Comments on: Spotify – another business model on the hoof?

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:46:22 +0000

OK, so at what point do they stop making up policy on the hoof and then recanting it when their communities complain? I can accept that they’ve done the ‘grab the land then think how to grow on it’ thing, but did that work particularly well for dotcoms, or the web industry as a whole?

I’d just hate to see another bubble burst when we realise that the people at the top of the industry are very bright but cannot see business sense. And, in the case of FB changing its mind, communications sense.

By: Seamus McCauley

Seamus McCauley — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:42:38 +0000

Facebook explicitly started without a business model – Mark Z said last year that it was still a couple of years away from having one, and there was a discussion in the blogosphere yesterday of how it’s leaving about $1bn in conventional brand ad revenues on the table this year as it works towards a business plan that’s more interesting than just running the same network banners as Yahoo et al. There’s nothing strategically wrong with launching something as a land grab and then worrying about whether you can make money from it ex post facto, and they’re pretty up-front that that’s what they’re doing.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:03:32 +0000

All fair comments I guess – and I did go to some length to explain myself regarding the sound quality issue at the time – but it would surely have made more sense to clear the rights before you came out of beta, wouldn’t it? Unless I’m misunderstanding the chronology here.

I’m sure you got a lot of interest off the back of the Guardian piece so it’ll be interesting to see if you can use that to your advantage in negotiations.

On a slightly different note, it’s interesting you’re clued up with your social media coverage, a bit like Virgin Media. Perhaps I’ve uncovered a way to identify companies with a close eye on what’s being said about them online: whinge online, and they will come!

By: joebuck

joebuck — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:53 +0000

First, the sound quality issues have been resolved.

About the restrictions: Of course it is annoying but I don’t think it came as a surprise to anyone. The Spotify team aren’t very fond of them and would like to give them away. I expect the big labels to soften up on this issue with time.

Why is music missing then? Apart from the usual suspects (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd et al) chosing not to participate, there are two explanations. 1. The album or artist missing is on a record company not yet having an agreement with Spotify. 2. The album or artist hasn’t yet been added to the library.

As of now there are a bit more than 2 million songs in Spotify, but they have the rights to more than 6 million. This means there are plenty of stuff to be added.

As for Radiohead, I assume you are talking about In Rainbows. The difficulty there is that Spotify need to have an agreement with the band themselves. Since at least some of them seem to be Spotify users I’m sure this will be resolved eventually. (It’s interesting to note that in this new digital era it’s not an advantage to be a small independent label.)