StatusCake

Google Launches Music Streaming Service – Has the Fat Lady Stopped Singing For Spotify & iTunes?

change log

Just as the music industry threw up its arms in panic over how cassettes and home recording would destroy sales, how MP3s and online piracy would likewise do the same, they identified the collision miles off, but failed to take remedial action to avoid the crash.  The dogged pursuit of an antiquated and dying business model meant that it took outsiders, such as Spotify, to come along and show them how it could be done differently.  How many record company executives must have been shown plans for their label’s own streaming services using their own roster of artists and shot the idea down in flames!?

And it’s against this background that Google finally launched its much awaited music streaming service at the I/O Conference in San Francisco yesterday.  The new service, “Google Play Music All-Access” is underpinned with licensing deals with three major record labels – Universal Music, Sony and Warner Music Group.

The music streaming service, which goes-live in North America today, will give users the opportunity to sign-up for a 30-day free trial after which subscriptions will cost $9.99 a month.  Users signing up for All-Access before 30th June will be able to take advantage of a promotional discount of $7.99 a month.   Google intends to roll the service out into other countries soon.

So what does Google’s latest move means for the music industry, its artists and musicians and other competitors already in the space?

Out of those who stand to lose the most from Google Play Music All-Access are Spotify, whom Google appears to have gone head-to-head, but also Apple.

Apple’s model for its iTunes store has arguably more in common with the old school music industry than it does with its peers in Silicon Valley.   The model of earning revenue from users downloading particular tracks is shrinking, and shrinking fast.  The move towards subscription based, as much as you can eat services, such as those offered by Spotify and now Google, has changed how users consume their music.  Last quarter music downloads on iTunes accounted for just 27% of revenue, down from almost half in the mid-2009.

So if the shift away from the traditional idea of buying an album or single (or a download) is hitting Apple hard who else is affected?  One group impacted is the musicians themselves.  Musician Damon Krukowski believes that one of his songs would need to be played 312,000 times on Pandora or 47,680 times on Spotify for him to earn the same amount of money as selling a single album.

Just as suppliers get squeezed by the big supermarkets, musicians get squeezed by the record companies, and now the streaming services.  Subscriptions for music streaming services are now being hailed as the saviour to falling revenues from downloads, which were themselves hailed as the saviour to falling album and single sales.

Is it simply the case that by growing subscription based music, getting tracks played at even greater levels that the balance will swing back in favour of the musicians?  After all Spotify, which already has 6,000,000 paid-up subscribers has paid out $500m in musician royalties since launching.  And with Google now coming into the market – and the millions of subscribers they’re likely to attract – combined royalties will surely take on a meteoric rise for musicians?  This is, on the face of it,  pretty exciting prospect for the record labels and musicians?

Conclusion

Unfortunately that’s unlikely to be the case.   For all its hype and successes in changing the business model, Spotify has still yet to turn a profit – in fact in 2009 it lost around $59m.  The vast majority of those who sign up for Spotify services stay on a free account, they never upgrade.  The balance between free and paid plans isn’t quite right – and at $9.99 a month for a paid account, Spotify (and arguably Google’s music service) is never going to be a truly global, mass market paid product.

To hit that mass market price point, and with a potential price-war over subscription services on the cards, the price point of $9.99 per month will almost certainly come down.  And whilst this will grow users and revenue for the technology companies, the musicians will in turn most likely be forced to except even lower royalties to make the new pricing stack up.

And if there is a battle for subscribers this requires deep pockets – and as between Spotify, Pandora and Google they’ll only be one winner.   As for the record companies – might Google if it does become the last man standing, why not just cut out the record companies completely and get artists to sign-up and load their content directly onto the music service.

The stock market seem to like Google’s chances.  Google’s share price is hitting new highs and Apple has taken a beating.

James Barnes, StatusCake.com

Share this

More from StatusCake

Alerting Is a Socio-Technical System

3 min read In the previous posts, we’ve looked at how alert noise emerges from design decisions, why notification lists fail to create accountability, and why alerts only work when they’re designed around a clear outcome. Taken together, these ideas point to a broader conclusion. That alerting is not just a technical system, it’s a socio-technical one. Alerting

Designing Alerts for Action

3 min read In the first two posts of this series, we explored how alert noise emerges from design decisions, and why notification lists fail to create accountability when responsibility is unclear. There’s a deeper issue underneath both of those problems. Many alerting systems are designed without being clear about the outcome they’re meant to produce. When teams

A Notification List Is Not a Team

3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years

Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision

3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.

The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most

4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already

When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them

3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,

Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?

Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021

*By providing your email address, you agree to our privacy policy and to receive marketing communications from StatusCake.