[iandanforth]

"If Spotify were so awesome that I'd never switch, then they'd be in the money."

The article implies that even this is not the case. If there were a single distributer who could increase pricing, the labels would simply increase their take accordingly, leaving the single distributor in the lurch.

Until the labels are forced to deal with standard market economics directly, rather than using VC funds to back a series of failed distribution schemes, I don't see why they would allow anyone else to make money.

[CoffeeDregs]

Note: I said that:

    If Spotify were so awesome that I'd never switch, 
    then they'd be in the money.

You (or the article) are arguing that they couldn't be that awesome. I tend to agree that is the case, but it only takes one billion dollar music [self-publisher-supporting-and-that-actually-makes-money?] service to prove me wrong.

Again, it comes down to bargaining power. Non-content-owners and non-disintermediatable-distributors don't have it. TFA is saying so but is doing so in such a way that suggests that the music industry is novel. It isn't.