Hacker News Reader

Comment by stdbrouw | Hacker News Reader

Then how unreasonable is $0/month for radio? I'm happy there's people who can look at services like Spotify and Rdio critically, but I don't think appeals to intuition like "that can't be right?!" help us much.

View on HN

Because radio is not a substitute for recorded music. The inability to choose what you're listening to was always the stick that compelled listeners to purchase a recording. If you have Spotify, there is no reason to ever purchase that music in a download store.

Fast, reliable, and unmetered wireless is by no means ubiquitous. There is still the benefit of being able to play offline, burn to CD for the car, share with friends, etc.

Admittedly, the incentive to want offline music may continue to diminish over time.

Spotify offers offline access of their $10 p/m plan.

Ah, didn't know that. Guessing they don't allow CD burning, but I imagine that's a dwindling use case.

Well, more importantly, they don't allow sharing. You can have it offline but it's not like they're giving you plain mp3's to do with what you please.

Radio may be far more interesting that you expect. Once upon a time you had Payola[1] where radio plays were designed to influence record sales in a nontransparent way. Now you have the issue of consolidation where you'd have no idea which plays were influenced by royalties etc.

Anyway, my point is that your comment could be interpreted to mean that radio is democratic and it is a democratic way for meritorious music to be elevated.

By democratic I don't mean anything more virtuous than screaming masses, but I don't think commercial radio even rises to that.

Anyway, I have to read more to get an overview of how Spotify and others compensate the talent that makes content, or even cheat them, but I also want to make sure that popular radio isn't treated like something we'd prefer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

Because there is not such a thing like $0/month for radio, as you are forced to hear ads, and the advertisers pay for it, and you are forced the songs you hear, witch some people paying for controlling it.

Yes, in the old days some companies controlled which music was heard and which not, and those gatekeepers were not as cheap as you thing.

Definitively not 0$/month.

That's contrived. I'm not paying anything for radio. $0/month. And the free versions of Rdio and Spotify have ads too.

Because you don't have control over what the radio plays, or when ads play, you can't skip over ads (apart from changing channel, etc).

Radio is like an ad service for the music industry, where you listen to demo tracks and hopefully buy the full album. Rdio and Spotify give you full access to the end product for virtually nothing. It has totally screwed up the perceived value of albums.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com