• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m not a big fan of the high fees, but I’m even less of a fan of big developers being treated differently than the little guy.

    • Einar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some banks do this *** too. The more money you deposit, the less fees you pay. Because ‘premium customer’ and all this.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yep Chase for instance: over 75k on deposit, no ATM withdrawal fees anywhere! You know, helping the people who need it the least.

        • umami_wasabi@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          And charge you a monthly service fee unless you have a job (regular transaction into the account per billing cycle), which isn’t a thing in other places.

          Ripping off poor and jobless people. Yes.

      • 7u5k3n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      In effect, yes. Given that ~70% of revenue goes to rights holders, making the amount of revenue bigger by not paying 30% of subscriptions to Google, the savings are passed on to rights holders.

      • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        So, not exactly to the artists. I get the impression you seem to know quite a lot about the deal, can you try to analyze how this 70% gets divided?

          • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I suspected that much, it must be a complicated matter with many different cases, considering how music is produced. Thank you for your insight.

            • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Any time.

              To be clear, I don’t think this should be taken as a defense of Spotify. I just think that these misconceptions distract from more valid criticisms.

        • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          …I mean, 30% of the savings go to Spotify, so some part of it will indeed go to stock buybacks and executive salaries. Some of it will go to regular employee salaries, and some of it will go to pay for technical infrastructure, and some of it will go to pay for offices. Some of it will be spent on marketing, even.

          70% of it will go to rights holders, though.

            • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Again, not true - the royalty payments are based on revenue, not profit.

              To understand how absurd the claim that royalty payments are based on profits is, consider that Spotify has had a grand total of two profitable quarters throughout its whole existence - are you seriously claiming that no artist ever got paid outside those two quarters?

      • nicetriangle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I like how in a thread discussing how Spotify had been lying about their cost structures you’re continuing to take their word for how fairly they compensate artists.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          They’re a public company, they’re required by law to share financial info.

          Do you perhaps have better data though?

          • nicetriangle@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            From what I understand that 70% they’re paying artists is from “profit.”

            And from another comment in this thread:

            Their last quarterly financial statements shows $65 million profit on $3.36 billion in revenue.

            And then you have stuff like this:

            https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/spotify-to-spend-1b-buying-its-own-stock/

            So lets assume they make $65 million in profit every quarter between when that article came out and April 21 2026 (the period the article states they were doing buybacks). I count 18 quarters in that period. So if my math is correct that is $1.17 billion in “profit” in the same period of time they plan to do $1 billion in stock buybacks. But artists are only getting 70% of said profits. So that’s about $819 million to artists in the same period of time Spotify is doing $1 billion in stock buybacks.

            So we have a mega corporation playing creative accounting and doing stock buybacks instead of paying artists more. Classic.

            • crystal@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              lets assume they make $65 million in profit every quarter

              Where do you get this number from?

              Hasn’t Spotify been operating at a loss for most of its existence? Wouldn’t that mean they paid 0€ to its creators most quaters (if it was actually calculated off profit)?

      • Flip@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The real problem with the way Spotify distributes the money, is that they distribute it per play. This seems reasonable on the surface, but I think it’s pretty shit. I want my subscription fee to go to the artists I listen to. Right now they’re going to what most people listen to. This effect is worsened by the per-label deals: imagine if Beyonce wasn’t on Spotify, that would be bad for Spotify right? This gives her label (and by extension all major labels) massive leverage over how this works. It massively favors big artists.

        The per-play model also enables playfarming as an economically viable scam.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The details surfaced today after Google requested the court to keep the specifics of its deal with Spotify sealed earlier in the month.

    This fee could be reduced to 11% due to programs like user choice billing, which allows developers to use their own or third-party payment solutions.

    Earlier this month, The Verge reported that the search giant offered Netflix a deal in 2017 to just pay a 10% fee on Play Store for subscriptions.

    Last month, the Mountain View-based company reached a settlement with Match Group to let the dating app giant use third-party billing solutions on the Play Store.

    Match Group’s rival Bumble was part of the user choice billing program pilot started in November 2022.

    Epic, however, rejected Google’s offers to adopt user choice billing and went to trial earlier this month.


    The original article contains 382 words, the summary contains 135 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • thepiguy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yea no shit, idk if it’s just for my region or what, but Spotify does not manage their subscription through the play store. Makes it more annoying to cancel it too, which the execs at Spotify probably see as a plus.

      • ejmin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Can confirm. Tidal has “lossless” audio, but app is horrendous, albeit better than Spotify’s.

        Also tech support is absolutely useless, still would prefer over Spotify every time.

    • ashe@lemmy.starless.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Buying the music and selfhosting a streaming server is an option, though obviously not for everyone

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      NetEase Music. It’s a spotify clone from China, and the VIP version costs like $1.20 a month.

      It doesn’t spy on your phone and requires zero permissions (I’ve tested this extensively), but you will need a VPN set to China, Hong Kong or Taiwan for it to work (assuming you don’t live in either place).

      • TurtledUp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        China and doesn’t spy on your phone, I’ll take things that don’t go together for 200 Alex

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Idk if Bandcamp is better, but there I buy my beloved albums with a big tip. The only thing I dislike is many artists default to PayPal for their merch. Ah, and they got owned by someone like Tencent or Epic?

  • Dulusa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    So they don’t pay fees, they dont pay artist and they never made a Profit. But for some fucking reason are allowed to dictate the music industry.

    For anyone reading this, that still uses Spotify, a big fuck you from the heart of an artist!!! You’re the reason that abominations like Spotify are able to continue…

      • Dulusa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This will continue, as long as people dont stop using the products of this shitty companies. So yes, everybody who uses Spotify made the choice to give them their money, so that they can continue with this bs.

        You can blame the Management or whoever as much as you want, but as long as you dont change your behaviour and stop using their products, they dont have a reason to stop.

        So yes, its your fault too!