm the only one.
[+] [-] oUrfsWY|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 089723645897236|8 years ago|reply
The experience on the platform was always stellar and just keeps getting better the more data they collect. It's a good example where big data isn't creepy at all, it's amazing. They constantly filter my preferences and show me the key types of songs I like to listen to, impressive in itself but the song radio aping Pandora is also impressive and way more interactive than Pandora itself.
Basically I'm mega bullish Spotify and am not even going to front like I'm not. You don't need to buy it but I doubt it goes anywhere bad. /end-activist-investor-rant
[+] [-] swypych|8 years ago|reply
2017 4.09 billion
2016 2.95 billion
2015 1.94 billion
Net Loss (Euros)
2017 1.2 billion
2016 539 million
Impressive revenue growth, but I can't understand the valuation given the losses.
I love their product though.
[+] [-] jpalomaki|8 years ago|reply
Is there something Spotify could do to differentiate, something that matters even for those who don't value the sophisticated playlists? Should they go the Netflix route and start producing their own music? Or would it make sense to produce some other audio content? Think programs like "Serial" [1]. Or maybe some radio drama [2]?
[1] https://serialpodcast.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_drama
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: I bet my career on private markets supplanting public ones, in respect of certain technology companies, many years ago.
[+] [-] jartelt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fullshark|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshjkim|8 years ago|reply
still, impressive for them to make it this far, if they can really find a path to profitability that also fairly compensates artists, I wish them the best! I think it's more likely that as apple/google/amazon force them to continue to operate at a loss, downward pressure on their stock will make them a good acquisition target for one of the big tech companies looking to compete with Apple Music (Amazon seems like a real possibility here - a spotify acquisition feels similar in size and scope to their recent WF acquisition, essentially another double-down on their "everything store" vision/story).
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40525409/why-apple-is-the-worlds...
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|8 years ago|reply
Google Play Music could be an option, at least they have a functional web player, but neither it nor the Android app are anywhere close to Spotify's apps.
[+] [-] xfer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allenleee|8 years ago|reply
2/ Netflix, with almost 118 million subscribers worldwide, has allayed concerns about its slowing growth by reminding analysts there are more than 700 million broadband households. Spotify, with 71 million paying users, touts an even larger number in its filing: 1.6 billion payment-enabled smartphone owners expected by 2021. #Growth
3/ Spotify delivers more than 70 percent of its sales to music rights holders, despite efforts to improve profit margins.
4/ Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Merlin (the representative for many independent labels), which own 87% of the music on Spotify as measured by streams.
5/ It seems highly unlikely Spotify’s Cost of Revenue will improve much in the short-term: those record deals are locked in until at least next year.
6/ It means once the growth of Spotify starts to slow even a bit, it will has very serious trouble.
7/ Netflix is building its own studio to produce shows on its own. Spotify says it has no interest in signing artists, or paying for artists to record. (They don’t have the capital)
8/ However, it has another plan to reduce its reliance on its main suppliers: by making them less relevant. “The old model favoured certain gatekeepers. Artists had to be signed to a label,” chief executive Daniel Ek wrote in a letter included in the filing.
“They needed access to a recording studio, and they had to be played on terrestrial radio to achieve success. Today, artists can produce and release their own music. Labels, studios, and radio still matter, but in a cluttered landscape, artists’ biggest challenge is navigating this complexity to get heard. We believe Spotify empowers them to break through.”
(Ref 4/: Those labels own 85% of the music on Spotify as measured by streams. Progress of empowering: 15%.)
9/ This goal sounds like “the Podcast model” started in 2005, unfortunately, by their biggest competitor: Apple.
Spotify's Dilemma: https://allenleein.github.io/brains/2018/03/spotifys-dilemma
[+] [-] abalone|8 years ago|reply
Apple Music can run break-even as a platform feature, like the App Store was (at least in the early days). Or they could pay artists more with that margin and get more exclusives. Either way, it's a fundamental long term competitive disadvantage for Spotify.
[+] [-] diogenescynic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdlyga|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stochastic_monk|8 years ago|reply
The problem here is that I purchase these subscriptions so that I can have access to all of the music I haven't decided that I want to own forever yet. If this trend continues and streaming platforms become more and more exclusive, I will likely cancel my subscriptions, buy my music from the artists directly, and say goodbye to renting rather than owning music.
[+] [-] pgm8705|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fortythirteen|8 years ago|reply
> Losses for last year were 1.2 billion Euros ($1.47 billion), which compares to 539 million Euros ($661 million) the year before.
Well, there's the short of the year.
[+] [-] fogzen|8 years ago|reply
If this is the future it doesn’t feel like progress.