TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is Spotify the music industry’s friend or its foe?

31 点作者 eroo超过 10 年前

13 条评论

batiudrami超过 10 年前
I think the issue with Spotify is that artists compare revenue to CD sales, when they should be comparing it to piracy. I listen to (estimated) one new album every day, as part of about 5-10 hours of listening to music each day depending on my work schedule. $10-$20 an album is just not a price I&#x27;d be prepared to pay on a daily basis to listen to new music, and before Spotify I wasn&#x27;t spending that money; I was pirating them or streaming them on websites without a revenue share model for labels.<p>I still buy just as many CDs as I used to (probably about 10 a year), plus Spotify gets an additional $120 a year from me (70% of which goes to the music industry), which is a no brainer for me for the convenience of the service. In addition to the considerable sum ($2000+) which I spend annually on live music.<p>The best solution I feel is a two-week exclusive on all new releases for physical and digital purchases before they hit subscription services. If you really want the CD, you can buy it, or you can wait two weeks until it&#x27;s free on your $10 a month subscription. Sure, piracy will go up, but it is not the music industry&#x27;s business to stamp out piracy, it is their business to maximise music revenue.<p>This, along with the increased value-adds of physical purchases - deluxe vinyl editions, signed editions, additional goodies - the &quot;Kickstarter&quot; pricing model, if you will - is how the music industry will continue to make money. That and increased ticket prices for live music, and I anticipate most record deals includng a cut of live revenues for major labels in the future (if they aren&#x27;t already).<p>For the record, I do not think major labels are inherently bad for music - if you cannot afford to record and promote your album, a major label can do it for you, at the cost of a large chunk of your profits if you&#x27;re a hit, but not leaving you in the red if you aren&#x27;t - a major part of record label&#x27;s profitable artists must cover all the ones who are not also. If you don&#x27;t want to do such a profit split, the option is always there to finance the record yourself and pay labels up front for distribution and marketing.
评论 #8617302 未加载
评论 #8617674 未加载
001sky超过 10 年前
<i>&quot;AM&#x2F;FM radio pays the writer of the song on a per-play basis, but gives the performer and the owner of the recording of the song—generally, the record label—nothing. On digital streaming services like Spotify, the situation is nearly reversed: the owners of the recording get most of the performance royalty money, while the songwriters get only a fraction of it. Songwriters, who can’t go out on the road, are particularly hard hit by the loss of publishing royalties. As one music publisher put it, “Basically, the major music corporations sold out their publishing companies in order to save their record labels. Universal Music Publishing took a terrible rate from streaming services like Spotify in order to help Universal Records. Which, in the end, means that the songwriter gets screwed.”&quot;</i>
facepalm超过 10 年前
It seems to me in theory it should be possible to make the economics work. I suspect few people would buy more than one new CD per month, so if the monthly fee is roughly equal to the price of a CD, the money flow could remain kind of the same.<p>Maybe so far the industry depends on whales (people buying a LOT of music all the time), on the other hand subscription services might also make money from people who would otherwise have spent less.<p>Being free, people might listen to more music on Spotify than they would have listened to otherwise. But that only means the money could be distributed more evenly. Maybe I don&#x27;t listen to Lana Del Rey 150 times, but overall I will listen to 150 songs, so those 0.99$ will still flow into the system and be distributed.
评论 #8617605 未加载
SloopJon超过 10 年前
I mostly listen to albums start to finish from my own largish collection (~90 GB when encoded as 192 Kbps AAC), so I can&#x27;t really comment on the consumer experience. As for the artists, Taylor Swift&#x27;s stance reminds me of Metallica and Garth Brooks. It kind of saddens me that they focus on this kind of nonsense, rather than the myriad ways the industry screws its own artists.
评论 #8617254 未加载
bcassedy超过 10 年前
I pirated music when I was younger, I used Pandora for a while, for a while I only listened to podcasts, and I rarely listen to music and yet I&#x27;m a happy Spotify subscriber. They&#x27;ve made the experience so easy that I&#x27;d happily pay double the price for the maybe 4 hours a week I listen.
experimental-超过 10 年前
The Apple reference sound less like a business plan, and more like typical hype of Apple exceptionalism. Apple makes the top dollar by selling devices with a nice profit margin. Would they really want to add several hundred dollars to their price, thus cannibalizing their sales – just to donate most of that to record labels? (No!) Yes, they would get their cut, but most of it would be away from iTunes revenue. (Not all Apple buyers use Spotify or similar services – and if Apple could raise their retail price without diminishing their sales, they would.)<p>And if they made the inclusion (of music) optional, why would record labels settle for much less than what Spotify pays? For no reason, and they wouldn&#x27;t.
rakel_rakel超过 10 年前
I think the title of this article hints of a great misconception of what Spotify is. They (as well as other digital music providers streaming or not) are part of the music industry now.<p>The olgopoly has changed, get over it.
danols超过 10 年前
They have a superior music listening &amp; discovering functionality to any other competitor by a mile. Is there really anything else needed? I can&#x27;t see how such a superior product can fail. But it just seems there are so many people in the music industry that are living in the past and are slowing down the pace instead of everyone going all in on it. If Spotify had 10x their subscribers no one would question the model. The problem is that it takes too long time to get to those numbers due to all the friction.
评论 #8617556 未加载
awjr超过 10 年前
I&#x27;m really unfamiliar with Spotify&#x27;s reimbursement model. Is it based on the flattr model? Your $7 being split between the artists you listen to?
jon2512chua超过 10 年前
Am I the only one who&#x27;s wondering why we&#x27;re reading an article that is supposed to be published&#x2F;had been published 7 days from now?
评论 #8617293 未加载
NicoJuicy超过 10 年前
I think we haven&#x27;t seen what Spotify will do. You can&#x27;t run pirated music in public.<p>Integration with Spotify and Uber is super smart, there&#x27;s no competition for that (not from pirated music anyway) -&gt; extra revenue, extra attention to the service<p>Increase the monthly price to 25$ &#x2F; month for streaming in public... (eg. a doctor&#x27;s waiting office, ...) -&gt; extra revenue.
评论 #8617604 未加载
radicalbyte超过 10 年前
The closest thing to Spotify is Radio. With that in mind, 500k &quot;listens&quot; is a drop in the ocean. Radio 1 has shows which attract 5 million listeners a WEEK [1].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24650892" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;entertainment-arts-24650892</a>
waterlesscloud超过 10 年前
I wonder how much research Spotify has done with their pricing. I assume they must have done at least some. But they could double the monthly fee and I wouldn&#x27;t blink.<p>Disclaimer- I am an outlier in terms of music consumption.
评论 #8617515 未加载