this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
110 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
282 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty much inevitable I've been amazed they went this long. $10 just does not seem sustainable.
Im fairly sure they manage because they have so many subscriptions from people that barely use it.
They basically pay out per song played - and server costs are also largely dependent on active users. So they balance out a very active person that might incur 15$ in cost with 5 inactive people that incur not even a dollar.
Then there are people like me who do use Spotify a lot, but I'm mostly listening to the same stuff most of the time. Unless I'm trying to find new things or listen to a podcast, it's most likely all cached on my device.
Well, they pay artists 0.03¢ every 1000 play or something...
I guess I don't really know exactly how their model works, but I'm guessing that is only for independent artists. I bet they paid big bucks to the major record labels.
To record label yes, to artists, no
Yes and thats my point. The $10 a month is likely not sustainable because of their contracts with record labels.