Can’t even seek through songs.

  • small44@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I doubt major labels can live without Spotify as much as Spotify need major labels. They can push users to pay for Spotify by adding more cool features for payed users instead of removing fundamental features of the free version. Forcing people to pay is never the right solution

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The labels could murder Spotify in a day if they decided to simply stop offering them licenses and went exclusive with Apple, Amazon, Tidal, or anyone else.

      The labels of course do get quite a lot of money from Spotify so they don’t have much of a reason to do that, but again, they really are the ones that hold the cards.

      This is business. The only right solution is the one that gets them closer to financial stability. They have been developing features for the paid tier and have been exploring other revenue streams (hence the deep dive into podcasts), but ultimately, they have absolutely zero obligation to give away content for free.

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, forget about reducing the labels share. I think the other points i made about finding new ways to generate more profits are still valid and better than making the free version almost useless. If spotify wasn’t profiting from free users too they would shut down the free version completely

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Spotify isn’t profiting at all; that’s the entire problem.

          It’s banking on the hope that offering a limited free tier will encourage some amount of users to become paid subscribers, while offsetting the cost of operating that at least a little bit by serving ads. It’s unfortunate that you can’t make sufficient revenue by just operating a free tier that’s truly sufficient, but those numbers quite clearly do not work.

          I mean, are you saying that you would be complaining less if Spotify simply killed the free tier? I rather doubt that.

          • small44@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You said that spotify isn’t profiting at all then explained how they profit a bit for it. I’m sure they would make more profits by finding alternative way to make money like artist subscriptions than from pushing people to subscribe by making the free version almost useless and yes I would complain less if Spotify killed the free version. I only use spotify on desktop to support artists by playing a playlist of artists I want to support on repeat with almost inaudible volume. All music I really listen to is locally either from music i bought or pirated music

            • olmec
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What a waste or resources. It is doing stuff like this that forces the companies to put restrictions on the users. Please stop playing music you are not listening to, for everyone’s sake.

                • olmec
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It takes ads to bandwidth and server costs for Spotify. The ads on Spotify are worth less than before, because the ads have less reach. That means Spotify will have to play more ads to cover cost, and because the revenue per ad will go down. Maybe your little action has an insignificant effect, but if millions did what you did, it would have a drastic result.

                  Never mind that doing this will give your favorite artist a few more pennies at the cost of a different artist that didn’t get his numbers inflated. You aren’t doing some great good to save the planet.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, I’m not convinced you understand the difference between profit and revenue, so, with respect, I’m gonna move on here.

              • small44@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I undersand the difference but how are they going to be profitable if they are not increasing the revenues

                • theycallmedocworm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think what he means is that even though they’re offsetting the costs, they still aren’t profiting. Let’s say it costs Spotify $30 per free user per month, some of whom become premium subscribers for $10 per user per month. That means for premium users, it still costs $20 per user per month. The free users are still costing $30/month though, so they show ads to reduce that cost to $25/month, which is less of a money sink, but still not outfit