Spotify: the way forward or just a fad?
Written by Kimberley Ross Thursday, 17 September 2009 18:52
Features - Features from Freeq
Did you ever think that any music site could be more profitable than iTunes? Well, Spotify has done just that, in it's native country of Sweden. Although it's not exactly the biggest country, the fact it's happened at all is something to take notice of.If you're not familiar with how Spotify works, it's basically an online version of the iTunes programme you can download to your computer. You sign up and have access to millions of tracks from every genre without spending a single penny. But of course, there is a downside. After a certain amount of tracks, advertisements interrupt your streaming. Some people don't mind this mild annoyance, and will continue to listen without delving into their wallet, whereas the solution for those of us in the culture of literally not wasting a second, is simple; pay £9.99 a month for uninterrupted streaming.
So should Apple be worried? Well, if they are, they're not showing it. The Spotify application for the iPhone has been approved, but will need users to pay the subscription fee to use it.
Now that there's a market for Spotify, where's it going? Is it just the 'in' thing, such was Napster when it changed it's agenda and became a legal downloading site, or does it have the potential to change the way we receive music forever?
A plan is already in motion is to try and break the American market, which is not easily done. New royalty deals will need to be struck, new labels have to be approached, the artists must approve - all previous problems - and in a country as big as America, it's already so much more difficult than the pint sized places in Europe.
Although Spotify in Sweden now seems to dominate the legal music market there, this doesn't mean it can be this successful everywhere, without the law changing. Swedish law says Internet service providers must give up user details if copyright holders suspect illegal downloading is occurring, which has already resulted in Internet traffic falling by around 30% due to people turning to legal ways of getting their films and music. With a similar law just rejected in France, Spotify's future isn't easy to predict, nor is it secure, or set to be the solution of illegal downloads. But what it's achieved is definitely a step forward for music lovers, artists and labels, one which hopefully is going in the right direction.
For more information on Spotify, go to http://www.spotify.com/en/
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Kimberley Ross
said:
 |
... Hi Toph, I know that Napster had to change, but the point was that it was quite high profile before and during the change, but not for a significant amount of time after, hence using the word "fad", although I think it's more because the market is now saturated with places from which to buy music from. I definitely agree about people wanting to own music, and I think Spotify's downfall here is that the iTunes catalogue is much more broad than Spotify, either leading people to download illegally, or buy the tracks. More obscure bands don't seem to be on there, and there have been problems with artists not wanting to be a part of Spotify, and it's survival, for me, depends on if they can offer enough exclusives or extras to get people listening, such as have an album streaming the week before it's release (resulting in more adverts being heard and more money generated for the artist and company etc.) Having exclusives for big releases would also seem to assault the problem of people downloading leaks of an album, which is obviously a good thing for the industry. I've used Pandora myself, and although I had a good catalogue, Spotify seems more user friendly. The fact it looks like iTunes will make people feel more comfortable about using it, and therefore more likely to keep coming back. I do think Spotify will be around for a few more years at least, especially while the recession, and the effects of it, are still being felt. If they could possibly build on the catalogue and making people more aware of the fact they can download songs from their partner website (as people like things to be quick and easy, and would much rather right click and buy, than go to a different source to find and buy the music) - possibly even making tracks cheaper than iTunes - then they might have something which has staying power. Kim |
Topher Batchelor
said:
 |
... Napster didn't change its agenda through choice; it faced combined lawsuits from a number of members of the RIAA which amounted to a total payout of $26million. it had to change, and was even shut down for a period due to this. i think the key for Spotify is that the ownership issue is bypassed entirely, which has often been the crux of previous downloading cases. itunes has that market sewn up, but spotify offers an alternative. there will always be people that want to own music, so iTunes wins. there will always be people that just want to listen to music whether they own it or not, which is where Spotify wins. Time will tell, and Spotify has a long way to go to conquer the world in the same way that iTunes has. the American problem is most difficult, not because of negotiating deals as most American labels are already working with Spotify, but because of competition. In the UK and the majority of Europe there is no real Spotify equivalent, whereas in the States there is already the well-established Pandora online radio program which offers a very similar service but which has been operating a lot longer than Spotify has on either side of the Atlantic. It is an interesting article though, and interesting question that you are correct in saying time will only be able to answer. I think that Spotify will remain a force in household music distribution for the next few years at least. What do you think? Thanks, Toph |
Write comment
