This is ridiculous. Spotify has been effectively doing dumping as an economic policy, and now that they have a sizeable portion of the market share, they’re turning to enshittification to make a profit. I see nothing defensible in that. The fact that they can’t turn a profit means that they’re trying to drive out competitors with less VC money.
We as consumers are not obligated to ensure healthy profit margins for random megacorps, and especially not ones engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and it’s embarrassing to defend that. I’ve never used Spotify and I never will, but the idea that they lose money on every user tempts me. I second the other guy in the comments: If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist. It’s just wannabe monopolism otherwise
Fundamentally, no industry can survive on VC money forever, so there simply has to be some kind of crunch eventually, either by reducing the product, increasing the price, or both.
We as consumers are not obligated to ensure healthy profit margins for random megacorps
I mean, this is a nice sentiment in the abstract, but in actuality, we kind of are if we want the product to continue to exist. Spotify is not going to be able to operate at a loss forever, and while there is a discussion to be had about what level of profit is warranted, I don’t think it’s a particularly wild thing to say that the answer is at least non-negative profit.
If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist.
What I genuinely don’t understand is how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn’t exist if it’s not economically viable, and at the same time, you’ll also criticize them for any attempt to make it economically viable. If Spotify shouldn’t offer the free tier because it’s not viable, and you’ll also attack them if they stopped offering it, what do you actually want them to do?
If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist.
If you’re claiming this as an axiom, I disagree. Public transit isn’t economically viable. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens aren’t economically viable. Increasingly in the modern world unbiased news isn’t economically viable. If you’re handicapped in some way you’re probably not economically viable. Honestly the human race isn’t really economically viable. Some things are objectively good and should exist at any price.
Now, I’m not under any delusion that Spotify is one of those things. Lol nope. But the statement on its own isn’t really a defensible one, and I think only the most strident Randian libertarians would try.
If you’re not claiming this as an axiom, and just saying that if Spotify in particular isn’t economically viable it shouldn’t exist, then I can probably get on board with that. But for my family’s mental health, I think a service like Spotify should. Or the return of a plurality of online mp3 storefronts.
This is ridiculous. Spotify has been effectively doing dumping as an economic policy, and now that they have a sizeable portion of the market share, they’re turning to enshittification to make a profit. I see nothing defensible in that. The fact that they can’t turn a profit means that they’re trying to drive out competitors with less VC money.
We as consumers are not obligated to ensure healthy profit margins for random megacorps, and especially not ones engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and it’s embarrassing to defend that. I’ve never used Spotify and I never will, but the idea that they lose money on every user tempts me. I second the other guy in the comments: If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist. It’s just wannabe monopolism otherwise
Fundamentally, no industry can survive on VC money forever, so there simply has to be some kind of crunch eventually, either by reducing the product, increasing the price, or both.
I mean, this is a nice sentiment in the abstract, but in actuality, we kind of are if we want the product to continue to exist. Spotify is not going to be able to operate at a loss forever, and while there is a discussion to be had about what level of profit is warranted, I don’t think it’s a particularly wild thing to say that the answer is at least non-negative profit.
What I genuinely don’t understand is how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn’t exist if it’s not economically viable, and at the same time, you’ll also criticize them for any attempt to make it economically viable. If Spotify shouldn’t offer the free tier because it’s not viable, and you’ll also attack them if they stopped offering it, what do you actually want them to do?
deleted by creator
If you’re claiming this as an axiom, I disagree. Public transit isn’t economically viable. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens aren’t economically viable. Increasingly in the modern world unbiased news isn’t economically viable. If you’re handicapped in some way you’re probably not economically viable. Honestly the human race isn’t really economically viable. Some things are objectively good and should exist at any price.
Now, I’m not under any delusion that Spotify is one of those things. Lol nope. But the statement on its own isn’t really a defensible one, and I think only the most strident Randian libertarians would try.
If you’re not claiming this as an axiom, and just saying that if Spotify in particular isn’t economically viable it shouldn’t exist, then I can probably get on board with that. But for my family’s mental health, I think a service like Spotify should. Or the return of a plurality of online mp3 storefronts.