Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Is Burying Tracks From Musicians Who Give Exclusives To Apple and Tidal (bloomberg.com)
The music-streaming market is very competitive these days, especially since Apple released Apple Music last year. In retaliation for musicians giving Apple exclusive access to their new music, Spotify has reportedly been making their songs harder to find on its service. Bloomberg reports: "Artists who have given Apple exclusive access to new music have been told they won't be able to get their tracks on featuring playlists once the songs become available on Spotify, said the people [familiar with the strategy], who declined to be identified discussing the steps. Those artists have also found their songs buried in the search rankings of Spotify, the world's largest music-streaming service, the people said. Spotify said it doesn't alter search rankings. Spotify has been using such practices for about a year, one of the people said, though others said the efforts have escalated over the past few months. Artists who have given exclusives to Tidal, the streaming service run by Jay Z, have also retaliated against, the person said, declining to identify specific musicians."
Sounds like a case of sour grapes. I don't really understand how this benefits Spotify as it doesn't improve the service in any way that I can see, and such a move likely makes it worse for users for petty business reasons that have nothing to do with the users.
even ESPN "buries" sports for which they don't own the property rights, and "highlights" those they do.
Pay the fee and go ad-free. I actually like that model a lot: a free, ad-supported service with the option to pay to have ads removed. My only issue is that the temptation to keep adding more and more ads to the free service often proves too great, or they try and sneak in ads into the paid service.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
why do artists keep giving rich corporations their money? with all of the social media out there, all you need to do is engage your fans and they will visit your website and perhaps buy your stuff? No middleman tim cook, jay z, or daniel ek taking a cut.
the walled garden shit is quite annoying as a music connoisseur , purchase from website --> direct flac / mp3 download ---> have a nice day
We're talking about Drake here. Show of hands: Who cares if Spotify doesn't include Drake in its promoted tracks? If people want to hear Drake (which in itself is a little unsettling), then they can still listen to his music on Spotify.
"Burying" is not the same as "not promoting". The music is there, but there isn't any incentive for Spotify to promote it.
Plus, it's Drake. I mean, come on...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well. When Channel 100 first came out it was advertised as a pay service where you could watch movies without ads. That model did not last long, soon they were showing ads only between movies, then they began having intermissions in movies for commercial breaks, and now we are at the point where TV commercials are shown at the theatre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
It's not sour grapes, it's tit for tat. Treating the artist the same way they're treating you. The artist is telling Spotify that they're not that important to him, so they'll be giving Apple or Tidal an exclusive. Spotify is returning the favor and telling the artist he is not as important to them either, and not promoting him as highly.
Please note that tit for that is one of the best strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Consistently treating others the way they treat you is one of the best ways to get others to treat you better (or as fair as possible given that perfect fairness is impossible).
If the artist relents and gives up the exclusive, but Spotify continues not promoting him, then it's sour grapes, or revenge.