Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My guess would be the idea is to shift listeners from white noise that Spotify pays royalties for toward white noise that Spotify owns. The hidden factor is ads that don't actually play for Spotify subscribers. The general idea behind paying for an ad-free experience is that royalties and revenue are either paid by subscription fees or by advertisers. The free tier gets ads and the paid tier doesn't. If Spotify shifted users to content they don't pay royalties for, then users wouldn't notice the difference, but behind the scenes Spotify can claim the royalties and ad revenue for itself rather than pay them out to a third party.

For example, if Spotify replaces the podcaster who makes $18k month in royalties with Spotify's own white noise podcast, then the immediate effect is that $18k/month doesn't leave Spotify's pockets.



This feels like Amazon selling Amazon products on Amazon e-commerce site.


Which is to bring up Peak Design, and that whole debacle.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/3/22311574/peak-design-video...


Amazon Basics, then?


>white noise that Spotify owns

how can you have copyright on white noise???


Maybe they wash it with a proprietary bluing agent.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: