Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Premium Users Will Get Some Albums Two Weeks Before Free Users (theverge.com)
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.
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.
> 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.
"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
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...
...good music haven't been made since 80s.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Sure they are - they are retaining the ability to listen to new albums 2 weeks ahead of their freeloading compatriots.
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.
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.
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.
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.