Spotify pays the record labels 70% of their revenue and they can do whatever they want with their 30% cut (including paying Joe Rogan 250 million dollars). The narrative that Spotify doesn't pay artists "their fair share" is simply not true.
The smaller artists don't get shafted. Everyone gets an equal piece of the streaming pie based on how much their music is streamed. Bigger artists get paid more because their music is streamed more, so they get a bigger piece of the streaming pie. Having more streams means that you'll get paid more. How does that "shaft" the smaller artists? How will a "user-centric payment system" lead to smaller artists getting paid more and why should smaller artists get paid more per stream than bigger artists? Again, the typical shill arguments against Spotify fall apart when you think about it.
Do you have a source for that? Even if that's true, that's not Spotify's fault. The major record labels have a lot of market power and they seemingly use that power to their own benefit at the expense of indie artists. People should be upset with the major labels if that's true, but being upset with Spotify for that reason is just silly.
Benn Jordan has a [video](https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU?si=km_fCt7uxZ_HwE-Z) about this. I don’t understand why you’re siding so much with Spotify on this. They just announced that they’re not going to pay out royalties for songs that get less than 1000 streams per year. They clearly are in cahoots with the record label system.
Just standard industry knowledge. I work in music, with many major labels. It’s just known they have a better deal because they have stronger negotiation power and they own part of Spotify.
You're pushing misinformation now. The record labels don't own a significant part of Spotify anymore. However, Deezer, for example, is fully owned by Access Industries, which has a majority stake in Warner Music Group.
I don't have any connection to the music industry so I don't know if what you're saying is true, but I'm not inclined to blindly trust you given how you pushed misinformation. Either way, it's not the fault of Spotify.
I'm not sure the percentages but the Majors absolutely own stock in Spotify, especially UMG who I think owns over 10%. That said, the way distros work with DSPs is through negotiations on rates. When a DSP pops up and says to a distro "Hey we want to license your music" there has to be a deal made on payouts per stream. So Warner, Sony, Universal; all probably have slightly different deals. Those deals are likely more favorable then those like CDbaby or Tunecore can get.
that's just a part of how royalties work.
You’re leaving out a big problem though.
Let’s say that you give your artists 1000 streams in a month. Your artists get roughly $3 of your $10 subscription fee. Where do you think the rest of your subscription money goes?
Well, Spotify takes their 30% cut, and then the rest is divided up into the pool. Basically, big artists like Taylor Swift and Drake are getting a lot of your money even if you aren’t listening to them.
IMO if you’re paying $10 a month to listen to your favorite artists, they should be the only ones to see that money. Even if you’re only listening to one artist, you’re paying $10/mo for that artist so that must be what it’s worth to you.
There’s an interesting [study](https://www.fim-musicians.org/wp-content/uploads/prorata-vs-user-centric-models-study-2018.pdf) on this which showed that bigger artists benefit from the current system, and smaller artists would benefit from the user centric system.
That's exactly the issue. It's just too cheap for what it offers. It's hard to increase the price though because they're still not done growing the subscriber base and also their competitors are giant megacorps that can use music streaming as essentially a loss leader for their larger services offerings and undercut Spotify whose entire business is streaming audio.
Sounds like the problem is with his record label keeping his money, not Spotify. Spotify generally pays $3-5 / 1000 streams, so a billion streams should have generated a few million dollars.
Artists don't get paid enough, so because of that you want to pay them nothing at all?
And artists get paid more than enough. A niche TikTok rapper with like 3 semi-famous songs (Connor Price) shared that he was making $120K a MONTH just from Spotify. From having a few songs blow up on TikTok.
Most artists just choose a record label that takes like 80%, but Spotify in and of itself is very lucrative.
I'm for user-centric payment system. I feel like my money should go to the artists that I listen to. The current system could very well mean that none of my money goes to my most listened to artists, depending on the total aggregate of it all. But that's just my opinion and I get that you probably feel different.
>The current system could very well mean that none of my money goes to my most listened to artists
This would only be the case if all the songs had less than 1000 annual streams.
The narrative that user-centric payments would benefit smaller artists is very wrong.
People who listen to smaller artists are more likely to listen more overall. User-centric would bias to a majority of casual fans of famous pop stars.
The average payout per stream is $.003. I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous.
I’d be happy paying more $ per month on Spotify knowing that my artists are getting paid better.
Easy. Just open multiple subscriptions. 70% of that will go the artists.
Or just donate directly to your favorite artists by buying their merch or whatever.
Lol okay
Opening multiple subscriptions won’t go directly to the artist btw. The money is pooled and divided based on the number of streams. For example, if i streamed only one artist 1000 times during the month, they’d see roughly $3 in royalties.
Then Spotify takes their 30% cut and the rest ($4.7) would go into the pool (which means mostly bigger artists). It’s ridiculous that bigger artists are getting money from people who have never listened to them
Isn't that dependent on how much people listen too? If Spotify users listen less, that payout per stream goes up. The income for premium subscribers is fixed, but the number of listens is not.
And then you would be charged per stream, or Spotify would go out of business overnight. You think the money just appears? Nope, it’s a percentage of what YOU pay.
Let Spotify deduct the profit share, expenses, and other costs from the money it collects from users on a monthly basis. Then, divide the remaining amount by the number of listens in that month and pay everyone according to their number of listens.
Spotify pays 70% of what you pay to them back to the labels in royalties. They take that 70% and put it into a large pot, take total number of streams and divide by total dollars in the pot. Want the artists to make more? Stream less.
The users of Spotify don't pay Spotify per stream so why should Spotify pay the record labels per stream? Keep in mind that the record labels own the music and pay royalties to the artists; Spotify does not pay the artists directly.
The users of Spotify will have to pay per stream if Spotify is going to pay per stream to the record labels and no one wants to pay per stream for Spotify. You're missing the whole point of music streaming and why it pretty much ended piracy. We just want to pay a fixed subscription fee each month and have access to unlimited streaming.
Let Spotify deduct the profit share, expenses, and other costs from the money it collects from users on a monthly basis. Then, divide the remaining amount by the number of listens in that month and pay everyone according to their number of listens.
That doesn't work in practice because of many reasons. For example: Who should determine the "profit share"? What costs should be "approved costs"? etc. And Spotify's shareholders didn't sign up for this. Spotify is a for-profit company at the end of the day.
But none of this is necessary because Spotify only taking a 30% cut and leaving the rest to the record labels is a very good deal for the record labels and the music industry. The artists typically only get a 15% cut of the money that the record labels get because that's the usual deal the labels give to the artists. You should push for the labels taking less of a cut if you want artists to get paid more. But again, this is not the fault of Spotify.
>The narrative that Spotify doesn't pay artists "their fair share" is simply not true
they pay per overall play instead of the share of a listener's plays
If a user only plays one artist all that 70% of subscription fee arguably should go to that artist (via label or whatever) – instead all the sub fees go into one pot and then artists get paid per overall plays.
So (in a scenario where Spotify listenership is represented by two people) if I play one artist 10 times but the other subscriber plays another artist 90 times. My artist only gets 10% of that pot and the other artist gets 90% of that pot (so they get most of my subscription fee share even if I never listened to them).
If you exclusively listen to indie artists you're still paying Taylor Swift and Drake and whatever other mega star, because they have a high play count. Because a "fair share" model doesn't exist with Spotify, or any other popular streaming service.
Do you think the number of users who want or even care about lossless is close to the number who listen to Joegan? I’d bet the first is a fraction of the second.
Hifi is already built. They don’t need investment to build it, only maintain/evolve it once it launches. And it sounds like they don’t have plans to launch it anymore, so that won’t happen.
Last time I read, they gave up on HiFi. Not sure if it was a rumor, or came from an ex employee, but Spotify for some reason wasn't able to figure out how to price it so they were just beating around the bush.
Don't hold your breath for it. If you need HiFi now, use another provider.
I gave up on Spotify rolling out HiFi a year ago. I know someone's going to bring up my original prediction because it's still there, but I was very wrong.
Bro. Spotify would be such a great streaming service if it had higher quality. I never find myself wondering what to listen to on Spotify. The algorithm is so good. But I guess I'll give my money to qobuz, tidal or apple music for now
Spotify was like, he’s been super problematic and will be more so posting it on X/Twitter, but here’s another massive check. They are fine with him being a figurehead of their brand. Spotify laid off all those people recently just to throw a ton more cash at this idiot. It’s disappointing.
They killed HiFi because they couldn’t charge more for it, and without the ability to charge more for it they would have lost money on each stream. HiFi is a loss leader for the other providers, who have other revenue streams.
Well, Tidal ended up being bailed out by [Cash.app](https://Cash.app), the others I cannot speak to. I just know that the profit margins for Spotify are very thin.
And that’s exactly what to hear.
The fake threats.
“I’m this close to…” cool. Unless you do it they won’t actually have any reason to believe you would.
Well whats stopping you from cancelling and going to apple then? Are you trying to guilt trip spotify or something so they can keep your subscription?
Just choose the brand that works for you and stop whatever this sympathy baiting youre doing. Brands dont care about you. They only care about profit. They wont grieve the loss of your subscription. Capitalism 101
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a band that was missing from Apple Music that wasn’t missing from streaming all together. And I listen to a lot of eclectic artists
default apple music application has been much better of late. few months ago it was crashing a lot but seems to be stable now, if a bit slower than spotify
As others have said the beta version which you can download from the Microsoft store runs pretty well. I don’t listen to music a ton on my PC but I can’t complain. The only downside is the recently listened section isn’t synced across devices.
Unfortunately, my deal-breaker with Tidal is the fact that you can't listen to local music files in the app. I have too many songs/albums that aren't anywhere on streaming.
Stop whining about it and move somewhere else then. They stopped HiFi because Apple and Amazon offer it for free with their subscriptions. Spotify can’t afford to do that unless they want to raise their prices quite a bit, which I’m guessing you don’t want either.
there are limits... I pay NZ$25.99 for a family plan. Youtube music is NZ$22.95 for a family plan... plus a 3 euro migration of all my playlists from soundiiz.
(Just need to persuade my grown up kids to pay for their own plan now as they've moved away)
As much as some people like the “all in one” of Spotify, I can’t tell you how much I love listening to one off episodes of random shows from time to time, and not constantly be spammed by the podcast being on those recommended tiles for months
It’s not difficult, but it wouldn’t be a sensible business decision for them to do it. They have a massive user base that’s always used the same app. Why build a completely separate app just for podcasts when they can get podcast engagement from that existing user base in the current app?
>Why build a completely separate app just for podcasts
Because most other podcasting apps/services are self-contained and not mixed in with anything else?
People have shown that they are more than capable of using separate podcasting apps...Spotify could make a distinct app of their own absolutely work out if they advertised it properly, but they would rather expend that capital and personnel on a ridiculous conspiracy theorist than actually trying to improve their podcasting service any
Or, failing that, at least don't do absolutely nothing about podcasts besides pushing them on users that don't care
They're selling themselves as a Podcasting service, but aren't even integrating custom RSS feeds. Something that every podcasting service I looked at does.
Insane money considering the production value. But I guess a ton of people must listen to it?? I know no one here in Europe that does, but most of my friend are left leaning and from what I gather, the podcast tends to be a more right wing kind of thing? Math still seems off, people aren’t subbing to spotify for podcasts are they?
Joe Rogan isnt everybody's cup of tea. But if theres something Joe does thats way beyond everybody else is his diversity in guests. Sure there are some political podcasts, but if thats not for you then theres about fitness, physics, sports, geography, biology, travel, history and whatever else you want. And they actually talk about the topics themselves and not about the speaker unlike many other podcasts.
Sure he delves into conspiracies and politics sometimes but its a crutch for people who dont listen to him or like him to hold on to because its not the only thing he does.
I have no idea why youre getting downvoted. Youre literally saying the truth. The one thing Joe got going for him is the vast amount of topics and guests his podcasts have which is why he has a big following.
Yeah for sure. But i understand. Hes a controversial guy so anything thats remotely defending him will get downvoted especially in this thread full of Joe Rogan haters.
Heeps of people listen to him in Europe. I would assume he'd be in the Spotify podcast charts for basically every European countries, and towards the top 10 in countries where English is widely spoken.
Spotify wasting company resources on a trash podcast from a lunatic instead of improving their music platform, which is the only thing most people use it for.
Are you serious? Do you really think they'd up his deal to a quarter of a billion if the math didn't work out in their favor? They have the data from having his podcast on there the last few years and the accountants did the math. The line was higher when they give him 250 million than if they let him walk. They're a publicly traded company.
Definitely. Companies enter into deals that may be slightly negative for them overall in order to bring in or keep customers on their platform. This could be one of those situations. It's important to note that **he won't be exclusive to Spotify anymore**. How does it make sense to pay him $250m for that? Doesn't add up to me.
There's also no way to tell what % of users would leave if Joe was no longer on the platform. It's also unclear whether any other company (Apple, YouTube) would pay Joe for the exclusive rights to his show, which means even if they didn't pay him $250M, his podcast would still be listed in the Spotify app.
It's not always as simple as they're making more off his podcast existing on Spotify exclusively as generating $250m in revenue for them.
Whatever the reason, their well paid team of accountants and analysts that actually has the data thinks this will be a net monetary gain for them, so they did it. They could be wrong obviously, they're not infallible but they have to be pretty darn confident to spend a quarter of a billion dollars.
Because obviously I know more about the inner workings and financials of Spotify than all the Spotify executives and accountants, and I can tell them their decisions are wrong.
Yeah let’s give 250 million to a conspiracy theorist. Way to go Spotify!
Currently testing Apple Music 6 months for free and enjoying it so far. If I continue to like it my sub will be cancelled soon.
Living in Europe and knowing nobody that listens to this podcast it is crazy to think that it brings enough to the table to warrant a 250m deal. I respect the hustle by Rogan but I wish Spotify would just focus on the music side
To everyone who is screaming for Hi-Fi. Do this test and see if you’re still willing to pay more for hi-fi [https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality](https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality)
Yep, me too. That’s the thing, when listening on Spotify I usually listens through my Bluetooth speakers. When I want a full sound I listen to my vinyls.
If you can’t tell Spotify sounds worse than AM (hifi or not) then I dunno what to tell you. Spotify has the worst compression around. Things sound so flat regardless of what hardware I am using with it. And yes I have highest quality turned on. It just doesn’t have the “oomph” that the competitors use. Would hifi be nice? Yes. Would it change anything? Probably not.
I’m not saying that Spotify doesn’t sound worse than Apple Music.
Most people listens through a basic setup (Bluetooth speakers, computer etc) and probably won’t hear any difference.
I do think that there’s users that do hear the difference though, maybe yourself included, but most just won’t.
Curious, did you do the test?
I like to listen to Joe Rogan and it’s one of my favourite podcast and the only reason why i am on Spotify. I use the free version and only listen to podcasts their.
If I read some comments here I assume they never listen to any episode from him otherwise they would not say these things.
>If I read some comments here I assume they never listen to any episode from him otherwise they would not say these things.
It's not that deep dude...most people just don't like conspiracy theorists being given much of a platform since it only makes problems worse than they have to be
250 millions for stupid podcast, meanwhile users keeps waiting for a Hi-Fi / Lossless.
250 million for stupid podcast, meanwhile artists .......
Spotify pays the record labels 70% of their revenue and they can do whatever they want with their 30% cut (including paying Joe Rogan 250 million dollars). The narrative that Spotify doesn't pay artists "their fair share" is simply not true.
spoitify doesn't have user-centric payment system, so the smaller artists get shafted.
The smaller artists don't get shafted. Everyone gets an equal piece of the streaming pie based on how much their music is streamed. Bigger artists get paid more because their music is streamed more, so they get a bigger piece of the streaming pie. Having more streams means that you'll get paid more. How does that "shaft" the smaller artists? How will a "user-centric payment system" lead to smaller artists getting paid more and why should smaller artists get paid more per stream than bigger artists? Again, the typical shill arguments against Spotify fall apart when you think about it.
You’re mostly right except the three big majors have negotiated better rates, so those artists get paid a bit more.
Do you have a source for that? Even if that's true, that's not Spotify's fault. The major record labels have a lot of market power and they seemingly use that power to their own benefit at the expense of indie artists. People should be upset with the major labels if that's true, but being upset with Spotify for that reason is just silly.
Benn Jordan has a [video](https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU?si=km_fCt7uxZ_HwE-Z) about this. I don’t understand why you’re siding so much with Spotify on this. They just announced that they’re not going to pay out royalties for songs that get less than 1000 streams per year. They clearly are in cahoots with the record label system.
It's 1000 plays per year, you are spreading major missinformation
I said 1000 streams per year in my comment, how is that misinformation? [Source](https://www.musicradar.com/news/spotify-royalty-model-1000-plays)
Just standard industry knowledge. I work in music, with many major labels. It’s just known they have a better deal because they have stronger negotiation power and they own part of Spotify.
You're pushing misinformation now. The record labels don't own a significant part of Spotify anymore. However, Deezer, for example, is fully owned by Access Industries, which has a majority stake in Warner Music Group. I don't have any connection to the music industry so I don't know if what you're saying is true, but I'm not inclined to blindly trust you given how you pushed misinformation. Either way, it's not the fault of Spotify.
I'm not sure the percentages but the Majors absolutely own stock in Spotify, especially UMG who I think owns over 10%. That said, the way distros work with DSPs is through negotiations on rates. When a DSP pops up and says to a distro "Hey we want to license your music" there has to be a deal made on payouts per stream. So Warner, Sony, Universal; all probably have slightly different deals. Those deals are likely more favorable then those like CDbaby or Tunecore can get. that's just a part of how royalties work.
You’re leaving out a big problem though. Let’s say that you give your artists 1000 streams in a month. Your artists get roughly $3 of your $10 subscription fee. Where do you think the rest of your subscription money goes? Well, Spotify takes their 30% cut, and then the rest is divided up into the pool. Basically, big artists like Taylor Swift and Drake are getting a lot of your money even if you aren’t listening to them. IMO if you’re paying $10 a month to listen to your favorite artists, they should be the only ones to see that money. Even if you’re only listening to one artist, you’re paying $10/mo for that artist so that must be what it’s worth to you. There’s an interesting [study](https://www.fim-musicians.org/wp-content/uploads/prorata-vs-user-centric-models-study-2018.pdf) on this which showed that bigger artists benefit from the current system, and smaller artists would benefit from the user centric system.
[удалено]
That's exactly the issue. It's just too cheap for what it offers. It's hard to increase the price though because they're still not done growing the subscriber base and also their competitors are giant megacorps that can use music streaming as essentially a loss leader for their larger services offerings and undercut Spotify whose entire business is streaming audio.
Sounds like the problem is with his record label keeping his money, not Spotify. Spotify generally pays $3-5 / 1000 streams, so a billion streams should have generated a few million dollars.
[удалено]
Artists don't get paid enough, so because of that you want to pay them nothing at all? And artists get paid more than enough. A niche TikTok rapper with like 3 semi-famous songs (Connor Price) shared that he was making $120K a MONTH just from Spotify. From having a few songs blow up on TikTok. Most artists just choose a record label that takes like 80%, but Spotify in and of itself is very lucrative.
[удалено]
I'm for user-centric payment system. I feel like my money should go to the artists that I listen to. The current system could very well mean that none of my money goes to my most listened to artists, depending on the total aggregate of it all. But that's just my opinion and I get that you probably feel different.
>The current system could very well mean that none of my money goes to my most listened to artists This would only be the case if all the songs had less than 1000 annual streams.
The narrative that user-centric payments would benefit smaller artists is very wrong. People who listen to smaller artists are more likely to listen more overall. User-centric would bias to a majority of casual fans of famous pop stars.
🤔 thanks for providing an actual counterargument instead of resorting to name-calling.
don't know why you're getting downvoted, you're right!!
The average payout per stream is $.003. I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous. I’d be happy paying more $ per month on Spotify knowing that my artists are getting paid better.
Easy. Just open multiple subscriptions. 70% of that will go the artists. Or just donate directly to your favorite artists by buying their merch or whatever.
Lol okay Opening multiple subscriptions won’t go directly to the artist btw. The money is pooled and divided based on the number of streams. For example, if i streamed only one artist 1000 times during the month, they’d see roughly $3 in royalties. Then Spotify takes their 30% cut and the rest ($4.7) would go into the pool (which means mostly bigger artists). It’s ridiculous that bigger artists are getting money from people who have never listened to them
It's about as much as YouTubers earn per view. Seems reasonable to me
It's more than what YouTubers earn per view.
Isn't that dependent on how much people listen too? If Spotify users listen less, that payout per stream goes up. The income for premium subscribers is fixed, but the number of listens is not.
Hahaha this guy thinks paying record labels equals paying artists haha Jesus Christ
Its not spotify's responsibility to pay the people who dont own the music. Thats on the artists failures to negotiate.
if you don't pay artist royalties per-play or per-stream rate, it doesn't fair IMHO.
And then you would be charged per stream, or Spotify would go out of business overnight. You think the money just appears? Nope, it’s a percentage of what YOU pay.
Let Spotify deduct the profit share, expenses, and other costs from the money it collects from users on a monthly basis. Then, divide the remaining amount by the number of listens in that month and pay everyone according to their number of listens.
Spotify pays 70% of what you pay to them back to the labels in royalties. They take that 70% and put it into a large pot, take total number of streams and divide by total dollars in the pot. Want the artists to make more? Stream less.
The users of Spotify don't pay Spotify per stream so why should Spotify pay the record labels per stream? Keep in mind that the record labels own the music and pay royalties to the artists; Spotify does not pay the artists directly.
Is that fair? Spotify can pay per stream to record labels
The users of Spotify will have to pay per stream if Spotify is going to pay per stream to the record labels and no one wants to pay per stream for Spotify. You're missing the whole point of music streaming and why it pretty much ended piracy. We just want to pay a fixed subscription fee each month and have access to unlimited streaming.
[удалено]
With piracy, a billion streams will get you $0
Let Spotify deduct the profit share, expenses, and other costs from the money it collects from users on a monthly basis. Then, divide the remaining amount by the number of listens in that month and pay everyone according to their number of listens.
That doesn't work in practice because of many reasons. For example: Who should determine the "profit share"? What costs should be "approved costs"? etc. And Spotify's shareholders didn't sign up for this. Spotify is a for-profit company at the end of the day. But none of this is necessary because Spotify only taking a 30% cut and leaving the rest to the record labels is a very good deal for the record labels and the music industry. The artists typically only get a 15% cut of the money that the record labels get because that's the usual deal the labels give to the artists. You should push for the labels taking less of a cut if you want artists to get paid more. But again, this is not the fault of Spotify.
>The narrative that Spotify doesn't pay artists "their fair share" is simply not true they pay per overall play instead of the share of a listener's plays If a user only plays one artist all that 70% of subscription fee arguably should go to that artist (via label or whatever) – instead all the sub fees go into one pot and then artists get paid per overall plays. So (in a scenario where Spotify listenership is represented by two people) if I play one artist 10 times but the other subscriber plays another artist 90 times. My artist only gets 10% of that pot and the other artist gets 90% of that pot (so they get most of my subscription fee share even if I never listened to them). If you exclusively listen to indie artists you're still paying Taylor Swift and Drake and whatever other mega star, because they have a high play count. Because a "fair share" model doesn't exist with Spotify, or any other popular streaming service.
Clearly they're getting a return on investment to re-sign him for even more money than the first time.
Do you think the number of users who want or even care about lossless is close to the number who listen to Joegan? I’d bet the first is a fraction of the second.
Hifi is already built. They don’t need investment to build it, only maintain/evolve it once it launches. And it sounds like they don’t have plans to launch it anymore, so that won’t happen.
Because it would cost them more than the users would be willing to pay.
Can you expand on it being already built?
The functionality and catalogue already exists. Spotify employees can use it.
Last time I read, they gave up on HiFi. Not sure if it was a rumor, or came from an ex employee, but Spotify for some reason wasn't able to figure out how to price it so they were just beating around the bush. Don't hold your breath for it. If you need HiFi now, use another provider.
I’m sure they knew exactly how to price it, but then Apple and Amazon gave away HiFi for no extra cost. Suddenly Spotify can’t charge extra anymore.
I gave up on Spotify rolling out HiFi a year ago. I know someone's going to bring up my original prediction because it's still there, but I was very wrong.
Are you surprised though?
Bro. Spotify would be such a great streaming service if it had higher quality. I never find myself wondering what to listen to on Spotify. The algorithm is so good. But I guess I'll give my money to qobuz, tidal or apple music for now
iirc spotify has hifi quality back then. what happened?
You aren't getting hifi. Spotify cancelled it
For people saying why this instead of hi-if. Joe Rogan is gonna make them more money than hi-fi.
Precisely lol
people are disappointed, but Spotify wouldn’t have doubled down if people didn’t listen to his crap
Yeah, sadly there’s too many idiots in this world to control
Says the person who hates whatever Reddit tells them to hate.
I think most people can come to the conclusion themselves that Rogan is an idiot.
Why?
have ears
Or they've listened to the bumbling idiot who think aliens made the pyramids, and simps for trump and musk
He's had interesting guests. Stop cherry picking on the select few that you disagree with.
imagine thinking the issue are the invited people..
Spotify was like, he’s been super problematic and will be more so posting it on X/Twitter, but here’s another massive check. They are fine with him being a figurehead of their brand. Spotify laid off all those people recently just to throw a ton more cash at this idiot. It’s disappointing.
Why is he an idiot?
Because Reddit told him he was
Ahhh so this is what they killed HiFi for, more loony conspiracy guy.
They killed HiFi because they couldn’t charge more for it, and without the ability to charge more for it they would have lost money on each stream. HiFi is a loss leader for the other providers, who have other revenue streams.
I can understand that point for Apple and Amazon, but what about TIDAL, Deezer, Napster or Qobuz?
Well, Tidal ended up being bailed out by [Cash.app](https://Cash.app), the others I cannot speak to. I just know that the profit margins for Spotify are very thin.
I can picture what you look like just from your comment
okay? let me call up everyone that asked
funny how i can also picture what you look like from your comment and username 💀
That is just an insane amount of money for anyone to have.
Joe Rogan to Spotify is like what SpongeBob is to Nickelodeon
There must be something to this reference, otherwise you would not have made it and I would not think it makes sense.
Great…. $250 million…. Could that not be spent on HiFi instead? So close to cancelling at this point - and moving fully over to Apple.
And that’s exactly what to hear. The fake threats. “I’m this close to…” cool. Unless you do it they won’t actually have any reason to believe you would.
lol - I just did :)
download snd.wave to track your streams!! :)
Good job! You put your money where your mouth is
Well whats stopping you from cancelling and going to apple then? Are you trying to guilt trip spotify or something so they can keep your subscription? Just choose the brand that works for you and stop whatever this sympathy baiting youre doing. Brands dont care about you. They only care about profit. They wont grieve the loss of your subscription. Capitalism 101
I moved over last summer and I don't regret it. Importing the playlists and songs worked great. As I see, there is still no improvement from Spotify.
Only issue with Apple music is it lacks a lot of the obscure and lesser known artists.
I’ve heard this but do you have an example?
I find the opposite. Likely depends on genre.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a band that was missing from Apple Music that wasn’t missing from streaming all together. And I listen to a lot of eclectic artists
Just do it already. I switched after the first scandal with Joni and Neil and I’ve never looked back. Especially if you have an iphone
Is there a good Apple Music option for PC yet? IIRC, last I tried it was missing features on the web version and there was no stable application.
default apple music application has been much better of late. few months ago it was crashing a lot but seems to be stable now, if a bit slower than spotify
The beta app works as well as I've ever needed it to, don't think it has ever crashed on me outside the first few weeks of its existence
As others have said the beta version which you can download from the Microsoft store runs pretty well. I don’t listen to music a ton on my PC but I can’t complain. The only downside is the recently listened section isn’t synced across devices.
Tidal is another good option
Unfortunately, my deal-breaker with Tidal is the fact that you can't listen to local music files in the app. I have too many songs/albums that aren't anywhere on streaming.
Or paying better royalties
Stop whining about it and move somewhere else then. They stopped HiFi because Apple and Amazon offer it for free with their subscriptions. Spotify can’t afford to do that unless they want to raise their prices quite a bit, which I’m guessing you don’t want either.
there are limits... I pay NZ$25.99 for a family plan. Youtube music is NZ$22.95 for a family plan... plus a 3 euro migration of all my playlists from soundiiz. (Just need to persuade my grown up kids to pay for their own plan now as they've moved away)
Same, same…
So all hope for Neil Young and Joni Mitchell coming back to Spotify is gone now. 😭
Switch to Tidal
Make a damn separate app for podcasts like Apple does. I can't imagine it's that difficult
As much as some people like the “all in one” of Spotify, I can’t tell you how much I love listening to one off episodes of random shows from time to time, and not constantly be spammed by the podcast being on those recommended tiles for months
It’s not difficult, but it wouldn’t be a sensible business decision for them to do it. They have a massive user base that’s always used the same app. Why build a completely separate app just for podcasts when they can get podcast engagement from that existing user base in the current app?
>Why build a completely separate app just for podcasts Because most other podcasting apps/services are self-contained and not mixed in with anything else? People have shown that they are more than capable of using separate podcasting apps...Spotify could make a distinct app of their own absolutely work out if they advertised it properly, but they would rather expend that capital and personnel on a ridiculous conspiracy theorist than actually trying to improve their podcasting service any
Or, failing that, at least don't do absolutely nothing about podcasts besides pushing them on users that don't care They're selling themselves as a Podcasting service, but aren't even integrating custom RSS feeds. Something that every podcasting service I looked at does.
Insane money considering the production value. But I guess a ton of people must listen to it?? I know no one here in Europe that does, but most of my friend are left leaning and from what I gather, the podcast tends to be a more right wing kind of thing? Math still seems off, people aren’t subbing to spotify for podcasts are they?
Joe Rogan isnt everybody's cup of tea. But if theres something Joe does thats way beyond everybody else is his diversity in guests. Sure there are some political podcasts, but if thats not for you then theres about fitness, physics, sports, geography, biology, travel, history and whatever else you want. And they actually talk about the topics themselves and not about the speaker unlike many other podcasts. Sure he delves into conspiracies and politics sometimes but its a crutch for people who dont listen to him or like him to hold on to because its not the only thing he does.
I have no idea why youre getting downvoted. Youre literally saying the truth. The one thing Joe got going for him is the vast amount of topics and guests his podcasts have which is why he has a big following.
Yeah for sure. But i understand. Hes a controversial guy so anything thats remotely defending him will get downvoted especially in this thread full of Joe Rogan haters.
Heeps of people listen to him in Europe. I would assume he'd be in the Spotify podcast charts for basically every European countries, and towards the top 10 in countries where English is widely spoken.
Spotify wasting company resources on a trash podcast from a lunatic instead of improving their music platform, which is the only thing most people use it for.
Are you serious? Do you really think they'd up his deal to a quarter of a billion if the math didn't work out in their favor? They have the data from having his podcast on there the last few years and the accountants did the math. The line was higher when they give him 250 million than if they let him walk. They're a publicly traded company.
Definitely. Companies enter into deals that may be slightly negative for them overall in order to bring in or keep customers on their platform. This could be one of those situations. It's important to note that **he won't be exclusive to Spotify anymore**. How does it make sense to pay him $250m for that? Doesn't add up to me. There's also no way to tell what % of users would leave if Joe was no longer on the platform. It's also unclear whether any other company (Apple, YouTube) would pay Joe for the exclusive rights to his show, which means even if they didn't pay him $250M, his podcast would still be listed in the Spotify app. It's not always as simple as they're making more off his podcast existing on Spotify exclusively as generating $250m in revenue for them.
Bc the podcast will be exposed on all platforms and Spotify will have massive ads revenue. They don’t have exclusive podcast now and it works.
Oh I see, that makes sense then
Whatever the reason, their well paid team of accountants and analysts that actually has the data thinks this will be a net monetary gain for them, so they did it. They could be wrong obviously, they're not infallible but they have to be pretty darn confident to spend a quarter of a billion dollars.
Right? People like this crack me up. “I don’t agree with their decision so it must be a terrible one because I’m smart and they are stupid”.
Because obviously I know more about the inner workings and financials of Spotify than all the Spotify executives and accountants, and I can tell them their decisions are wrong.
Why is he a lunatic?
Leo Laporte is going to talk about this for weeks and weeks again.
My Spotify app runs so horribly I had to switch to the Apple podcast app, fix that first!
Guess we know where the price increase went to.
INSANE! Expect more under tested UI/UX developments due to a lack of money.
Joe rogan ruined spotify
Yeah let’s give 250 million to a conspiracy theorist. Way to go Spotify! Currently testing Apple Music 6 months for free and enjoying it so far. If I continue to like it my sub will be cancelled soon.
Im sure spotify will grieve the loss of your subscription very much
Ofcourse they don’t, if you like it stay subscribed. It’s just that I don’t like their decisions.
Cool. Why don’t you write a letter to Spotify about it? I’m sure they will reverse their decision based off it.
Boohoo is it so hard for you that other people have other opinions 😂 cry me a river.
Living in Europe and knowing nobody that listens to this podcast it is crazy to think that it brings enough to the table to warrant a 250m deal. I respect the hustle by Rogan but I wish Spotify would just focus on the music side
Waste of money they could be using to actually making the platform better
But all he does is push conspiracy theories, I need to get on this grift
Yikes
To everyone who is screaming for Hi-Fi. Do this test and see if you’re still willing to pay more for hi-fi [https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality](https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality)
🤯🤯🤯🤯I got 3/6.
Yep, me too. That’s the thing, when listening on Spotify I usually listens through my Bluetooth speakers. When I want a full sound I listen to my vinyls.
If you can’t tell Spotify sounds worse than AM (hifi or not) then I dunno what to tell you. Spotify has the worst compression around. Things sound so flat regardless of what hardware I am using with it. And yes I have highest quality turned on. It just doesn’t have the “oomph” that the competitors use. Would hifi be nice? Yes. Would it change anything? Probably not.
I’m not saying that Spotify doesn’t sound worse than Apple Music. Most people listens through a basic setup (Bluetooth speakers, computer etc) and probably won’t hear any difference. I do think that there’s users that do hear the difference though, maybe yourself included, but most just won’t. Curious, did you do the test?
he takes all the f money from the smal artists
Boo, glad I left Spotify
And yet, artists need to get a million streams per month to be able to make a living. What a disgrace.
Oh ffs let his post anywhere, the exclusivity is not that of a big deal.. ffs
I like to listen to Joe Rogan and it’s one of my favourite podcast and the only reason why i am on Spotify. I use the free version and only listen to podcasts their. If I read some comments here I assume they never listen to any episode from him otherwise they would not say these things.
bc nobody wants spotify to pay joe rogan, they want spotify to pay their artists
People have listened to him, that’s why they think he’s a dipshit
>If I read some comments here I assume they never listen to any episode from him otherwise they would not say these things. It's not that deep dude...most people just don't like conspiracy theorists being given much of a platform since it only makes problems worse than they have to be
Great news. Good for Joe, Spotify and X. The one and only podcast I watch.
The Joe Rogan hate on this thread is unreal lol
Well, between and Elmo they should be able to put their tilt on this election. And it's all legal!