Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lghh 1571 days ago
Why did they have to compete with spotify? They are not a music streaming service (at their core) or a podcast publisher.
1 comments

Because streaming makes more sense and provides far better metrics for artist compensation.
Except for those that, you know, prefer to own music. Their actual core audience.
Can you really own music? See i have been collecting vinyl for 20 years and know about the pleasure it can provide. But with digital files scarcity, age, smell, looks, condition no longer matter. There is nothing left to „own“. The only thing you own is your hard disk.
I don't care about the tactile aspect of a particular album (as opposed to the "feel"/"UX" of a particular format in general, which I do find fun) or piece of media.

I care about one thing, and one thing only: an irrevocable right to experience a particular piece of media where and when I please in the original form it was released, subject to natural degradation of the physical medium. Now that music is digital, I expect the "when" to be "at any point in my life, starting from when I purchased it", and the "where" to be "any device with the ability to play music".

Streaming is essentially asking for permission to re-experience a piece of media every time I want to do so, and Spotify's and YouTube's answer is often "no". My music library is simply a necessary evil that facilitates security against their whims.

But strangely, better metrics for artist compensation somehow don't lead to better artist compensation. I've never heard a testimonial from a band about how much better the spotify compensation model is, but I've heard dozens of testimonials and articles about artists to whom spotify pays pennies while bandcamp pays their bills.