Spotify set to end free music streaming under pressure from Universal, Warner and Sony

[Yoinkerman]

Why would they? The fact that they offer free streaming is why theyre so popular...

And the fact that we've yet to hear anything from Spotify makes me wanna think this is just some stupid rumor who follows everything Taylor Swift and wants to try and make her idea sound like the ultimate solutilon

That's the point. It will kill them.

[Bensemus]

Free customers are future paying customers.

I'd say a very small amount will become paying. Reading the forum shows most people here won't or can't pay for the premium service so if Spotify gets rid of the free tier they will go to a difference service with a free tier or go back to pirating.

[othertomperson]

Almost all of their income comes from Concert Sales and Tours, yes... if they are already a hit success. A no-name or indie band with very little following makes jack shit from tours. Some go on tour at a loss, simply to get the word out. Yes, there is that middle ground where they're still pretty small, but they make a decent living on tours, but most musicians don't make much money, and don't live well.

 

Furthermore, the Radio is ad-supported. Unless you listen to ad-free Satellite Radio, such as XM... Which is subscription based.

 

They aren't paying a monthly sub for Radio. They're paying for so much more. First, no ads - therefore incomparable to traditional radio. Second, you get access to hundreds of "radio" streams. Third, you can choose the song you listen to, and skip tracks, unlike radio.

 

The tiny acts you are talking about make more per CD sale, but their CD sales are so much less that they make even less overall than the big acts I was talking about. They would do even better out of having their stuff on a free Spotify.

 

Uhh and contrary to your insistence free Spotify does indeed have adverts, much like Radio.

 

It's a bit sad, and tbh bewildering, how averse to even having a free, legal, ad supported option available some people are on this forum.

[Murdoch]

Hardly surprising, adverts simply don't pay much money, they're pretty close to being worthless tbh. Paying customers have been subsidising the free users since Spotify started.

[dalekphalm]

The tiny acts you are talking about make more per CD sale, but their CD sales are so much less that they make even less overall than the big acts I was talking about. They would do even better out of having their stuff on a free Spotify.

 

Uhh and contrary to your insistence free Spotify does indeed have adverts, much like Radio.

 

It's a bit sad, and tbh bewildering, how averse to even having a free, legal, ad supported option available some people are on this forum.

Huh? I never once insisted that free Spotify didn't have ads. I was talking about Spotify Premium. What are you talking about?

 

You specifically said:

 

I must say, though, that this is the first generation that's expected to pay a monthly subscription for fucking radio.

Since Free Spotify is... well... free, I must therefore assume you were talking about Spotify Premium, which is what you were comparing to Radio. Hence all of my above points.

 

Frankly, I DO think that Spotify should have a free ad-supported level available. However, I completely understand if the free ad-supported model is not viable from a profit standpoint, and I also understand why they might remove the service if pressured by the record labels. They have very little bargaining room with the record labels.

 

What is Spotify gonna do if all the big labels say "fuck it, we'll just put our stuff on Apple Music or Xbox Music"? Spotify will lose some of their biggest attractions in such a hypothetical case. It's not RIGHT for the record companies to do that, but they have the power in this relationship. There are simply too many alternatives that WILL bend to the will of the record companies for Spotify to blatantly disregard them.

 

I truly hope the free service remains. However, I also strongly believe that Premium (And other equivalent paid services such as XBox Music or paid Google Music) are worth the asking price.

[Arty]

at least there is still Google play music!

it was the better choice anyway.

[othertomperson]

Huh? I never once insisted that free Spotify didn't have ads. I was talking about Spotify Premium. What are you talking about?

 

You specifically said:

Since Free Spotify is... well... free, I must therefore assume you were talking about Spotify Premium, which is what you were comparing to Radio. Hence all of my above points.

 

Frankly, I DO think that Spotify should have a free ad-supported level available. However, I completely understand if the free ad-supported model is not viable from a profit standpoint, and I also understand why they might remove the service if pressured by the record labels. They have very little bargaining room with the record labels.

 

What is Spotify gonna do if all the big labels say "fuck it, we'll just put our stuff on Apple Music or Xbox Music"? Spotify will lose some of their biggest attractions in such a hypothetical case. It's not RIGHT for the record companies to do that, but they have the power in this relationship. There are simply too many alternatives that WILL bend to the will of the record companies for Spotify to blatantly disregard them.

 

I truly hope the free service remains. However, I also strongly believe that Premium (And other equivalent paid services such as XBox Music or paid Google Music) are worth the asking price.

 

OP and the article outright say that free music streaming is going to either no longer exist, or be crippled to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose due to pressure from a frankly long-obsolete group of companies desperately trying to keep the gravy train from a pre-Internet age flowing.

 

My objection in this thread is with the people who are saying that we shouldn't care that consumer options are being taken away and that people who aren't willing or able to replace a free, ad-supported service for a monthly subscription are "cheapskates".

[HalGameGuru]

When are record labels going to go after radio for freely supplying listeners with music? Streaming services, whether paid or free, have agreements in place for remuneration for the songs they play. Record execs are a bunch of ignorant Luddites.

[dalekphalm]

OP and the article outright say that free music streaming is going to either no longer exist, or be crippled to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose due to pressure from a frankly long-obsolete group of companies desperately trying to keep the gravy train from a pre-Internet age flowing.

 

My objection in this thread is with the people who are saying that we shouldn't care that consumer options are being taken away and that people who aren't willing or able to replace a free, ad-supported service for a monthly subscription are "cheapskates".

That's good. I support your objections. My posts were never dealing with that, however. My post was specifically in response to the idea that people would rather pirate something then pay for it.

 

Also, the title of the thread is flat out wrong. It's a rumour - speculation at best. It might happen. Or it might not. If the article is to be believed, then yes, they will be removing the ad-supported option. But there's no evidence of that yet.

 

I personally do feel that anyone who would rather pirate something then pay for it is indeed a cheapskate. There are obviously exceptions to that statement - such as the user above who mentioned that in some economies, $10/mo is half the average income.

 

Should the ad-supported model continue to exist? Of course. But I never stated otherwise.

[Kamina]

Greedy fat cats.

[othertomperson]

I personally do feel that anyone who would rather pirate something then pay for it is indeed a cheapskate. There are obviously exceptions to that statement - such as the user above who mentioned that in some economies, $10/mo is half the average income.

 

I don't. There should be free, legal alternatives and Spotify has demonstrated that a decent number of people who are unwilling or unable to pay will go for adverts as a compromise. If the free options are eroded leaving nothing but Piracy, three guesses what will take their place.

[dalekphalm]

I don't. There should be free, legal alternatives and Spotify has demonstrated that a decent number of people who are unwilling or unable to pay will go for adverts as a compromise. If the free options are eroded leaving nothing but Piracy, three guesses what will take their place.

 

I agree, but you're taking my quote out of context to make it seem like I don't agree. I already specifically stated multiple times that the free ad-supported model should continue.

 

Of course, some people can't be damned to even use ad-supported music services.

[Arty]

I agree, but you're taking my quote out of context to make it seem like I don't agree. I already specifically stated multiple times that the free ad-supported model should continue.

 

Of course, some people can't be damned to even use ad-supported music services.

People don't want to use ad supported internet 

[rambi36]

RIP. Back to youtube

[dalekphalm]

People don't want to use ad supported internet 

I know, but the alternative is "behind a paywall" internet, which most of them would hate even more. Musicians and other artists deserve to be compensated in one way or another, whether it's ad-revenue, subscriptions, or direct music purchases. Ideally, you would have all three as options - free ad-supported streaming, premium subscription streaming, and direct-purchase music tracks/albums. That way the user can decide how they would like to support their favourite content creators.

[EthanTheFrogMan]

You all should just go to premium:

• They don't have everything, but they have a LOT of music, and it makes it far easier and cheaper to expand your taste than buying records does.
• They offer offline playback of music, so there's no argument for people who listen offline, and they don't limit your offline storage amounts or usage.
• You get a range of sound quality from normal MPx to high-end audio (beware of data usage).
• You don't have to store physical media or have dedicated storage (unless you want it all offline).
• If you can't afford $10 more a month, how can you afford monthly fluctuations in your spending (likely much more than $10). For that matter, how can you afford to buy music at all?

There will still be free music that you can obtain legally. If you don't take any of those avenues, you're stealing, plain and simple. For those of you who say that only physical things could be stolen, explain to me the phrase "They stole my idea!". Not according to your logic.

 

Don't be a bad person.

its not that I can't afford it, I would rather put my money towards other things.

[TheConverter]

its not that I can't afford it, I would rather put my money towards other things.

 

Like more Steam games that I will never play 

 

That 10 euro is the difference of 30Mb/s and 120Mb/s or 120 and 200

[othertomperson]

I agree, but you're taking my quote out of context to make it seem like I don't agree. I already specifically stated multiple times that the free ad-supported model should continue.

 

Of course, some people can't be damned to even use ad-supported music services.

 

No the part I quoted was specifically condemning piracy in the event of there not being an ad supported alternative. I think that that point piracy becomes a distribution and lack of service problem, rather than outright cheapness or greed and to combat it it needs to be treated as such.

[vetali]

I see this more of a "we're confident our product is better than apple music" move. Which IMO it is, even on ios. Apple Music is a mess. 

[SImoHayha]

lel I only like one song from some artists then throw away the disc.

[Murdoch]

I know, but the alternative is "behind a paywall" internet, which most of them would hate even more. Musicians and other artists deserve to be compensated in one way or another, whether it's ad-revenue, subscriptions, or direct music purchases. Ideally, you would have all three as options - free ad-supported streaming, premium subscription streaming, and direct-purchase music tracks/albums. That way the user can decide how they would like to support their favourite content creators.

 

Movies, TV Shows, Books and Games are behind a paywall. I'm not entirely sure why people expect Music to be ad supported.

 

I'm also not sure people realise just how little revenue comes from a single ad supported play on Spotify.

[MDPS]

...Did they learn nothing from, oh, I don't know, the other 100s of subscription plan migrations that failed even before release? *cough*Windows 10*cough*

[adamdidthis]

When are record labels going to go after radio for freely supplying listeners with music? Streaming services, whether paid or free, have agreements in place for remuneration for the songs they play. Record execs are a bunch of ignorant Luddites.

Radio station also have agreements in place for broadcasting music.

[othertomperson]

Movies, TV Shows, Books and Games are behind a paywall. I'm not entirely sure why people expect Music to be ad supported.

 

I'm also not sure people realise just how little revenue comes from a single ad supported play on Spotify.

 

Did I wake up in a parallel universe in which TV and Radio never existed?

[Agent181]

And if this becomes a reality, we will be seeing the following headline

"Pirating sees sudden surge as spotify removes ad supported music"

Pls Pandora is bad enough already wanna hear a song let me play 10 ads and a video for you