Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Premium Users Will Get Some Albums Two Weeks Before Free Users (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-come-first-serve dept.

Spotify has signed a long-term licensing agreement with Universal Music Group, allowing new albums from Universal artists to be restricted to its premium service for up to two weeks. The Verge reports: In a statement, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek admitted that Spotify understands that its policy of releasing albums across its entire service couldn't last forever. "We know that not every album by every artist should be released the same way, and we've worked hard with UMG to develop a new, flexible release policy," Ek stated. "Starting today, Universal artists can choose to release new albums on premium only for two weeks, offering subscribers an earlier chance to explore the complete creative work, while the singles are available across Spotify for all our listeners to enjoy." The agreement with UMG should allow for deals with Spotify's other two major label partners, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group, to be completed in short order -- deals that likely will match the parameters set in the Spotify-UMG deal -- paving the way for Spotify's initial public offering.

46 comments

  1. Sigh by bothorsen · · Score: -1, Troll

    This means a standard spotify user will now have a better case for torrents than for staying with their current contract.

    I thought spotify had figured out how to work in the music business without forcing users towards illegal sharing. Apparently they are as clueless as the so called old style business models.

    Any business model where using torrents is better than a paid subscription is going to fail. In this case it's even worse, because they will drive their own currently paying customers away.

    If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.

    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't making any money off of free users, so if this encourages even a tiny fraction of free users to upgrade, it will pay off for them. I can't see it causing vast numbers of people to stop using Spotify, even if there's a slight karma hit with free users, so they really lose nothing.

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Any business model where using torrents is better than a paid subscription is going to fail.

      You do realise that Spotify Premium is the normal paid subscription right?

      So basically if you pay a subscription you get some music two weeks earlier than the free service. I don't see how you can complain about that.

    3. Re:Sigh by shortscruffydave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "standard spotify user" = non-paying user

      "premium spotify user" = paying user

      Unless a standard user decides they like the service and want to pay for premium membership, then they are basically just an overhead to Spotify, If they are so reluctant to pay anything that they'll go elsewhere, then that is largely a good thing for Spotify, as it's one fewer freeloader to support

    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you got it all wrong. Spotify is still the best deal for streaming music.

    5. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > standard spotify user

      I'm saying that as someone that will never pay for a "streaming" service: how cheap is the premium already? 5€? If they prefer ads to torrenting or paying 5€, I don't think they can be helped.

    6. Re:Sigh by mccalli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh for gawd's sake - your argument is "I can't wait for two weeks, so I'm going to turn to crime". I mean, really...

    7. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For students it's 5€, for everybody else it's 10€.

    8. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to be in America!
      O.K. by me in America!
      Everything free in America
      For a small fee in America!

    9. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not too long ago everyone complained that a cheap ayce model is what would solve piracy. Now there are services offering ayce at a very modest price, and any time they do the smallest thing to try and make paying more worthwhile, people complain.

      Those whiners should just shut up and admit that they want everything for free instead of hiding behind the excuse that the distribution companies are being unfair.

    10. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't making any money off of free users

      Wait, you mean Spotify has no ads period? All users, whether they are paying a subscription or not, get ad-free listening from Spotify?

    11. Re:Sigh by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      "Unless a standard user decides they like the service and want to pay for premium membership, then they are basically just an overhead"

      Spotify plays an annoying number of ads for no reason then.

    12. Re:Sigh by enjar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spotify's cost can be justified based pretty much on lack of hassle alone. We have the family plan, which is 4 accounts for $15/month. It works on:
      - My Linux box (you can use a native client, Flash (vomit), or WINE)
      - Windows machines at home (with no admin privileges required to install/update)
      - Android phone
      - Kindle tablet
      - iOS devices
      - I could also sign in on my TiVo and Blu Ray player if I really wanted to.

      Everyone gets their own playlist, everyone can listen offline, it all just works for four (actually, up to six) people, for $15/month. I remember on Slashdot when people would say "I'll pay when it's a reasonable price, but till then I use Napster/Kazaa/Donkeywhatever/Torrents", or "Until it's on Linux". Now it's people who whine about the free tier having ads, artists not getting paid enough (as if the piracy ever netted the artist a cent), no lossless/FLAC, etc.

      I mean, come on people, there's a reasonably priced music service out there that runs on pretty much anything you can think of (including Linux!), it's not tied to Apple or Google, and if you can't swing the $10 for a single subscription or $5 if you are a student, find five friends and make a "family", although you have to go get the cash from your friends every month.

    13. Re:Sigh by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying some people will.

      And he's right.

      If you're paying for something that doesn't give you what you want, and something is cheaper that *does* give you what you want, a non-zero number of people will take the route of getting what they want.

    14. Re:Sigh by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Yes to crime. I'm going to steal two weeks instead. That way it'll come out even. Now I just need to find a Tardis and a time safe.

      Where do you even GET time safes?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    15. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still doesn't work on my mp3 player that can play FLAC, mp3, whatever I throw at it. I have to pay for internet service to play the same song over and over again. There are a ton of middle men in between me and the song I want to listen to now that I have to pay for (So it's not just the $15 a month spotify subscription). If I want to listen to the songs I want on the move, I have to have a mobile device with wireless data capability to do it, thus wasting my phones battery life where I have to constantly recharge it (Meanwhile, my old mp3 player plays for days on end). Then the devices used to play these songs had to catch up to the sound quality of mp3 players that surpassed them years ago (I find it sad that people just accept the shitty sound quality with a lot of streaming services).

      And worst of all, the formats that I want are still not available, full of DRM and thus I have to resort to piracy to get what I really want.

      I'll just keep doing what I did before, until then, good luck.

    16. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They make a loss on free users; the ads don't come close to covering what they pay out for licensing the music. In 2014 (first set of figures I could find the necessary breakdowns), they made 983m euros from subs, and 98m from ads. They paid out 882m euros in royalties and licensing. 75% of their users were free users. So free users were responsible for 0.75 x 882m = 661.5m euros of royalties and licensing, but generated only 98m in ad revenue, a loss of 563m euros. There were 45m free users at that time, so Spotify made a loss of 12.5eur per user.

      So yes, they aren't making any money off of free users.

    17. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You absolutely do *not* need a device with mobile data. Premium Spotify accounts allow downloading to the device, so a connection is only required for initial download.

    18. Re:Sigh by enjar · · Score: 1

      Yep ... devices it plays on at our house have no wireless. Kindles and iPod Touch are wifi only. Tick the box for "download this" and it downloads whatever you like. I also had mp3 player(s), but carrying around multiple devices, maintaining multiple playlists and so on got old after a while. I download playlists on my phone all the time, and Spotify doesn't use any data when I play those songs.

      They also let you change the quality - you can pick 96, 160 or 320 kbit/s in the quality preferences on your device.

      Let's also be clear that original AC doesn't need to resort to privacy ... they could actually BUY the recordings to get what they want, and rip them to FLAC using one of the many methods available. Even if Spotify added a FLAC, DRM-free option that worked with a MP3 player from 1997 and came with a free OC3 Internet connection to their house, and a fiber drop to their MP3 player, there would be some other excuse -- "their UI isn't like Winamp, right back to the torrents" or some such.

    19. Re:Sigh by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Let's also be clear that original AC doesn't need to resort to privacy ... they could actually BUY the recordings to get what they want, and rip them to FLAC using one of the many methods available. Even if Spotify added a FLAC, DRM-free option that worked with a MP3 player from 1997 and came with a free OC3 Internet connection to their house, and a fiber drop to their MP3 player, there would be some other excuse -- "their UI isn't like Winamp, right back to the torrents" or some such.

      Some people are just vehemently opposed to paying for things, now matter how inexpensive and convenient the delivery method is.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  2. Well suck me dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I am gonna sign up and pay for that!

    Oh, wait. No I won't!

    1. Re:Well suck me dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Funny

  3. NewsFlash: Company Exploits Peoples' Impatience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say it isn't so. Company understands people are impulsive and impatient and will pay to hear today what they can otherwise hear for free in two weeks.

    Gal 5:22-23 "22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

  4. "Two weeks before" or "for only two weeks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary and headline doesn't seen entirely in sync.

    1. Re:"Two weeks before" or "for only two weeks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gives the impression that after the initial 2 weeks the albuns could vanish from Spotify or something. But that would be absurd I guess.

    2. Re: "Two weeks before" or "for only two weeks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Only bad smart Luddites buy CDs/Vinyl and use 100% log+cue FLAC torrents. Only good paid streaming appy app apps that self-delete after 2 weeks of continued paid use, can app app for longer.

  5. If you can't parse the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What it's saying is that paying users (Premium users) will get access to some albums earlier than non-paying users (Free users), but no more than 2 weeks. It's just a small treat for the paying users, and the free users aren't getting any less than before.

    1. Re:If you can't parse the headline by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      The entire point is that the free users are getting less than before. They are not getting immediate access to new songs.

      It is the paying users that are getting nothing.

  6. Album? by haggie · · Score: 0

    What's that?

  7. Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It should read: Spotify free-users will get some albums two weeks later than premium users

    Don't make a disadvantage sound like an advantage.

    1. Re:Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should read: Spotify free-users will get some albums two weeks later than premium users

      Only if you assume that Spotify exists for the sole benefit of its free users, which it obviously and demonstrably does not - it is a for-profit corporation, with very real (and sizable) operating expenses. As such, they are structuring their service to entice people to pay a modest monthly subscription fee, by providing an ADVANTAGE to the people willing to pay the premium.

      Don't make a disadvantage sound like an advantage.

      You mean like how free users talk about how they're entitled to anything they want, as if the universe revolves around them and should be ordered for their convenience, rather than how they're really just cheap freeloaders who don't believe in an equal exchange of values between consumers of a service and the people providing the service?

    2. Re:Incorrect title by Wulf2k · · Score: 2

      Free users pay by listening to ads. They are now getting less value for their payment.

      Pay users pay with money. They are receiving no extra benefit.

    3. Re:Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free users pay by listening to ads. They are now getting less value for their payment.

      No, freeloaders consume far more than they contribute, and are STILL getting far more value from Spotify than their ad revenues are contributing back to Spotify. If you really have such limited impulse control that you can't manage to wait two weeks to listen to the latest release from Taylor Swift, you can pony up for the premium subscription, or go out and buy the specific album you're excited about on its release date.

      They are receiving no extra benefit.

      Sure they are - they are retaining the ability to listen to new albums 2 weeks ahead of their freeloading compatriots.

  8. Too bad that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...good music haven't been made since 80s.

    1. Re:Too bad that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the up-side, all that good 80's music is available on Spotify.

    2. Re:Too bad that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Mostly true. There's been some good music made more recently though, but it was by bands that were big in the 80s.

      But yeah, overall, music has been complete shit since the mid-90s. I think AutoSync has something to do with it.

    3. Re:Too bad that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant AutoTune.

      Stupid Slashdot, when are they going to join the modern world and allow editing?

    4. Re:Too bad that... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant AutoTune.

      Stupid Slashdot, when are they going to join the modern world and allow editing?

      Just as soon as commenters lern how to proof-reed their own poasts.

    5. Re:Too bad that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't have to do that on most other sites.

      If you think proof-reading before posting is important, then I suggest you disable your backspace key and learn to type without making any mistakes.

    6. Re:Too bad that... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I can't hear you over all this amazing metal that has been released in the last 30 years.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    7. Re:Too bad that... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Some good music?

      You don't get out much, do you?

      --
      Eat the rich.
    8. Re:Too bad that... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is different. Here, we have this wonderful thing called a text-area. In it you can type, and after you've typed you can read what you've typed, because it's still there on the screen waiting for further input from you. More than that, you can then preview what you've typed to see how it looks in the comments once it has been committed. The words are the same as what you'd typed previously, but you have the chance to read them once again before committing to eternity the thing you typed.

      But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?

      But that's not really my question. My question is: How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons? How many people read a comment, and then go back and read it again later anticipating that it might have changed? I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.

      With Slashdot, the anxiety has a kind of relief. I mean, I'm still left with the shame of leaving a draft-version of my thoughts on the Internet for all to judge me by, but at the same time at least there's a way for me to notice how much others give a shit about that. If someone sees my mistake, they can say so, and then I can clarify what I meant to say with another comment. For the silent ones, I guess they will fall into two camps: One will be "Oh, I guess they meant to type this." The other, "Oh, I guess they meant to type this, but they didn't, so I get to think about how stupid they are and that makes me feel better about myself."

      In thinking about this I get to feel stupid too, but I also have an avenue for correcting that stupidity, and for others to see me doing so, which I think is a good thing for keeping my ego in check, and for demonstrating to others that this is an okay thing to do in a world dominated by reactionary media. Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort for sake of the effluence that comes out of most of our keyboards? It is my conviction that people need to be reminded more regularly of how stupid they are than how clever they are, and toys like edit-buttons and the like are things we can ration to help us with our collective neuroses.

    9. Re:Too bad that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?

      They *are* useful. That's why we have computers instead of chiseling things onto stone tablets: because mistakes happen, and this technology allows us to correct things easily. Not allowing this is simply intentional hobbling.

      How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons?

      How conditioned are we by laundry machines and indoor plumbing and polio vaccinations? Why would we not want to take advantage of these things?

      I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.

      I don't. But there is a valid concern that people could go back much later and edit a post to something completely different, making anyone replying to them look like an ass. There's a couple ways of handling this. Some sites, like HN (which is far more minimalistic than this site BTW), have a time-limit on editing. I don't know what the limit is offhand, maybe an hour, but it's not that much. Even a 5-minute limit would be fine, because most people who want to edit probably see their mistake immediately after hitting "submit" anyway. The other thing you can do (I think Reddit does this) is indicate somehow that the post has been edited after-the-fact. So it's not an all-or-nothing affair. You can allow editing without it turning into a giant problem.

      Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort

      There is no real effort involved. As I said before, HN allows editing for a short time after posting, and it is a FAR simpler and more minimalistic site than this one. It'd be a few lines of code to do that. Yes, edit histories and diffs are much more complex (now you're talking about doing something like what Wikipedia has), but no one reasonable is asking for that level of featuritis.

  9. mod uP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    polite to bring numbErs. The loos become obsessed

  10. I don't listen to "new" music much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm OK with this. In fact, I don't even really stream since I have over 10K (mostly legal) tracks on my devices. Being old has its advantages.

  11. Remove the fucking watermarks by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    A ton of albums released by Universal still have clearly audible watermarks on Spotify (and other streaming services).

    https://www.mattmontag.com/mus...

    Universal seems hell-bent on ruining their own releases for paying customers (even free Spotify users generate income), while the CD rips available through P2P for free do not have any audible watermarks.

    --
    Eat the rich.