That's basically what an all-you-can-eat buffet of "content" has resulted in. When people have access to more music and shows that they have time to listen / watch at any one time, it becomes commoditised and disposable and ceases to become anything special. It's just something you play when you have time to kill or want some background noise to do your work to. What is actually being played doesn't matter any more.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify Raises Prices for Second Time in 12 Months, Now More Expensive Than Apple Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The organization that represents record labels and musicians in negotiations should demand a higher rate from the streaming services. If the streaming services refuse, the music can be pulled.
Given the limited range of music people actually listen to we will soon reach a price for streaming services where purchasing the actual album will start making sense again... everyone else will probably just aim for the high seas.
Yep, there are a lot of questionable actors in this equation. But Apple, for all it's talk of being for artists and creators and blah blah blah, do have it in their power to do this even without label pressure. They could even use it as a point of difference in advertising. Just another reminder to anyone who needs it that corporations are never the good guys.
Why would artists leave? Being on any platform is free for them, so any smart artist would keep their creations on as many platforms as possible for added revenue streams. It is more for us, the customers, to choose which business model we want to support. Luckily for us, the audio catalogues are almost the same across all of them.
Good thing that the EU went after Apple so that Spotify could pass savings onto the consumer. The EU will probably blame Apple for the increase in Spotify sub costs.
Ha! How many of us left thousands in vinyl. After that, thousands in CD's. Now you've gotta pay monthly... Nope... Thanks to the big HHD's, i have all my stuff at home. So - i decide, which album i need in high def, 16/44 or less. They don't even catch me with some funny formats. We had Quadrophonie, Dolby, Souround n the 70s and 80s. No need for that...
Oh believe me, we complain about a Schnitzel going from like 10€ to 23€ just as much and it’s not about 1$, it’s about the principle of things
How I hate the term "user experience"! That term usually is used as an excuse to make things worse. Spotify is for listening to music. I do not need an experience.
Why shouldn't they pay the same. Why should Apple pay more to artists, because they make money making phones?
I pay for it, and of the services I pay for, I will be the last one I leave.
The reasons are simple:
1. It does a fantastic job at recommending new music for me (but admittedly, could do quite a bit better at how it recommends songs to add to playlists). Deezer, when I used it, came a close second on this.
2. More importantly, unless I want to return to the disaster that is manually managing music on my Garmin, Spotify works for using music on the watch. Albeit, I have not tried using Deezer for this.
Not that Spotify is perfect though. Far from it. For example, I at first thought I would try audio books when it launched, only to discover I can't load books onto the watch.
My one gripe with Spotify, which is seen on all streaming services, is the loss of content due to licencing changes. Nothing like thinking 'I would like to listen to...', only to find out it is no longer available in your region.
A second would be (and might well apply to all services), is the ease at which anything can get onto the platform, resulting in too much stuff to go through to find things you like (I miss the 'sit down and listen to an album' days a bit).
Spotify keeps 30% of the earnings. 70% goes to the rights holders. The rights holders can be the artists themselves depending on the deals they make, the record labels, songwriters, the producers... So for 10.000 streams the owner of the rights get 40 Euros. Which is not much, but comparable for someone selling demo tapes out of his trunk, like an artist who has not made it yet.
Fired like 1k employees, raising prices, canceling their weird car thing. Sounds like someone's trying to get more efficient.
They might not be leaving Spotify but they are still not earning anything if they are not super big. I know a few with hundreds of thousands streams and it's a joke.
Idc, either I can get it for free through Revanced, or I'll use Apple Music which is miles better anyway.
I was using Spotify for years, but now I’m thinking to move to YouTube Music. Anyway I pay for the ad free YouTube, no reason to pay for music separately.
Never used it. I buy physical CD’s of the artists I play most to support them better, and discover new stuff to buy via Bandcamp and YouTube.
Artists such as Kayne West and Jay Z did start their own streaming service. It's called Tidal and they were one of the first to offer high-quality audio (which Spotify still doesn't do in 2024).
And Spotify is a joke. Demanding more expensive prices but not offering lossless audio like the others. And these guys are still the dominate market player with an inferior product. So these guys were not hindered by the App Store at all like what they claim to be.
This increase is most likely to compensate for the CTF Spotify will be required to pay when they start distributing the app on alternative app stores.
Then Spotify can complain to the EU that they needed to raise prices because of Apple's "anticompetitive practices". And the merry-go-round will go merrily around again and again.
Then Spotify can complain to the EU that they needed to raise prices because of Apple's "anticompetitive practices". And the merry-go-round will go merrily around again and again.