Setting aside the data business side of the company (Spotify)…
If Spotify ended the free plan, asking the 350 million ad-supported users to pay each month, would it provide enough revenue to dramatically improve the company’s direction?
For example, a $3/month plan, still ad supported, but no one listens without paying something.
Are the majority of those 350 million non-paying customers loyal enough to Spotify to begin paying?
Or, is the streaming paradigm of Amazon, Apple, etc. where the service is just one of many always growing sectors, the primary future?
Finally, is it safe to assume Spotify being acquired is very unlikely?
I have watched Darko’s video about this. Whilst in agreement that “Something” needs to be done, his idea of a Netflix style curated Streaming platform is awful in my opinion. You only need to look at Netflix to see how choice (which less face it could be enormous) has been replaced by series and films that Netflix wants you to see. You can imagine how this would play out in Music- basically the big record companies and artists would get all the space and choice and diversity would be lost.
The concept of “free” streaming needs to end and everyone should have to pay something at least.
Offline content should always come at a premium
3.Tiers should continue to be based on file resolution and if Spotify could get their act together over a high res tier, I know a lot of us would jump back to them (if Connect could find a way to deliver the content at Hi Res) even at a premium cost. Cant see Tidal and Qubuz surviving that unless Spotify restricts choice which it sort of is doing by now not paying artists with low stream numbers
Is there a place for downloaded music? Bandcamp is great for that and you do get a real connection with the artist although Qubuz Sublime is off-putting because of the initial cost and the cost of hi res streams.
The biggest issue is still artist revenue and depressingly feels like it will only get worse. It feels like the best days of streaming are already behind us and choice will only get worse.
To be quite honest I think we are extraordinarily lucky with music streaming and the way it has evolved to date. And totally agree with Darko in that we are spoilt (but please NEVER repeat that again). If you look at how much an album cost back in the day and compare that to the monthly cost of streaming… SPOILT.
I can absolutely see streaming services reverting to a Netflix style model and only allowing a limited amount of albums to be readily available… but there WILL be uproar - they need to find a happy medium as to what works, they can’t charge too much otherwise people will leave and they can’t charge too little otherwise the (smaller) artists get stung.
YouTube is a fascinating financial enterprise where SSSniperWolf or Demolition Ranch and others can generate an excellent income with, at best, minimal intellectual contribution. With little effort, one can search and find a solution for BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) lower a1c, resolve hypertension and even regrow hair.
The goals are hit count and subscribers which monetize your feed. Another goal is to avoid receiving a strike and risk of suspension. This can be boosted by click bait photos and/or titles. Another widely used technique is to use photo techniques which add a degree of artistic enticement. An interesting example is a young West Coast man who has a Playstation Channel in which his titles and content do not match but have a compelling promise of teaching or previewing intriguing content known only to him.
Most will visit for entertainment purposes, but others may assume the data are valid and worthy of consideration due to the number of hits the video receives.
Every “major” US symphony concert stage / venue I’ve attended is fully armed with audio recording infrastructure. Every sound is being saved for later use either by live or delayed “live” performance streaming or eventual release on some physical audio-video media ( CD, SACD, BluRay, vinyl and etc ).
The issue is and remains how to best monetize the “digital” data to “best” reward the artists and their producers ( as well as the “data” distributors ). Physical formats come and go but the “data” remains and will always have value it is just a question of how much!
In my opinion, music streaming services are very cheap, and should cost more. I like owning music, i.e. I purchase albums when I like them in the hopes that the artist gets paid.
Sub $20 dollar per month is a joke, for all the music you can access, without any limits.
I support the idea of different price tiers, and also, what if there was a limit to how many times you can play one and the same track/album? After a certain number, say 3, you will need to purchase it.
It would only be fair to the artist, since they get peanuts currently.
I agree his idea of the Netflix style system of an ever changing library is awful.
I shop with my conscience as well, I won’t use Spotify nor Apple any circumstances, just my personal choice.
It also doesn’t help that some people are just tight fisted, they want something for relatively nothing. There has been outrage on this forum when a huge discount on a streaming service abruptly ended and people were asked to pay the full price.
I have a friend, he works with me, has a good, secure job, earns maybe £50k, he subscribes to Spotify via a Filipino VPN set up by a friend over there, to save what, a few pounds a month.
Sorry to rant a bit but music is not free, we’ve still got the option to buy music only, like the old days, I remember the days before cd, but my music collection was tiny.
We now have the GIFT of streaming, we either get on board with Qobuz, Deezer, Tidal, or they will vanish and we will be left with just the big names.
If they revert to a Netflix style system and someone wants to listen to a release that’s not available, they may well just download it, the major Russia based torrent sites are still there, no one touches them.
And lots of us use VPN these days, getting caught is unlikely.
I’m not condoning this activity btw, I just think it will be a consequence of restricting lawful availability.
I continue to acquire music in CD form and use both a Roon Core and a NAIM Uniti Core for that purpose. For me, streaming is essential so along as it (1) provides quality of sound and (2) information allowing for the identification of additional music you want to hear. I use only Tidal and Apple Music as streaming serves. The former is for what I describe above and for its synergy with Roon. Apple Music talks to some of our speakers and is easier to use for some members of the household.
I use a NAIM Uniti Core to store my CDs as Wav files. They sound amazing on my Cambridge Amp and Bowers and Wilkins speakers. Roon Nucleus manages all the saved files and establishes playlists and I can access those files even when not at home through Roon Arc.
My view on this is :
1 Streaming is there to stay
2 when every streaming service has the same content to offer in the same quality ( it’s moving in. that direction) then metadata + pricing is all what is left
3 next step ( it is a matter of time ) is that we move all music to one central cloud location and your streaming service just create a tunnel for us the end user to get to that content.
4 I would not be surprised that a company like Sony who owns many music content is going to be on of those cloud provider.
With content no longer stored on the streaming companies own servers they must focus more an more on additional info related to the music we are listing to.
Perhaps there will even be a connection with the audio hardware you are buying ?.
I would not be surprised if Roon will become a player in this field.
You can, but I prefer wired sound. Did discover today there is BBC Sounds app for Windows but only available for Windows 11 - don’t know if it will access network speakers
Airplay is wired if it’s going to the node, WiFi from phone to router then wired to node. I would very much doubt using airplay will change much to an all ready lossy stream but if it’s stability your after then I can understand that.