FREE OR NOT FREE ---THAT IS THE QUESTION
I'm not sure where the confusion is about this being a totally free service. Where there is smoke there usually is fire! While there is free limited access, there is and will always be, in a platform like this, enticing upgrade charges, and that's OK. In my opinion there is nothing innovative here. It's just a twist on every other streaming platform out there. I say try them all until you find the one that suits your fancy.
As far as the record labels go; OUCH!! While infringing on their revenue stream, in a small way, the labels do receive a discounted licensing fee. Another sign of the times!
Spotify the music-streaming service has launched in the United States today.
The concept is simple. You sign up for an account and get access to 15 million songs. Depending on the type of account you have, it will determine if you will get the service ad-free or have unlimited streaming. It will also determine what devices you can share your account across, and how much offline storage you have.
To create playlists, users can drag and drop or right click on tracks. They can also share their playlists through Facebook and Twitter by posting a link instantly from Spotify.
As a cloud music service, Spotify is able to give users access to their playlists from anywhere and also offline. Even if you’re stuck in the subway and there’s no wifi, you can access your Spotify account, so long as you still have battery on your device.
The late arrival of Spotify, a Swedish company, to the U.S. is in part the result of the company wanting to properly establish their service before expanding overseas; getting the license to all the songs, which is usually a lengthy process, was the second reason, and hesitation to license songs on the part of the US music industry may also have contributed.
What Spotify means for the future of the music industry is perhaps not as revolutionary or devastating as the record companies might fear, as similar applications like Pandora have had their wave of success, and the industry is still standing. However, what Spotify adds to the scene is the ability to create a larger global music source.
Please comment and join our email family. Thanks, J. Grady
4 comments:
Well who would see anything wrong with US record labels owning a major if not majority share of a media palatform where the business model is to generate revenue through the sale of advertising instead of the sale of recordings? Certainly not fans, who just want to play whatever they want to hear, on whatever device they want to use, whenever they want to hear it, for free. It's a truly scary business model for the artist or songwriter who has signed a record deal allowing their record deal to place their recordings on Spotify. Having your record label be able to make a tidy profit off your music by selling advertising when they give it way, while you make no royalities because no recordings have been sold is a very bad place to be. Adding to the scene the ability to create a much larger global source is not exactly good for the artist if they do not share in the profits generated by that larger global music source. In fact, Spotify appears to work the opposite for the artist or songwriter. They more people who listen to their music on Spotify, the less recordings they sell. I would not sign a record deal that gave a label permission to give away my creative efforts and still make money.
Thanks so much. I would love to hear from you on some of the other blogs. Thanks!
Spotify was late getting to the US because the US record labels would not give them licenses without securing a substantial ownership stake in Spotify. The key here is the record labels have a major ownership stake in Spotify, if not controlling ownership stake. So there is no "ouch" for them. They sold out their artist for a revenue stream not dependent of sales of recordings. Of course they were willing to give the record labels a license fee at a reduced rate. It's really a license to print money. Can't believe they are getting a pass on their ownership stake in Spotify, and the conflict of interest that is created when they license their catalog at a fraction of its traditional value to a company they have an ownership stake in that sells advertising and subscription fees for a profit. Why would they do this? Because they see the writing on the wall, that they no longer control the distribution of music due to piracy and illegal file sharing so they have to find another way to make money off the artist. They are not concerned with whether the artist makes money, they are concerned with making money off the artist. Those are two different things. A management company should be just as upset about this as the artist, as they earn a percentage of the artists gross income, but with the advent of the 360 deal, the interests of the management company and record label are in many ways co-mingled.
Thanks Grady. Nice talking with you earlier today...
Post a Comment