Although this will likely cause outrage from the entitlement brigade, I think it's pretty reasonable.
If you feel the need to listen to a track more than five times a month then that's surely an indication that it's worth chucking the artist/label ~£1 to get the MP3/FLAC. Once you you've done that you can move on to finding another new track to obsess over on spotify, with no opportunity cost.
In short, this emphasises spotify's suitability as a discovery service for new music, rather than as a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. This was always it's strength anyway.
The problem is that spotify is probably banking on the latter use case to support their business.
You raise a good point about the distinction between a music discovery service and a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. My personal use of music streaming services (we7 in my case) is built around the latter. If I have a party at my house, it's pretty useful to plug the laptop into the stereo and let people choose music from we7 rather than me having to specifically go out and buy any song that gets played.
It sounds like Spotify are probably shooting themselves in the foot by destroying a good part of their value for a lot of their customers.
Over the years, I have had a ton of people approach me about doing various startup ideas. For some reason, 90% that are pitched related to music.
I immediately say no to any startup involving music. I know pg has the same policy now, but I've been saying it for about 10 years now, and my reasoning is a bit starker than pg's.
Basically, there are only a handful companies making good money off of music, and you aren't going to be one of them. (the labels and Apple, basically)
* This is slightly less true when you are including instrument makers, but musicians are an AWFUL market to try to sell to, since the only ones who actually make money tend to get everything free anyway through sponsorship deals. IE. musicians can't spend money, and if they can they won't anyway.
P.S. To the guys in Glastonbury I recently spoke to through email and who I know read HN, this isn't directed at you, even if it may sound like it.
I don't know about anybody else, but this is exactly why I'm leery about any of these "cloud services". With my local music collection, I know that future developments are of no concern.
Another area in which this is very important is gaming - Steam has a near-monopoly on online sales of PC games, and if they were to go under, a lot of people would get screwed over. I rarely (if ever) play video games, but I've bought all the Humble Indie Bundles just to support an option that doesn't put customers at the mercy of the retailer's servers operating properly.
I see Spotify more like a radio service, albeit one I do pay for. If the radio station shuts down I find another way of listening to music. I still buy some music in addition. I dont feel I own the music in Spotify so if it went away I havent lost it... I could never afford to own that much music.
I agree with Jacques's analysis. What will be interesting to watch is the uptake rate of the paid version in countries where they have extremely widespread usage (like here in Norway.)
I'm already a paid subscriber, and gladly pay 100NOK/month for the premium service. I'd be disappointed (but not completely surprised) to find that people don't think the service is worth that.
I don't find that a service for simply listening to the radio is worth paying for on a monthly basis. If I can't download it and listen to it whenever I want and wherever I want, it's not mine, and it's worth paying for.
I would happily pay a significant amount of money every month (say about £30-40) for an all-you-can-eat buffet of DRM-free downloads covering all the released music (since the beginning of recorded music) by all the major labels.
This would translate into some £480 of income from me for the recording industry, versus £0 at the moment. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I wonder how much money they're leaving on the table by offering inadequate products like Spotify.
I can see myself uninstalling Spotify by the time it starts failing to play the music I want to play more often than not.
This sums it up, I think (quote from the link):
The blog ends with "Above all, this means we can continue making Spotify available to all in the long-term." which suggests this move is made out of need rather than of want and effectively that translates in to 'an advertising supported free music service is not viable'.
[+] [-] JonnieCache|15 years ago|reply
If you feel the need to listen to a track more than five times a month then that's surely an indication that it's worth chucking the artist/label ~£1 to get the MP3/FLAC. Once you you've done that you can move on to finding another new track to obsess over on spotify, with no opportunity cost.
In short, this emphasises spotify's suitability as a discovery service for new music, rather than as a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. This was always it's strength anyway.
The problem is that spotify is probably banking on the latter use case to support their business.
[+] [-] chris_j|15 years ago|reply
It sounds like Spotify are probably shooting themselves in the foot by destroying a good part of their value for a lot of their customers.
[+] [-] asb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larrik|15 years ago|reply
I immediately say no to any startup involving music. I know pg has the same policy now, but I've been saying it for about 10 years now, and my reasoning is a bit starker than pg's.
Basically, there are only a handful companies making good money off of music, and you aren't going to be one of them. (the labels and Apple, basically)
* This is slightly less true when you are including instrument makers, but musicians are an AWFUL market to try to sell to, since the only ones who actually make money tend to get everything free anyway through sponsorship deals. IE. musicians can't spend money, and if they can they won't anyway.
P.S. To the guys in Glastonbury I recently spoke to through email and who I know read HN, this isn't directed at you, even if it may sound like it.
[+] [-] ra|15 years ago|reply
It seems to me that Spotify are killing it.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|15 years ago|reply
Another area in which this is very important is gaming - Steam has a near-monopoly on online sales of PC games, and if they were to go under, a lot of people would get screwed over. I rarely (if ever) play video games, but I've bought all the Humble Indie Bundles just to support an option that doesn't put customers at the mercy of the retailer's servers operating properly.
[+] [-] justincormack|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|15 years ago|reply
I'm already a paid subscriber, and gladly pay 100NOK/month for the premium service. I'd be disappointed (but not completely surprised) to find that people don't think the service is worth that.
[+] [-] swombat|15 years ago|reply
I would happily pay a significant amount of money every month (say about £30-40) for an all-you-can-eat buffet of DRM-free downloads covering all the released music (since the beginning of recorded music) by all the major labels.
This would translate into some £480 of income from me for the recording industry, versus £0 at the moment. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I wonder how much money they're leaving on the table by offering inadequate products like Spotify.
[+] [-] erikstarck|15 years ago|reply
So, might actually be good news for Spotify - and you americans who can't access this excellent service.
[+] [-] muyuu|15 years ago|reply
This sums it up, I think (quote from the link):
The blog ends with "Above all, this means we can continue making Spotify available to all in the long-term." which suggests this move is made out of need rather than of want and effectively that translates in to 'an advertising supported free music service is not viable'.