Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%(newsroom.spotify.com)
newsroom.spotify.com
Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%
https://newsroom.spotify.com/2023-12-04/an-update-on-december-2023-organizational-changes/
1,251 comments
Every damned time this happens someone asks how it's possible they have so many employees when it's just an app... Spotify owns multiple large podcast studios, has sales people, negotiators, music industry people, lawyers, facility staff, lawyers, marketing, content curators. It is the business engine through which the vast majority of the world consumes music these days. You can quibble about if they have too many engineering employees, but at least get the real number first.
Spotify's issues and costs are royalty payments. Of the €567 million increase in cost of revenue for the Nine months ended September 30, 2023, higher royalty costs were €534 million of that total. (~94%) [1] This delta is vs 7,159 total cost of revenue on 9,576 of revenue (€millions).[1, pg4] From looking at the rest of the report, most other cost of revenue contributors are minor (5 here, 10 there).
In the total category, R&D (1,257), S&M (1,101), G&A (430). R&D trending up, possibly plateauing, S&M, G&A trending down. [1, pg4] All relatively minor compared to 7,159. (<=1/6)
[1] pg 36, Spotify 2023 Financial Report, "Spotify Technology S.A.", FORM 6-K, October, 2023 - https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3...
In the total category, R&D (1,257), S&M (1,101), G&A (430). R&D trending up, possibly plateauing, S&M, G&A trending down. [1, pg4] All relatively minor compared to 7,159. (<=1/6)
[1] pg 36, Spotify 2023 Financial Report, "Spotify Technology S.A.", FORM 6-K, October, 2023 - https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3...
R&D increased as a % of revenue YOY. I think the increased cost of revenue is part of the story, the other being salaries and benefits rolling up to R&D
The R&D expense is fully within their control, while things are a bit more complex with licensing costs.
The R&D expense is fully within their control, while things are a bit more complex with licensing costs.
If Spotify is struggling to pay royalties they can make their own music
This seems false, Whatsapp became 'the business engine through which the vast majority of the world' sends texts on the backs of 20ish employees.
Even assuming delivering music, podcasts, royalty payments, negotiations with artists, etc..., takes 100x more headcount in total, that should still be only around 2000 employees.
9000 just means most are not being that productive.
Even assuming delivering music, podcasts, royalty payments, negotiations with artists, etc..., takes 100x more headcount in total, that should still be only around 2000 employees.
9000 just means most are not being that productive.
Obviously you can do it leaner, if they couldn't they wouldn't be firing people. My point is that you shouldn't be trying to estimate based on the technical side when most of the head count is negotiating with record companies and producing podcasts. In any case I personally wouldn't be so obsessed with every company running as lean as possible, great way to have 5 people make 10 billion dollars and everyone else just gets to pound sand. In a healthy society companies should run fat to keep people employed, engaged, trained up, ready to fill in as a replacement, and lots and lots of vacation time.
> ...when most of the head count is negotiating with record companies and producing podcasts.
Can you link the source?
Can you link the source?
It does sound extreme doesn’t it!
But I wonder if they have to replicate non-dev teams in multiple countries?
I’d imagine they have to a seperate legal, promotional, marketing, sales and so on teams for each market.
Replicating these business functions quickly adds up to thousands of people employed!
As an English speaker I tend to think of music as being all in English, but each region has its own musical culture that would need addressing.
France I believe mandates a certain amount of French speaking songs.
But I wonder if they have to replicate non-dev teams in multiple countries?
I’d imagine they have to a seperate legal, promotional, marketing, sales and so on teams for each market.
Replicating these business functions quickly adds up to thousands of people employed!
As an English speaker I tend to think of music as being all in English, but each region has its own musical culture that would need addressing.
France I believe mandates a certain amount of French speaking songs.
Apples and Oranges, not from a complexity perspective but WA was majorly subsidized by VC and later FB without monetization for years.
Spotify has a completely different business model, architecture etc.
Spotify has a completely different business model, architecture etc.
agreed. the population has probably passed an inflection point where bureaucracy is at its peak, crosscutting concerns are unavoidable, and communication chains too long and winding to be considered communication at all. but we’re talking of the genetrix of some of the modern modes of organizing work and workers. i'm more hopeful that they’ll be able to do the right thing, even if it doesn’t mean reducing workforce to the irreducible minimum.
If you primarily listen to classical music, Apple's new Classical Music app (part of its Music subscription) is *fantastic*.
Always nice to see Apple Music Classical mentioned on here. I was one of the lead engineers building things before the acquisition and to my knowledge they still use tooling I built around automation of audio ingestion. Streaming music was a fascinating industry to work in
What's not fantastic is apple's lock down of their ecosystem. I'm not paying for some lacking android app by Apple.
anecdotal, I have the apple family plan and my partner has no problems with the apple music app on her android—we’ve been on it for a couple years.
i’ve used her phone to control music on long car trips, if there are differences i haven’t noticed. again, anecdotal.
i’ve used her phone to control music on long car trips, if there are differences i haven’t noticed. again, anecdotal.
The screenshots in the Play Store make it seem like the same app I see in iOS.
[deleted]
I was using Apple Classical happily for ~1 month, then it stopped working. It would load all the metadata and let me browse around but when trying to play a song it wouldn't progress.
I restarted my phone, reinstalled the app, went through several iterations of iOS updating, the problem never went away. No other app, including Spotify, has this issue on my phone. After a month of paying for Apple Music without Classical working I shrugged and unsubscribed. Big loss for me, and for them, since I am exactly their target audience with Apple Classical.
I restarted my phone, reinstalled the app, went through several iterations of iOS updating, the problem never went away. No other app, including Spotify, has this issue on my phone. After a month of paying for Apple Music without Classical working I shrugged and unsubscribed. Big loss for me, and for them, since I am exactly their target audience with Apple Classical.
FYI, you can contact Apple technical support pretty easily. I have been able to talk to a real person quickly a few times over the years.
https://support.apple.com/contact
https://support.apple.com/contact
Does any other brand have something similar to Apple's support? I was kinda surprised to see that you could get called back as easily as I did. Or that their stores could quickly fix e.g. a bricked bootloader. The Windows/Android devices I had before had nothing like that.
I don't know, but it's definitely keeping me on board. I don't even call generally, I just text.
Also not fantastic, how Apple handles multiple devices. I forgot how they call it, but registering new devices is a pain, especially if you have multiple Macbooks, iPads, iPhone, there’s an edge case where you have to wait 90 days before it starts streaming to your brand new iPhone.
You better reach out to their support, where they never acknowledge the issue but always fix it in 5 minutes.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250348779
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250348779
The feature I miss that spotify has is being able to control music playing on my desktop from my phone or vice versa
Yeah, Apple has a remote app but you need to be on the same local network and connect to the remote library and then can't add stuff from Apple Music. It all feels so antiquated and inelegant.
Some people are complaining about Spotify UI/UX but at least they provide a lot of features and it works pretty well most of the time. I find the app more responsive and just overall better has a streaming player.
I subscribed to apple music for 5 years but then I just switched back to Spotify this year. It is just better.
Some people are complaining about Spotify UI/UX but at least they provide a lot of features and it works pretty well most of the time. I find the app more responsive and just overall better has a streaming player.
I subscribed to apple music for 5 years but then I just switched back to Spotify this year. It is just better.
That's the thing I loved most about Spotify. Unfortunately their "radio" sucks. It generates a 1 time playlist of 50 songs. Pandora has the shittiest interfaces ever, but it does a damn good job DJing for me. Most of the time, I just want to turn it on, pick a genre and let it go. I don't want to listen to the same 50 songs over and over in the same order.
I am quite steeped in the Apple ecosystem, but Apple's crude syncing behaviors and runaway AMPLibraryAgent bugs/invasiveness, has me quarantining Apple media software. Use of Spotify does not mangle my private music library.
Really? I didn't know Apple has a dedicated streaming app for classical now. Will check it out. Thanks
another nice option is Qobuz, the sound quality is good for the newer releases.
The UI was one step below Spotify or Apple the last time I tried it though.
It's noticeable that they're working with a much much smaller team than their competitors, and they occasionally roll out new bugs. On the other hand, they seem really dedicated and listen to the users. I've switched to Qobuz about five years ago and while I've had the occasional issue, I don't plan to move away from it. I usually get a personal reply to my bug reports (usually from the same guy -> small team! :D) and that tends to make me much more willing to support a company.
I think that beyond some relatively small number, engineering headcount functions as a demonstration of wealth - it doesn't actually make the product better, it doesn't make you ship faster (Brooks's law). but it makes you look big and important and justifies your market cap
I want to like this theory, and it seems like there is some social clout aspect to the phenomenon.
But, the bump these companies get in the stock market whenever they do a round of layoffs indicates the market cap is justified by what you would expect.
But, the bump these companies get in the stock market whenever they do a round of layoffs indicates the market cap is justified by what you would expect.
Exactly. VCs want to see growth by watching double the engineering headcount on every subsequent visit. It's ALL about optics and burning money for show. But the party is ending.
I have seen it first-hand - company opening a new floor to show growth, but it was half-empty.
They are laying off people this week.
I have seen it first-hand - company opening a new floor to show growth, but it was half-empty.
They are laying off people this week.
Sales scales as O(N), eng/product should scale at sqrt or log. Ideally, obviously.
> recently play list stopped syncing between my phone and my desktop app after 2022 for some reason. Is it a bug or they just stop doing this since it costs more to sync?
I thought this was just me. Defo a bug.
I thought this was just me. Defo a bug.
It's very much more than supporting 'one product'. Off the top of my head, regarding engineering, I can think of:
1. iOS App 2. Android App 3. Windows App 4. Microsoft App 5. Web App 6. Underlying API 7. Artist Portal/App 8. Advertising Portal/App 9. PlayStation App 10. Xbox App
There are probably entire engineering teams for each micro-service in the overall product (personalization, playlists, player, etc.).
1. iOS App 2. Android App 3. Windows App 4. Microsoft App 5. Web App 6. Underlying API 7. Artist Portal/App 8. Advertising Portal/App 9. PlayStation App 10. Xbox App
There are probably entire engineering teams for each micro-service in the overall product (personalization, playlists, player, etc.).
They have Spotify apps on everything: Garmin watches, Roku TVs, the "Car Thing", Amazon Echo, Facebook Portal, Discord, Bixby...
That's a lot of apps to maintain and keep up to date with the latest features.
That's a lot of apps to maintain and keep up to date with the latest features.
They used to have Soundtrap, which is a DAW in the browser and had two separate apps. They sold it back to the founders AFAIK.
Not to mention them killing playlist radio functionality, which was a great way to have a custom Pandora-like experience whose seed you could control.
> I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product.
Having had a wee insight into how it worked at Rdio (obligatory: I miss Rdio!), one big chunk of the answer is they need a literal army of lawyers.
A worldwide streaming music library is a hoard of licensing liabilities for every possible country, with deals that expire, renew and change hands daily on every possible mix of business days and holiday calendars.
As for the design and development headcount, I guess they dispatch teams and tasks as efficiently as Meta with their thousands of acqui-hired product people.
Having had a wee insight into how it worked at Rdio (obligatory: I miss Rdio!), one big chunk of the answer is they need a literal army of lawyers.
A worldwide streaming music library is a hoard of licensing liabilities for every possible country, with deals that expire, renew and change hands daily on every possible mix of business days and holiday calendars.
As for the design and development headcount, I guess they dispatch teams and tasks as efficiently as Meta with their thousands of acqui-hired product people.
Everyone misses Rdio.
They keep changing the design of the app for the worse, just nonsensical stuff. Like how many UX design people do they have? Cause clearly they're just changing stuff to make themselves feel useful. The heart changing to a plus, what the fuck Spotify?
> they have that many people (9000) ... just gets worse everyday
As much as I hate to see layoffs from an empathization perspective, maybe this is the reason? Remember Brook's Law - adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that.
As much as I hate to see layoffs from an empathization perspective, maybe this is the reason? Remember Brook's Law - adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that.
It's called "maximizing profit" "for the shareholders" by "saving money".
They consider their workforce a liability and expense instead of an investment and necessary for quality and competitiveness.
They're just cutting into their workforce to impress investors to bilk more money out of them.
It's a sick philosophy for short-term gain that will ultimately destroy the company.
They consider their workforce a liability and expense instead of an investment and necessary for quality and competitiveness.
They're just cutting into their workforce to impress investors to bilk more money out of them.
It's a sick philosophy for short-term gain that will ultimately destroy the company.
Check out Idagio for classical. No affiliation.
I can reccomend deezer. I switched away from spotify last year and ended up trying like 5 different options before settling on deezer. No complaints, great quality streams (lossless), can upload your own songs and their recommendations system is really good.
It's hundreds of "microservices". That's why they created Backstage.
You just need that many people if you are going to go that route. Unfortunately for them, once the economy goes from "stupid good" to "very good", it all starts falling apart.
It's unchecked complexity that at some point is going to destroy you.
And it can literally destroy them.
"From Unicorns to Zombies: Tech Start-Ups Run Out of Time and Money"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/technology/tech-startups-...
You just need that many people if you are going to go that route. Unfortunately for them, once the economy goes from "stupid good" to "very good", it all starts falling apart.
It's unchecked complexity that at some point is going to destroy you.
And it can literally destroy them.
"From Unicorns to Zombies: Tech Start-Ups Run Out of Time and Money"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/technology/tech-startups-...
> I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product.
I would presume it's many more products than just Spotify app.
I would presume it's many more products than just Spotify app.
I count not open the app on my phone because the timezone reported by my carries was not compatible
For me it’s the forcing of Podcasts down my throat that I hate.
No Spotify, I do not want to listen to Joe Rogan and other right wing podcasts.
Just let me hide Podcasts already :-(
No Spotify, I do not want to listen to Joe Rogan and other right wing podcasts.
Just let me hide Podcasts already :-(
I don't care what American "wing" they are, I don't want podcasts and don't appreciate getting ads for them on the "ad-free" service I pay for.
I may be in the minority here but I still enjoy the Joe Rogan Experience. As an avid listener the past 12 years I can tell you he is not "right wing" in any way. He was a liberal and believes the left "left him behind" when progressivism hijacked the democratic party. Most intellectually honest humans agree with him.
I stand corrected :-)
Seems I unfairly bundled him in with online 'Right Wing' movement.
He does have a certain reputation though in some quarters :-)
Seems I unfairly bundled him in with online 'Right Wing' movement.
He does have a certain reputation though in some quarters :-)
Spotify without podcasts would be delightful
Reminds me of: "Nobody ever got fired for buying cloud".
Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did, and everyone said the same thing: "It's not our core competence, it would require more people".
I get it, it's not sexy at all to deal in infrastructure, but I've seen their cloud bill and it's significantly higher than 1,600 peoples jobs, even with the discounts they got through committed use and even when considering the actual costs for infrastructure they need.
I'm sure there are inefficiencies everywhere, but this was the one that I talked about before and was talked down in a rather condescending tone. "Nobody got fired for buying cloud" is evidently a misnomer, because if you spend a lot of money and you don't have a lot of income: something has to give. And cloud has a lot more lock-in than most employees.
Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did, and everyone said the same thing: "It's not our core competence, it would require more people".
I get it, it's not sexy at all to deal in infrastructure, but I've seen their cloud bill and it's significantly higher than 1,600 peoples jobs, even with the discounts they got through committed use and even when considering the actual costs for infrastructure they need.
I'm sure there are inefficiencies everywhere, but this was the one that I talked about before and was talked down in a rather condescending tone. "Nobody got fired for buying cloud" is evidently a misnomer, because if you spend a lot of money and you don't have a lot of income: something has to give. And cloud has a lot more lock-in than most employees.
It's actually non-trivial to run an efficient cost center department that actually supports other departments properly. The incentive structures are just horribly difficult to align. Cloud's selling point is that you won't have to spend 6 months filling out forms to get a single out of date VM (yes, that happened to me).
Until you get the worst of both worlds and have to align an enterprise architecture approval committee, get cyber sign-off, put the request through your service desk, have it land with some sort of enterprise task prioritisation team, and finally land with your internal cloud team to action the request your team isn’t empowered to do, only to then have a simple service provisioning turn into a massively overcomplicated set of extra cloud bits and pieces getting provisioned and retemplated and secured and configured over the course of months, as that overallocated team find 20 minutes here or there only to hit some new wall as the cloud settings look different to the last time they did it or some unforeseen setting requirement was overlooked in the original request, leading to a two week lag on email responses and ticket handover before it gets picked up again.
That is why companies such as Spotify don't focus on cost savings as much as people here seem to think they should. A focus on cost savings inevitably means bureaucracy which means time spent on that instead of on product features. That means not just less growth for the stock markets but also more attrition due to good engineers hating the process. Of course at some point it's unsustainable but right until that moment it makes perfect sense.
edit: And that moment depends not just on costs but the growth rate of the company so it's almost impossible to predict ahead of time (otherwise wall street investing would be a lot more boring).
edit: And that moment depends not just on costs but the growth rate of the company so it's almost impossible to predict ahead of time (otherwise wall street investing would be a lot more boring).
You forgot to include the meetings and paperwork involved in reporting on the SOC2 compliance.
You can end up in the same space even with a Kubernetes Cluster in the cloud when its fully subscribed and IT has no budget for more EC2 nodes.
Where in the article did you see cloud costs being the reason for this layoff?
> Spotify is cutting almost 1,600 jobs as the music streaming service blamed a slowing economy and higher borrowing costs in the latest round of redundancies at big tech companies.
It clearly states later that in a zero interest environment Spotify borrowed heavily and over hired, in this environment it’s no longer sustainable and they had to let employees go.
Did you just assume “costs” meant infrastructure costs like cloud?
> Spotify is cutting almost 1,600 jobs as the music streaming service blamed a slowing economy and higher borrowing costs in the latest round of redundancies at big tech companies.
It clearly states later that in a zero interest environment Spotify borrowed heavily and over hired, in this environment it’s no longer sustainable and they had to let employees go.
Did you just assume “costs” meant infrastructure costs like cloud?
Cost's don't exist in a vacuum.
it's easier to lay people off than to save millions in cloud spending when you've already committed to $x-billion over 5 years.
it's easier to lay people off than to save millions in cloud spending when you've already committed to $x-billion over 5 years.
A single engineer is 400k in total costs, and they hired thousands for initiatives that didn’t pan out. Thinking cloud costs come anywhere close to being a factor here is nonsense and not supported by anything in the article.
You extrapolated that costs meant cloud costs vs. them overhiring during the pandemic and investing in things like podcasts, which haven’t had the expected returns. You did this in an attempt to tie this back to some injustice that happened to you in a comment section far far away, which you’ve edited the post to remove now, thankfully.
You extrapolated that costs meant cloud costs vs. them overhiring during the pandemic and investing in things like podcasts, which haven’t had the expected returns. You did this in an attempt to tie this back to some injustice that happened to you in a comment section far far away, which you’ve edited the post to remove now, thankfully.
Five things wrong
1. I didn't edit my comment to remove anything like that, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
2. I didn't perceive injustice, I thought it was a bit brainless to not associate company costs with long term survivability.
3. An engineer being 400k TC is an anomaly, Spotify does not pay any of it's Swedish engineering force nearly that much, and since we don't know the demographics of the layoffs it's hard to argue engineers anyway. (Citation here says the avg was 125.000[0] which is still very high if these were europeans)
4. Their cloud bill would still be roughly 500 people based on that TC based on committed use alone.
5. Costs = Costs. Overspending in many areas = no more money. I'm merely suggesting that they overspent in one area that is now affecting another area indirectly. Yes, I drew a line.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38516794
1. I didn't edit my comment to remove anything like that, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
2. I didn't perceive injustice, I thought it was a bit brainless to not associate company costs with long term survivability.
3. An engineer being 400k TC is an anomaly, Spotify does not pay any of it's Swedish engineering force nearly that much, and since we don't know the demographics of the layoffs it's hard to argue engineers anyway. (Citation here says the avg was 125.000[0] which is still very high if these were europeans)
4. Their cloud bill would still be roughly 500 people based on that TC based on committed use alone.
5. Costs = Costs. Overspending in many areas = no more money. I'm merely suggesting that they overspent in one area that is now affecting another area indirectly. Yes, I drew a line.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38516794
> 3. An engineer being 400k TC is an anomaly, Spotify does not pay any of it's Swedish engineering force nearly that much, and since we don't know the demographics of the layoffs it's hard to argue engineers anyway. (Citation here says the avg was 125.000[0] which is still very high if these were europeans)
Are we going to ignore that on average their US engineers costs significantly more than ~400K total costs and they have an engineering hub in New York City?
> 4. Their cloud bill would still be roughly 500 people based on that TC based on committed use alone.
And they paid Meghan and Harry 20,000,000 USD for a podcast deal that didn't work out. That's 50 engineers. Should we look at the Rogan deal too and go through everything that didn't work out in the last 3 years?
You've provided no evidence that by not using the cloud Spotify would have made more money or prevented these layoffs. And costs is one thing: Could they have grown as quickly? Scaled as fast? Hired as easily? Without numbers, which you won't share (outside of "trust me I've seen it"), this becomes even harder to debate.
Are we going to ignore that on average their US engineers costs significantly more than ~400K total costs and they have an engineering hub in New York City?
> 4. Their cloud bill would still be roughly 500 people based on that TC based on committed use alone.
And they paid Meghan and Harry 20,000,000 USD for a podcast deal that didn't work out. That's 50 engineers. Should we look at the Rogan deal too and go through everything that didn't work out in the last 3 years?
You've provided no evidence that by not using the cloud Spotify would have made more money or prevented these layoffs. And costs is one thing: Could they have grown as quickly? Scaled as fast? Hired as easily? Without numbers, which you won't share (outside of "trust me I've seen it"), this becomes even harder to debate.
> Are we going to ignore that on average their US engineers costs significantly more than ~400K total costs and they have an engineering hub in New York City?
Yes, because you're asserting that:
A) That engineers who have been laid off have that TC.
B) That it's engineers we're talking about.
C) That it's mostly localised in NYC; a high CoL city by all metrics.
Their other spending is also shameful, it doesn't discredit other poor spending.
You're a little bit upset with me for some reason, I would surmise that you're feeling somewhat defensive, maybe you work for a cloud or you've skilled entirely into only being able to work with cloud. That's fine, but you need to understand financial constraints in business.
This is the side of business I am most knowledgeable about so I am qualified to have an opinion; situations like Harry and Meghan? Rogan? Not my area at all and it would be impossibly arrogant of me to assume I know anything at all about those situations.
Also: "trust me bro" is not my position, the way I saw the numbers is a grey area legally and I'm not sure any Spotify people want to chime in to clear it up because it's likely one thing that is under tight NDA.
Here's some very old info though that'll help you realise that the order of magnitude is there: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/spotify-will-spend-nearly-45...
Yes, because you're asserting that:
A) That engineers who have been laid off have that TC.
B) That it's engineers we're talking about.
C) That it's mostly localised in NYC; a high CoL city by all metrics.
Their other spending is also shameful, it doesn't discredit other poor spending.
You're a little bit upset with me for some reason, I would surmise that you're feeling somewhat defensive, maybe you work for a cloud or you've skilled entirely into only being able to work with cloud. That's fine, but you need to understand financial constraints in business.
This is the side of business I am most knowledgeable about so I am qualified to have an opinion; situations like Harry and Meghan? Rogan? Not my area at all and it would be impossibly arrogant of me to assume I know anything at all about those situations.
Also: "trust me bro" is not my position, the way I saw the numbers is a grey area legally and I'm not sure any Spotify people want to chime in to clear it up because it's likely one thing that is under tight NDA.
Here's some very old info though that'll help you realise that the order of magnitude is there: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/spotify-will-spend-nearly-45...
> Citation here says the avg was 125.000[0]
My comment you are referring to.
For the record, I used Glass Door, checked mostly Stockholm, but Paris, Barcelona, and Helsinki all seems to be in a similar range.
which lists most roles (including managers and senior engineers) as making less than SEK 1M ($98k) per year, most in the $75-$87k range it seems. Add on office space and equipment and other costs of roughly $30k per year and you got something like the above number.
My comment you are referring to.
For the record, I used Glass Door, checked mostly Stockholm, but Paris, Barcelona, and Helsinki all seems to be in a similar range.
which lists most roles (including managers and senior engineers) as making less than SEK 1M ($98k) per year, most in the $75-$87k range it seems. Add on office space and equipment and other costs of roughly $30k per year and you got something like the above number.
understandable, FWIW since I have numbers on these things from working in multiple companies it might be nice to map out where those extras actually go for other readers:
$500/mo for seat licensing (for developers) this includes: Git hosting/Copilot/Office Suit/IDE's/Figma/Slack etc;
$500-$1500/mo for office space (depends a lot, in my company a seat costs me $500/mo and I'm in the middle of the city- larger companies may pay even less but lets assume a very high cost since it's a tech company).
$50/m for preventative healthcare (friskvard in sweden; this is actually higher than the maximum tax-free value)
$100/m for non-preventative health insurance (IE; private healthcare)
$120~/m amortised cost of laptops (assuming $4000 macbook over 3 years and a screen amortised over 5)
5% monthly salary for pension, so, that varies a lot.
But it roughly aligns with your $30k p.a
$500/mo for seat licensing (for developers) this includes: Git hosting/Copilot/Office Suit/IDE's/Figma/Slack etc;
$500-$1500/mo for office space (depends a lot, in my company a seat costs me $500/mo and I'm in the middle of the city- larger companies may pay even less but lets assume a very high cost since it's a tech company).
$50/m for preventative healthcare (friskvard in sweden; this is actually higher than the maximum tax-free value)
$100/m for non-preventative health insurance (IE; private healthcare)
$120~/m amortised cost of laptops (assuming $4000 macbook over 3 years and a screen amortised over 5)
5% monthly salary for pension, so, that varies a lot.
But it roughly aligns with your $30k p.a
Payroll tax is missing from this listing - for Sweden this is 31.42% in the normal case.
No, payroll tax is always included in salary numbers because the tax is _drawn_ from the salary, not added on top of it. In Sweden they always use gross numbers for salaries.
Yes, we use gross numbers for salaries but the gross salary value does not include social contributions, payroll taxes/fees paid directly to the government, the gross amount is just before income taxes. There are quite a few extras on top of the gross advertised salary which the company pays for and we employees don't even know about (it's not shown in payslips).
Given that the Glass Door numbers are the gross value including reimbursements and taxes… What exactly is your point here?
Glassdoor numbers will be gross of income tax, but not include employer social security contributions, which is 31.24% on top of what you see as listed gross salaries. That is his point.
Don't forget if you're doing back-of-the-envelope stuff that there is also 20.6% corporate tax on revenue that has originated in Sweden. And companies resident in Sweden are taxed on their worldwide income, although if they are taxed elsewhere then this elsewhere amount can be deducted. But this means you are paying at least that amount. I imagine some chunk of Spotify's workforce exists to optimise and figure out all of that, given the number of legislatures and tax environments they have subscribers in.
Don't forget if you're doing back-of-the-envelope stuff that there is also 20.6% corporate tax on revenue that has originated in Sweden. And companies resident in Sweden are taxed on their worldwide income, although if they are taxed elsewhere then this elsewhere amount can be deducted. But this means you are paying at least that amount. I imagine some chunk of Spotify's workforce exists to optimise and figure out all of that, given the number of legislatures and tax environments they have subscribers in.
My point is that Swedish employees who input data into Glassdoor will have no idea about the extra social contributions, work insurances, and taxes paid by the employer that aren't available in your payslip. A payslip here only includes the gross salary without those add-ons, and so you aren't aware that your employer is paying some 50-70% on top of the gross salary you see in the payslip.
Maybe I've misunderstood what the parent comment meant so correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe I've misunderstood what the parent comment meant so correct me if I'm wrong.
Payroll tax is paid by the employer, as opposed to income tax which is paid by the employee. Anyone disclosing their salary in Sweden will give their pre-income tax salary, payroll tax not included.
Don't forget they have offices in India and South America. Exchange rate is 1 US dev to 2-5 Indian dev (depends on seniority level).
The cost of an employee is significantly more than their TC. It's a function of many resources, including compensation, hardware, space (real estate), corporate services, software licenses, taxes, etc.
Finding people who can run infra at Spotify scale isn’t easy. Even if they could find those people, it tough to leave aws (by design).
They could’ve been more careful about avoiding lock-in by building more on something like kube but most startups don’t have that foresight, and the expense of moving to on-prem is compounded even more when they have so much wrapped up in the aws ecosystem.
They could’ve been more careful about avoiding lock-in by building more on something like kube but most startups don’t have that foresight, and the expense of moving to on-prem is compounded even more when they have so much wrapped up in the aws ecosystem.
> Finding people who can run infra at Spotify scale isn’t easy.
You won't get any argument from me on that one, but it's worth remembering that it's also hard to find people who are able to run systems in the cloud cost effectively.
You won't get any argument from me on that one, but it's worth remembering that it's also hard to find people who are able to run systems in the cloud cost effectively.
TikTok found all of those people very quickly, they famously don't use a public cloud provider. Infra isn't magic.
TikTok has 100k employees and shoes shits money.
Not sure what "shoes shits money" means, but contextually they had $9.9B in revenue for the year 2022 and an operational expenditure of $9.4B.
I believe this means they generated $500m for bytedance, but I can't find a good citation, bytedance itself generated $6B in profits though for the fiscal year 2022
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342785/bytedance-key-qu...
I believe this means they generated $500m for bytedance, but I can't find a good citation, bytedance itself generated $6B in profits though for the fiscal year 2022
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342785/bytedance-key-qu...
[deleted]
> Infra isn't magic.
No, but you're definitely dealing with the Arthur C. Clarke quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
No, but you're definitely dealing with the Arthur C. Clarke quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
They've already managed a switch from AWS to Google Cloud once in their past.
I would caution against drawing grand conclusions from these recent layoff rounds. Companies overhired during the pandemic, and now they are trimming that fat. It’s not necessarily a sign of any big strategic mistakes beyond “we hired too many people”
> Companies overhired during the pandemic, and now they are trimming that fat
Citation needed
Citation needed
I think this is actually pretty well-established, eg https://news.crunchbase.com/layoffs/analysis-big-tech-pandem...
Anyone who had a LinkedIn profile in tech with open DMs during that time will probably confirm this.
The original article
>ValueAct’s chief executive, Mason Morfit, said Spotify’s costs had “exploded” and that it was “built for the bubble”
>ValueAct’s chief executive, Mason Morfit, said Spotify’s costs had “exploded” and that it was “built for the bubble”
COVID != "the bubble"
This is why I'm bullish about Oxide (who are building hardware to make it easy to essentially run your own cloud.) Nobody wants to deal with the nasty parts of running servers but if a company can take some of that complexity away, you could save a tonne of money over AWS.
How is running your own cloud different than traditional bare metal?
Traditional bare metal involved complicated packaging and release processes. You would literally have a diagram of "these are the physical servers running this service (LB, web server, etc.)" and be able to point to them. You could overprovision workloads to tolerate failure but not just shuffle a service from one machine to another.
When I used to work in a similar environment we would develop code, then we would give it to a QA team. They would test it and give it to an Ops team. The Ops team would schedule a maintenance window and roll out the new code on each server. This happened maybe once a quarter because testing and releasing was a week-long process.
Racking new servers and provisioning them also required some manual labour. We had a process to use PXE to provision the machines but it was still toil. Virtualization was a big benefit because you could at least create and blow away VMs without having to re-image a whole server from scratch.
"Running your own cloud" implies that developers can treat instances like cattle and interact via an API. But it also means there's a standard set of tooling for fleet management. None of this stuff is entirely new but in small or mid-sized orgs it was out of reach 10 years ago.
When I used to work in a similar environment we would develop code, then we would give it to a QA team. They would test it and give it to an Ops team. The Ops team would schedule a maintenance window and roll out the new code on each server. This happened maybe once a quarter because testing and releasing was a week-long process.
Racking new servers and provisioning them also required some manual labour. We had a process to use PXE to provision the machines but it was still toil. Virtualization was a big benefit because you could at least create and blow away VMs without having to re-image a whole server from scratch.
"Running your own cloud" implies that developers can treat instances like cattle and interact via an API. But it also means there's a standard set of tooling for fleet management. None of this stuff is entirely new but in small or mid-sized orgs it was out of reach 10 years ago.
traditional bare metal: Email IT and ask for 3 severs spun up for this small in-house project my team is working on. Email back and forth for a few days, book two meetings, and then wait 10-14 days before getting access to the servers.
Cloud: log onto a web portal, select the specs I want for the servers, press OK and log in 30 seconds later.
Cloud: log onto a web portal, select the specs I want for the servers, press OK and log in 30 seconds later.
Then wait a week for tech support in India to respond because the public load balancer was provisioned with a malformed cert and there is no way to sensibly reconfigure it.
Oh wait, that's just the IBM Cloud...
Oh wait, that's just the IBM Cloud...
For one, you can use your compute resources much more elasticly. You can create and delete VMs on demand and don't need to drive to the colo to reimage.
More automation.
> Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did
Isn't this what made Spotify success? Yes, they could have build their own datacenters, but someone else could outcompete them in the meantime.
They have traded off something for another thing.
Isn't this what made Spotify success? Yes, they could have build their own datacenters, but someone else could outcompete them in the meantime.
They have traded off something for another thing.
I don't think one of you has to be wrong for another one to be right. Should Spotify have focused on its core competency early in its life? Sure. But at some point in the long years since, Spotify should have 100% looked at their cloud bills and built a way out of that lock-in.
> Spotify should have 100% looked at their cloud bills and built a way out of that lock-in.
Absolutely, but everything has ROI, ROI of fixing cloud bills were probably smaller than "possible growth"
Now they know which features failed, they can start deprecating or stop growing them and refocus on cloud bills
Absolutely, but everything has ROI, ROI of fixing cloud bills were probably smaller than "possible growth"
Now they know which features failed, they can start deprecating or stop growing them and refocus on cloud bills
I think that's a good take, it's easy to look in hindsight and say that they made wrong choices but we wouldn't even be having the conversation had they not been at least somewhat successful.
The question becomes then: 9,500 employee's and none among them know how (or wanted) to regain enough costs to save 17% of the company from losing their job just before Christmas?
Certain features (spotify wrapped for example) would definitely be a lot harder with more traditional hosting. But the bulk of Spotify's workload are not significantly hampered by moving slower on infrastructure and recuperating significant costs.
It's just very easy to keep piling infra costs on top of infra costs and not thinking about it, especially if it feels disconnected from company financials for most developers and they do not see a line between spending and jobs.
The question becomes then: 9,500 employee's and none among them know how (or wanted) to regain enough costs to save 17% of the company from losing their job just before Christmas?
Certain features (spotify wrapped for example) would definitely be a lot harder with more traditional hosting. But the bulk of Spotify's workload are not significantly hampered by moving slower on infrastructure and recuperating significant costs.
It's just very easy to keep piling infra costs on top of infra costs and not thinking about it, especially if it feels disconnected from company financials for most developers and they do not see a line between spending and jobs.
Spotify was, in theory, a growing product oriented company which means everyone is focused on growing revenue. To focus on cost savings means enough to make up for the GCP bills means you focus less on revenue and that means less growth. Saving money and losing 20% of your stock valuation due to slower growth is not a good trade off for those running such companies. That's not to say you can't have slow long term cost oriented initiatives but drastic efforts at the last minute (what you'd need to save those 17% of jobs this year) aren't that.
No, Spotify's success happened back when they mostly ran on their own metal. Going for the cloud happened at the same time their innovation started to stall.
>"Spotify was a stand-out, almost no large tech company bought into cloud like they did, and everyone said the same thing: "It's not our core competence, it would require more people".
I'm not sure what you mean by this as Spotify was actually quite late buying into cloud. They ran on bare metal through at least 2015. From their engineering blog:
">Thus, in early 2015 we started exploring what a cloud strategy would look like for Spotify."[1]
So they would have been running on bare metal through some of the biggest spikes in growth i.e launching in the US market. I don't think they bought in any more or any less than anyone else who transitioned from bare metal to cloud and for probably the same reasons.
[1] https://engineering.atspotify.com/2019/12/views-from-the-clo...
I'm not sure what you mean by this as Spotify was actually quite late buying into cloud. They ran on bare metal through at least 2015. From their engineering blog:
">Thus, in early 2015 we started exploring what a cloud strategy would look like for Spotify."[1]
So they would have been running on bare metal through some of the biggest spikes in growth i.e launching in the US market. I don't think they bought in any more or any less than anyone else who transitioned from bare metal to cloud and for probably the same reasons.
[1] https://engineering.atspotify.com/2019/12/views-from-the-clo...
Generally I agree with what your saying, but
> I've seen their cloud bill and it's significantly higher than 1,600 peoples jobs
An apples-to-apples comparison requires looking at all associated costs of switching to on prem (salaries, hardware, etc...).
I've only been a part of this analysis at a company dealing with a cloud bill in the low tens of millions, nowhere near the scale of Spotify (and I'm still relatively new to all of this).
> And cloud has a lot more lock-in than most employees.
It's a shame there are not better abstractions to facilitate moving to and fro.
> I've seen their cloud bill and it's significantly higher than 1,600 peoples jobs
An apples-to-apples comparison requires looking at all associated costs of switching to on prem (salaries, hardware, etc...).
I've only been a part of this analysis at a company dealing with a cloud bill in the low tens of millions, nowhere near the scale of Spotify (and I'm still relatively new to all of this).
> And cloud has a lot more lock-in than most employees.
It's a shame there are not better abstractions to facilitate moving to and fro.
Cloud providers would benefit from actively fighting such abstractions.
Kubernetes is a pretty decent abstraction no? If all your apps and databases are containerized you can deploy in azure or aws just as well. And many cloud DBs support open source interfaces like Cassandra or JMS or Kafka etc.
It's a great abstraction that is _still_ a huge leap to make for companies who aren't bought in yet.
>I've seen their cloud bill
how did you see this. How do you know what all the discounts and backdoor deals that were applied to the bill. How do you know the final amount that was paid out.
i am skeptical that some rando is privy to this information.
how did you see this. How do you know what all the discounts and backdoor deals that were applied to the bill. How do you know the final amount that was paid out.
i am skeptical that some rando is privy to this information.
This is a wild leap of twisted logic. You posit that they might not have to lay off employees if they instead.... Paid a team to manage their infrastructure instead of outsourcing that responsibility to the cloud.
How big is the difference in your estimate, between the bills they have now vs cost of cloud + staff to support it?
Largely depends.
For ML workloads anything between 6-8x cost increase for using cloud.
For CDN costs somewhere like 3x (they're pretty smart on discounts here, without those it could be 100's of x)
For compute somewhere like 3-4x (would be 6x before the discounts)
Managed DB is a hard one because the cost is really high but I'm not 100% sure how much time is saved with the solution they chose because while I saw the bill I don't work there.
It gets dicey with humans because it's apples to oranges, expensive SRE's who understand the inner-workings of cloud vs cheap(er) hardware folks who set things up from first principles with a higher up-front cost. -- FinOps with more traditional solutions is easier but you still need people for that.
Spotify's backend load is not entirely elastic. There are some elastic bits but a large chunk is pretty static.
For ML workloads anything between 6-8x cost increase for using cloud.
For CDN costs somewhere like 3x (they're pretty smart on discounts here, without those it could be 100's of x)
For compute somewhere like 3-4x (would be 6x before the discounts)
Managed DB is a hard one because the cost is really high but I'm not 100% sure how much time is saved with the solution they chose because while I saw the bill I don't work there.
It gets dicey with humans because it's apples to oranges, expensive SRE's who understand the inner-workings of cloud vs cheap(er) hardware folks who set things up from first principles with a higher up-front cost. -- FinOps with more traditional solutions is easier but you still need people for that.
Spotify's backend load is not entirely elastic. There are some elastic bits but a large chunk is pretty static.
"..Spotify had taken advantage of cheap borrowing during 2020 and 2021, when central bankers cut interest rates sharply in response to coronavirus pandemic lockdowns"
> “Embracing this leaner structure will also allow us to invest our profits more strategically back into the business,”
> invest our profits more strategically back into the business
why didn't they do this in 2020 when they got zero interest loans and free money from the government?
profits are for "strategic" investment but loans are for un-strategic and unsustainable hiring? got it.
> “Embracing this leaner structure will also allow us to invest our profits more strategically back into the business,”
> invest our profits more strategically back into the business
why didn't they do this in 2020 when they got zero interest loans and free money from the government?
profits are for "strategic" investment but loans are for un-strategic and unsustainable hiring? got it.
I don't understand the question? They were able to use money more freely as it was more abundant, so they were able to take more risks. Now that money is more expensive, they need to be more careful about it.
I think parent might be overemphasizing strategic in that quote.
>> This is not a step back; it’s a strategic reorientation. We’re still committed to investing and making bold bets, but now, with a more focused approach, ensuring Spotify’s continued profitability and ability to innovate.
"Strategic" could be replaced with "efficient". They were previously optimized for growth -- now, they're optimizing for growth:krona.
Also, it is refreshing to see a head cut announcement that doesn't bury the lede: we're firing people, and this sucks.
>> This is not a step back; it’s a strategic reorientation. We’re still committed to investing and making bold bets, but now, with a more focused approach, ensuring Spotify’s continued profitability and ability to innovate.
"Strategic" could be replaced with "efficient". They were previously optimized for growth -- now, they're optimizing for growth:krona.
Also, it is refreshing to see a head cut announcement that doesn't bury the lede: we're firing people, and this sucks.
When a company is publicly traded, mass firing announcements are no longer buried, it's red meat for shareholders.
Was lessso taking issue with burying, and moreso with the recent spate of bullshit "This is good for everyone" or "The world suddenly changed" or "This was always the plan" posturing in announcements.
"We optimized for one thing. Things changed. No we're optimizing for a different thing."
Doesn't need to be more obfuscated than that.
"We optimized for one thing. Things changed. No we're optimizing for a different thing."
Doesn't need to be more obfuscated than that.
> "They were able to use money more freely as it was more abundant, so they were able to take more risks. Now that money is more expensive, they need to be more careful about it."
> able to take more risks
so who pays for consequences of the "risks"?
my whole point was to illustrate the idea of privatizing profit and socializing losses.
> able to take more risks
so who pays for consequences of the "risks"?
my whole point was to illustrate the idea of privatizing profit and socializing losses.
More so now that it’s their own money and not yours they’re being more careful with it.
They invested the pandemic ZIRP bonanza on the 'transformative' IP that is podcasts.
In lieu of actual profitability, they also chucked in $1bn to buy up their own stock to maximize the CEO's already enormous compensation.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/spotify-to-spend-1b-buying...
In lieu of actual profitability, they also chucked in $1bn to buy up their own stock to maximize the CEO's already enormous compensation.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/spotify-to-spend-1b-buying...
Wow, it's pretty wild that an unprofitable company spent a billion dollars on share buybacks.
This isn't about rising costs though, this is about the labels and shareholders being greedy and wanting an even bigger piece of the cake that is already massive.
Meanwhile artists are getting paid next to nothing and now even workers are getting the short end of the stick.
Meanwhile artists are getting paid next to nothing and now even workers are getting the short end of the stick.
I see this response a lot on these threads. Why is it so hard to accept that two digit inflation over the past couple of years and interest rates well above 5% could be a major factor?
Well how about thinking stakeholders first and shareholders second?
Firing your employees because you are incompetent leadership and management without good foresight should result in letting you go.
Why the high compensation for leadership when it doesn‘t know what it does?
Braun didn‘t get the design leader in the past because they threw out their team, they got there because they kept the team together. The more you learn the better for the company.
This goes for all tech related job cutting in the last months.
Firing your employees because you are incompetent leadership and management without good foresight should result in letting you go.
Why the high compensation for leadership when it doesn‘t know what it does?
Braun didn‘t get the design leader in the past because they threw out their team, they got there because they kept the team together. The more you learn the better for the company.
This goes for all tech related job cutting in the last months.
How much more money do you want Spotify to lose?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
Shareholders have a 1.52% return since it went public, Apr 2018. A riskless investment in sp500 earned 11.7% since Apr 2018.
How much more do you want shareholders to lose? They have been losing 10%+ per year for 5.5 years.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
Shareholders have a 1.52% return since it went public, Apr 2018. A riskless investment in sp500 earned 11.7% since Apr 2018.
How much more do you want shareholders to lose? They have been losing 10%+ per year for 5.5 years.
I‘m no business major, I have no clue how to handle a company on a stock market. But the results I see is that leadership took steps that let into people loosing their jobs. Why are shareholders and management so important and employees at the branches are not? Everyone in that chain should be taken into account.
Do you have a specific claim or question, or is this an emotional response anytime employees are let go?
I already showed you that shareholders have been losing money for 5.5 years (while employees were being paid).
I already showed you that shareholders have been losing money for 5.5 years (while employees were being paid).
Yeah this emotional because it makes no sense. The system appears to be not working.
The system literally is working. Spotify still exists and you can get music there. Most employees kept their job.
The system that’s not working is literally the one in your head. Literally, your imagined ideals sign zero paychecks and add no value.
The system that’s not working is literally the one in your head. Literally, your imagined ideals sign zero paychecks and add no value.
Shareholders have had a poor investment so they do share in the failure. But the way a business works is shareholders vote for a board and the board installs management. This management then installs leaders/managers to oversee the different components of the business.
These people are the business and are often compensated in large part with meaningful equity. Everyone else (middle managers and contributors) are not the business - they just work for it. They are mainly compensated with a salary and are called employees. They are hired to complete tasks for the managers.
The managers will increase and decrease the number of employees based on the CEOs and other managers plan which the board approves. Plans often have certain assumptions that everyone (managers, not employees) agrees on and sometimes it doesn’t pan out so they have to change the plan.
Sometimes the managers resign or are fired when the plan fails and it was their fault. Other times they aren’t because it wasn’t something they could avoid (economic downturn, rise in rates, inflation, etc) or other reasons (they could be large shareholders themselves).
These people are the business and are often compensated in large part with meaningful equity. Everyone else (middle managers and contributors) are not the business - they just work for it. They are mainly compensated with a salary and are called employees. They are hired to complete tasks for the managers.
The managers will increase and decrease the number of employees based on the CEOs and other managers plan which the board approves. Plans often have certain assumptions that everyone (managers, not employees) agrees on and sometimes it doesn’t pan out so they have to change the plan.
Sometimes the managers resign or are fired when the plan fails and it was their fault. Other times they aren’t because it wasn’t something they could avoid (economic downturn, rise in rates, inflation, etc) or other reasons (they could be large shareholders themselves).
If they keep running losses, every employee loses their jobs. The company is losing money.
[deleted]
> A riskless investment in sp500
Just a nitpick, but this isn't the traditional definition of "riskless", which would be Treasuries. I believe the S&P 500 experiences an average drawdown of 14% in any given year, so it's hardly without risk.
You could more accurately say that SPOT has been underperforming "the market", "equities", or "beta".
Just a nitpick, but this isn't the traditional definition of "riskless", which would be Treasuries. I believe the S&P 500 experiences an average drawdown of 14% in any given year, so it's hardly without risk.
You could more accurately say that SPOT has been underperforming "the market", "equities", or "beta".
It is my tongue-in-cheek way of referring to the belief that the US federal government will ensure the broad market does not stay down for long.
That is an absolutely fair point. ;-)
Given that the major shareholders are the big music rights holders which is one of Spotifies major costs shareholder have done alright.
This is not true. They must be very insignificant shareholders (less than 1%).
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
Thabks for that. I've not been paying attention - the major labels have all sold (almost all) their stakes over the last few years.
I can’t find any references for when the 3 major labels held significant stakes in Spotify. Only Sony did with 5.7% at the time they went public, according to the principal shareholders section:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1639920/000119312518...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1639920/000119312518...
Other majors had slightly less than Sony each - just under the 5% threshold.
I tend to think the overhiring was not a "mistake" but planned. They still get to keep all the intellectual output of the people they let go.
Nonsense. You didn't address my point...
Tech is disproportionately affected by rate changes (both inflation and loans/bonds), as it's the highest growth sector. High growth businesses are investing heavily in infrastructure and as such are also highly leveraged.
Tech is disproportionately affected by rate changes (both inflation and loans/bonds), as it's the highest growth sector. High growth businesses are investing heavily in infrastructure and as such are also highly leveraged.
Well vice versa great answer.
Who planed and executed a strategy like this and why isn‘t it done in a way to not get as much employees which would lead into them getting laid off?
Why getting cheap money without taking into account that the situation is different in 5 years?
I couldn’t care less that growth businesses run into this situation. Then don‘t grow it so fast!
People are getting fired across so many businesses. It appears unlikely they will get another job soon. The situation leads to health problems and has ramifications for people. Fucking management can do whatever they want. They still get highly compensated.
Who planed and executed a strategy like this and why isn‘t it done in a way to not get as much employees which would lead into them getting laid off?
Why getting cheap money without taking into account that the situation is different in 5 years?
I couldn’t care less that growth businesses run into this situation. Then don‘t grow it so fast!
People are getting fired across so many businesses. It appears unlikely they will get another job soon. The situation leads to health problems and has ramifications for people. Fucking management can do whatever they want. They still get highly compensated.
What? I addressed your comment. I'll make it simpler: you are spouting nonsense.
Spotify didn't "plan and execute" anything. The current situation was brought on by 2 decades of quantitative easing and then multiple black swan events and even more cash injection until it all came crumbling down. The amount of blame you place on the board of a single company to combat what is essentially a global crisis brought on by actions taken by world governments is extremely naive. Spotify isn't alone in this. Nearly every big tech company has had layoffs and I don't think we're anywhere close to being done yet. I hear rumors more are coming for mamaa.
Spotify didn't "plan and execute" anything. The current situation was brought on by 2 decades of quantitative easing and then multiple black swan events and even more cash injection until it all came crumbling down. The amount of blame you place on the board of a single company to combat what is essentially a global crisis brought on by actions taken by world governments is extremely naive. Spotify isn't alone in this. Nearly every big tech company has had layoffs and I don't think we're anywhere close to being done yet. I hear rumors more are coming for mamaa.
There are large forces that affect our lives that are beyond our control which cause us anxiety. We can deal with this in different ways; religion, government, or employers are all authorities who we may believe can help us through times of need (our healthcare, for some of us our literal ability to continue living, is tied up in our employment, at least in the US). It’s only natural that we run into problems when our bulwark against the uncertainties of the world is taken away. And then tie up the prestige of working for FAANG and the identity that comes with it, to learn that perhaps you weren’t so special; you were just caught up in a ZIRP phenomenon - it can be hard for an individual to take.
I don't disagree, but we all need to strive to do better. Pleading with perceived corporate overloads to fix problems they are simply victims of themselves isn't helping anything. I'm seeing this trend more and more where people want to blame ceos like they have some magical wand to fix the worlds problems. That's not how things work.
If we want to look for solutions, we should look at the 20 years of stimulus which go us here and question why this was happening and what we should have been doing about it. But, alas, few were complaining when they were able to get 500k loans with sub 3 interest rates...
If we want to look for solutions, we should look at the 20 years of stimulus which go us here and question why this was happening and what we should have been doing about it. But, alas, few were complaining when they were able to get 500k loans with sub 3 interest rates...
How do things work? From what I can tell (speaking as an American), we do seem to have imbued corporate leaders with a reverence classically reserved for religious leaders. And who else are we supposed to look to? God is dead, and 40-odd years of starve the beast has left the government with seemingly few policy tools to enact change; though as you note they can still change interest rates and print money.
Hopefully someone will come along and save us, but it's hard to imagine who.
Hopefully someone will come along and save us, but it's hard to imagine who.
The government printed the money. They are the issue. Corporations compete with each other for survival, they cannot afford to be altruistic and expecting them to be is totally naive
Given that they are responsible for providing (and I suppose delivering as well) the healthcare of a majority of Americans, it seems problematic that corporations are nihilistic profit-maximizing machines though, doesn't it? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're all just boned at this point, but obviously I'm not much of an optimist. Judging by the declines in birthrates though, it seems like that's more or less what others are coming to conclude.
Have you looked at the financials? The company runs net losses, every year. Losses are not a "massive cake", they are a "massive hole".
The labels are definitely getting a massive slice of the cake - and recently pushed for more.
> This isn't about rising costs though, this is about the labels and shareholders being greedy and wanting an even bigger piece of the cake that is already massive.
Source? Because losing money every year does not seem sustainable.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
Source? Because losing money every year does not seem sustainable.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
Are you not aware how dire inflation and the very high interest rate make the current situation?
Hasn't inflation gone down to ~3%?
Sweden's current inflation rate is 4.2%
https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/monetary-policy/the-inflation-...
https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/monetary-policy/the-inflation-...
Has it? Nothing in my life except gasoline has gotten any cheaper.
Edit: I misread the comment. I am aware of the difference between rates and absolutes.
Edit: I misread the comment. I am aware of the difference between rates and absolutes.
That isn't what the inflation number means. An inflation rate of 0% means prices stop going up and stay at their current level, not that prices go down. Prices going down would be deflation, and that almost certainly won't happen.
Why would it get cheaper with a low inflation rate?
Low inflation rate means stuff get more expensive slower. It's still getting more expensive.
Low inflation rate means stuff get more expensive slower. It's still getting more expensive.
[deleted]
[deleted]
that's not what "less inflation" means
I wonder how much of this is led by the likes of paying $200 million to sign up Joe Rogan or $25 million for Harry and Megan. That's a big chunk of change. 9,000 employees too - 17% of the workforce out the door.
Spotify made a gamble that having some headline Podcasters would build the listener market. Podcasters release regularly and have a different potential for becoming viral compared to musicians so it's a valid commercial decision to make.
Seems like their headline gambles didn't work but googling suggests that the podcast listener market increased 10% in the last year so I think they'll probably try again.
Seems like their headline gambles didn't work but googling suggests that the podcast listener market increased 10% in the last year so I think they'll probably try again.
For what it's worth Spotify is the most popular podcast platform in the US, with 25% of the userbase: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/podcast-listeners#podcast-p...
I'd say that gamble in particular worked. Not so sure others will though, audio books feels like it will be a dud.
I'd say that gamble in particular worked. Not so sure others will though, audio books feels like it will be a dud.
25% market share is a bit lackluster, though?
Podcasting has also been called the slowest growing new medium in the history of new media. I can't imagine it's earning its keep, relative to those big initial payouts. Meanwhile, the shows that are brought into subscription-only world systematically fail to attract new listeners; it is hard to use podcast exclusives to grow market share. Especially the talking head variety, which exist in abundance outside the pay wall.
Podcasting has also been called the slowest growing new medium in the history of new media. I can't imagine it's earning its keep, relative to those big initial payouts. Meanwhile, the shows that are brought into subscription-only world systematically fail to attract new listeners; it is hard to use podcast exclusives to grow market share. Especially the talking head variety, which exist in abundance outside the pay wall.
Apple and Google have 20% and 16% respectively. Considering the amazing platform boost that those two giants have I think 25% is very impressive.
But I agree that podcastings growth has been very slow. I think that there are a lot of factors influencing that. The biggest in my opinion is that listening to a podcast is more intimate than any other media (including broadcast radio) and that factor both slows uptake and decreases churn. Not a marketer though so just making that up.
But I agree that podcastings growth has been very slow. I think that there are a lot of factors influencing that. The biggest in my opinion is that listening to a podcast is more intimate than any other media (including broadcast radio) and that factor both slows uptake and decreases churn. Not a marketer though so just making that up.
I both agree and disagree with you here. The expectation of the podcasting business to be full of great opportunities and monetary gain was (probably) misguided, but 25% market share in an established market in just a couple of years when there were big players holding a majority share is still a huge feat.
Will it pay off? Probably not. But is 25% a big share? Yes.
Will it pay off? Probably not. But is 25% a big share? Yes.
Apple Music (Jun 2015) and Google Play Music (Nov 2011) launched after Spotify (Jul 2011 in the US). I think the 4 year delay by Apple is what allowed Spotify to become so popular in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play_Music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify
The problem for Spotify is that they need a far bigger share of the market to be able to have negotiating power against the 3 record labels that they have to buy the music from. Apple/Alphabet/Amazon do not care as much because re-selling the music at cost or even as a loss leader is not a big deal to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play_Music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify
The problem for Spotify is that they need a far bigger share of the market to be able to have negotiating power against the 3 record labels that they have to buy the music from. Apple/Alphabet/Amazon do not care as much because re-selling the music at cost or even as a loss leader is not a big deal to them.
This whole subthread is about podcasts, and in that space apple was pretty early (2005 in itunes, 2012 as a standalone app) and spotify was very late.
Oops, I missed that distinction. Thanks for correction.
Anecdotally, most of the podcasts I listen to advertise as being on Spotify, especially the ones that skew towards a more mainstream audience. I think Spotify's podcast play has largely worked to gain the mindshare, it's really just them and Apple Podcasts.
I suspect this means that Spotify subscribers are listening to plenty of podcasts, but perhaps podcasts failed to bring new listeners into Spotify.
I suspect this means that Spotify subscribers are listening to plenty of podcasts, but perhaps podcasts failed to bring new listeners into Spotify.
Spotify itself is not sustainable and going for the podcast crowed...
I still think it was not a smart move...
Its like that blue haired streamer going from twitch to what ever the msft clone of it was.
Yes Spotify is super popular but I hear more and more people moving away from it to for example apple music or other services.
They don't focus on the core anymore that much.
For example they are super late on the lossless audio train.
Yes you can hear a difference from spotify and apple music. I tested it with all my colleagues in the office. You can clearly hear that apple music or tidal sounds better then the spotify versions.
I still think it was not a smart move...
Its like that blue haired streamer going from twitch to what ever the msft clone of it was.
Yes Spotify is super popular but I hear more and more people moving away from it to for example apple music or other services.
They don't focus on the core anymore that much.
For example they are super late on the lossless audio train.
Yes you can hear a difference from spotify and apple music. I tested it with all my colleagues in the office. You can clearly hear that apple music or tidal sounds better then the spotify versions.
Were these blind tests?
I played the same song from random services. They did not see the service nor the laptop. YouTube/Spotify/Apple/Tidal (We did not had access to more). YT usually was the worse followed by Spotify and then depending on the Genre either Tidal or apple won. All of them were in the highest settings.
Sony xm4 as headphones.
Sony xm4 as headphones.
The xm4 use Bluetooth and thus compress audio during transmission. Everyone of your listeners thus listened to lossy audio.
Fwiw there is not a single scientific listening test ever where participants were able to tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and wav. Not even in perfect studio conditions.
Fwiw there is not a single scientific listening test ever where participants were able to tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and wav. Not even in perfect studio conditions.
Just curious, I have no stake in this, but did you have the "high quality audio" settings turned on for Spotify? I know they've had them in the past, I don't know what the specific name is for it these days.
how much difference does lossless make on the typical headphones in use with mobile devices?
At least with my AirPods or my fancy Master&Dynamic over-ear headphones, there is a pretty big difference in Apple Music vs others, but I don’t think it's necessarily about bitrate. I think Apple just gets higher quality masters of some songs. Same thing as Tidal when I used that, but Apple seems even a step further at this point (which is unfortunate because I really don’t want to rely on a mega-corp for everything).
Especially the ones with the Dolby Atmos (Spatial Audio) mixes. Even if you don’t have super high-res headphones, the difference in dynamic range is pretty obvious, and it makes songs just feel more alive.
I don’t have any stats to back this up but it seems that Apple Music has at least managed to somewhat buck the trend of the “loudness wars” with the masters they use. I wonder if this is actually published or written about anywhere…
Especially the ones with the Dolby Atmos (Spatial Audio) mixes. Even if you don’t have super high-res headphones, the difference in dynamic range is pretty obvious, and it makes songs just feel more alive.
I don’t have any stats to back this up but it seems that Apple Music has at least managed to somewhat buck the trend of the “loudness wars” with the masters they use. I wonder if this is actually published or written about anywhere…
Apple is probably also fine tuning there music to there products.
You won't get a representative answer here because tech folk can be specific about what and how they listen, so our answers will make it appear like a big deal.
I will venture that most people don't notice or care.
I will venture that most people don't notice or care.
I have AirPods pro and the sony xm4. Even on bluetooth you can hear the difference. The sound stage is just bigger. The highs are more clear and the bass is more subtle.
I was once remaking some hiphop beats from there samples and you can hear the difference even more when you have a remade beat (its not 100% the same) you can hear what the compression has done to the sample.
I was once remaking some hiphop beats from there samples and you can hear the difference even more when you have a remade beat (its not 100% the same) you can hear what the compression has done to the sample.
It made none for me, even with $400 corded headphones.
I recently ditched both Apple Music and Spotify and am using Youtube Music, which comes with Youtube Premium.
I recently ditched both Apple Music and Spotify and am using Youtube Music, which comes with Youtube Premium.
People also use Apple Music, Shopify etc on non-mobile devices as well as IEMs on mobile.
And for those lossless is a massive difference.
And for those lossless is a massive difference.
The Joe Rogan experience definitely worked for Both Spotify and Joe
You think Spotify actually made money from it? They seem to be pulling back from Podcasts...
Probably didn’t help that the app was so bad for months after Joe switched over that Joe was saying “sorry the app is so bad, they tell me they are working on it”.
How much audience did they fail to convert? How much harder did that make building momentum?
9000 employees and couldn’t get playback to work…
How much audience did they fail to convert? How much harder did that make building momentum?
9000 employees and couldn’t get playback to work…
To put it into context 9000 workers on an average of $75000 is $675 mil a year on salaries alone, so Joe's 200 over 3 and a half years, harry and meg etc etc isn't a big a deal as it might sound. The elephant is the 9000 staff IMO.
Sure, but they’re also probably planning work for 2024. They may just figure they have more people than they need at the moment.
I wish CEOs would resign when layoffs happen. It should be like some governments where the whole cabinet resigns. If layoffs are a necessity, then the CEO and the top management should show the example and take responsibility for taking the company into the wrong direction, leading to layoffs. That would be fair and more understable than a "thank you for your hard work and commitment".
Business decisions are difficult. If the result of everyone that didn't pan out was "you are fired", no one would take any risk, decisions would take forever.
It's so hard to fire people in France, that some large companies simply have a policy of "no france office".
It's so hard to fire people in France, that some large companies simply have a policy of "no france office".
And yet companies are founded every day in France, and their economy is doing just fine.
If a business cannot afford to do business in a country, then that business should not be allowed to do business in that country.
If a business cannot afford to do business in a country, then that business should not be allowed to do business in that country.
Nope. The french economy been flatlining for 15 years:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location...
US GDP per person is now 50% higher than france:
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
It wasn't like that 15 years ago.
There doesn't need to be another rule. The existing rules are doing just fine keeping companies out.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location...
US GDP per person is now 50% higher than france:
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
It wasn't like that 15 years ago.
There doesn't need to be another rule. The existing rules are doing just fine keeping companies out.
France's debt-to-GDP is lower though.
Maybe they should try spending a little more. Whatever they are doing now isn't working.
[deleted]
Wouldn't this result in CEO's never doing a layoff or admitting the business needs one?
Almost every suggestion to help employees doesn't consider the second order effects.
Well said, that's probably a better way of framing my concern.
That's like demanding that anytime a F1 driver takes a pit stop he should be fired. Obviously the pit stop itself doesn't improve the time, and he's just sitting still. Imagine if a driver was sitting still after the race started!?
Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.
Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.
That has to be one of the least applicable analogies.
Laying off 1/5 of staff is not a "pit stop" to refuel. It's an admission of staggering mismanagement.
Laying off 1/5 of staff is not a "pit stop" to refuel. It's an admission of staggering mismanagement.
Jack Welch school of business made students for eternity. The first to pay will always be the employees.
Lay-offs aren't necessarily a sign of failure or bad strategy, so your logic does not compute.
Lay-offs happen for all sorts of reasons. It may be very reasonable to have X number of people one year, but changed market conditions, or financing rates, or whatever else mean it no longer does the next year.
People don't have magic crystal balls. But even if they did, it may still make sense to hire people while financing such a thing is cheap, and to lay those same people off when it isn't any more. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that.
You may not like the fact, but getting rid of poor performers makes businesses stronger and better. Rounds of lay-offs undeniably make such decisions easier to make and justify in large companies.
CEOs who do the same (or more) with fewer resources are generally rewarded. As a shareholder in the company you'd want them to do more with less and make you more value, right?
You might as well argue that any CEO who needs to hire more people has failed. That sounds obviously silly, but it's genuinely an almost equivalent argument.
All of this may not be pleasant for those involved and especially those who are losing their jobs, but that's capitalism for you. Big business doesn't tend to optimise for people's feelings - it cares more about the bottom line and being competitive.
In this case there is an obvious and pressing need. The streaming music scene may be a tremendously complex place to operate a business in, with all it's licensing and labels and countless jurisdictions and legal complexities, but both Apple and Google are sitting there ready to eat Spotify's lunch if they can't figure out profitability.
Lay-offs happen for all sorts of reasons. It may be very reasonable to have X number of people one year, but changed market conditions, or financing rates, or whatever else mean it no longer does the next year.
People don't have magic crystal balls. But even if they did, it may still make sense to hire people while financing such a thing is cheap, and to lay those same people off when it isn't any more. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that.
You may not like the fact, but getting rid of poor performers makes businesses stronger and better. Rounds of lay-offs undeniably make such decisions easier to make and justify in large companies.
CEOs who do the same (or more) with fewer resources are generally rewarded. As a shareholder in the company you'd want them to do more with less and make you more value, right?
You might as well argue that any CEO who needs to hire more people has failed. That sounds obviously silly, but it's genuinely an almost equivalent argument.
All of this may not be pleasant for those involved and especially those who are losing their jobs, but that's capitalism for you. Big business doesn't tend to optimise for people's feelings - it cares more about the bottom line and being competitive.
In this case there is an obvious and pressing need. The streaming music scene may be a tremendously complex place to operate a business in, with all it's licensing and labels and countless jurisdictions and legal complexities, but both Apple and Google are sitting there ready to eat Spotify's lunch if they can't figure out profitability.
Can someone explain to me why a company that is about streaming mp3s needs 9500 employees? That just sounds extremely inefficient to me. They don't even have native desktop apps.
All of these hp tech start-ups/scale-ups overhired when money was cheap to signal growth and confidence to investors, even if they didn't need that many workers, nobody cared, as long as "line goes up".
This is nonsense. They hired people to grow users, usage revenue, not to brag about employee counts. Companies brag about maximizes revenue per employee.
No, that makes sense to you.
I grew up with someone who is now in the C-Suite of one of America's largest corporations - a company that has been in the Fortune 100 for decades. He has bounced from directorship to C-Suite in Fortune 500s for the past 12 years, and I asked him about this phenomenon over cigars about six months ago, he said this:
"cbozeman, you have to understand these people. Most of these people making these decisions are raging narcissists. What do you think sounds better?
'I managed and led 500 people.'
'I managed and led 5000 people.'
And when you compound that on top of essentially free money, and then you also throw in the desire to lock up the best talent so your competitor can't have them, you have a recipe for indiscriminate hiring."
This person has been working in a high-level capacity in the corporate world for over 15 years now. He has seen some truly reprehensible shit, and shared quite a bit of it with me when we meet up once a year for ice fishing. I can tell you right now, not only is not "nonsense", it's perfectly logical - just not to you, and not to a lot of other HN users, because entirely too many people think in the logic of 1s and 0s, and not in the logic of people. High-level business decision makers - the kind who make these decisions - don't think like you. They don't value what you value. They see engineers and programmers as expendable and easily replaceable - and many of them are. For every 10x or 100x engineer / programmer, there's 500,000 no-namers who can be slotted in and out without much trouble.
I grew up with someone who is now in the C-Suite of one of America's largest corporations - a company that has been in the Fortune 100 for decades. He has bounced from directorship to C-Suite in Fortune 500s for the past 12 years, and I asked him about this phenomenon over cigars about six months ago, he said this:
"cbozeman, you have to understand these people. Most of these people making these decisions are raging narcissists. What do you think sounds better?
'I managed and led 500 people.'
'I managed and led 5000 people.'
And when you compound that on top of essentially free money, and then you also throw in the desire to lock up the best talent so your competitor can't have them, you have a recipe for indiscriminate hiring."
This person has been working in a high-level capacity in the corporate world for over 15 years now. He has seen some truly reprehensible shit, and shared quite a bit of it with me when we meet up once a year for ice fishing. I can tell you right now, not only is not "nonsense", it's perfectly logical - just not to you, and not to a lot of other HN users, because entirely too many people think in the logic of 1s and 0s, and not in the logic of people. High-level business decision makers - the kind who make these decisions - don't think like you. They don't value what you value. They see engineers and programmers as expendable and easily replaceable - and many of them are. For every 10x or 100x engineer / programmer, there's 500,000 no-namers who can be slotted in and out without much trouble.
You know, the older I get, the more the world seems upside down to me and I'm not even that fucking old.
The world has always been upside down, you were just not looking to see it.
> They see engineers and programmers as expendable and easily replaceable
Most businesses see their employees as disposable commodities but at least Spotify, FANG and big-tech treat and pamper them way better than the rest.
Most businesses see their employees as disposable commodities but at least Spotify, FANG and big-tech treat and pamper them way better than the rest.
Just because you get massaged and fed beer, doesn't mean they don't think of you as cattle.
I was talking about pay not perks. How much do FAANG/big-tech workers earn vs everyone else in the industry.
And maybe let's not victimize big-tech workers so much. Yeah, you have 17% chance of being laid off, but while you worked there you managed to save way more than people who work elsewhere.
And everyone gets treated as cattle. But big tech workers get treated like those premium beef freerange cattle that get massages and fetch 200 dollars per kilo VS everyone else that gets treated like a slaughterhouse cattle.
And maybe let's not victimize big-tech workers so much. Yeah, you have 17% chance of being laid off, but while you worked there you managed to save way more than people who work elsewhere.
And everyone gets treated as cattle. But big tech workers get treated like those premium beef freerange cattle that get massages and fetch 200 dollars per kilo VS everyone else that gets treated like a slaughterhouse cattle.
Well, this is another version of the classic "I could build this in an weekend" trope.
9500 is probably excessive, but think of it just this way:
1. Spotify has a worldwide presence, apparently 184 markets; that probably entails a legal presence in many of those jurisdictions, sales, marketing, support, localization, etc.; at a conservative 2 persons per market, just that's going to generate about 400 jobs; now, most of those markets will be grouped up but the big ones will probably have tens if not hundreds of people dedicated to that market (the US is likely to have hundreds of people supporting it, for example).
2. Spotify has to build, update, maintain, extend, etc a global infrastructure. Just the ops team for that has to cover 3x 8h shifts to make it 24/7. Each region should have at least 3 people in it, for high support availability. That's 9 people right there, and it would be crazy to support ~550 million active users with 9 people, they probably have 10 times that many people and teams supporting various components. So just an ops team of 100 is perfectly reasonable.
3. Then they need a dev team. They have... ads, various integrations, songs, audiobooks, podcasts, their apps or whatever are available on smart TVs, web, cars, bla bla bla, if it's 10 people for each client, that would probably mean at least 50 people. And 10 people per client is probably silly low, make that at least 100-200.
4. Then they have a bunch of backend services, probably a lot of them. Plop another 5-10 people for each service. That's going to be many more hundreds of people.
5. Then they have actual R&D, where they're exploring stuff. This depends on the company, but for a company that's still clarifying its business model, having 100 people researching stuff sounds reasonable.
That's ~1500 people just from me eyeballing their business. 9500 is maybe on the high side, but considering their scale, if we dig deep enough into their business model, probably 5000 is perfectly fine.
These services are crazy complex and "streaming mp3s" is a very reductive view.
9500 is probably excessive, but think of it just this way:
1. Spotify has a worldwide presence, apparently 184 markets; that probably entails a legal presence in many of those jurisdictions, sales, marketing, support, localization, etc.; at a conservative 2 persons per market, just that's going to generate about 400 jobs; now, most of those markets will be grouped up but the big ones will probably have tens if not hundreds of people dedicated to that market (the US is likely to have hundreds of people supporting it, for example).
2. Spotify has to build, update, maintain, extend, etc a global infrastructure. Just the ops team for that has to cover 3x 8h shifts to make it 24/7. Each region should have at least 3 people in it, for high support availability. That's 9 people right there, and it would be crazy to support ~550 million active users with 9 people, they probably have 10 times that many people and teams supporting various components. So just an ops team of 100 is perfectly reasonable.
3. Then they need a dev team. They have... ads, various integrations, songs, audiobooks, podcasts, their apps or whatever are available on smart TVs, web, cars, bla bla bla, if it's 10 people for each client, that would probably mean at least 50 people. And 10 people per client is probably silly low, make that at least 100-200.
4. Then they have a bunch of backend services, probably a lot of them. Plop another 5-10 people for each service. That's going to be many more hundreds of people.
5. Then they have actual R&D, where they're exploring stuff. This depends on the company, but for a company that's still clarifying its business model, having 100 people researching stuff sounds reasonable.
That's ~1500 people just from me eyeballing their business. 9500 is maybe on the high side, but considering their scale, if we dig deep enough into their business model, probably 5000 is perfectly fine.
These services are crazy complex and "streaming mp3s" is a very reductive view.
That, and people often forget that - even if we stay on the engineering side of things - Spotify has tools and apps for artists, creators, and advertisers that most users never see.
I certainly couldn't build that in a weekend but nor would I need 9500 people. Keep in mind WhatsApp was running with 50 engineers in 2015 when it had 900 million users. Last year, according to some sources, it had 3000 employees and 2.4 billion users. And that's groups, voice messages, video and voice calls, WhatsApp for business, integrations and a lot more.
Some of these seem reasonable, some not. There is no need for legal presence everywhere or to even have a permanent hire for that. The many clients make sense (including consoles too) but more than 10 people per client? It's not the most complicated app. R&D I guess makes sense too.
Actually, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of employees by category.
Regardless, I think the answer lies somewhere between what you said (unknown at a glance costs) and what others have said - too many managers managing managers and overhiring.
Some of these seem reasonable, some not. There is no need for legal presence everywhere or to even have a permanent hire for that. The many clients make sense (including consoles too) but more than 10 people per client? It's not the most complicated app. R&D I guess makes sense too.
Actually, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of employees by category.
Regardless, I think the answer lies somewhere between what you said (unknown at a glance costs) and what others have said - too many managers managing managers and overhiring.
Whatsapp is just sending messages. Here's music recommendation lecture on using latest techniques to better serve users. I am glad that their music recommendations are very good. There are so many nooks and corners in a big company like Spotify where you need someone to be responsible for.
Music Recommendations at Spotify - Oskar Stål, Spotify https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VvM98flwq0
Music Recommendations at Spotify - Oskar Stål, Spotify https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VvM98flwq0
Plus it’s a two sided market - most of that needs to be created and operated for consumer and producer side, and all the systems linking them between.
A friend there says the labels - the producer side - are very demanding to work with. That could be draining resources.
And to factor in some of the other commentary--they could build this in a weekend (and continue to operate it for relative pennies) on-prem.
While I think you're low on the legal/sales/marketing and so on, your estimates does trigger the question: How much easier/cheaper and profitable would it be to run Spotify as a purely stream music platform.
Lose the ads, audiobooks, podcasts, drop any platform that isn't iOS, Android or web. Would that be profitable, or would people not want to buy the service?
Lose the ads, audiobooks, podcasts, drop any platform that isn't iOS, Android or web. Would that be profitable, or would people not want to buy the service?
Spotify does awesome music recommendation - there are no human curation involved like with Apple Music afaik - you probably need a whole bunch of people for this.
They do much more than merely streaming mp3's and they working on a video product as well - there is some content creation as well i.e agents , sales , marketing and producers.
You can probably can compare them to Netflix (12,800).
They do much more than merely streaming mp3's and they working on a video product as well - there is some content creation as well i.e agents , sales , marketing and producers.
You can probably can compare them to Netflix (12,800).
I like the way you broke thid down.
More and more it seems they're an advertising company that also serves music and podcasts. I keep seeing sponsored recommendations and I'm a premium subscriber, for now.
Seemingly every company in the "tech" industry is just an advertising company shambling around in the rotten skin-suit of a legitimate business.
Not Apple, IBM, Microsoft and many other that don’t make money as data merchants
Apple made $5B in ad revenue in 2022, which was double their ad revenue from the year before. Apple is already being devoured from within by ads. If you think Apple will never stoop to putting ads in the OS like Microsoft does, ask yourself: where are Apple users going to go to escape ads? Linux? No, they'll just deal with it and keep buying Macs and iPhones. Apple is not your friend, they are a company designed to make money at all costs, and they're not going to leave ad revenue on the table.
They did, repeatedly. They are the only one company offering deep e2e solutions that are absolutely incompatible with the data profiling needed to scale ads operations to Facebook or Google levels.
Also, where did you derive your figure from? Apple breaks down services, they don’t say how much they make with ads. Even If that estimate was correct, Apple’s ad operation would still be a blip in comparison to the other players. Apple is of course a corporation with one goal, making money. I trust the people of that corporation to be smart enough to know how to balance that and the ways it can be achieved. Bringing ads everywhere is not conducive to that, and it would probably make them less money in the long term. That means: it won’t happen.
I only have one request: know what you’re talking about before you talk about a company.
Also, where did you derive your figure from? Apple breaks down services, they don’t say how much they make with ads. Even If that estimate was correct, Apple’s ad operation would still be a blip in comparison to the other players. Apple is of course a corporation with one goal, making money. I trust the people of that corporation to be smart enough to know how to balance that and the ways it can be achieved. Bringing ads everywhere is not conducive to that, and it would probably make them less money in the long term. That means: it won’t happen.
I only have one request: know what you’re talking about before you talk about a company.
MS made $12B in 2023 from advertising: https://www.statista.com/statistics/725388/microsoft-corpora...
That' only 6% of revenue (https://www.kamilfranek.com/microsoft-revenue-breakdown/)
> Not Apple
They're definitely moving in that direction https://searchads.apple.com/
> Microsoft
It's not a huge part of their revenue but they definitely make a sizeable amount of money from ads
They're definitely moving in that direction https://searchads.apple.com/
> Microsoft
It's not a huge part of their revenue but they definitely make a sizeable amount of money from ads
Microsoft is also actively trying to grow their ad revenue.
Agreed, they're spending a lot of effort to be better at pushing "recommendations": the DJ, "smart" shuffle, the new home screen UI that prioritizes recommended new releases, concerts, and merchandise.
Those are all ad slots. They want artists to pay to be included in those in the future.
Those are all ad slots. They want artists to pay to be included in those in the future.
I doubt even half their staff is product development. Acquiring and licensing content is very complicated. Marketing, advertising and operations. Their entire podcast stack includes not only end-user experience, they own multiple podcast production and analytics tools (via acquisition of Megaphone, Anchor, Chartable) not to mention their in-house production via stuff like Gimlet.
The magic word is "growth".
For context, I find this artist's explanation of the situation helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDfNRWsMRsU
For context, I find this artist's explanation of the situation helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDfNRWsMRsU
They definitely don't need that many, hence the layoffs.
I could understand so many employees for seemingly simple-ish tech services like this if 9000 of them are working in the customer support / tech support department. Wishful thinking though I guess.
Because managers that manage managers need more people to justify hiring more managers.
Overhiring is the most important factor for manager promotions, unfortunately.
I'm wondering what it is that they're doing all day. The spotify app randomly changes, and if so, rarely for the better. I'd wager spotify could benefit from X' style layoffs.
With “X’ style” meaning “handled in the worst possible way”?
The X layoffs are too soon to make a judgement call on, look at the advertiser fight X is involved in now. Its up in the air if they kept enough people to make advertisers happy or moderation. Moderation has become a real problem on X, Ive sent reports that were clearly a problematic account, sometimes even fake accounts that are stealing identities, and the X UI sends me a message saying "nah all good"
The advertiser fight is primarily caused by Musk's inane comments, not layoffs or the lack of moderation. They do contribute, but to a way lesser degree.
So he didnt layoff part of the advertising team? It seems to me to be directly related to moderation, since its the usual "we dont want our ad to be near X" X being something advertisers steer clear of.
It hardly whips the llama's ass.
>Severance pay: We will start with a baseline for all employees, with the average employee receiving approximately five months of severance. This will be calculated based on local notice period requirements and employee tenure.
Is this a super vague way of saying we're letting go of the senior people with tenure first. The average severance being five months implies that most people being let go probably aren't the people hired during 2020 and 21.
On a separate note, we can add bandmates to the insane titles that a company uses for their employees.
Is this a super vague way of saying we're letting go of the senior people with tenure first. The average severance being five months implies that most people being let go probably aren't the people hired during 2020 and 21.
On a separate note, we can add bandmates to the insane titles that a company uses for their employees.
> Is this a super vague way of saying we're letting go of the senior people with tenure first. The average severance being five months implies that most people being let go probably aren't the people hired during 2020 and 21.
No, they're saying that severance is based on tenure (and local notice period requirements). On average, people laid off get 5 months worth of severance - some more, some less, based on tenure.
No, they're saying that severance is based on tenure (and local notice period requirements). On average, people laid off get 5 months worth of severance - some more, some less, based on tenure.
I don't understand how you got from the quote to "senior people are let go first".
I think they may have misunderstood the meaning of the word tenure (note "with tenure") and not realised it meant only duration of employment here (versus its use in US academia).
There's also some weight in the word senior as that can also be referring to someone who's moved up within paybands within the same jobtitle as well as the (now less certain) expectation that someone who continues to work at the same place will get promotions to more senior positions as they show they're capable of them.
Labour laws will apply, they probably can't just pick who they lay off. Maybe they have to let go the same proportion of people at all levels of seniority.
Yeah, where I live (NL), it's required to be something like "group people into roles, then let people go in reverse order of seniority (i.e. LIFO) within those roles."
This is refreshingly pragmatic. I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from that part of the world.
Isn’t last in first out ageist?
It's slightly more complicated in NL than just last in first out, for larger amounts like Spotify is doing here. Apart from grouping by role, there is also a requirement to ensure the distribution of workers across age groups remains as similar as possible after the reduction compared to before.
Age groups in this case are 10-year buckets, 15-25, 25-35 etc. So if a role has for example 40% of the workers in 25-35, 20% in 35-45, 20% in 45-55 and 20% in 55+ then after the reduction it still has to be as close as possible to that distribution. So it's not like all of the younger workers that are "last in" in their early 20s would be fired, it would be similar numbers across each age group, within each group it's the last hired.
Age groups in this case are 10-year buckets, 15-25, 25-35 etc. So if a role has for example 40% of the workers in 25-35, 20% in 35-45, 20% in 45-55 and 20% in 55+ then after the reduction it still has to be as close as possible to that distribution. So it's not like all of the younger workers that are "last in" in their early 20s would be fired, it would be similar numbers across each age group, within each group it's the last hired.
LIFO sounds like it’s based on hitting order, not worker’s age.
Surely, a law would not be needed to tell a business to terminate based on hitting order.
It's the same approach in Sweden.
Some countries have longer notice periods. If you would work for Spotify in Switzerland, after 2 years you have 2 months notice. Given the period must starts with a new month (by law), your notice would start on 1st January. Adter 10 years its 3 months, where 5 months severance pay (as i understand it) would "only" cover at least 2 additional months.
“Bandmates” is bad, and dishonest. It’s like Pfizer calling every employee “doctors.” Stolen valor.
I was surprised that the "average" is 5. It makes me wonder what that distribution looks like.
as always, this means US people are cut immediately while acting like a progressive employer but not sharing any of the values of their European homeland when they dont have to
But why do they have so many in the first place?
9000 employees. My gods.
What are all these people doing?!
9000 employees. My gods.
What are all these people doing?!
In addition to the technical work of keeping the servers running and the infra reliable, there is probably a great deal of work getting content licensing deals, working on marketing, managing the whole edifice, and stuff like that. They need a huge number of content “suppliers” to get basically every song in every country. They undoubtedly have a large number of developers working on apps for every platform, keeping up with all that attendant complexity.
On top of that, the company wants to innovate and probably has teams working on hardware and whatnot.
Whether it’s efficient is not clear, but most people there probably work hard on their particular daily grind.
On top of that, the company wants to innovate and probably has teams working on hardware and whatnot.
Whether it’s efficient is not clear, but most people there probably work hard on their particular daily grind.
Maybe. But for perspective it’s approximately 1/40th of the number of people that were employed at the peak of the Apollo moon landing missions (400,000 people) and that required the support of over 20,000 firms and universities.
It’s a LOT of humans for streaming music service.
It’s a LOT of humans for streaming music service.
Last I checked Apollo didn't have to deal with worldwide music licensing or have an audience of 500 million people across the world it needs to serve.
This comparison is fundamentally dumb. What's next, asking why you need hundreds of thousands of employees to run worldwide store business and comparing it to Voyager program?
This comparison is fundamentally dumb. What's next, asking why you need hundreds of thousands of employees to run worldwide store business and comparing it to Voyager program?
Well the evidence sure seems strong they could have done the same job with at least 13% fewer people. I wonder how many of the remaining are also absolutely essential for the service to operate and grow?
Music licensing, streaming and revenue sharing is hardly a “go to the moon in the 60s” complexity problem. And having a lot of end users doesn’t mean you need massive employee head counts in digital service delivery, it just means you have a lot of customers and need to build your digital delivery systems to handle a larger scale which is generally expressed as a modest pressure on engineering groups to build most scalable systems and not a rocket science level problem.
The high head counts are always present at the end of boom cycles, but a LOT of what companies are doing at the end of these cycles is simply busywork.
The busywork problem exists because managers equate business with productivity, and their organizations reflect that.
The perception is not just that a busy worker is engaged and making an effort, but even that their industriousness gives them a higher value than their less busy colleagues. But really only a relatively small number of employees do the vast majority of the work (Pareto principle). The whole corporate management theory sets up a dynamic in which two office workers completing identical tasks can be judged on their busyness, rather than their results. Who appears to be more engaged: the busy worker who skips lunch to get things finished, or the efficient worker who finishes early and uses the time saved to buy groceries online?
This, when applied at scale, leads to highly staffed organizations with a LOT of busy people who don’t really do that much compared to their potential for output.
If you don’t see the metaphor between a large engineering project and an engineering organization that seems over staffed, that’s fine. But do try to have the social grace to not call people dumb. There is just no call for insults here.
Music licensing, streaming and revenue sharing is hardly a “go to the moon in the 60s” complexity problem. And having a lot of end users doesn’t mean you need massive employee head counts in digital service delivery, it just means you have a lot of customers and need to build your digital delivery systems to handle a larger scale which is generally expressed as a modest pressure on engineering groups to build most scalable systems and not a rocket science level problem.
The high head counts are always present at the end of boom cycles, but a LOT of what companies are doing at the end of these cycles is simply busywork.
The busywork problem exists because managers equate business with productivity, and their organizations reflect that.
The perception is not just that a busy worker is engaged and making an effort, but even that their industriousness gives them a higher value than their less busy colleagues. But really only a relatively small number of employees do the vast majority of the work (Pareto principle). The whole corporate management theory sets up a dynamic in which two office workers completing identical tasks can be judged on their busyness, rather than their results. Who appears to be more engaged: the busy worker who skips lunch to get things finished, or the efficient worker who finishes early and uses the time saved to buy groceries online?
This, when applied at scale, leads to highly staffed organizations with a LOT of busy people who don’t really do that much compared to their potential for output.
If you don’t see the metaphor between a large engineering project and an engineering organization that seems over staffed, that’s fine. But do try to have the social grace to not call people dumb. There is just no call for insults here.
Why are you mixing up complexity of work with volume of work (and comparing incomparable industries at that)?
Spotify's work might not be getting people alive to the Moon with 1960s tech, but there is A LOT of it since they need to cover so much more.
Rest of your post is pretty much bloviating with assumptions you have no grounds for - not to mention your almost insulting minimization of work that's not TrueEngineeringWorkForMoon(tm).
I've worked in streaming industry and I can tell you that there is a stupid amount of work getting all the licenses and content in order across all the nations that Spotify is present it. You can call it "busywork", but it's no more busywork than jockeying JavaScript to make your CI happy. It's critical for company operations - Spotify lives and dies on amount of content they have, the speed they get new content and the ability to payout artists across the world for their content. Not to mention take money from people across the world.
It's outright hillarious how everyone here underestimates a problem like "we need to legally pay out money in Germany to Rammstein for a song", it's like watching HBO's Sillicon Valley in real life.
Spotify's work might not be getting people alive to the Moon with 1960s tech, but there is A LOT of it since they need to cover so much more.
Rest of your post is pretty much bloviating with assumptions you have no grounds for - not to mention your almost insulting minimization of work that's not TrueEngineeringWorkForMoon(tm).
I've worked in streaming industry and I can tell you that there is a stupid amount of work getting all the licenses and content in order across all the nations that Spotify is present it. You can call it "busywork", but it's no more busywork than jockeying JavaScript to make your CI happy. It's critical for company operations - Spotify lives and dies on amount of content they have, the speed they get new content and the ability to payout artists across the world for their content. Not to mention take money from people across the world.
It's outright hillarious how everyone here underestimates a problem like "we need to legally pay out money in Germany to Rammstein for a song", it's like watching HBO's Sillicon Valley in real life.
There’s nothing incorrect about pointing out that the modern workplace reinforces busywork over meaningful engineering and managerial headcount justification. The data supports it.
Implying that “Jockeying JavaScript” isn’t real enough engineering work is also a look.
Arguing that engineering projects of scale can’t be compared because one can’t tell the difference between volume and complexity is rough conversation.
The idea that engineering on large technical projects can’t be compared across industries or eras isn’t true in an objective sense either.
Not super happy I took the time to reply to you and got told I was to get called blovating. That’s unkind.
That while stating that “everyone on HN underestimates things” and doesn’t understand how hard problems like paying someone for streaming actually is exactly the kind of nonsensical thinking that is building these large headcount companies.
Your argument is that “global payments are harder than people realize.” But it’s simply not true. They are profoundly easier than they have ever been in history and people on hacker news are many of the very people creating those payment rails.
So I think calling their opinions “hilarious” while insulting the entire community and the person you’re talking to… it’s not… great. Calling it a “real life” Silicon Valley kinda is though, because well, it kind of literally is. This is the website of the most successful Silicon Valley incubator.
I come on here to learn and have positive interactions with people, grow intellectually and this isn’t quite what I am looking for. Thanks for your interaction though. Have a great day.
Implying that “Jockeying JavaScript” isn’t real enough engineering work is also a look.
Arguing that engineering projects of scale can’t be compared because one can’t tell the difference between volume and complexity is rough conversation.
The idea that engineering on large technical projects can’t be compared across industries or eras isn’t true in an objective sense either.
Not super happy I took the time to reply to you and got told I was to get called blovating. That’s unkind.
That while stating that “everyone on HN underestimates things” and doesn’t understand how hard problems like paying someone for streaming actually is exactly the kind of nonsensical thinking that is building these large headcount companies.
Your argument is that “global payments are harder than people realize.” But it’s simply not true. They are profoundly easier than they have ever been in history and people on hacker news are many of the very people creating those payment rails.
So I think calling their opinions “hilarious” while insulting the entire community and the person you’re talking to… it’s not… great. Calling it a “real life” Silicon Valley kinda is though, because well, it kind of literally is. This is the website of the most successful Silicon Valley incubator.
I come on here to learn and have positive interactions with people, grow intellectually and this isn’t quite what I am looking for. Thanks for your interaction though. Have a great day.
Apollo wasn't travelling all over 100+ countries scooping up podcasts and speaking to growing artists though. Your comparison is weird, the goals are quite different.
Turns out, more people use a streaming music service (and frankly... really care about it), than they do about the Apollo moon landing.
A lot of the main tech achievements are great geek talking points but not where labor is really concentrated.
Humans are vain and shallow, that should probably one of the core things drilled into geek skulls.
A lot of the main tech achievements are great geek talking points but not where labor is really concentrated.
Humans are vain and shallow, that should probably one of the core things drilled into geek skulls.
When I was junior I used to buy this explanation, but 9,000 developers is probably more then are actually working on huge projects like Linux or .NET it’s approx 100 times more developers then you’d ever reasonably hire. It’s just for financial reasons it’s cheap to double up of devs instead of giving raises
> When I was junior I used to buy this explanation, but 9,000 developers is probably more then are actually working on huge projects like Linux
They don't have 9000 developers, they have 9000 employees.
They don't have 9000 developers, they have 9000 employees.
snoopsnopp(1)
They don't have 9000 developers, they have 9000 staff.
9000 employees, not developers alone.
> They undoubtedly have a large number of developers working on apps for every platform
Yes, if they were at the cutting edge on every platform and constantly adding innovative new features, that could certainly explain 500 of the 9000 employees.
But that still leaves 8,500 employees unexplained.
Yes, if they were at the cutting edge on every platform and constantly adding innovative new features, that could certainly explain 500 of the 9000 employees.
But that still leaves 8,500 employees unexplained.
Developing the software is easy part. Handling and negotiating contracts and licensing agreements for all their music and podcasts (and advertisers) all across the globe is probably the hard part. Plus of course all the marketing, support and related tasks.
Still. There's only ~200 countries, and a good chunk of them either isn't worth having any presence in (no need to negotiate licenses for Somalia), or is so small and has similar laws to surrounding countries that they'll be treated as one bloc by the publishers you negotiate with anyway (all the Pacific statelets e.g.).
Between that and the ability to just contract local lawyers, 45 to (realistically closer to) 90 employees per (relevant) country is still a lot.
Also, spotify outsourced 90% of their support to their community (designated "star" members). There's no hotline either, so no call centres to run, or anything else personnel intensive. (And you'd outsource that anyway, realistically.)
Between that and the ability to just contract local lawyers, 45 to (realistically closer to) 90 employees per (relevant) country is still a lot.
Also, spotify outsourced 90% of their support to their community (designated "star" members). There's no hotline either, so no call centres to run, or anything else personnel intensive. (And you'd outsource that anyway, realistically.)
[deleted]
This is the only valid question here. Bloated workforce is somehow a must-have byproduct of growing cash flow, someone could surely say why. Is it prestige? Is it managers gaining more power by commanding more teams and this workforce then remains? Is it to please shareholders with feature bloat? Is it an actual (one-time?) need to scale up globally?
I hate Xitter like the next guy, but if there is one thing Musk made right is to show you can axe most of the staff of an established platform and you can still have a running global scale operation (ignoring some early downtimes/hiccups and all other, khm, content-related issues). It seems currently they have around 600 full-time engineers.
I hate Xitter like the next guy, but if there is one thing Musk made right is to show you can axe most of the staff of an established platform and you can still have a running global scale operation (ignoring some early downtimes/hiccups and all other, khm, content-related issues). It seems currently they have around 600 full-time engineers.
> I hate Xitter like the next guy, but if there is one thing Musk made right is to show you can axe most of the staff of an established platform and you can still have a running global scale operation (ignoring some early downtimes/hiccups and all other, khm, content-related issues). It seems currently they have around 600 full-time engineers.
Xitter is massively tanking as a company with massive revenue losses since that brilliant idea. Its example proves literally the opposite of what you're claiming - after firings the company is in tailspin of financial losses.
Xitter is massively tanking as a company with massive revenue losses since that brilliant idea. Its example proves literally the opposite of what you're claiming - after firings the company is in tailspin of financial losses.
How is the revenue loss a cause for downsizing? I mean bigger revenue loss since Twitter always made losses. If you say lack of moderation (workforce) and thus leaving advertisers, I think that's a minority, and moderators were just a fraction of the people let go.
> 9000 employees. My gods.
These are probably not all devs/engineers. Usually, selling services/products in multiple countries mean, dedicated legal, HR, accounting replicated in nearly every location where no common treaty exists, and management in large tech tends to have too many levels and adds up quickly as well.
These are probably not all devs/engineers. Usually, selling services/products in multiple countries mean, dedicated legal, HR, accounting replicated in nearly every location where no common treaty exists, and management in large tech tends to have too many levels and adds up quickly as well.
“probably”? I mean, yes it’s a tech company, but it’s a bit surprising anyone would expect it to be much more than 50% engineering. Marketing and customer support alone would have a huge headcount - and given the impact AI tech is having on those areas, I wouldn’t be surprised if they represented a disproportionate fraction of the layoffs.
Clearly not working on the core functionality of the app - heh.
This seems to be some megatrend with the big tech companies. Hire on ~10k staff, ignore your core features, ???, profit.
This seems to be some megatrend with the big tech companies. Hire on ~10k staff, ignore your core features, ???, profit.
exactly 0 engineers working on the stupid "enhanced shuffle" or whatever its called that I am forced to toggle through in order to switch between shuffle and non-shuffle, and makes me wait 5 seconds while adding random songs to my liked songs that I dont want and did not ask for. The amount of computing resources wasted on this trash is just insane, both on the backend for the song recommendations and on the frontend where my phone is frozen for 5 seconds. It escapes me how such a big company is fine with having that this abomination of a feature in their app. rant over
I mean, yeah. How many engineers do you need? 5-6 for the backend, 3-4 DevOps, maybe some more for the various frontends... say, 20?
I can't imagine the whole thing can't be done with between 30 to 50 engineers in total.
And everyone else, what do they do? Cold calls to the entire planet to go subscribe, or what? Also alright, some lawyers and "compliance" people, financiers, marketers,...
Don't know. I'd struggle to fill a roster of 200 people for Spotify.
> Clearly not working on the core functionality of the app - heh.
Sadly, yes. That they become so tone-deaf is something I'll never condone though I do understand why it's happening (or so I think: is it the gobs of money that make people comfortable and disconnected from the bread and butter of the company?)
I can't imagine the whole thing can't be done with between 30 to 50 engineers in total.
And everyone else, what do they do? Cold calls to the entire planet to go subscribe, or what? Also alright, some lawyers and "compliance" people, financiers, marketers,...
Don't know. I'd struggle to fill a roster of 200 people for Spotify.
> Clearly not working on the core functionality of the app - heh.
Sadly, yes. That they become so tone-deaf is something I'll never condone though I do understand why it's happening (or so I think: is it the gobs of money that make people comfortable and disconnected from the bread and butter of the company?)
Internal tools for licensing, library ingestion, tools to support data science, customer payments in however many countries they're in, artist payout, search, recommendations, encoding/playback (probably even multiple teams for multiple platforms), whatever their ad sales platform looks like, ad selection, concert listings, merch sales, wrapped (which is probably their most loved feature)
Some of these are a team per region, some are a team per platform, some are entire divisions
Some of these are a team per region, some are a team per platform, some are entire divisions
Spotify has a lot of front ends to manage, I think more than 20 would be required.
Mobile (iOS, Android), web, vehicle native integrations (Tesla, Volvo, VW, BMW, Audi, Ford), gaming (Xbox, Switch, PS4, PS5), desktop (Mac, Windows, Linux, Chromebook) and voice assistants (Alexa, Google).
Maintaining that variety of front ends must be very labour intensive.
Mobile (iOS, Android), web, vehicle native integrations (Tesla, Volvo, VW, BMW, Audi, Ford), gaming (Xbox, Switch, PS4, PS5), desktop (Mac, Windows, Linux, Chromebook) and voice assistants (Alexa, Google).
Maintaining that variety of front ends must be very labour intensive.
Let us not forget:
TVs, Wifi connected speakers, home theater systems, Chromecast etc.
TVs, Wifi connected speakers, home theater systems, Chromecast etc.
Spotify uses Chromium embedded for their desktop clients and webviews for their mobile clients, so that's largely one codebase for 6+ clients.
A lot of the external frontends are also not made by spotify themselves, but implemented by the manufacturer through Spotify's SDK.
You still want a bunch of dedicated staff to support all that, but it's not as dramatic as it could be.
A lot of the external frontends are also not made by spotify themselves, but implemented by the manufacturer through Spotify's SDK.
You still want a bunch of dedicated staff to support all that, but it's not as dramatic as it could be.
Hm, solid point, thank you.
> 5-6 for the backend, 3-4 DevOps, maybe some more for the various frontends... say, 20?
At least 10x that, easily. In a very optimistic scenario.
The back-office part is much bigger than people think (bands management, content management, rights management, recommendations, etc).
Then you have the services like Auth, streaming, encoding, managing CDNs, caching, etc.
At least 10x that, easily. In a very optimistic scenario.
The back-office part is much bigger than people think (bands management, content management, rights management, recommendations, etc).
Then you have the services like Auth, streaming, encoding, managing CDNs, caching, etc.
>I mean, yeah. How many engineers do you need? 5-6 for the backend, 3-4 DevOps, maybe some more for the various frontends... say, 20?
So Spotify should bring you in as the CTO, right? How can you make such a confident claim that you know better how to run the company that has beat the daylights out of every other music streaming platforms (including Google, Amazon, and Apple)?
So Spotify should bring you in as the CTO, right? How can you make such a confident claim that you know better how to run the company that has beat the daylights out of every other music streaming platforms (including Google, Amazon, and Apple)?
Whelp, even for tech-core products, number of engineers are often very insignificant compared to other stuff(legal, license, buying, acquisition, hr, advertising, marketing, sales, security, management, decision board, product management, product owners, agile team, release team, test/QA, support etc.).
I used to think that, tech companies could do with like what 200 people max, but after working on few places for a while now, I am no longer surprised, specially when your service spans the globe(or even multiple countries or continents), you really need a huge team to keep troubles out and the wheels going.
I used to think that, tech companies could do with like what 200 people max, but after working on few places for a while now, I am no longer surprised, specially when your service spans the globe(or even multiple countries or continents), you really need a huge team to keep troubles out and the wheels going.
According to LinkedIn, Spotify currently has 13,900 full-time employees, with 3620 in Engineering (26%), 1850 in Arts & Design (13%), 1000 in Media & Communications (7%), and roughly 800 each in Marketing, Business Development, and Sales (5-6% each).
Over the last 12 months, headcount has risen dramatically within Sales (+32%), Arts & Design (+19%), and Business Development (+21%). In comparison, Engineering has seen just a 2% rise, Media and Comms at 0%, and marketing at +10%.
If I had to guess, lots of these layoffs will begin to affect their headcounts within these functions that have experienced rapid year-on-year growth, and affect their Engineering function (despite being their largest) proportionally less than these other functions.
I would be interested in how you came to your conclusion of needing only 200 employees for a company of this scale? Any company of spotify's scale will have entire functions that will be distributed globally and working on a variety of projects or products. For example, Spotify has almost 400 data scientists. Off the top of my head, I can't fathom what I would have 400 data scientists working on, but I can easily believe that a company with over $12bn in revenue and 574 million listeners this year could find a use for them.
Over the last 12 months, headcount has risen dramatically within Sales (+32%), Arts & Design (+19%), and Business Development (+21%). In comparison, Engineering has seen just a 2% rise, Media and Comms at 0%, and marketing at +10%.
If I had to guess, lots of these layoffs will begin to affect their headcounts within these functions that have experienced rapid year-on-year growth, and affect their Engineering function (despite being their largest) proportionally less than these other functions.
I would be interested in how you came to your conclusion of needing only 200 employees for a company of this scale? Any company of spotify's scale will have entire functions that will be distributed globally and working on a variety of projects or products. For example, Spotify has almost 400 data scientists. Off the top of my head, I can't fathom what I would have 400 data scientists working on, but I can easily believe that a company with over $12bn in revenue and 574 million listeners this year could find a use for them.
Lmao, I love this comment so much because of how incredibly uninformed it is. 5-6 backend engineers to run Spotify in 185 countries... I've seen a lot of ridiculous comments when it comes to company sizes, but yours is probably the best one I've seen in my life, thanks for the laugh.
Is it because you've never worked at a non-startup or how come you have that opinion? Like, you just have no idea what's required/useful and you can't even imagine it?
I'd love to hear how you split the workload between these 5 backenders.
Is it because you've never worked at a non-startup or how come you have that opinion? Like, you just have no idea what's required/useful and you can't even imagine it?
I'd love to hear how you split the workload between these 5 backenders.
Obviously I can't be well informed since I don't work in there, I am saying that the core functionality of moving bytes around the globe is not something you need hundreds of people for -- because I worked on similar teams. In fact the DevOps team was times bigger than the programmers which might be one clue in Spotify's case.
Have you ever worked at a company with more than say 1k employees that's active in more than one region? I'm honestly intrigued in your opinion, it sounds similar to what I thought back in uni before I had any work experience, but from your profile you don't look like a complete junior, so I'd really like to better understand how you can think Spotify could possibly operate with 5 backenders.
I am 43. :D And with 22 years of experience, 95% of which in backend and some sysadmin-ing.
Though I have only once worked in a huge corporation (and I couldn't understand what did they need all the people for either).
I was almost always working in smaller tight-knit teams that got a LOT of stuff done (too much contracting for my now 40+ y/o self).
So I err on the side of "be efficient" and that's not even for the purposes of cost efficiency. It's more about being able to iterate with a reasonable speed. My observations from my career support what Bill Gates and others said i.e. that the productivity of a tech team starts to decline when it goes beyond 7 people. Generalization, sure, but it's very often true.
As for the 5 backenders thing, OK, my perspective might have been too narrow i.e. "writing code to move bytes from our servers to CDNs to user's devices can't be that hard" and I mostly stand behind it. Sure you might need much more devs to author complex login systems, SSO and such (if you even need it) but again, after the product somewhat stabilizes, how much backenders do you really need?
I am also interested in your opinion. My entire career has been a proof that small and tight-knit teams get sh1t done and everyone else drowns in bureaucracy.
Though I have only once worked in a huge corporation (and I couldn't understand what did they need all the people for either).
I was almost always working in smaller tight-knit teams that got a LOT of stuff done (too much contracting for my now 40+ y/o self).
So I err on the side of "be efficient" and that's not even for the purposes of cost efficiency. It's more about being able to iterate with a reasonable speed. My observations from my career support what Bill Gates and others said i.e. that the productivity of a tech team starts to decline when it goes beyond 7 people. Generalization, sure, but it's very often true.
As for the 5 backenders thing, OK, my perspective might have been too narrow i.e. "writing code to move bytes from our servers to CDNs to user's devices can't be that hard" and I mostly stand behind it. Sure you might need much more devs to author complex login systems, SSO and such (if you even need it) but again, after the product somewhat stabilizes, how much backenders do you really need?
I am also interested in your opinion. My entire career has been a proof that small and tight-knit teams get sh1t done and everyone else drowns in bureaucracy.
For larger companies, there's a lot of "hidden" functions that you're probably not aware of as a customer. Just payment integrations in 100+ countries, with all the local regulations and reporting requirements is probably going to be rough to handle with a single team of 5 backenders. Then we have functions like marketing content management (every country has different copy and will probably want to be able to surface things slightly differently to maximize conversion), artist/podcast/audiobook tooling, the ad platform, hardware integration (for Spotify in your car/speaker etc), legal stuff (including GDPR and its equivalents), metrics & data analysis tools. And much more, and those are just some of the things you don't really see as an end-user.
I absolutely, 100%, agree that a small and focused team is the best way to get shit done, but for a large company the size of Spotify the amount of work is absolutely massive. I wouldn't be surprised at all if many teams at Spotify are small and tight-knit and doing great work at delivering kick-ass anti-fraud systems or moderation software to detect and report child porn etc.
Not to mention the obvious thing where the higher your revenue, the less percentual impact each employee needs to have to more than pay for themselves. While you might think it's ridiculous to have a full team dedicated solely to the main marketing page, that could be extremely worth it if that team increases conversion by 10%, as an example.
I absolutely, 100%, agree that a small and focused team is the best way to get shit done, but for a large company the size of Spotify the amount of work is absolutely massive. I wouldn't be surprised at all if many teams at Spotify are small and tight-knit and doing great work at delivering kick-ass anti-fraud systems or moderation software to detect and report child porn etc.
Not to mention the obvious thing where the higher your revenue, the less percentual impact each employee needs to have to more than pay for themselves. While you might think it's ridiculous to have a full team dedicated solely to the main marketing page, that could be extremely worth it if that team increases conversion by 10%, as an example.
Okay, that's all valid.
But as another commenter pointed out -- it's actually 13900 people.
Again, everything you say it's true but I am finding it hard to imagine the scale and the degree of the problems that mandate ~14k people. Sure, 1000. Maybe 2500.
But 13900?
But as another commenter pointed out -- it's actually 13900 people.
Again, everything you say it's true but I am finding it hard to imagine the scale and the degree of the problems that mandate ~14k people. Sure, 1000. Maybe 2500.
But 13900?
> I can't imagine the whole thing can't be done with between 30 to 50 engineers in total.
How WhatsApp served 1 billion users with only 50 engineers. https://blog.quastor.org/p/whatsapp-scaled-1-billion-users-5...
edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28985169
How WhatsApp served 1 billion users with only 50 engineers. https://blog.quastor.org/p/whatsapp-scaled-1-billion-users-5...
edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28985169
At the time WhatsApp was only forwarding messages from user to user. They didn't deal with different contracts and license deals in 180 countries. Nowadays they have a lot more country specific regulations to deal with, and also a much higher headcount.
I remember when rolling out Yandex.Music (a similar streaming service) in 2010 we had maybe a dozen developers rounding way up, a half dozen strong BizRel team, perhaps three DevOps and a few managers. Totalling around 30 people, though dozens more would do some things by the virtue of being integrated in much larger Yandex team.
Obviously we had way fewer regions/catalogue/listeners/platforms, especially back then.
Also you just need rsync for dropbox, right? :P
It is difficult to understand if this is satire or not.
Why would it be a satire? I've worked on much harder problems than moving anywhere between 1MB to 20MB files from a CDN to user's devices, and we were 11 people, responsible for dozens of terabytes per workday.
Obviously I am not well-versed in all the legal requirements and many other commercial aspects, but to me 9000 is quite insane and surely can be optimized away.
And apparently Spotify agrees.
Obviously I am not well-versed in all the legal requirements and many other commercial aspects, but to me 9000 is quite insane and surely can be optimized away.
And apparently Spotify agrees.
Don't you think there is big difference between moving files to some users' devices vs moving files to literally half a billion users with almost 100% uptime? Not considering problems associated with the scale of Spotify and instantly dismissing the task of managing that as something trivial (or at least easier than your work) makes you sound arrogant.
Why would it be a satire
Because it's like a cliché example of an engineer with the view that some relatively successful real-world product—that they have no real insight into—is far easier to implement than the people who _are_ familiar with it have. You see this literally all the time, to the extent that it's become a meme, and it's hard to believe anybody would make that argument seriously.
Spotify might have too many engineers on-staff; reducing the service to "moving between 1MB to 20MB files from a CDN to user's devices" is a flatly uncurious approach to understanding what engineering challenges they might face or if that's really the case. It's a service that _adds_ 100k songs a day, for goodness sake.
Because it's like a cliché example of an engineer with the view that some relatively successful real-world product—that they have no real insight into—is far easier to implement than the people who _are_ familiar with it have. You see this literally all the time, to the extent that it's become a meme, and it's hard to believe anybody would make that argument seriously.
Spotify might have too many engineers on-staff; reducing the service to "moving between 1MB to 20MB files from a CDN to user's devices" is a flatly uncurious approach to understanding what engineering challenges they might face or if that's really the case. It's a service that _adds_ 100k songs a day, for goodness sake.
I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify moves a petabyte of images a day, I can't even guess the amount of data from their songs and videos. But obviously just moving data isn't what requires a lot of employees.
> What are all these people doing?!
Ensuring Spotify can smoothly operate globally
Ensuring Spotify can smoothly operate globally
I can accept that... if it's said how exactly.
Am I understanding correctly that you're looking for a HN poster to explain to you the complexities involved in maintaining compliance, legal and licensing for a globally distributed service, just so you can decide whether or not to be outraged by the size of Spotify's staff count?
I am not outraged. I am baffled. And yes, if somebody is willing to give a bit more details, they can be informative (and a few people already did).
Here’s just one example of where Spotify didn’t actually have enough staff to understand the legal requirements of one single product decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
Pretty enlightening, thank you.
You can start by looking through their job board throughout time to understand the kinds of positions a company like Spotify need to fill in order to operate globally: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.life...
> I can accept that... if it's said how exactly.
You are assuming that Spotify is just the consumer facing app, but it's not. It's far more.
You've got all the bits of Spotify you don't see. Like:
* Apps and interfaces for labels to ingest their music
* Reporting and billing so all those labels get paid
* An ad platform to service free-tier users
* Embedded systems. Did you know Spotify has a commercial hardware division to integrate Spotify onto smart speakers and devices?
The surface is huge.
You are assuming that Spotify is just the consumer facing app, but it's not. It's far more.
You've got all the bits of Spotify you don't see. Like:
* Apps and interfaces for labels to ingest their music
* Reporting and billing so all those labels get paid
* An ad platform to service free-tier users
* Embedded systems. Did you know Spotify has a commercial hardware division to integrate Spotify onto smart speakers and devices?
The surface is huge.
[deleted]
Each feature, integration (maybe with each publisher), country, etc is likely its own microsservice and infra and devops and team.
Maintaining a large worldwide music/podcast delivery platform. What do you think they're doing?
Not OP, but I really don’t know why you would need that many people.
Obviously you don't need all those people. Almost no company apart from like one-man companies or dying companies employ only the people they need. You employ as many people as possible that generate additional profit, short or long-term. Do you need to hire a conversion specialist? Of course not, though if she costs $400k a year while improving conversion by 10% the payoff is absolutely massive, and you'd have to be an idiot not to hire her.
I'm surprised people don't realize this, especially on hackernews.
I'm surprised people don't realize this, especially on hackernews.
All things considered, the note seems honest - lays out the facts and considerations. The severance package seems quite generous as well.
> The severance package seems quite generous as well.
I guess it depends a bit what they mean by `the average employee receiving approximately five months of severance` (and also where you are seeing it from, maybe its seen as more generous when seen from the US). In Sweeden the notice period for the employer is between 1 and 6 months, depending on how long the empoyee has worked there. If they count that period in as part of the severance package, it could wery well be "the legal minimum" or "the legal minimum + 2 months", which sounds less great than 5 months :-p
If its "the legal minimum + approximately 5 months" then it's generous.
In the other developer-downscalings I know about here in Scandinavia (Norway if it matters) the most common deal has been 6 months, either "work for the remaining notice period, then 6 months pay" or "6 months pay, you work out the current month". I say "deal", because its a deal where the employee gets that pay, and then resigns voluntarily. If they don't take the deal they only receive the legal minimum, but they can then fight the firering, which can get expensive and complicated (I have never heard about anyone not taking the deal).
I guess it depends a bit what they mean by `the average employee receiving approximately five months of severance` (and also where you are seeing it from, maybe its seen as more generous when seen from the US). In Sweeden the notice period for the employer is between 1 and 6 months, depending on how long the empoyee has worked there. If they count that period in as part of the severance package, it could wery well be "the legal minimum" or "the legal minimum + 2 months", which sounds less great than 5 months :-p
If its "the legal minimum + approximately 5 months" then it's generous.
In the other developer-downscalings I know about here in Scandinavia (Norway if it matters) the most common deal has been 6 months, either "work for the remaining notice period, then 6 months pay" or "6 months pay, you work out the current month". I say "deal", because its a deal where the employee gets that pay, and then resigns voluntarily. If they don't take the deal they only receive the legal minimum, but they can then fight the firering, which can get expensive and complicated (I have never heard about anyone not taking the deal).
Yeah you're not entitled to anything in the States. There are no employment contracts and you can be fired for any reason without notice. The only reason to give severance is to avoid bad publicity. There isn't any mandate that the company has to offer anything.
There really should be though especially when the company in question was able to afford $1 billion in stock buybacks just 2 years ago, and when the CEO has a $3 billion net worth, and when they are well known for not paying their suppliers (the artists) a fair price for the content they create.
There really should be though especially when the company in question was able to afford $1 billion in stock buybacks just 2 years ago, and when the CEO has a $3 billion net worth, and when they are well known for not paying their suppliers (the artists) a fair price for the content they create.
> There are no employment contracts and you can be fired for any reason without notice.
You can also leave the job at any time, which as a frequent HN user I'm sure you know and may have used it to your advantage.
> There really should be though especially when the company in question was able to afford $1 billion in stock buybacks just 2 years ago, and when the CEO has a $3 billion net worth
They were also in a hiring spree 2 years ago, like many tech companies. Many of the current employees wouldn't have a job otherwise.
The CEO is also the founder of the company, who built it over time from scratch. There have been many ups and downs during their 17 year history. 10,000 jobs didn't appear overnight. We hardly hear when company hire, only when they let people go.
> and when they are well known for not paying their suppliers (the artists) a fair price for the content they create.
Apparently they don't make big fat profit given this layoff
You can also leave the job at any time, which as a frequent HN user I'm sure you know and may have used it to your advantage.
> There really should be though especially when the company in question was able to afford $1 billion in stock buybacks just 2 years ago, and when the CEO has a $3 billion net worth
They were also in a hiring spree 2 years ago, like many tech companies. Many of the current employees wouldn't have a job otherwise.
The CEO is also the founder of the company, who built it over time from scratch. There have been many ups and downs during their 17 year history. 10,000 jobs didn't appear overnight. We hardly hear when company hire, only when they let people go.
> and when they are well known for not paying their suppliers (the artists) a fair price for the content they create.
Apparently they don't make big fat profit given this layoff
The employer/employee relationship is imbalanced. The ability to leave jobs instantly is not equivalently powerful as the ability to fire people instantly. A corporation that loses an employee suddenly is typically disrupted in a very minor way. A person that loses their job instantly might not make rent next month.
That may be true in aggregate, but for tech workers over the past 20 years the scales have been as heavily in their favor as any industry's employer/employee relationship potentially ever.
In the U.S. the WARN act does mandate 60 day notice for layoffs over a certain size. In practice, (at least with many of the recent tech layoffs) you get 60 days on-payroll during which you don’t have to do any work. Severance after that is optional but often still paid, again at least among tech companies. ~2 weeks per year of service is common, although some have offered more than that.
I got laid off in Jan 2023 and they only gave me the 2 weeks, but was able to at least negotiate that my end date fell on on Feb 1 so I could at least have healthcare until the end of the month.
"I don't recall saying good luck"
"I don't recall saying good luck"
That's not entirely true, the US has the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for large layoffs.
for context in case you missed it, Spotify are headquatered in Sweden. Hence the GP's comment about it potentially being the legal minimum they are allowed to give.
Written with a first-person active voice too, unlike many bureaucratic notes.
> I have made the difficult decision to reduce our total headcount by approximately 17% across the company.
> I have made the difficult decision to reduce our total headcount by approximately 17% across the company.
I agree, but this part bothered me.
"Today, we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact. More people need to be focused on delivering for our key stakeholders – creators and consumers. "
While this is likely partly true, this is mostly management's fault. I didn't see anything in the email that talks post-mortem about the root cause and how it will be prevented going forward.
"Today, we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact. More people need to be focused on delivering for our key stakeholders – creators and consumers. "
While this is likely partly true, this is mostly management's fault. I didn't see anything in the email that talks post-mortem about the root cause and how it will be prevented going forward.
> too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work
Damn, that's every job I've ever had.
Damn, that's every job I've ever had.
Agreed. And the considerations they made seem to be factual too.
I think this was the first corporate notice about layoffs that didn't read like absolute bullshit.
I think this was the first corporate notice about layoffs that didn't read like absolute bullshit.
Absolutely feel bad for the people that are being let go in today's economy.
When it comes to Spotify in particular, I use it almost daily and I can't say that I've noticed any new features in the past two-three years, other than some semi-confusing reshuffle of where stuff is listed on the home page. Feels like it is an app that is well and truly in maintenance mode - it just does what it says on the tin, with extremely good market penetration.
So genuine non-facetious question as an outsider, what are the people working on? Does it take this many people to operate an app on the scale of Spotify, are there lots of people developing new features that never make it into prod, or is it something else that I haven't thought about?
For comparison the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has around 7000 employees, and they develop and operate multiple Mars rovers, several space telescopes, a whole range satellites and space probes, etc.
Maybe that's a bad comparison, but if so, why?
When it comes to Spotify in particular, I use it almost daily and I can't say that I've noticed any new features in the past two-three years, other than some semi-confusing reshuffle of where stuff is listed on the home page. Feels like it is an app that is well and truly in maintenance mode - it just does what it says on the tin, with extremely good market penetration.
So genuine non-facetious question as an outsider, what are the people working on? Does it take this many people to operate an app on the scale of Spotify, are there lots of people developing new features that never make it into prod, or is it something else that I haven't thought about?
For comparison the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has around 7000 employees, and they develop and operate multiple Mars rovers, several space telescopes, a whole range satellites and space probes, etc.
Maybe that's a bad comparison, but if so, why?
Looks like Benn Jordan's analysis on how Spotify will fail is slowly starting to materialize:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDfNRWsMRsU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDfNRWsMRsU
I'm a heavy user of spotify. Almost everyone I know uses it daily. I don't understand why they are not able to turn this much engagement into profit.
Spotify is a public for-profit company with shareholders, the purpose of their organization is not to make profit so they can redistribute it, but to increase the share value as much as possible in order for the shareholders to benefit. Sometimes that means that they need to increase profits, but not always, there are other ways to increase the share value besides profits.
Such as?
"Hype" is a common way for "modern" companies to drive up share price, see TSLA for a good example of that. Greenwashing is another, not as common approach.
Look at Tesla’s net income:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-inc...
That is not hype, that is cash.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-inc...
That is not hype, that is cash.
Right, so you're saying that Tesla is a company that would never do anything to increase the share price, besides trying to increase profits?
Companies can do whatever they want, it does not mean it will work. No company’s share price is going to up for years and years because of “hype”. And the hype is for future profits anyway.
The point is Tesla earns a lot of money, and has a good, proven trajectory.
The point is Tesla earns a lot of money, and has a good, proven trajectory.
Net income is not cash.
Close enough for the purposes of this conversation. Point is, they earn more money than they spend, the gap between those is growing. And they did it in a high barrier to entry business.
Reducing operation costs (labor), selling valuable assets are two that immediately come to mind.
Both of those result in increasing profits.
My bad, I misread what the person you were replying to asked.
They are likely not charging enough for their costs. A lot of unsustainable businesses are like that. Users love it because of the low prices and high perceived value - think Uber.
Anyone remember Grooveshark? Great service :-D
Spotify basically started as a P2P Grooveshark that promised to pay royalties. Now they are a CDN that pays royalties. The problem is that they refuse to accept the reality that there is an end to growth.
They have opportunities to leverage their massive footprint by vertically integrating. They could begin to acquire talent and exclusively release their music and prioritize it in their algorithms or forge agreements with existing labels that create this sort of arrangement. They would then have leverage to negotiate better deals with 3rd party rights holders.
In essence a type of payola since they have a lot of sway in picking winners and losers. They sort of tried this with podcasts but I’m not sure those move needles like music can.
So yeah their current model may be limited but they have a lot to work with.
In essence a type of payola since they have a lot of sway in picking winners and losers. They sort of tried this with podcasts but I’m not sure those move needles like music can.
So yeah their current model may be limited but they have a lot to work with.
They are certainly doing that. But that is only a solution to the select few who are chosen to be vertically integrated with!
They have also vertically integrated in the opposite direction: by making deals with large media corporations, and also by implementing DRM (to appease those media corporations).
So at this point, there isn't much vertical integration left to be had. Any more deals with individual artists (or labels) would really just be horizontal integration.
> So yeah their current model may be limited but they have a lot to work with.
That limit is practically the entire worldwide music industry. They are very close to that limit, and seem utterly ignorant about it.
They have also vertically integrated in the opposite direction: by making deals with large media corporations, and also by implementing DRM (to appease those media corporations).
So at this point, there isn't much vertical integration left to be had. Any more deals with individual artists (or labels) would really just be horizontal integration.
> So yeah their current model may be limited but they have a lot to work with.
That limit is practically the entire worldwide music industry. They are very close to that limit, and seem utterly ignorant about it.
An alternative viewpoint: Their costs are too high for what they can reasonably charge. Hence the layoffs. They could probably cut half of their workforce.
Their workforce is a fairly small part of their costs.
Page 1, the R&D, sales and marketing, and general and administrative expenses are probably almost all payroll expenses. And they are basically equal to or exceeding gross profit, which means payroll is a huge expense.
https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3...
https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3...
Why are you comparing it to their gross profit and not to the rest of their costs which is what I said?
Ultimately Spotify's staff costs are significant because they were throwing people at trying to make the podcasting business work, which was a failed bet but they need to do.
The main issue though is that buying licenses to music is just too expensive for the amount of money they charge, and they need to license less stuff or charge more money.
Ultimately Spotify's staff costs are significant because they were throwing people at trying to make the podcasting business work, which was a failed bet but they need to do.
The main issue though is that buying licenses to music is just too expensive for the amount of money they charge, and they need to license less stuff or charge more money.
Because of the expenses Spotify can control, payroll is (seemingly) its biggest one. Spotify is never going to be able to reduce the proportion paid to the music owners.
They have 9500 employees. Just salaries alone at a very conservative (for american standards) 75000$ average make up 700 million dollars a year, excluding healthcare and other expenses. Payroll is definitely a huge cost.
> I don't understand why they are not able to turn this much engagement into profit.
Because any growth in profits that spotify sees will quickly be eaten by music rights holders.
Because any growth in profits that spotify sees will quickly be eaten by music rights holders.
> I don't understand why they are not able to turn this much engagement into profit.
They will never be able to, regardless of how much they pricing the platform, the music majors will renegotiate and ask all of their profits.
They will never be able to, regardless of how much they pricing the platform, the music majors will renegotiate and ask all of their profits.
I am a cynic here but part of me feels that with such low interest rates for so long, a lot of companies in tech could ignore profitability so long as they were hitting that MAU and related targets.
> Almost everyone I know uses it daily.
Counterpoint: almost no one I know uses it. It was fun at first but became boring fast, a bit like Netflix. If I want to listen to music I use youtube.
Counterpoint: almost no one I know uses it. It was fun at first but became boring fast, a bit like Netflix. If I want to listen to music I use youtube.
This is like the HN trope of “nobody uses Facebook / Instagram / [other social media product] anyway.”
These services are global with hundreds of millions of users or more. There’s nothing useful to be extrapolated from the usage patterns of yourself and a handful of friends.
(Personally I only listen to Amiga MODs and watch 8mm home movies of my mother while whistling the theme from “Psycho”.)
These services are global with hundreds of millions of users or more. There’s nothing useful to be extrapolated from the usage patterns of yourself and a handful of friends.
(Personally I only listen to Amiga MODs and watch 8mm home movies of my mother while whistling the theme from “Psycho”.)
And here I am with my "definitely legit" collection of MP3s I keep on my phone and PC, played on Winamp 2.95.
Counter-Counterpoint: I got two teens in (American public) high school - they claim "everyone" uses Spotify and grumble about our YouTube Music/Premium subscription. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Same, most people I know use Apple Music while others use YouTube Premium
I am one of the 8 people in the UK that use Apple Music. Literally everyone uses Spotify outside of America.
Paerhaps in your circle of friends. But spotify is not that popular. I wouldn't be surprised if their numbers of users are doctored. I know travel sites count the number of devices used by the same user as distinct users. One reached a number higher than the actual world population, people starting asking questions, and then they clarified it. It helps with marketing when you create the impression that "everyone uses it". For instance Threads has more users than OpenAI's chat bots but people think there are more users of the latter due to marketing. Spotify claims to have 226 million subscribers - as many as there are yahoo users. Yet I guarantee you that Yahoo is not popular. And neither is Spotify.
The penetration rate is pretty obvious when you look at social media at this time of year. Everyone has posts of their Spotify Wrapped. 226 million doesn't seem that high when it's the only music streaming service that most people in Europe are even aware of.
> that most people in Europe are even aware of
Care to link to evidence?
> Everyone has posts of their Spotify Wrapped.
Did someone check with _everyone_? It feels like when people make such statments they refer to their own bubble. "It is known" is not a valid argument.
Care to link to evidence?
> Everyone has posts of their Spotify Wrapped.
Did someone check with _everyone_? It feels like when people make such statments they refer to their own bubble. "It is known" is not a valid argument.
226 million paying subscribers versus free Yahoo users is maybe the biggest apples-to-oranges I've heard in my life.
A huge amount of revenue goes into paying royalties
Would love a tl;dw. How does he predict the fail will materialize?
I didn't watch either, but judging from the comments, it's the usual story: they are completely beholden to record companies, who own rights to nearly all of their catalog. Thus most of their revenue goes straight back out the door as royalties. Moreover, the recording companies can raise the rates pretty much at-will, which apparently they have done upon seeing Spotify starting to make a bit more money.
That is why Spotify are desperately trying to produce their own content, most notably in the podcast space, and I suspect why they also recently branched out into audiobooks, as every hour spent listening to an audiobook displaces a dozen or so royalty-generating song plays.
That is why Spotify are desperately trying to produce their own content, most notably in the podcast space, and I suspect why they also recently branched out into audiobooks, as every hour spent listening to an audiobook displaces a dozen or so royalty-generating song plays.
I'm surprised Spotify wouldn't take this to the next step and, borrowing a page from the old industrialists, try to vertically integrate and start their own music label and talent scouting arm.
You would think they could pull a "Netflix and House of Cards" to use all of their play data to find exactly which kind of niche singer/songwriter people would want to hear. They could then use their reach + algorithms to float their artists into people's "discover new" playlists.
You would think they could pull a "Netflix and House of Cards" to use all of their play data to find exactly which kind of niche singer/songwriter people would want to hear. They could then use their reach + algorithms to float their artists into people's "discover new" playlists.
> I'm surprised Spotify wouldn't take this to the next step and, borrowing a page from the old industrialists, try to vertically integrate and start their own music label and talent scouting arm.
Probably because music is spread quite far and the labels have a tight grip on the industry. If you want to have the music most people listen to, you need to have the top talent. Also, music is not as fungible as music is - if Spotify is lacking popular music, people are going to be discontent, use less playlists and use Spotify less in return.
> You would think they could pull a "Netflix and House of Cards" to use all of their play data to find exactly which kind of niche singer/songwriter people would want to hear.
I'm not sure this is working that well for Netflix. It has lot of pressure with competing streaming services that market their exclusives and their library is pretty lacking, compared to a few years ago.
Probably because music is spread quite far and the labels have a tight grip on the industry. If you want to have the music most people listen to, you need to have the top talent. Also, music is not as fungible as music is - if Spotify is lacking popular music, people are going to be discontent, use less playlists and use Spotify less in return.
> You would think they could pull a "Netflix and House of Cards" to use all of their play data to find exactly which kind of niche singer/songwriter people would want to hear.
I'm not sure this is working that well for Netflix. It has lot of pressure with competing streaming services that market their exclusives and their library is pretty lacking, compared to a few years ago.
House of Cards was a home run. It was the nudge that made me breakdown and sign up for Netflix streaming after they split it off from DVDs. But these days, Netflix is probably the service that is closest to me pulling the plug. It's relatively pricey and there isn't a lot that I really want to see on it.
> I'm not sure this is working that well for Netflix.
Netflix is pretty much the only service that is profitable, so it is.
Exclusivity works. Netflix made it work pretty well. Spotify can't.
Netflix is pretty much the only service that is profitable, so it is.
Exclusivity works. Netflix made it work pretty well. Spotify can't.
Agreed. I mentioned this is another thread - they need to vertically integrate music. They have all the leverage as the distribution channel and controller of algorithms. To start they’d probably want to buy a label or pay money existing labels can’t afford for the people that can find and attract top talent.
In essence use their size to pay more than record labels and eventually acquire them.
In essence use their size to pay more than record labels and eventually acquire them.
Do artists want to be signed by a label that will probably limit their exposure to only one streaming service?
They tried with podcasts. Several podcasters jumped on the chance to trade exposure for a nice big check. Don't know if it worked out for Spotify or not though.
And not make their music available on CD/digital download? Taylor Swift is not going to agree to make her music only available on Spotify. That would be insane. Some small act might. In which case no one would care.
They're trying to be an aggregator but the record companies know this and they're businesses, not consumers, so they just put up an old fashioned cartel against the aggregator.
Turns out, cartel >>> aggregator.
Turns out, cartel >>> aggregator.
Also why they are pushing so hard for getting people outside their playlist with "jams" "radio" and the automatically enabled "similar content" features, so they can fill play time with low royalty music.
https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDfNRWsMR...
For those against clicking:
00:00:00 - 00:15:00
The author of the video argues that Spotify will ultimately fail due to the high cost of membership, the fact that streaming services pay independent musicians less than traditional music platforms, and the company's neglect of its only asset - its artists.
00:00:00 The author of the video argues that Spotify will ultimately fail because of the high cost of membership and the fact that streaming services pay independent musicians less than traditional music platforms.
00:05:00 The author of the video makes the case that Spotify will eventually fail because of its business model, which relies on rapid growth and unsustainable levels of value in the music industry. He argues that if Spotify's independent musicians were paid more fairly, the platform would be unable to survive.
00:10:00 The author of the video argues that Spotify will eventually fail due to the company's neglect of its only asset - its artists. The author believes that this neglect will lead to the eventual collapse of the streaming music industry as a whole. However, he also believes that this collapse will be hastened by the fact that for-profit companies are required to eventually pay their investors as little as possible.
00:15:00 The author of this video argues that streaming services like Spotify will ultimately fail because they rely on artificial scarcity (i.e. the notion that there are not enough songs available to listen to on the platform). They suggest that instead of using streaming services, musicians should focus on releasing their music on their own platforms, such as Bandcamp or their own website.
For those against clicking:
00:00:00 - 00:15:00
The author of the video argues that Spotify will ultimately fail due to the high cost of membership, the fact that streaming services pay independent musicians less than traditional music platforms, and the company's neglect of its only asset - its artists.
00:00:00 The author of the video argues that Spotify will ultimately fail because of the high cost of membership and the fact that streaming services pay independent musicians less than traditional music platforms.
00:05:00 The author of the video makes the case that Spotify will eventually fail because of its business model, which relies on rapid growth and unsustainable levels of value in the music industry. He argues that if Spotify's independent musicians were paid more fairly, the platform would be unable to survive.
00:10:00 The author of the video argues that Spotify will eventually fail due to the company's neglect of its only asset - its artists. The author believes that this neglect will lead to the eventual collapse of the streaming music industry as a whole. However, he also believes that this collapse will be hastened by the fact that for-profit companies are required to eventually pay their investors as little as possible.
00:15:00 The author of this video argues that streaming services like Spotify will ultimately fail because they rely on artificial scarcity (i.e. the notion that there are not enough songs available to listen to on the platform). They suggest that instead of using streaming services, musicians should focus on releasing their music on their own platforms, such as Bandcamp or their own website.
Here's what Bard says:
"The video starts by talking about how Spotify has become the dominant force in the music industry. In 2018, Spotify had over 200 million users and was paying out over $5 billion in royalties to artists. However, the video also points out that Spotify is not a very profitable company. In fact, Spotify has lost money every year since it was founded in 2006.
So, how does Spotify make money? The answer is that Spotify makes money by selling advertising. In 2018, Spotify generated over $1.2 billion in advertising revenue. This means that Spotify is essentially a media company that just happens to also offer music streaming.
The video also discusses the impact of streaming on artists. On the one hand, streaming has made it easier for people to discover new music. This can be a good thing for artists, as it can help them to reach a wider audience. On the other hand, streaming has also led to a decline in album sales. This is because people are no longer willing to pay $10 or $20 for an album when they can stream it for free on Spotify.
As a result of this, many artists are now struggling to make a living from their music. In fact, a study by the Berklee College of Music found that the median income for a full-time musician in the United States is just $20,000 per year.
So, what does the future hold for the music industry? The video argues that the music industry is in a state of flux. It is unclear how artists will be able to make a living in the future, and it is also unclear how Spotify will be able to continue to grow its business."
"The video starts by talking about how Spotify has become the dominant force in the music industry. In 2018, Spotify had over 200 million users and was paying out over $5 billion in royalties to artists. However, the video also points out that Spotify is not a very profitable company. In fact, Spotify has lost money every year since it was founded in 2006.
So, how does Spotify make money? The answer is that Spotify makes money by selling advertising. In 2018, Spotify generated over $1.2 billion in advertising revenue. This means that Spotify is essentially a media company that just happens to also offer music streaming.
The video also discusses the impact of streaming on artists. On the one hand, streaming has made it easier for people to discover new music. This can be a good thing for artists, as it can help them to reach a wider audience. On the other hand, streaming has also led to a decline in album sales. This is because people are no longer willing to pay $10 or $20 for an album when they can stream it for free on Spotify.
As a result of this, many artists are now struggling to make a living from their music. In fact, a study by the Berklee College of Music found that the median income for a full-time musician in the United States is just $20,000 per year.
So, what does the future hold for the music industry? The video argues that the music industry is in a state of flux. It is unclear how artists will be able to make a living in the future, and it is also unclear how Spotify will be able to continue to grow its business."
>Here's what Bard says: [...]
Unfortunately, that's an example of where A.I. didn't do a good job of extracting the key thesis of Benn Jordan's argument. Arguably, Benn Jordan himself didn't make it easy for the automatic semantic algorithm to summarize his main point because he's not stating it clearly enough and sprinkles in tangents throughout the presentation.
Basically, he says "Spotify Will Fail" because they created a flawed and unsustainable economic structure which happened because it signed lopsided licensing deals with the Big 3 Labels that leaves no significant money for smaller artists trying to make a living. Spotify had to "overpay" for the Big Labels song catalog to attract a large userbase so its current financial history has been a roundabout funneling of VC investment money (and most subscribers' money) into the Big 3 Labels rather than create a sustainable streaming business where more musicians can share in the pie.
The random sentences extracted by Bard AI hide Benn's core thesis.
The other sentences not extracted are the ones that support Benn's main argument: (1) the lopsided Sony licensing deal example, (2) the various other examples of VC money spent on subsidizing fundamentally unprofitable businesses structures for participants (Uber, $9.99 unlimited movies at theaters, etc).
Unfortunately, that's an example of where A.I. didn't do a good job of extracting the key thesis of Benn Jordan's argument. Arguably, Benn Jordan himself didn't make it easy for the automatic semantic algorithm to summarize his main point because he's not stating it clearly enough and sprinkles in tangents throughout the presentation.
Basically, he says "Spotify Will Fail" because they created a flawed and unsustainable economic structure which happened because it signed lopsided licensing deals with the Big 3 Labels that leaves no significant money for smaller artists trying to make a living. Spotify had to "overpay" for the Big Labels song catalog to attract a large userbase so its current financial history has been a roundabout funneling of VC investment money (and most subscribers' money) into the Big 3 Labels rather than create a sustainable streaming business where more musicians can share in the pie.
The random sentences extracted by Bard AI hide Benn's core thesis.
The other sentences not extracted are the ones that support Benn's main argument: (1) the lopsided Sony licensing deal example, (2) the various other examples of VC money spent on subsidizing fundamentally unprofitable businesses structures for participants (Uber, $9.99 unlimited movies at theaters, etc).
It's incredible how bard hallucinated THIS ENTIRE SUMMARY and not a single person realizes it.
In their annual report[1] Spotify specify they make about 10 times more revenue from premium than ads, so that's a pretty big blow to their thesis.
[1]: https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2022/ar... (p. 51)
[1]: https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2022/ar... (p. 51)
"Spotify is essentially a media company" - they are definitely still a music streaming company with an ad-sponsored product-tier, even if the ad-sponsored tier is the most popular or most profitable. Also, when you have an ad-sponsored tier you are not streaming for free - you are paying by selling your attention, it's just that the resulting cash price of the subscription is opaque to the user.
This differs from e.g. Google that runs a large ad platform used not only by several of their own services, but also external products and services (other websites and apps).
This differs from e.g. Google that runs a large ad platform used not only by several of their own services, but also external products and services (other websites and apps).
But where is the prediction on how Spotify will fail?
> the video also points out that Spotify is not a very profitable company. In fact, Spotify has lost money every year since it was founded in 2006.
you can't lose money indefinitely
you can't lose money indefinitely
Increasing interest rates.
There was another musician that went on his own, but his overall sales are less but he's making more.
Also the fucking music industry sucks.
I also used to work for a company that used to have a streaming service and they paid like over 20 million alone just to the record industry.
Also the fucking music industry sucks.
I also used to work for a company that used to have a streaming service and they paid like over 20 million alone just to the record industry.
Has Spotify ever made money? It seems strange that all these music streaming services have limped along for years without having a model that makes any money or sense. Convenient for the rest of us I suppose.
They have an operating profit, but they choose to reinvest it all back into the company, thus they don't have an overall profit. They could reduce the amount they are reinvesting into the company at any time in order to produce an overall profit.
This is exactly what Amazon did/does. Doesn't mean that they have "limped along"
This is exactly what Amazon did/does. Doesn't mean that they have "limped along"
Do they? This would seem to suggest otherwise. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022122/spotify-operatin...
It's complicated. A lot of money exited from Spotify after its IPO. The rightsholders (Warner, UMG...) got an outsized return on that investment. Smooth it out since then and it looks like a more routine profit. I'm not sure if basic financials are an adequate format for a backcatalogue monetization business.
Daniel Ek and Drake certainly have made money.
Smaller artists? Not a chance. They get paid in exposure, which is the #1 rule not to do in the creative arts.
Smaller artists? Not a chance. They get paid in exposure, which is the #1 rule not to do in the creative arts.
I’m not even talking about artists though. Just Spotify the corporate entity.
Indeed. Personally I think it's somewhat perverse how a huge machine operating at a loss can redistribute so much wealth though, to the top, no less. That was sort of my point.
Like, I could have an easier time accepting Spotify losing money if it actually enriched the masses that produce the majority of its content, but we all know that's not what it is doing.
Like, I could have an easier time accepting Spotify losing money if it actually enriched the masses that produce the majority of its content, but we all know that's not what it is doing.
They need a bigger cut. 17% will not have a big enough impact to its bottom line.
They need to have enough money to invest in other initiatives, as the business they are in is proven to be margin-thin.
Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built
They need to have enough money to invest in other initiatives, as the business they are in is proven to be margin-thin.
Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built
>They need a bigger cut. 17% will not have a big enough impact to its bottom line.
What's stopping them from bigger cuts? We've seen that big SW products can run on lean teams(whatsapp, post-Musk Twitter) and we know many large tech companies are overloaded with way more workers than they need to run(Google), just because they could overhire when money was free.
>Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built
What prevents Google from doing the same? They already have a large customer base in Android users.
What's stopping them from bigger cuts? We've seen that big SW products can run on lean teams(whatsapp, post-Musk Twitter) and we know many large tech companies are overloaded with way more workers than they need to run(Google), just because they could overhire when money was free.
>Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built
What prevents Google from doing the same? They already have a large customer base in Android users.
For anything other than American and maybe European music, YouTube Music is so much better nowadays wrt availability. YouTube Music has stellar quality of recommendations too.
But Google could easily do a Google and sabotage the product at some point.
But Google could easily do a Google and sabotage the product at some point.
Google Play Music, YouTube Music, YouTube Music Premium, YouTube Red, now YouTube Premium.
Who knows what Google’s music play will be next year? Not Google. Media is second only to Messaging for their lack of a consistent long term strategy.
Who knows what Google’s music play will be next year? Not Google. Media is second only to Messaging for their lack of a consistent long term strategy.
Google themselves? Given the popularity of the YouTube they should have won a decade ago, but they have not.
The inefficiency of Google always amazes me.
The inefficiency of Google always amazes me.
About a decade ago they had Google Music. A friend of mine really liked it. He was supposed to have a for-life price of $7/month (or something) and then they raised prices and failed to grandfather his price in. Being Google, there was no way for him to complain about this to them, so he cancelled and used a product he liked less, out of spite. At some point they launched a duplicative product, YouTube Music, which they later migrated all customers to.
So you know, the standard Google experience.
So you know, the standard Google experience.
>He was supposed to have a for-life price of $7/month
At this point, consumers should know that "for life price" is a scam to get gullible customers through the door and gain market share or collect user data. Just like with a Ponzi scheme, consumers should realize by now why such pricing is not sustainable long term due to inflation and other costs, and either the business will crash or they'll have to inevitably backtrack on that promise and raise prices to stay afloat. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
No excusing Google of this scam, but they only did what every other company with these kind of hollow promises did.
I vividly remember Cerberus on Android was selling one time licenses for life, only for them to backtrack on that years later and switch everyone to their subscription instead, publishing a letter along the lines of "sorry, we know it sucks, but the lifetime licenses we sold you are unsustainable financially for us, so we'll switch you to subscription UwU."
Same with Google's unlimited Photo storage.
At this point, consumers should know that "for life price" is a scam to get gullible customers through the door and gain market share or collect user data. Just like with a Ponzi scheme, consumers should realize by now why such pricing is not sustainable long term due to inflation and other costs, and either the business will crash or they'll have to inevitably backtrack on that promise and raise prices to stay afloat. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
No excusing Google of this scam, but they only did what every other company with these kind of hollow promises did.
I vividly remember Cerberus on Android was selling one time licenses for life, only for them to backtrack on that years later and switch everyone to their subscription instead, publishing a letter along the lines of "sorry, we know it sucks, but the lifetime licenses we sold you are unsustainable financially for us, so we'll switch you to subscription UwU."
Same with Google's unlimited Photo storage.
My recollection is that others retained that price, it was a bug or oversight that caused him specifically to have the price increased.
I'm sure when they migrated users to YouTube Music they got rid of the special deal.
I'm sure when they migrated users to YouTube Music they got rid of the special deal.
It's almost always for the lifetime of the product?
>The inefficiency of Google always amazes me.
As long as they have the cheat code for unlimited free money(ads) they can be as inefficient as they want.
As long as they have the cheat code for unlimited free money(ads) they can be as inefficient as they want.
> The inefficiency of Google always amazes me.
It's the kind of people they attract. IBM types...
It's the kind of people they attract. IBM types...
post-Musk Twitter
Spotify is actually trying to make money. If the goal of running Spotify was to get everyone to listen to the CEO's crappy garage band, maybe then it would be a valid comparison.
Spotify is actually trying to make money. If the goal of running Spotify was to get everyone to listen to the CEO's crappy garage band, maybe then it would be a valid comparison.
17% is a huge cut. More than that and you end up damaging operations. Look what is happening to X / Twitter.
PS. Spotify had already two layoffs, once 6% in Jan 2023 and 2% in June. This combined seems like a 25% ish cut.
PS. Spotify had already two layoffs, once 6% in Jan 2023 and 2% in June. This combined seems like a 25% ish cut.
It's seeing more use than ever with a fraction of the staff?
Unless they can somehow turn "use" into money, more use does nothing to help X as a company. And the prior method of turning use into money, advertisements, has been dropping like a rock due to the inability of the company to keep ads away from toxic content no advertiser would ever want their ads near.
Can't cut costs to profitability if you are cutting revenue faster than costs.
Can't cut costs to profitability if you are cutting revenue faster than costs.
[deleted]
- Features have to keep being deprecated because once they degrade it's too hard to fix.
- Use is only up when measuring metrics like "we hit our peak user-seconds" which only measures short term usage spikes and not longer time-scale sustaining metrics.
- Lack of diversity of users, instability of ads performance, and a CEO making antisemitic and anti-Palestinian claims has led to advertisers pausing Twitter ads at a high rate. Valuation has dropped to $10s of Billions instead of $44B.
- Small bugs never get fixed (on Firefox mobile if I accidentally hit the "Views" button on a tweet, the pop-up modal is inescapable and breaks my back button and tab state, so I have to open Twitter in a new tab.
- Use is only up when measuring metrics like "we hit our peak user-seconds" which only measures short term usage spikes and not longer time-scale sustaining metrics.
- Lack of diversity of users, instability of ads performance, and a CEO making antisemitic and anti-Palestinian claims has led to advertisers pausing Twitter ads at a high rate. Valuation has dropped to $10s of Billions instead of $44B.
- Small bugs never get fixed (on Firefox mobile if I accidentally hit the "Views" button on a tweet, the pop-up modal is inescapable and breaks my back button and tab state, so I have to open Twitter in a new tab.
That is meaningless when the vast majority of users aren't paying and won't pay for the foreseeable future. Advertisers pay, and Elon is doing all he can to drive away advertisers. Ad quality on Twitter has severely degraded over the past two months and we all know why.
but is it growing? they have the privilege of maintaining an amazing product
Before trialing the iTunes franken-nightmare that is Apple Music, I would have probably agreed with you.
However, after that experience, I'm starting to think there's no way in hell a massive multi-product conglomerate like Apple/Amazon is going to overtake a single-product music streamer like Spotify.
Apple/Amazon are clearly stretched too thin, and in a worse strategic position on audio due to the way the licensing agreements shook out. In music, everybody basically has access to the same catalog on every platform.
And given that songs are 4 minutes long (vs 4 hours binging TV shows), you spend wayyy more time interacting with the software in audio vs. video. So in audio, it's purely just deciding which UI/features you like best.
Spotify seems to be trying its best to screw up the UI, but no way it ever gets as bad as Apple Music given that's their only meal ticket.
However, after that experience, I'm starting to think there's no way in hell a massive multi-product conglomerate like Apple/Amazon is going to overtake a single-product music streamer like Spotify.
Apple/Amazon are clearly stretched too thin, and in a worse strategic position on audio due to the way the licensing agreements shook out. In music, everybody basically has access to the same catalog on every platform.
And given that songs are 4 minutes long (vs 4 hours binging TV shows), you spend wayyy more time interacting with the software in audio vs. video. So in audio, it's purely just deciding which UI/features you like best.
Spotify seems to be trying its best to screw up the UI, but no way it ever gets as bad as Apple Music given that's their only meal ticket.
> However, after that experience, I'm starting to think there's no way in hell a massive multi-product conglomerate like Apple/Amazon is going to overtake a single-product music streamer like Spotify.
Amazon Music Unlimited is very neat experience compared to Spotify... Good catalogue (for me), better music quality and it's app is just plain, boring music player not something neurotic like Spotify...
Amazon Music Unlimited is very neat experience compared to Spotify... Good catalogue (for me), better music quality and it's app is just plain, boring music player not something neurotic like Spotify...
The one thing I could not figure out about Amazon music is that when I would type in an album, and start playing it, the songs would reshuffle based on which songs I would listen to the most. It drove me insane, and caused me to cancel the trial before it was even up. I couldn't figure out how to play an album in the actual order of the album. Dumbest feature I've seen in a product, maybe ever.
This is an anecdote, and maybe it's just coincidental timing, but these kinds of operational choices do not work well in a company focused on a single product across multiple devices. Losing so many workers so quickly means a loss in productivity on the issues the platform has, and Spotify has many. Since November there has been an issue on PS5 where any podcast over an hour will not play on PlayStation(so, basically all podcasts). People have figured out the issue, and Spotify has not moved on it.
When you offer a single service and the benefit is being device agnostic, "cutting costs" by wasting time hiring people you probably didn't need to hire only to fire them a year or two later means an amplified disruption that will lose customers.
But hey, board members who jerk each other off once a month in a conference call who are already rich made a little more money by hiring a bunch of people only to fire them later and at a huge operational waste.
This is how our world works and it's bs.
When you offer a single service and the benefit is being device agnostic, "cutting costs" by wasting time hiring people you probably didn't need to hire only to fire them a year or two later means an amplified disruption that will lose customers.
But hey, board members who jerk each other off once a month in a conference call who are already rich made a little more money by hiring a bunch of people only to fire them later and at a huge operational waste.
This is how our world works and it's bs.
Why do they need to invest?
They can also just keep being the most complete music streaming service.
That is a low margin business, but it’s a business, and you probably don’t need a lot of people to run it.
They can also just keep being the most complete music streaming service.
That is a low margin business, but it’s a business, and you probably don’t need a lot of people to run it.
Using Apple Music on a few Google devices now.
their moat is exploiting the copyright system with monopolistic contracts with record labels
Explain. Because as far as I'm aware all of the record labels have deals with all music distributors (it doesn't make sense not to, they are in the business of showcasing their copyrighted properties), you can even distribute instantly to all streaming services through labels and distributors.
I don't think you know what you're talking about...
I don't think you know what you're talking about...
Monopolistic how?
Perhaps this cut is a precursor to being acquired by someone like Apple?
> Apple and Amazon will eventually eat Spotify given enough time, if they don't find a moat to be built
I doubt it.
Apple is restricted to Apple devices. As for Amazon, the same argument could be made about Prime Video eating Netflix, and that never seemed to happen.
On top of that, as far as I know, Spotify is profitable.
I doubt it.
Apple is restricted to Apple devices. As for Amazon, the same argument could be made about Prime Video eating Netflix, and that never seemed to happen.
On top of that, as far as I know, Spotify is profitable.
Apple Music is not restricted to Apple devices afaik: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...
Oh wow, I didn't know that.
I still wouldn't use it, but I am surprised that I never knew of this.
I still wouldn't use it, but I am surprised that I never knew of this.
You can listen to apple music even via web interface and it has an android app and works on android tv and android auto.
So pretty much everywhere.
So pretty much everywhere.
Can't listen natively on my lametric time!
Spotify had one profitable quarter by fluke. It's not profitable.
Spotify spends millions per month on lavish "creative" team salaries in NYC who do nothing but create gradient playlist covers and other low grade "design" work that is 100% unnecessary. All while they redesign and destroy their UX and product experiences every iteration. All of that money could go straight to the artists.
So effectively contractors. Companies shouldn't be allowed to "shed" this much of their workforce in a system like the US's here we have a very poor safety net.
They bulked up, built their products and now want to slim down and enjoy their profits at the expense of these sacrificial workers.
They bulked up, built their products and now want to slim down and enjoy their profits at the expense of these sacrificial workers.
Your safety net is spend less than you make which should be easy for tech workers who even for your CRUD developers can easily make twice the median household wage.
> at the expense of these sacrificial workers
Were they not paid during their employment? Not to mention everything they are doing for those exiting employees (average five months of severance including healthcare, 2 months of career placement services, etc)
Were they not paid during their employment? Not to mention everything they are doing for those exiting employees (average five months of severance including healthcare, 2 months of career placement services, etc)
One alternative is never hiring them in the first place, which is a real possibility if some bad ideas like yours were put into law.
Businesses should be more responsible in hiring not just for the good of the workers but for the company as well. Hiring 17% more than you should’ve means there was a ton of waste. Rather than seeing this as a sign of prudence like most investors might, I see this as a reflection of poor planning.
Literally no business works likes this. Every team and hire is a risk, and the market understands this. You don't have the information to say if there was "waste" and even if there was, so what?
But "poor planning" is inevitable in business. It cannot be completely avoided or accounted for. What should a business do that has planned poorly if it needs to cut costs?
[deleted]
Realistically they would have a permanent contract at a company that contracts out developers.
Flexibility (at the cost of a premium) for the client company, safe for the employee.
Flexibility (at the cost of a premium) for the client company, safe for the employee.
Sidestepping the issue of the US's labour laws, I almost feel like this is what a healthy software industry should look like.
You go in, you build, and when the job is done, you leave.
We just haven't figured out how to get the job done yet.
You go in, you build, and when the job is done, you leave.
We just haven't figured out how to get the job done yet.
If only employers are capable of communicating that expection to prospective employes in an honest manner instead of doing the whole "we are a family" gaslighting act.
If any tech worker is more than two years out of school and is naive enough to believe that and are not always prepared to change jobs, I have no sympathy for them
The layoffs suck. But WHO was laid off? What depts?
I think it's important data because the labor market needs to adjust its skills away from what's not in demand, to what's IN demand.
I think it's important data because the labor market needs to adjust its skills away from what's not in demand, to what's IN demand.
You will hear more about the new term "RIF" not - reduction in force.
Nobody likes to say we had layoffs, so corporate speak will be - we did a RIF ...blah blah.
It's terrible, because i love playing guitar, and they are screwing with the english language as normal people use it.
It's terrible, because i love playing guitar, and they are screwing with the english language as normal people use it.
There is a semantic difference in the terms:
> In the past, layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved. An RIF, on the hand, did not come with such an expectation; it usually meant that a certain position or an entire department was being eliminated. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/rif-...
> In the past, layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved. An RIF, on the hand, did not come with such an expectation; it usually meant that a certain position or an entire department was being eliminated. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/rif-...
That "semantic difference" is justification for using the word, but the intent behind using RIF is the usual - water down the harshness of the thing.
I don't buy we need a new word for this. Particularly this justification is nonsense - "layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved"
Who said this is true? Like say 30 years ago, IBM fired 30% of people. They didn't need to call it a RIF. Like would they re-hire the people because OS/2 took off?
I don't buy we need a new word for this. Particularly this justification is nonsense - "layoffs typically came with an expectation that the employee might be rehired if more work became available or the employer’s financial condition improved"
Who said this is true? Like say 30 years ago, IBM fired 30% of people. They didn't need to call it a RIF. Like would they re-hire the people because OS/2 took off?
I’ve only heard the term “Layoff” in regards to a temporary staff reduction in the trades/blue collar/seasonal work. In white collar jobs, layoff has pretty much always meant a permanent staff reduction.
Language is not the same thing to all people. Having two different terms, one for permanent changes and one for more temporary changes, seems useful and beneficial to the language.
For you, the distinction in terms apparently does not exist. But for some, including me, this distinction exists. Would it not be better for us all to adopt the distinction?
For you, the distinction in terms apparently does not exist. But for some, including me, this distinction exists. Would it not be better for us all to adopt the distinction?
Is it not better to be just understood?
Like 0.01% of the population know what RIF means.
But as soon as RIF becomes widely understood, with all the negative connotations of layoffs, a new term will be need for some other nuanced reason.
But as soon as RIF becomes widely understood, with all the negative connotations of layoffs, a new term will be need for some other nuanced reason.
> To understand this decision, I think it is important to assess Spotify with a clear, objective lens
... then proceeds to vague MBA word without a single number to support them.
> We debated making smaller reductions throughout 2024 and 2025
What was not debated was keeping people they hired.
> we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact
We're left to guess what this means. What's work around the work? If that work is now unsavory, why can't they work on work rather than around it? Is this describing reducing the management layer? (support) or customer/partner support? Will they be replaced by automation? I get you don't want to go into specifics of who's let go, but then don't pretend you're providing a clear analysis, and don't give a washed out business lingo salad instead.
TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same. Not that I'm complaining, I just care about the music. But that leads me to think either the dev team is producing stuff that's on the fringe and optional, being quite inefficient, or mainly working on maintenance, and the bulk of the opex is going elsewhere.
... then proceeds to vague MBA word without a single number to support them.
> We debated making smaller reductions throughout 2024 and 2025
What was not debated was keeping people they hired.
> we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact
We're left to guess what this means. What's work around the work? If that work is now unsavory, why can't they work on work rather than around it? Is this describing reducing the management layer? (support) or customer/partner support? Will they be replaced by automation? I get you don't want to go into specifics of who's let go, but then don't pretend you're providing a clear analysis, and don't give a washed out business lingo salad instead.
TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same. Not that I'm complaining, I just care about the music. But that leads me to think either the dev team is producing stuff that's on the fringe and optional, being quite inefficient, or mainly working on maintenance, and the bulk of the opex is going elsewhere.
This reads to me like "the darn developers are spending too much time not laser-focused on business impact and keep bikeshedding and doing make-work!"
It's impossible to tell if this is what's happening though. It can really go either way.
I've seen orgs where the perf-review meat grinder is driven so tight that engineers are essentially punished/PIPd for doing things that NEED to happen even if they aren't sexy business impact. Like upgrading library versions (not all of them, just the core/most important ones!) so you don't wake up one day and realize you're on a 6 year old version of a core library/framework. Even remediating incidents was treated as "not impactful work". This resulted in the expected shitstorm and teams were literally churning employees because oncall was so bad and just doing anything was so awful, and it took a staff engineer's guile just to get an otherwise-relatively-simple project over the line because you had to be a ninja just to navigate the awful existing mess of 10 years' worth of laser-focus on business impact.
And I've seen orgs where the engineers run rampant, doing random side-quests constantly, junior engineers run amok over-architecting every project with all of the skills their CS degrees gave them, senior engineers make magnum opuses of medium-sized projects, and principal engineers pontificate and aid and abet any and all architecture-astronauting that anyone else in the org does. And naturally none of it was done in any way shape or form in coordination with product.
And naturally there's everything in between. So whether they have a healthy amount of focus on non-sexy work and wish they were neglecting it more to reap shorter-term product-focused gains, or they have too much bikeshedding and they want to be more product-focused, it is difficult to say.
(Naturally the cynic in me says it is probably the former, though...)
It's impossible to tell if this is what's happening though. It can really go either way.
I've seen orgs where the perf-review meat grinder is driven so tight that engineers are essentially punished/PIPd for doing things that NEED to happen even if they aren't sexy business impact. Like upgrading library versions (not all of them, just the core/most important ones!) so you don't wake up one day and realize you're on a 6 year old version of a core library/framework. Even remediating incidents was treated as "not impactful work". This resulted in the expected shitstorm and teams were literally churning employees because oncall was so bad and just doing anything was so awful, and it took a staff engineer's guile just to get an otherwise-relatively-simple project over the line because you had to be a ninja just to navigate the awful existing mess of 10 years' worth of laser-focus on business impact.
And I've seen orgs where the engineers run rampant, doing random side-quests constantly, junior engineers run amok over-architecting every project with all of the skills their CS degrees gave them, senior engineers make magnum opuses of medium-sized projects, and principal engineers pontificate and aid and abet any and all architecture-astronauting that anyone else in the org does. And naturally none of it was done in any way shape or form in coordination with product.
And naturally there's everything in between. So whether they have a healthy amount of focus on non-sexy work and wish they were neglecting it more to reap shorter-term product-focused gains, or they have too much bikeshedding and they want to be more product-focused, it is difficult to say.
(Naturally the cynic in me says it is probably the former, though...)
> laser-focused on business impact
If you only knew the PTSD that the expression "laser-focused" is triggering. From an organization that had 12 focuses per quarter, and as many "core-priorities".
If you only knew the PTSD that the expression "laser-focused" is triggering. From an organization that had 12 focuses per quarter, and as many "core-priorities".
> We're left to guess what this means. What's work around the work? If that work is now unsavory, why can't they work on work rather than around it? Is this describing reducing the management layer? (support) or customer/partner support? Will they be replaced by automation? I get you don't want to go into specifics of who's let go, but then don't pretend you're providing a clear analysis, and don't give a washed out business lingo salad instead.
> TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same.
He didn't get into it because you answered it yourself. And anyone who has used it for a while has most likely the same initial thought.
> TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same.
He didn't get into it because you answered it yourself. And anyone who has used it for a while has most likely the same initial thought.
Frankly I think the UI has gotten consistently worse. Playing saved/liked (Spotify keeps changing the word) songs from a specific artist is still very hard and convoluted. "Now Playing" pop-up panel on desktop was a feature no one asked for. "Your Library" revamp was confusing and solely for the purpose to push podcasts which somehow made it harder to view the podcasts I actually follow. Then comes the dreadful rounded corners on everything but also weird empty spaces around the UI resulting in wasted screen real estate. I held onto Google Play Music until its very last moment, all because of Spotify's dreadful UI.
Super good time to announce layoffs, at the start of the month where everyone is preparing for time off and holidays.
It’s unfortunately common when financial end of year is around the same time.
Announced now, people can at least try to scale back Christmas and NYE plans if necessary.
Announced now, people can at least try to scale back Christmas and NYE plans if necessary.
How many people will be getting told they're part of it? I would suspect this will be hanging over their heads as an unknown element. Is it even possible for HR to manage off-boarding 17% of the company within a month?
From the article:
> Earlier today, CEO Daniel Ek shared the following note about the company’s organizational changes with all Spotify employees.
> ...
> you will receive a calendar invite within the next two hours from HR for a one-on-one conversation. These meetings will take place before the end of the day on Tuesday
> Earlier today, CEO Daniel Ek shared the following note about the company’s organizational changes with all Spotify employees.
> ...
> you will receive a calendar invite within the next two hours from HR for a one-on-one conversation. These meetings will take place before the end of the day on Tuesday
I saw that but I honestly don't think it's possible for HR to handle about 1,500 off-boarding meetings within 2 days.
Those meetings are just formality. your fate is already sealed.
Exactly a formality, something that has to be done. How are they going to handle that in 48 hours? To me, it's a sign that some people get to know straight away and some will find out later.
Something I'm sure their CEO will do out of kindness and solidarity. /s
How depressing.
How depressing.
Severance package is 5 months and Q1 will have no shortage of new job postings elsewhere. Yes this is probably not great for mental health but financially they should be fine.
Having looked at the job market, there are less job postings currently than in previous years.
While overall there will still be more jobs than qualified people to fill them. Let's not pretend like the employee market is full of people who've just been laid off from very reputable companies.
While overall there will still be more jobs than qualified people to fill them. Let's not pretend like the employee market is full of people who've just been laid off from very reputable companies.
Yep. Maximizing fuck-over of employees.
Tech workers need to stop working for corporations they don't own, aren't seeing the profits of, and who will just throw them away at any moment. The solution are businesses in the form of employee-owned co-ops and organized labor.
Tech workers need to stop working for corporations they don't own, aren't seeing the profits of, and who will just throw them away at any moment. The solution are businesses in the form of employee-owned co-ops and organized labor.
Tech workers are one of the few W2 employees to see any profits from ownership, hence the compensation in RSUs and stock options. Also, anyone with investments in the public equity markets (like most tech workers earning high salaries) receives gains from the profits.
Or Spotify could have not taken the risk a couple years ago and never hired them. Which is what would have happened in your scenario. (No dynamism)
Businesses take risks. Part of that includes hiring people for things that may not work out. It's really not that hard.
And "fuck-over"? Please. 5 months of salary with no work? Actual working class people would go nuts for that. Get a reality check bud.
Businesses take risks. Part of that includes hiring people for things that may not work out. It's really not that hard.
And "fuck-over"? Please. 5 months of salary with no work? Actual working class people would go nuts for that. Get a reality check bud.
I’m in full support. But, you do realize the forum you’re writing this in, right?
Sad to see this happening to my former co-workers. At least it looks like the severance seems to be generous.
"We will start with a baseline for all employees, with the average employee receiving approximately five months of severance."
"We will start with a baseline for all employees, with the average employee receiving approximately five months of severance."
I consider Spotify like Hulu - existing as a puppet to give "the industry" a centralized distribution service. I don't ever expect them to make a profit, unless they decide to pivot and sell what's left to another corp. Am I wrong?
I think you're kind of right. The thing about Spotify is that my initial reaction was "it's about damn time". It's not like it was technical innovative. Everything needed to make it had been around for at least a decade, they just had to get all the legal stuff figured out first.
It's not a puppet - they are officially part owned (3-4%) by the Universal Music Group. Sony Music Group and Warner Music Group have sold some and all of their shares in Spotify, respectively
I wonder what amount of money will be saved doing these layoffs and how that compares to the overall spending of the company, given that the content streaming rights are probably a huge (the largest?) expense for the business.
It's about appearing efficient to the investors and therefore bumping the stock price and giving a payout to the few big stockholdets, rather than real efficiency. They go through a round of this routinely now, it seems, the letter is more or less the same as what he sent during last year, only percentages of laid off are different. That new version that ChatGPT generated made it more fluffy than last time.
If they were worried about efficiency, they would not have grossly over hired during covid. That's why we need unions.
If they were worried about efficiency, they would not have grossly over hired during covid. That's why we need unions.
That's exactly why I'm wondering about the overall improvement these layoffs will make for the business as a whole. From what this blog post is saying, it could be just applying the tactics most of the industry is following at the moment, no to stay behind the others.
It's one of the many strategies to bump up their stock price.
- Harsh RTO -> people leaving, better spreadsheet at the end of fiscal quarter, BOOM, the stock is up!
- Overhire again and make sure to make a lot of fuss about hiring and growing-> ah, company is growing, BOOM the stock is up!
- End of the year incoming, layoffs again -> ah, the company is more efficient, BOOM stock the goes up again!
Managing a company that way: stock value over efficiency, also disconnects the stock value with the actual financials of the company and creates investment bubbles. The C-level and their major shareholders can also massively profit from knowing when the bubble itself is going to pop or even cause a strategic pop themselves by dumping stocks or making public announcements about specific comapny details at the right time.
They win either way, is my point, while at the end, to them people's livelihoods are just a number on a spreadsheet. The answer to that kind of management is:
- strong unions
- strong government control over business and better labor protection laws
- use financial instruments and restrictive laws to tie the stock value of a publicly traded company to its actual current financial performance and its current assets. This one won't happen for many reasons :)
- Harsh RTO -> people leaving, better spreadsheet at the end of fiscal quarter, BOOM, the stock is up!
- Overhire again and make sure to make a lot of fuss about hiring and growing-> ah, company is growing, BOOM the stock is up!
- End of the year incoming, layoffs again -> ah, the company is more efficient, BOOM stock the goes up again!
Managing a company that way: stock value over efficiency, also disconnects the stock value with the actual financials of the company and creates investment bubbles. The C-level and their major shareholders can also massively profit from knowing when the bubble itself is going to pop or even cause a strategic pop themselves by dumping stocks or making public announcements about specific comapny details at the right time.
They win either way, is my point, while at the end, to them people's livelihoods are just a number on a spreadsheet. The answer to that kind of management is:
- strong unions
- strong government control over business and better labor protection laws
- use financial instruments and restrictive laws to tie the stock value of a publicly traded company to its actual current financial performance and its current assets. This one won't happen for many reasons :)
Yep. Business theater. It's about stepping on the necks of working people to suppress wages and "teach them a lesson" they probably won't learn.
That's.... not how things work. (Maybe on DSA Twitter, but not in the real world lol)
This is, to an extent, exactly what is happening now, specifically to the group of people what Musk refers to as 'the laptop class'.
The high salaries and good benefits we enjoyed in the industry could only last so long. The pandemic came and it was then when the behemoths overhired and boosted their stock prices, and were happy that we managed to make them money remotely.
Now that the pandemic is over, they seized the opportunity to crack down on remote work, reduce their headcount, and one more time boost their stock price, while at the same time showing the pesky engineers who is boss. Oh, and when Twitter started with the layoffs, suddenly all of them were overstaffed, AWS, Microsoft, Spotify, you name it... The layoffs then suddenly meant a market that was hot and starving for engineers, was flooded with good and highly qualified people. And poof, went out bargaining power. The tech giants collectively benefitted from their collective actions, while we were left to compete with each other in a very difficult market.
I know that for many of the US based folks this is natural and somewhat acceptable, but things don't have to be that way, this is avoidable and preventable.
Strong unions world-wide, and good labor protection laws is the antidote to corporate greed, which, if left unchecked, will throw everything and everyone under the bus, just so they can temporarily squeeze out a point or two in their stock price before the whole world burns.
The high salaries and good benefits we enjoyed in the industry could only last so long. The pandemic came and it was then when the behemoths overhired and boosted their stock prices, and were happy that we managed to make them money remotely.
Now that the pandemic is over, they seized the opportunity to crack down on remote work, reduce their headcount, and one more time boost their stock price, while at the same time showing the pesky engineers who is boss. Oh, and when Twitter started with the layoffs, suddenly all of them were overstaffed, AWS, Microsoft, Spotify, you name it... The layoffs then suddenly meant a market that was hot and starving for engineers, was flooded with good and highly qualified people. And poof, went out bargaining power. The tech giants collectively benefitted from their collective actions, while we were left to compete with each other in a very difficult market.
I know that for many of the US based folks this is natural and somewhat acceptable, but things don't have to be that way, this is avoidable and preventable.
Strong unions world-wide, and good labor protection laws is the antidote to corporate greed, which, if left unchecked, will throw everything and everyone under the bus, just so they can temporarily squeeze out a point or two in their stock price before the whole world burns.
Well, the US has the best companies and most innovative tech for a reason. Spotify is an outlier - Europe just doesn't compare.
Workers in the US are routinely and in large numbers thrown under the bus by their corporations in search of profit. Many don't have paid paternal/maternal leave, low or no vacation days, not all employers cover medical costs, and you can be fired more or less on the spot. Now this treatment simply is getting extended to the previously privileged "laptop class". Spotify is an example of the rare EU "unicorn", it's just sad to see that it is managed the American way.
In Europe even fast food workers or servers/waiters are paid a reasonable salary and have vacation days and their medical costs covered by their employer. Also, labor laws in Europe are much stricter and it's harder for a company to fire their workers so easily. Just see what the unionized Tesla workers are doing in Sweden. In terms of worker rights and job security, US simply doesn't compare to Europe.
It's good that at the very least the laid off workers in Sweden will get unemployment benefits from the government, in addition to the severance Spotify pays them. I believe it's something that amounts to monthly payments equal to 70-80% of their salary for at least 400 days. That, hopefully, will ensure that they have plenty of time and opportunity to find something else.
In Europe even fast food workers or servers/waiters are paid a reasonable salary and have vacation days and their medical costs covered by their employer. Also, labor laws in Europe are much stricter and it's harder for a company to fire their workers so easily. Just see what the unionized Tesla workers are doing in Sweden. In terms of worker rights and job security, US simply doesn't compare to Europe.
It's good that at the very least the laid off workers in Sweden will get unemployment benefits from the government, in addition to the severance Spotify pays them. I believe it's something that amounts to monthly payments equal to 70-80% of their salary for at least 400 days. That, hopefully, will ensure that they have plenty of time and opportunity to find something else.
Instead of investing in massive podcaster deals, they should have just focused on integrating podcasts into the app in a sane way. I would pay more if it were as good as Pocket Casts, but it's nowhere close.
The whole point was to move into podcasts for exclusivity so they had something they could put behind a hard paywall to boost revenue - the music service will never be significantly profitable and will probably never be genuinely profitable at all, so they need to move into another area or they will eventually collapse.
Yea I understand that, but whats the point of that strategy if users don't want to even subscribe to podcasts in the app because how bad the UI is. It's like they've never used a podcast app before.
I think you can listen to them for free but with ads.
Post-pandemic, the trend of Corporations raking in higher and higher profits, while needing fewer and fewer staff scares me.
The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
With rise of AI and automation, that trend will likely accelerate. The top 10% hold more than 50% of wealth. It's likely in a few decades, the top 1% will hold more than 50% of the wealth. They already hold 28% of wealth.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/10/the-wealthiest-0-1-o...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UdXz
The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
With rise of AI and automation, that trend will likely accelerate. The top 10% hold more than 50% of wealth. It's likely in a few decades, the top 1% will hold more than 50% of the wealth. They already hold 28% of wealth.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/10/the-wealthiest-0-1-o...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UdXz
I suppose I appreciate that the CEO was mostly honest about the goals and what the business actually values. “Supporting work”, ie operations, maintenance, etc is considered worthless. Near term financial ROI is the only metric that is important. Investments in the long term health of the business and treating employees with respect are of no consequence.
We all know this is true, but so few layoff announcements are willing to spell it out.
That said, the thing that’s missing is accountability of the executives. They overhired and overinvested in 2020-21. Where is the accountability for their massive failure of leadership?
We all know this is true, but so few layoff announcements are willing to spell it out.
That said, the thing that’s missing is accountability of the executives. They overhired and overinvested in 2020-21. Where is the accountability for their massive failure of leadership?
They are doing a lot, including open source. Out of curiosity is anyone using Backstage at their place of work for developer portal? Is it providing value? Should Spotify double down on that?
Yes, it is being used at my place of work. Extensive work is being done internally to make it the portal to everything a developer needs. Its definitely a great product and more work should be done. Spinning it off into its own entity would not be a bad idea, if they can deliver a lot and introduce a good SaaS pricing around it, with prices that should be comparable to what self hosting it in a kubernetes cluster would normally be, and not something what most companies are doing.
This absolutely sucks for those involved, especially given the timing. Not only does it add stress to an already stressful time of year for many, but hiring typically slows down in December anyway. That said it's good to see five months of severance pay. Hopefully long enough that the effected folks can take a little time off to refresh themselves, not stress about finances, and give the industry time to pick up hiring again in 2024 once new annual budgets kick in...
Now everyone sees just layoffs again. But there are so many companies thriving and keeping their workforce. As they are in balance. And are also happy to grow at a smaller pace.
This is so important, growing at a small and healthier pace.
Some companies try to make the reason of their existence to grow as fast as possible, no matter what.... and in the process they destroy the value they originally offered to its customers, processes, people and quality controls.. for what?
There was a class from Darden School that talked about that, I recommend reading this summary from it https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/growth-to-greatn...
Some companies try to make the reason of their existence to grow as fast as possible, no matter what.... and in the process they destroy the value they originally offered to its customers, processes, people and quality controls.. for what?
There was a class from Darden School that talked about that, I recommend reading this summary from it https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/growth-to-greatn...
I'm embarrassed to admit that despite having had Spotify for years, my music tastes didn't change much.
I switched back to albums, and can thankfully pick clients that suit my taste.
* https://gitlab.com/souch/SMP for Android
* https://apps.gnome.org/Amberol/ for desktop Linux
Beets and rsync manage tags and distribution.
I switched back to albums, and can thankfully pick clients that suit my taste.
* https://gitlab.com/souch/SMP for Android
* https://apps.gnome.org/Amberol/ for desktop Linux
Beets and rsync manage tags and distribution.
> I'm embarrassed to admit that despite having had Spotify for years, my music tastes didn't change much.
Don't be embarrassed, that's probably most people.
We like what we like.
Don't be embarrassed, that's probably most people.
We like what we like.
Napster and, later, streaming caused me to experiment a bit more. But although I picked up various artists and genres over the years I'm still pretty rooted in what I liked during college and early adult years. If my access to streaming were cut off tomorrow, I'd be pretty content with my mostly ripped from CD music library.
Firing people is business as usual. I don't know why this is usually taken with such surprise.
It's part of the life cycle of many companies to hyper-hire when money flows in, and cut lots of jobs when they "re-adjust". I don't think this is good, I personally don't like it, but I learned not to be surprised anymore.
We like cloud because it scales in and out: often management don't see workforce differently.
It's part of the life cycle of many companies to hyper-hire when money flows in, and cut lots of jobs when they "re-adjust". I don't think this is good, I personally don't like it, but I learned not to be surprised anymore.
We like cloud because it scales in and out: often management don't see workforce differently.
Mass firings like these are not normal.
In countries with functional labor laws, it's straight-up illegal unless you're basically going through bankruptcy. Mass firings should only happen if either 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on, or 2) the company is doing so poorly its immediate future is uncertain.
The Silicon Valley style mass-hiring followed by mass-firing style of management is indicative of poor management. In a well-run company this should never happen, as the same could be achieved by simply reducing the hiring rate and letting natural attrition take care of the rest.
In countries with functional labor laws, it's straight-up illegal unless you're basically going through bankruptcy. Mass firings should only happen if either 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on, or 2) the company is doing so poorly its immediate future is uncertain.
The Silicon Valley style mass-hiring followed by mass-firing style of management is indicative of poor management. In a well-run company this should never happen, as the same could be achieved by simply reducing the hiring rate and letting natural attrition take care of the rest.
Or, if you want to win big, you have to make big bets. This applies to both employers doing mass hiring and employees choosing to work at employers aiming for explosive growth.
It is not poor management, it is simply a different tactic. Sometimes things work out, sometimes they don’t. The fact that Silicon Valley has succeeded in producing the most profitable companies in the last few decades seems to be relevant.
It is not poor management, it is simply a different tactic. Sometimes things work out, sometimes they don’t. The fact that Silicon Valley has succeeded in producing the most profitable companies in the last few decades seems to be relevant.
Spotify has been around for 15 years, and its IPO was 7 years ago. They are well beyond their "explosive growth" phase, and anyone working for them could not be faulted for expecting to join a mature and stable company.
I can definitely agree with the "bet big" argument for startups - but Spotify isn't a startup and hasn't been one for years. It's a billion-dollar multinational!
I can definitely agree with the "bet big" argument for startups - but Spotify isn't a startup and hasn't been one for years. It's a billion-dollar multinational!
Let's not romanticize correlation. Silicon valley also spent years asking how many ping pong balls fit in a bus, only hired Stanford grads, and sheltered sexual harassers in executive roles. Turns out those were neither necessary or sufficient for success either. Revenue and low interest rates can hide a lot of dumb decisions.
Correlating risk and reward is how a market works. Taking risks would not make any sense otherwise.
You wouldn't think that most people here would be campaigning for companies to hire much more slowly, conservatively, and probably at salaries more in line with the market as a whole.
> 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on
There is of sorts, with high interest rates and inflation. This is shaking the foundations of how a lot of companies have operated since 2008.
There is of sorts, with high interest rates and inflation. This is shaking the foundations of how a lot of companies have operated since 2008.
Interest rates are not historically high and neither is inflation.
[deleted]
Why do these mass layoffs keep happening in the software industry? Or is this a global phenomenon that exists across all industries?
Software industry is a giant bubble 90% of the time, so it's usually the first one to go. But no most industries seem to be hiring averagely to better then average at least as per the JOLTs report.
Software companies are pretty uniquely positioned such that they have far more employees than are operationally necessary.
Not to say that those employees don't provide value, but the spread between operationally stable employment levels and current headcount is far wider than other industries.
Thus, more potential for large cuts.
Not to say that those employees don't provide value, but the spread between operationally stable employment levels and current headcount is far wider than other industries.
Thus, more potential for large cuts.
Ok but why?
Because margin on core software products tends to be far higher than other industries.
For example, retailers tend to have single digit margins. Software products often have 50%+ and sometimes 70%+.
Thus lots of excess money to hire people that aren't necessarily operationally critical.
A retailer with a large excess of store associates would fail quickly, whereas a software company can often survive in perpetuity
For example, retailers tend to have single digit margins. Software products often have 50%+ and sometimes 70%+.
Thus lots of excess money to hire people that aren't necessarily operationally critical.
A retailer with a large excess of store associates would fail quickly, whereas a software company can often survive in perpetuity
During COVID, software companies massively overhired, because the executives in charge went all "hurr durr, digital is the future boys! Nobody is going outside anymore!". Not to mention the government was handing out money like candy through various schemes complete with low interest rates. I believe Facebook (as example) alone went from a headcount from 40k to over 80k employees in just 2 years of COVID.
2022+ was the "return to normal" with online trends quickly reverting back to pre-COVID levels. This resulted in a sudden drop in online economics (such as ad spend) that could justify the bloated workforces.
Drastically increased interest rates to fight inflation also cut off the cheap money flow to companies that would previously burn it like crazy on "R&D" and the like.
2022+ was the "return to normal" with online trends quickly reverting back to pre-COVID levels. This resulted in a sudden drop in online economics (such as ad spend) that could justify the bloated workforces.
Drastically increased interest rates to fight inflation also cut off the cheap money flow to companies that would previously burn it like crazy on "R&D" and the like.
It's the end of the internet service software business cycle. This plus a ton of unprofitable VC funded companies unable to get the funding they were hoping to get with interest rates up lead to a massive pullback.
Will things change next year? Maybe if some IPOs hit and the VC pump and dump pipeline gets back up and running.
Will things change next year? Maybe if some IPOs hit and the VC pump and dump pipeline gets back up and running.
A lot of these companies have people doing no real work, even afterwards of layoffs, they're bloated. You can't layoff essential people otherwise you die.
You can look at companies like Spotify and Twitter, they ship like one feature a year if you average.
You can look at companies like Spotify and Twitter, they ship like one feature a year if you average.
Only to a small extend. Mostly it happens in software. And no it's not just "overhiring" (that doesn't happen across so many industries). That's only part of it. We all know with AI we won't need white collar jobs anymore. If I had children I wouldn't allow them to study CS. Not anymore.
What would you have them study instead? If you're optimizing for what AI is least likely to be able to accomplish, some forms of blue collar labor would probably rank highest on the list.
I feel like you're overestimating the impact of AI on the current wave of dismissals. It's hard to say without any actual data, but there seems to be a lot of FUD regarding AI replacing white-collar and CS jobs.
I don't have better data than you, but I'd be very much surprised if AI would replace computer scientists rather than being a tool which will change what we'll have to be good at as computer scientists.
There is a lot of digitalisation to be done and AI might change the price of doing that, but it won't make a whole academic discipline obsolete.
I don't have better data than you, but I'd be very much surprised if AI would replace computer scientists rather than being a tool which will change what we'll have to be good at as computer scientists.
There is a lot of digitalisation to be done and AI might change the price of doing that, but it won't make a whole academic discipline obsolete.
Meanwhile Apple came late to the game and now is just sitting it out. Wonder what will happen in a few years?
I wonder if they laid off 17% of management and leadership as well. probably not, but they should
> Today, we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact
I hope they mean empires of managers.
I hope they mean empires of managers.
"whats my purpose?" you play music, and maybe display lyrics
Interesting timing considering the on-going process of unionizing.
This is one bit I don't understand. You either unionize or don't. If you do, you do it fast or you lose it.
All management hates unions, and especially the management of SV companies. They will do everything to crush it. So you either do it fast or lose employees as the management will attack first.
All management hates unions, and especially the management of SV companies. They will do everything to crush it. So you either do it fast or lose employees as the management will attack first.
I don't see how it's related. If anything this will accelerate that.
It will be interesting to see whether this reinvigorates the unionization push that followed the layoffs early this year.
Spotify is a completely mistery to me. I'm asking: What does Spotify really have? They don't own the music. They don't own podcasts (OK, they may have some exclusives like Rogan). All they have is a license, a bit of software, and lots of users. How will they ever turn a profit? What's the end game here?
I just switched my whole family from Spotify to Deezer and it was literally a matter of minutes. There are even services that move all your favorites/playlists over and it worked flawlessly.
I just switched my whole family from Spotify to Deezer and it was literally a matter of minutes. There are even services that move all your favorites/playlists over and it worked flawlessly.
Spotify is a sales channel. Walmart doesn't actually make anything, US car dealerships don't make anything. But they have customers and that's all it takes to sell something.
And, strangely enough, once a sales channel is big enough it can begin taking a bigger slice of profits and telling suppliers what they should be doing (a la Walmart).
And, strangely enough, once a sales channel is big enough it can begin taking a bigger slice of profits and telling suppliers what they should be doing (a la Walmart).
[deleted]
Walmart doesn’t technically make anything (not sure if it’s true to be honest) but they probably “enable” a lot of manufacturers to “make things” under their Great Value brand
I suppose one could argue whether Walmart's primary value-add is sales or whether it's logistics, but certainly either of those is a higher priority than making things for consumers to sell. House brand items are still produced and packaged by some other company.
The "logistics" of Spotify's business are mostly commoditized (storage, computer, app development), but certainly they have label relationships that would be hard for a new competitor to replicate. But the key part is that for whatever reason 226 million people have given Spotify their credit card number (or local analog) which makes them pretty important to record labels.
The "logistics" of Spotify's business are mostly commoditized (storage, computer, app development), but certainly they have label relationships that would be hard for a new competitor to replicate. But the key part is that for whatever reason 226 million people have given Spotify their credit card number (or local analog) which makes them pretty important to record labels.
That's pretty new in the grand scheme of things? They started making things under their brand once they became established.
I could see Spotify doing the same thing. Particularly around live ticketing, merch, etc.
I could see Spotify doing the same thing. Particularly around live ticketing, merch, etc.
Yeah it's just playlists and network effects, mostly.
There's a Spotify playlist for everything, young people regularly share Spotify playlists each other, and for many: the hardest part about switching to another service is losing access to those playlists.
The "official" playlists provide two other functions. One is to initially amplify artists. Record labels can buy slots on these playlists, just like they used to buy airtime on the FM radio stations of yesteryear.
The second is that Spotify can use its own filler muzak on its playlists to keep licensing costs down. E.g. they pay a pianist to play generic "Christmas piano music," make up an artist name, and put a bunch of those songs on its official holiday playlists.
There's a Spotify playlist for everything, young people regularly share Spotify playlists each other, and for many: the hardest part about switching to another service is losing access to those playlists.
The "official" playlists provide two other functions. One is to initially amplify artists. Record labels can buy slots on these playlists, just like they used to buy airtime on the FM radio stations of yesteryear.
The second is that Spotify can use its own filler muzak on its playlists to keep licensing costs down. E.g. they pay a pianist to play generic "Christmas piano music," make up an artist name, and put a bunch of those songs on its official holiday playlists.
> What does Spotify really have?
As far as I can tell, its biggest beneficiaries are the 3 record labels who can use Spotify being one of its customers to be able to negotiate better terms with Apple/Alphabet/Amazon.
As far as I can tell, its biggest beneficiaries are the 3 record labels who can use Spotify being one of its customers to be able to negotiate better terms with Apple/Alphabet/Amazon.
Deezer is a completely mistery to me. I'm asking: What does Deezer really have? They don't own the music. They don't own podcasts (OK, they may have some exclusives). All they have is a license, a bit of software, and lots of users. How will they ever turn a profit? What's the end game here?
I just switched my whole family from Deezer to tidal and it was literally a matter of minutes. There are even services that move all your favorites/playlists over and it worked flawlessly.
Spotify Connect is a real game changer. I tap a song on the web player and it streams it on our living room amp, which supports it natively. No apps involved whatsoever.
This has been the biggest feature keeping me on Spotify.
Tidal sorta has a connect feature, but I've found it to be really buggy (often wouldn't play or wouldn't tell the remote control device what is playing) and not as widely supported.
Apple Music is even worse since tends to rely on AirPlay, which murders quality and requires the remote to stay on the same network as the player.
Tidal sorta has a connect feature, but I've found it to be really buggy (often wouldn't play or wouldn't tell the remote control device what is playing) and not as widely supported.
Apple Music is even worse since tends to rely on AirPlay, which murders quality and requires the remote to stay on the same network as the player.
>Spotify Connect is a real game changer.
That sounds like a minor quality of life feature, hardly a "game changer". Do you think this is impossible for other companies to replicate?
That sounds like a minor quality of life feature, hardly a "game changer". Do you think this is impossible for other companies to replicate?
Have they replicated it widely though, and does their stuff work as seamlessly as Spotify's? Rather than look at hypotheticals about what others might offer, look at the present overall experience.
> Do you think this is impossible for other companies to replicate?
They are welcome to do so at any time of their choosing. It's only been an entire decade since the feature launched, I'm sure the competition will figure it out soon. For the most part, the only one I've seen that has more features than what is provided by basic google cast / airplay is ironically Youtube Music.
They are welcome to do so at any time of their choosing. It's only been an entire decade since the feature launched, I'm sure the competition will figure it out soon. For the most part, the only one I've seen that has more features than what is provided by basic google cast / airplay is ironically Youtube Music.
TIDAL has had it for a couple of years now https://tidal.com/connect
I like their music discovery functions e.g. generated playlists and song/playlist/artist "radio". My playlist variety expanded greatly over the past 3 years because of these features from Spotify. A centralized platform that is relatively to use (nonsensical UI changes aside) is a strong incentive for users to stay, though by no means a moat.
The end game was always about rapidly burning VC money to acquire more users, while kicking the can of profit-making down the road. Now ZIRP has ended for the time being, the chicken has finally come home to roost.
The end game was always about rapidly burning VC money to acquire more users, while kicking the can of profit-making down the road. Now ZIRP has ended for the time being, the chicken has finally come home to roost.
They are a music distributor, and they have good relationships with the rights holders and will do their legwork for them.
I guess that defect that's been open for 3 years to "actually shuffle large playlists" doesn't stand a chance.
Meanwhile I cannot see anywhere what is the streaming quality for Spotify on my Samsung TV. Please put a text label somewhere in the currently empty settings page. It should take 1h of programmer time. Granted, if what I suspect is true, i.e. the streaming data rate is too small (not configurable), then I might switch to a different streaming app :)
Spent all of their time finding new ways to spend money and never bothered to make any.
I predicted this......their API v2......that was all I needed to see you know they were firing a lot of people......they need to get profit somehow and they have no knowledge at the top....so they do what all dumb companies do....flounder until someone saves them....so cut cut cut.
The Spotify inserted ads during the podcast makes a lot of sense now. They are really trying to make the books look good. Is this a leading indicator that the podcasts could go more towards the exclusives / originals route? For example: Like Joe Rogan.
Spotify is actively moving away from originals (or at least changing how they do it). Inseted ads gives them better tracking and with better reporting… $$$$
From a company that projects far too much, not surprising.
lol why does Spotify even have so many employees to begin with. Doubt it was 1600 tech jobs cos they don’t need anywhere close to that to run the service.
I still can’t get Backstage set up correctly.
weren't they paying data scientists 500k?
Should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete. Not that I don't sympathize with people getting laid off, but feels like past a certain point, more heads changes products faster than can be fixed, and sometimes moving fast degrades what shouldn't have been changed in the first place. NPR acquisition drama aside, pocketcast has like 25 employees that makes the service slightly better every year while fixing obvious bugs.
Sometimes I don't understand how jumping from winamp to spotify goes from a handful to 10000 employees. Winamp + audiogalaxy (ah memories) probably covers 90% of spotify use case with probably 10 engineers, then just get some suckers to curate playlists for free.
Sometimes I don't understand how jumping from winamp to spotify goes from a handful to 10000 employees. Winamp + audiogalaxy (ah memories) probably covers 90% of spotify use case with probably 10 engineers, then just get some suckers to curate playlists for free.
What do you think the employees do?
I imagine there's a big team dedicated to getting inventory on the service through negotiations with music producers around the world. You'd need to keep them to continue expanding, adding newly produced music, and re-negotiating expiring deals.
There will be a large editorial team producing playlists, curation, tuning the algorithm with expertise, etc. That all needs to be localised and to cover lots of niche music tastes. That's also not evergreen content or work, it needs constant updates to remain relevant.
Then there's international expansion and enabling the tech to work for more countries, more languages, more payment methods, more types of music publishing.
Honestly, where do you get "80%"?
I imagine there's a big team dedicated to getting inventory on the service through negotiations with music producers around the world. You'd need to keep them to continue expanding, adding newly produced music, and re-negotiating expiring deals.
There will be a large editorial team producing playlists, curation, tuning the algorithm with expertise, etc. That all needs to be localised and to cover lots of niche music tastes. That's also not evergreen content or work, it needs constant updates to remain relevant.
Then there's international expansion and enabling the tech to work for more countries, more languages, more payment methods, more types of music publishing.
Honestly, where do you get "80%"?
> What do you think the employees do?
Product stand-up, agile stand-up, team fika, cross-team fika, town hall, team activity, tribe activity, one-on-one, backlog grooming, team retro, incident post-mortem, ping pong, live music.
If you do scrape together a few minutes to get part of the codebase into your head (despite the open-floor-plan chatter), you've got no way to trigger that bug you think you saw.
But persevere anyway and diagnose it. Oh it looks like it's happening in someone else's microservice. File a JIRA? Bring it up at the next meeting? Try a different fix anyway. Happy with the fix? Wait in pull-request limbo until it's sorted. Release it straight into prod? You could bring down prod... Maybe you didn't really see that bug after all. Coffee time!
Product stand-up, agile stand-up, team fika, cross-team fika, town hall, team activity, tribe activity, one-on-one, backlog grooming, team retro, incident post-mortem, ping pong, live music.
If you do scrape together a few minutes to get part of the codebase into your head (despite the open-floor-plan chatter), you've got no way to trigger that bug you think you saw.
But persevere anyway and diagnose it. Oh it looks like it's happening in someone else's microservice. File a JIRA? Bring it up at the next meeting? Try a different fix anyway. Happy with the fix? Wait in pull-request limbo until it's sorted. Release it straight into prod? You could bring down prod... Maybe you didn't really see that bug after all. Coffee time!
A tiny part of Spotify's headcount is product & engineering.
See my sibling comment. Non-coders are just as capable as coders at doing non-work.
This site says 6000 engineers. That is enormous in both absolute terms and "as a tiny part" of Spotify.
https://thenewstack.io/how-spotlify-adopted-platform-enginee...
This site says 6000 engineers. That is enormous in both absolute terms and "as a tiny part" of Spotify.
https://thenewstack.io/how-spotlify-adopted-platform-enginee...
6000 is beyond ridiculous.
It's a media player with a CDN. They should have at most 100 engineers.
It's a media player with a CDN. They should have at most 100 engineers.
Except it's not just that, is it? They have more than one product. They have the desktop app, the web app, iOS app, Android app, apps for smart TVs, apps for smart speakers, internal admin apps, apps for artists, apps for venues, apps for labels.
Even if you narrow down to focusing on just one of those like the desktop app. There are so many sub-features. Playlist management, playback management, search, audiobooks, podcasts, merch, event ticketing, groups, collaborative playlists, local files, upsells from free to paid, notifications. I could go on.
Even if you narrow down to focusing on just one of those like the desktop app. There are so many sub-features. Playlist management, playback management, search, audiobooks, podcasts, merch, event ticketing, groups, collaborative playlists, local files, upsells from free to paid, notifications. I could go on.
I think you're missing the point that coding isn't the only type of job
Do you think that the non-coders have more time to do their actual work than the coders?
I think your representation of a software engineer's work is made in bad faith. There may be some like this, but from anywhere I've worked and anyone I've spoken to in the industry, it's a small minority. I haven't worked at Spotify but I have worked with an ex-Spotify engineer who was very productive and one of the best engineers I've worked with.
The representation is in bad faith because it overstates the balance of non-coding tasks, but also because it assumes these are "not work" or worth less than coding.
The representation is in bad faith because it overstates the balance of non-coding tasks, but also because it assumes these are "not work" or worth less than coding.
> but also because it assumes these are "not work" or worth less than coding.
I once walked out of an improv class (on company time)
I once walked out of an improv class (on company time)
There's at least one team devoted to screwing up the homepage, pushing content that I don't want like podcasts. Will not miss them.
200m on Rogan has caused more than few of my friends to drop spotify permanently because they couldn't get him off their home screen recommendation for months. If only one engineer added a dismiss button.
Yeah but the dismiss button has to be directly tethered to the machine learning analytics that is also tied to the retention team, so if too many people trigger it, the retention team is alerted to a potential user-retention risk. You need to write the API to hook into those two services, then make sure you have benchmarks before your pull-request will get approved.
You could do this, but I think the profile pictures would look better with rounded edges.
You could do this, but I think the profile pictures would look better with rounded edges.
When you overpay massively for IP, you have no choice but to shove it down people's throats in the hope that even 1% decide to subscribe.
That sounds like a sunk-cost fallacy to me.
Note: For all I know, they really could be making that error. Or perhaps someone inside Spotify feels the need to make the Rogan investment at least break even, consequences be damned.
Note: For all I know, they really could be making that error. Or perhaps someone inside Spotify feels the need to make the Rogan investment at least break even, consequences be damned.
I want to dismiss Rogan as much as anyone, but I think this underestimates the complexity involved. It's not just a button, it's what the button does, it's respecting opt-outs like that in a scalable way for many millions of customers, it's having a way to un-do those for users and for support agents when customers inevitably accidentally hide a podcast they want to see, it's GDPR data export and deletion of those flags to hide things, it's UX testing around whether users even understand what the button does.
I agree that a good product would do all these things and have a way to not show recommendations you don't want, but I get why these things might not exist.
When I worked in a <100 person startup we'd "just build it" and I'd probably spend a few hours on this, but we didn't have all these concerns. We didn't do user testing, we didn't care about scalability at this level. Now I work on Google Play, and if you want to add a button like this (that will need a database query) to a frontend it's a ton more work because the scale is so different.
I agree that a good product would do all these things and have a way to not show recommendations you don't want, but I get why these things might not exist.
When I worked in a <100 person startup we'd "just build it" and I'd probably spend a few hours on this, but we didn't have all these concerns. We didn't do user testing, we didn't care about scalability at this level. Now I work on Google Play, and if you want to add a button like this (that will need a database query) to a frontend it's a ton more work because the scale is so different.
> I want to dismiss Rogan as much as anyone, but I think this underestimates the complexity involved. It's not just a button, it's what the button does,
This is the kind of statement that leads to people saying "Should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete." by making it sound like a big development team creates an unwieldy product then struggles to implement even the simplest of features.
The button is absolutely not missing because of any technical difficulty implementing it. Spotify is already storing per-user preferences - and doing all sorts of algorithmic stuff to make smart recommendations and suchlike, all with the ability to scale.
The button is missing for a business reason: They want their purchase of Rogan to be a success because they've spent a lot of money on it.
This is the kind of statement that leads to people saying "Should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete." by making it sound like a big development team creates an unwieldy product then struggles to implement even the simplest of features.
The button is absolutely not missing because of any technical difficulty implementing it. Spotify is already storing per-user preferences - and doing all sorts of algorithmic stuff to make smart recommendations and suchlike, all with the ability to scale.
The button is missing for a business reason: They want their purchase of Rogan to be a success because they've spent a lot of money on it.
> The button is missing for a business reason: They want their purchase of Rogan to be a success because they've spent a lot of money on it.
Precisely. If everybody was opted out by default, podcast growth would be anemic, and the product managers would find themselves on the list of people losing their jobs.
Precisely. If everybody was opted out by default, podcast growth would be anemic, and the product managers would find themselves on the list of people losing their jobs.
No, they're right: your understanding of each other diverges when you write "it's not because of any technical difficulty" --- correct, we all agree there. However, it is still difficult.
Big companies have big processes and that, at least at Google, would have prevented this from happening for at least 12-18 months. Then those things aren't pursued because of A) the literal cost of getting that arranged over 18 months B) the individual's decision not to invest in beating their head against a wall for 18 months for something that'd be done in a week if leadership cared. Leadership does not care, so QED, it will not be a positive for your career.
Things either get done because A) leadership cares and has skin in the game and everyone is afraid of getting in the way of whoever delivers B) leadership cares and will keep asking about it over and over again for a year or two or C) no one cares so no one will get in your way.
That's also the crux of why things at Google go sideways. A) is only true over a year long cycle (I.e. you need to get to launch) B) people are afraid to do because it's hectoring and C) if no one cares its probably not much of a game changer anyway, there's no incentive to do it, and especially in FAANG's Efficiency/Focus(tm) era[^1^], you can actually get pretty easily brow-beaten for it by middle management. Then what are you going to do? Appeal to a VP that your manager and managers manager are big ol meanies?
[^1^] I originally wrote error, which, lol
Big companies have big processes and that, at least at Google, would have prevented this from happening for at least 12-18 months. Then those things aren't pursued because of A) the literal cost of getting that arranged over 18 months B) the individual's decision not to invest in beating their head against a wall for 18 months for something that'd be done in a week if leadership cared. Leadership does not care, so QED, it will not be a positive for your career.
Things either get done because A) leadership cares and has skin in the game and everyone is afraid of getting in the way of whoever delivers B) leadership cares and will keep asking about it over and over again for a year or two or C) no one cares so no one will get in your way.
That's also the crux of why things at Google go sideways. A) is only true over a year long cycle (I.e. you need to get to launch) B) people are afraid to do because it's hectoring and C) if no one cares its probably not much of a game changer anyway, there's no incentive to do it, and especially in FAANG's Efficiency/Focus(tm) era[^1^], you can actually get pretty easily brow-beaten for it by middle management. Then what are you going to do? Appeal to a VP that your manager and managers manager are big ol meanies?
[^1^] I originally wrote error, which, lol
> Big companies have big processes and that, at least at Google, would have prevented this from happening for at least 12-18 months.
Well gee, if all these software developers are making them slower at software development, it sure sounds like they should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete.
Well gee, if all these software developers are making them slower at software development, it sure sounds like they should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete.
It's not the software developers. Companies and processes aren't run by software developers. I wish you were more curious about the gap between your understanding and others, it'd be a much more enlightening discussion with your interlocution, as it stands, we keep circling back to "all companies with long launch lead times should fire 80% of their software engineers"
danpalmer believes ads for Rogan can't be dismissed because of 'the complexity involved' in specific technical areas such as being scalable; providing a GDPR export; offering an undo option; and providing a comprehensible user experience.
I would say questions like scalability and data exporting fall squarely upon the software development arm of the business; and if they had chosen an architecture which made it hard for them to deliver value, that would reflect poorly on them.
I am also arguing they probably didn't choose a bad architecture, because I don't think a technical issue is making it difficult to dismiss Rogan ads.
It's far more likely this is the same as Youtube making it difficult to dismiss Shorts, and Amazon trying to trick you into a Prime subscription every time you check out: They've decided their strategy is to make a number go up, and your personal experience is less important to them than that strategy.
I would say questions like scalability and data exporting fall squarely upon the software development arm of the business; and if they had chosen an architecture which made it hard for them to deliver value, that would reflect poorly on them.
I am also arguing they probably didn't choose a bad architecture, because I don't think a technical issue is making it difficult to dismiss Rogan ads.
It's far more likely this is the same as Youtube making it difficult to dismiss Shorts, and Amazon trying to trick you into a Prime subscription every time you check out: They've decided their strategy is to make a number go up, and your personal experience is less important to them than that strategy.
Yep that’s it. The same reason Netflix doesn’t have a “hide this” button either
I get you, but at the same time I'm more than little suspicious that they paid 200m for Rogan and just happens to plaster his face on my podcast tab like a permanent ad for months on end. IIRC it was right after also just acquired Bill Simmons also permanent thumbnail, basically fully visible unlike the third listing in the carousel that required scrolling. I find it hard to believe they couldn't rotate recommendations, or move it below the fold. This complaint was all over their forums, reddit, social media at the time. Their default answer on forum was, not yet, but features constantly coming. Avoided all the question of why can't they just remove the banner until feature implemented. I buy scaling features for 500m users is hard. I also buy using technical complexity is a cover for other motivations.
Yet somehow they managed to do the impossible and add a "hide from Discover Weekly" button.
For something as simple as a dismiss button for a particular promotion, it's reasonable to store the bit on device. This will work for mobile and desktop apps, which I assume are the vast majority of Spotify usage.
Or they could invest in a generic "misc settings" column in their DB - to store random stuff like this in a blob. You could even query/index on them w/ something like Postgres's JSON support.
Or they could invest in a generic "misc settings" column in their DB - to store random stuff like this in a blob. You could even query/index on them w/ something like Postgres's JSON support.
> For something as simple as a dismiss button for a particular promotion, it's reasonable to store the bit on device. This will work for mobile and desktop apps, which I assume are the vast majority of Spotify usage.
No it isn't. When you "dismiss", the service needs to have a point of view (or UX to clarify) whether you want to dismiss it permanently or temporarily (I'm not in the mood for it right now).
You also need to deal with the cases where someone accidentally hits the button.
You also need to think about people who use multiple devices.
Should the algo's now update to say you don't like podcasts? You don't like talk shows? You don't like podcasts with themes that Rogan covers - what themes would that be?
etc.
No it isn't. When you "dismiss", the service needs to have a point of view (or UX to clarify) whether you want to dismiss it permanently or temporarily (I'm not in the mood for it right now).
You also need to deal with the cases where someone accidentally hits the button.
You also need to think about people who use multiple devices.
Should the algo's now update to say you don't like podcasts? You don't like talk shows? You don't like podcasts with themes that Rogan covers - what themes would that be?
etc.
Now take that thought and apply it to someone proposing to put a permanent Rogan-ad on the home screen. One of the first things that is going to come up is "but how can users remove it?" At the level of thought you're talking about here, someone somewhere already made the conscious decision to not make it removable.
[deleted]
From a user perspective, they shouldn't have added podcasts without the opt-out option
That’s a crazy reason to drop using Spotify
It's not that crazy. Not Rogan-specific, but the podcast-first UI prioritization made Spotify on CarPlay a pain in the ass to use. There was no option to say, "No thanks, just give me music only going forward." Spotify clearly didn't want to serve my needs (i.e., to access music quickly), so I took my business elsewhere.
It's crazy to stop using a product because it's UI got worse by pushing content you don't want at the expense of what you do want?
Ignoring the Joe Rogan of it all - it's frustrating to open spotify to listen to music and it the page is full of overly produced podcasts instead. I think that's a pretty normal reason to not like a product.
Ignoring the Joe Rogan of it all - it's frustrating to open spotify to listen to music and it the page is full of overly produced podcasts instead. I think that's a pretty normal reason to not like a product.
>That’s a crazy reason to drop using Spotify
That's like saying people dropping Windows 11 for pushing Candy Crush and TikTok in the start menu si crazy. Is it really crazy? I don't think so.
If I'm a paying customer I want to be treated with respect. If you keep making my UX worse to push your own agenda I WILL drop you for the HDD of "definitely legit" MP3s ready to go.
That's like saying people dropping Windows 11 for pushing Candy Crush and TikTok in the start menu si crazy. Is it really crazy? I don't think so.
If I'm a paying customer I want to be treated with respect. If you keep making my UX worse to push your own agenda I WILL drop you for the HDD of "definitely legit" MP3s ready to go.
> That's like saying people dropping Windows 11 for pushing Candy Crush and TikTok in the start menu si crazy.
That's not the right comparison.
You don't buy the OS for entertainment recommendations and listening/viewing/playing/reading.
That's not the right comparison.
You don't buy the OS for entertainment recommendations and listening/viewing/playing/reading.
I'm probably not the common usecase but I don't use Spotify for recommendations either.
I hate recommendation engines in software. One of the first things I always turn off when I install Spotify is the "When we finish your playlist we'll just keep playing similar music we think you'll like" option.
All I use Spotify for is to save myself the trouble of maintaining a media server and tracking down all the music I like to put on it
I hate recommendation engines in software. One of the first things I always turn off when I install Spotify is the "When we finish your playlist we'll just keep playing similar music we think you'll like" option.
All I use Spotify for is to save myself the trouble of maintaining a media server and tracking down all the music I like to put on it
>You don't buy the OS for entertainment recommendations and listening/viewing/playing/reading.
Huh? I definitely use my OS for entertainment but I don't want it to shove their own content in my face, same how I don't want that from Spotify. If I want to discover new content, I'll explicitly seek it out, otherwise GTF out of my way and play my songs.
Huh? I definitely use my OS for entertainment but I don't want it to shove their own content in my face, same how I don't want that from Spotify. If I want to discover new content, I'll explicitly seek it out, otherwise GTF out of my way and play my songs.
I didn't switch because of Joe Rogan, but Spotify kept changing the UI and at some point it got so annoying to browse music over the crappy podcasts being shoved in my face that I switched to Tidal.
By itself, sure. It's a litmus test of sorts.
It's kinda like how I judge most for-profit businesses based on the checkout experience. Usually (there are certainly valid exceptions), the process of me giving them money is what I expect to be the best experience I will ever have with that company.
Am I going to refuse to shop at a store simply because nobody cared about a payment process? No, not unless it's particularly painful or damaging to me in some way.
However, it's certainly a red flag and a warning that the rest of my interactions with them aren't likely to be better.
Same with the case here. If the landing page for a service product is so heavily pushing particular content in place of actually being useful for them, that's a pretty big red flag.
tl;dr by itself, it's a silly reason to drop it, but it can definitely reveal where business priorities currently lie.
It's kinda like how I judge most for-profit businesses based on the checkout experience. Usually (there are certainly valid exceptions), the process of me giving them money is what I expect to be the best experience I will ever have with that company.
Am I going to refuse to shop at a store simply because nobody cared about a payment process? No, not unless it's particularly painful or damaging to me in some way.
However, it's certainly a red flag and a warning that the rest of my interactions with them aren't likely to be better.
Same with the case here. If the landing page for a service product is so heavily pushing particular content in place of actually being useful for them, that's a pretty big red flag.
tl;dr by itself, it's a silly reason to drop it, but it can definitely reveal where business priorities currently lie.
People have different priorities. It didn’t cause me to drop music subscriptions, but did cause me to switch to Apple Music.
Not that Apple Music is God's gift to UI, but I prefer to keep my podcasts and my music separate and I don't want recommendations to be pushed on me.
Why not? I don't have time for many ads and will go to great lengths to get rid of them - especially ones I don't like. With Spotify this is even easier because there are a number of replacements available.
I think I'm using a different app to the rest of these commenters, I don't have anything as bad as people are talking about. Or do people just use the free version of the app?
Spotify's home page is full of ads - even for premium users.
https://artists.spotify.com/en/showcase
https://artists.spotify.com/en/showcase
Is it because I'm in Sweden/EU? But as a premium user I don't see these ads people are on about?
Some people just put their money where their mouth is
I stopped my sub after Rogan AND Peterson pinned on my homescreen, and it just wasn't worth any drama it could stir with how often spotify is passively open. I like me the occasional Rogan, but Peterson is not someone I want to associate with, especially where I am, who I'm generally with, even accidentally. Like it's just dumb shit design for no good reason.
It was enough of an issue that I remember multiple support threads topics at the time.
Switched to plexamp for a while. Half a year later, I'm free riding off someones spare family plan slot.
It was enough of an issue that I remember multiple support threads topics at the time.
Switched to plexamp for a while. Half a year later, I'm free riding off someones spare family plan slot.
[deleted]
Are you saying in your social circle if someone sees Jordan Peterson on your Spotify Home Screen you are concerned this would create “drama?”
If I had Spotify open and Peterson was pinned to my Home Screen in an office setting, I’d be embarrassed. It would be a strong signal of a lack of education that could harm my professional career.
Sounds like you work in a toxic workplace
[deleted]
I would definitely give someone the side-eye if I saw Peterson or Rogan on their phone, yeah.
And the the "tolerant" Left wonders why the Right is so upset at them, and the response globally is the election of strong pro-nationalist, "populist" candidates.
Why should someone walk around afraid of being seen associating with Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson? They're certainly not promoting Jewish genocide, unlike others.
I'm ready for the downvotes.
Why should someone walk around afraid of being seen associating with Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson? They're certainly not promoting Jewish genocide, unlike others.
I'm ready for the downvotes.
I never claimed to be tolerant ;) Listening to Rogan or Peterson are indicators that you might be into alternative medicine trash like horse dewormers and vagina rocks; or you might oppose public health policies, or gender care for people dissimilar to you. There's an entire universe of podcasts to listen to on every possible topic, and you choose to listen to the one that hosts quacks. That's not the kind of person I'm interested in supporting or associating with, hence the side-eye thing.
Peterson's podcast is in the top 30. Some people live very siloed lives.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Or they simply see this as the indictment of American society that it is. People preoccupying themselves with such obvious, dim-witted charlatans can disgust anyone, regardless of their popularity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I stopped my sub after Rogan AND Peterson pinned on my homescreen, and it just wasn't worth any drama it could stir with how often spotify is passively open.
If the image of the most popular podcast causes drama then it's those people who are on the fringe.
If the image of the most popular podcast causes drama then it's those people who are on the fringe.
Same reason I stopped buying Apple products - they shoved U2 into my iTunes library
I dropped Spotify when they started to push more podcasts on my home feed as well.
They’re not leaving. 17% of the staff doesn’t include the entirety of the curation team.
Yea I worked at groupon when it was taking off and we had around 200 sales ppl calling up and negotiating deals with local business.
Everyone back then used to ask me the same question: Why does groupon have 500 ppl, isnt' it just a wordpress site.
Everyone back then used to ask me the same question: Why does groupon have 500 ppl, isnt' it just a wordpress site.
People who make CRUD sites think everything is just a CRUD site.
Engineering-bias at its best. Thinking about the product complexity but not about the business
It is a shame for Chicago that groupon didn't continue to find success. I really think that if they had continued to grow the Chicago tech scene would be significantly larger than it is today.
Absolutely agree. I’m not sure I can name another name brand Chicago tech company, which is devastating for their startup and venture ecosystem.
Citadel.
Chicago has been a big centre for developers for finance companies for a long time. Hedge Funds, Market Makers, Asset Managers etc.
Chicago has been a big centre for developers for finance companies for a long time. Hedge Funds, Market Makers, Asset Managers etc.
Citadel is moving to Miami because Chicago government sucks - the move was due to "riots, an employee stabbed, and the attempted hijacking of his Ken Griffin's car"
https://www.businessinsider.com/ken-griffin-citadel-moving-h...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ken-griffin-citadel-moving-h...
Yeah, Miami is going to be way better for crime...
Especially if they had succeeded in building the dome.
I find their algorithms for recommendation (song and artist “radios”) far inferior to 2000’s Pandora, so at least in that area I agree with GP that throwing 1000 times the resources at the problem doesn’t seem to be doing anything…
>Honestly, where do you get "80%"?
Lazy hyperbole and picked pareto 80%. Not remotely well calculated remark. Should have constrained comment to engineer/design team.
Lazy hyperbole and picked pareto 80%. Not remotely well calculated remark. Should have constrained comment to engineer/design team.
Well thanks for owning up to it!
I agree that it feels like the product from an engineering perspective was "finished" a while ago, however when I think about it for a while I can come up with many things that will need ongoing engineering work. For example, bug fixes (no one ever finishes this), support for new devices/phones/smart speakers/TVs/cars, support for payments and authentication in new regions, scaling work to scale to users in more regions, reliability and operational work.
And that's just the stuff that isn't about growing more. I think it's reasonable to expect that businesses want to grow, and this isn't always anti-consumer either, as it can result in services that appeal to more users and cost less. This means engineering work on the marketing funnel, onboarding, new markets like podcasts, and lots more.
I agree that it feels like the product from an engineering perspective was "finished" a while ago, however when I think about it for a while I can come up with many things that will need ongoing engineering work. For example, bug fixes (no one ever finishes this), support for new devices/phones/smart speakers/TVs/cars, support for payments and authentication in new regions, scaling work to scale to users in more regions, reliability and operational work.
And that's just the stuff that isn't about growing more. I think it's reasonable to expect that businesses want to grow, and this isn't always anti-consumer either, as it can result in services that appeal to more users and cost less. This means engineering work on the marketing funnel, onboarding, new markets like podcasts, and lots more.
Spotify had a large headcount.
Let's look at some of your examples and see where things can logically be cut.
>I imagine there's a big team dedicated to getting inventory on the service through negotiations with music producers around the world.
This can be streamlined considerably through standardized contracts. I'd wager 90% of the inventory that said team gets is from niche artists, independent artists or small labels. Very few artists actually have the clout or resources to negotiate their own deals with Spotify. That's sort of the point of having executives - to handle the Taylor Swifts of the world. Your local band, rapper, singer-songwriter or producer doesn't matter to Spotify.
Have a clear and straightforward tier system for compensation. You get a billion streams a year? You get $X. You get 10,000 streams a year? You get $Y.
>There will be a large editorial team producing playlists, curation, tuning the algorithm with expertise, etc. That all needs to be localised and to cover lots of niche music tastes. That's also not evergreen content or work, it needs constant updates to remain relevant.
You don't need a large team to curate playlists when you can have users curate playlists. In fact, they already do. You don't need a huge localization team either. Users already take care of the legwork for you. Same goes for algorithm tuning.
>Then there's international expansion and enabling the tech to work for more countries, more languages, more payment methods, more types of music publishing.
Spotify is kinda already there in terms of international expansion. Anywhere they aren't already, they probably won't get there for political reasons (such as China).
More languages? Sure, but that doesn't require a massive team. Fortunately, there are a few dominant languages around the world, and Spotify has those covered.
More payment methods? Let the creators of those methods handle that - that's their job. Credit Card companies or banks or whatever don't create their own payment platform tech and just say "now it's yours to try to implement", they have entire teams dedicated to that.
More types of music publishing? Like what? There's only so many methods of publishing music, and I'd wager there's going to be very little (if any) innovation there for a while. Spotify doesn't really distribute any other forms of published music besides digital streams. They aren't selling records or CDs, are they?
EDIT: you could also say Spotify has vastly overspent on the likes of Joe Rogan, no matter how popular he is. $200 million dollars to a company that isn't very profitable, no matter how large, is just bad business. He's worth nowhere close to $200 million.
Let's look at some of your examples and see where things can logically be cut.
>I imagine there's a big team dedicated to getting inventory on the service through negotiations with music producers around the world.
This can be streamlined considerably through standardized contracts. I'd wager 90% of the inventory that said team gets is from niche artists, independent artists or small labels. Very few artists actually have the clout or resources to negotiate their own deals with Spotify. That's sort of the point of having executives - to handle the Taylor Swifts of the world. Your local band, rapper, singer-songwriter or producer doesn't matter to Spotify.
Have a clear and straightforward tier system for compensation. You get a billion streams a year? You get $X. You get 10,000 streams a year? You get $Y.
>There will be a large editorial team producing playlists, curation, tuning the algorithm with expertise, etc. That all needs to be localised and to cover lots of niche music tastes. That's also not evergreen content or work, it needs constant updates to remain relevant.
You don't need a large team to curate playlists when you can have users curate playlists. In fact, they already do. You don't need a huge localization team either. Users already take care of the legwork for you. Same goes for algorithm tuning.
>Then there's international expansion and enabling the tech to work for more countries, more languages, more payment methods, more types of music publishing.
Spotify is kinda already there in terms of international expansion. Anywhere they aren't already, they probably won't get there for political reasons (such as China).
More languages? Sure, but that doesn't require a massive team. Fortunately, there are a few dominant languages around the world, and Spotify has those covered.
More payment methods? Let the creators of those methods handle that - that's their job. Credit Card companies or banks or whatever don't create their own payment platform tech and just say "now it's yours to try to implement", they have entire teams dedicated to that.
More types of music publishing? Like what? There's only so many methods of publishing music, and I'd wager there's going to be very little (if any) innovation there for a while. Spotify doesn't really distribute any other forms of published music besides digital streams. They aren't selling records or CDs, are they?
EDIT: you could also say Spotify has vastly overspent on the likes of Joe Rogan, no matter how popular he is. $200 million dollars to a company that isn't very profitable, no matter how large, is just bad business. He's worth nowhere close to $200 million.
At every company I've worked at, there are things we want to do that nearly everybody think are a good idea. But we can't do them all, because we have limited capital. So we have to be very strategic.
Spotify has developed a huge surface area, because they are attempting to be the one-stop shop for all things audio. The thesis is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that's what they're selling to investors. That means there are countless bets they could be making at any one time, to compete with everybody else out there.
For a company of Spotify's stature, when capital is cheap, they can raise the money to do all the things, all at once. They don't have to make prioritization choices. Usually this means many dozens of teams, which each seem pretty lean if you zoom in. Like, I'm guessing there's a team of 3ish developing the in-app lyrics experience, or something like that. The scale is in how many of these bets are going at once.
The capital markets have changed, and now Spotify (like many others) has to constrain its bets. The thesis hasn't changed, but their capacity to try to prove it out isn't as limitless as before.
Spotify has developed a huge surface area, because they are attempting to be the one-stop shop for all things audio. The thesis is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that's what they're selling to investors. That means there are countless bets they could be making at any one time, to compete with everybody else out there.
For a company of Spotify's stature, when capital is cheap, they can raise the money to do all the things, all at once. They don't have to make prioritization choices. Usually this means many dozens of teams, which each seem pretty lean if you zoom in. Like, I'm guessing there's a team of 3ish developing the in-app lyrics experience, or something like that. The scale is in how many of these bets are going at once.
The capital markets have changed, and now Spotify (like many others) has to constrain its bets. The thesis hasn't changed, but their capacity to try to prove it out isn't as limitless as before.
I don't think the question is whether Spotify should or shouldn't persue podcasts and audiobooks in addition to music streaming.
The question is whether any organization really needs 5-20k tech workers for an audio app. Even one that plays music, podcasts, and books. I would be slack jawed with shock if the Apple team that works on their podcasts app, and the Amazon team that works on their Audible app, COMBINED were a meaningful fraction of that scale.
And it's certainly fair game to question why they don't have more resources allocated to longstanding issues with the core product. Especially given that the core product hasn't noticeably changed much in years.
The question is whether any organization really needs 5-20k tech workers for an audio app. Even one that plays music, podcasts, and books. I would be slack jawed with shock if the Apple team that works on their podcasts app, and the Amazon team that works on their Audible app, COMBINED were a meaningful fraction of that scale.
And it's certainly fair game to question why they don't have more resources allocated to longstanding issues with the core product. Especially given that the core product hasn't noticeably changed much in years.
10000 employees with let's say 40% overhead translates into 2000 3-ish lean teams. Certainly some would be far larger than 3 person but even then. Is Spotify surface that huge really?
Maybe? At Spotify’s scale, those teams would include things like “GCP-friendly audio encoding optimization” or “playlist sharing scalability”. I don’t know enough to estimate what a reasonable size should be (if such an estimation is even possible), but running software for hundreds of millions of users is hard.
Honestly (for someone also working with audio) these team descriptions sound like they would idle most of the time.
My usual yardstick is Apollo programme development team size: about 600 developers. Relatively few tasks are substantially more challenging than writing code that would get people to the Moon and back. There have to be some that are as hard or harder naturally. But when you see a commercial company that has an order of magnitude or two more devs than that, using modern tooling and conveniences, it's hard to fathom.
My usual yardstick is Apollo programme development team size: about 600 developers. Relatively few tasks are substantially more challenging than writing code that would get people to the Moon and back. There have to be some that are as hard or harder naturally. But when you see a commercial company that has an order of magnitude or two more devs than that, using modern tooling and conveniences, it's hard to fathom.
Not all of the employees are working on the tech side. I can only imagine Spotify has a ton of business operations, sales, legal, etc. It's a worldwide company, too.
And when it comes to product development teams, 3 is pretty minimal. I'm sure most teams have more people than that. I'm simply pointing out that there are a lot of corners of functionality within the platform and one way you can press the gas pedal to accelerate your roadmap is fragmenting areas of concern and forming teams around those fragments. If the conditions for making those bets change, you undo that by consolidating teams, lengthening roadmaps, and downsizing staff (in some order).
And when it comes to product development teams, 3 is pretty minimal. I'm sure most teams have more people than that. I'm simply pointing out that there are a lot of corners of functionality within the platform and one way you can press the gas pedal to accelerate your roadmap is fragmenting areas of concern and forming teams around those fragments. If the conditions for making those bets change, you undo that by consolidating teams, lengthening roadmaps, and downsizing staff (in some order).
> there are things we want to do that nearly everybody think are a good idea.
They aren't a good idea. Almost always. For example, "lets put podcasts in spotify". Not a single person I know wanted podcasts in spotify.
They aren't a good idea. Almost always. For example, "lets put podcasts in spotify". Not a single person I know wanted podcasts in spotify.
I wanted podcasts in Spotify, but you don't know me. Sample bias?
I didn't want podcasts, on the other hand I have a few friends who listen to podcasts exclusively on Spotify because they were already listening to music on it.
It might not be a good idea for you, or for me, but there's value on providing it. The churn from adding podcasts was probably low enough to make it worthwhile as a business.
Exclusive podcasts on the other hand seem to have backfired immensely.
It might not be a good idea for you, or for me, but there's value on providing it. The churn from adding podcasts was probably low enough to make it worthwhile as a business.
Exclusive podcasts on the other hand seem to have backfired immensely.
I don't want podcasts in my Spotify, but it makes sense to me why Spotify wants to do it. Or rather, the opportunity they see.
Do you think your social circle is representative enough to use as evidence for Spotify's business decisions?
> they are attempting to be the one-stop shop for all things audio
The only problem with that approach is they now have a huge number of half baked or broken features. It's infuriating as hell when you spot a bug or something not working as expected only to find a post on their community dating back close to a decade, with thousands of people confirming the issue and someone from their team repeatedly replying with a vague message about passing it on to the team.
Spotify's development has somehow been run at a snails pace even with their huge headcount.
The only problem with that approach is they now have a huge number of half baked or broken features. It's infuriating as hell when you spot a bug or something not working as expected only to find a post on their community dating back close to a decade, with thousands of people confirming the issue and someone from their team repeatedly replying with a vague message about passing it on to the team.
Spotify's development has somehow been run at a snails pace even with their huge headcount.
I'm not defending how Spotify strategizes or delivers. I'm just saying that given their surface area, it's not difficult for me to imagine that a big chunk of the company is running on developing a bunch of parallel efforts.
When startups receive huge waves of investor cash it can seem like the runway is forever. Look at Twitter which had far more employees than it needed. When the cash seems infinite there may be a tendency to forget the principle of staying lean.
No idea where the 80% or 90% coverage comes from, but let’s assume the numbers are right and you get 90% with just 20% of the current staff. Spotify has revenue of 13 billion a year. 10% of that is a bit more than a billion. Spotify has 9000 - 10000 employees, let’s round up and say 10,000 employees. If they can get an extra 1 billion at a cost of 8,000 employees it still might be worth it if they can spend 100k per employee per year. Doable for a mix of roles and geographies.
At some scales of business, spending a lot more to get incremental gains can be worth it.
At some scales of business, spending a lot more to get incremental gains can be worth it.
What in the absolute fuck are 10000 people doing at Spotify? Really try to crunch those numbers mentally here. It's insane.
Supporting half a billion constant users around the world, and staff dealing with local artists and bands from almost every single country. Even outside of engineering they need a ton of support staff — starting from marketing to lawyers. Every country is fairly different as well when it comes to “music style”, so there’s a significant tailoring I would say.
They’re doing whatever they’re doing pretty well as well. It’s basically the only subscription service at this point I wouldn’t consider to get rid of.
They’re doing whatever they’re doing pretty well as well. It’s basically the only subscription service at this point I wouldn’t consider to get rid of.
> Supporting half a billion constant users around the world
I am sure curl does too, with one guy running it. Spotify is not a telephone company. The engineering work hardly scale with the amount of users. There should be a need for some extra sales staff, lawyers and translators per market.
Their engineer staff numbers are just silly.
I am sure curl does too, with one guy running it. Spotify is not a telephone company. The engineering work hardly scale with the amount of users. There should be a need for some extra sales staff, lawyers and translators per market.
Their engineer staff numbers are just silly.
> Sometimes I don't understand how jumping from winamp to spotify goes from a handful to 10000 employees. Winamp + audiogalaxy (ah memories) probably covers 90% of spotify use case with probably 10 engineers, then just get some suckers to curate playlists for free.
The complexity is not the player, it's the whole business... Winamp didn't have recommendations, tack on another 100-200 people working on data to surface those. There are close to a 100 markets being offered content with licencing deals, each with different regulations.
There are internal platforms, infrastructure, development, each platform requires team(s) to maintain, and develop them.
What's the size of the largest tech company (with a single product) that you've worked at? Just so I know how to translate how larger organisations work to a worldview that you have experience with.
The complexity is not the player, it's the whole business... Winamp didn't have recommendations, tack on another 100-200 people working on data to surface those. There are close to a 100 markets being offered content with licencing deals, each with different regulations.
There are internal platforms, infrastructure, development, each platform requires team(s) to maintain, and develop them.
What's the size of the largest tech company (with a single product) that you've worked at? Just so I know how to translate how larger organisations work to a worldview that you have experience with.
No need, I was being flippant. I don't work in tech but dealt with large orgs. Broad point is, by all means, have your headcount for signing labels, localization, maintaining physical infra. But past a certain amount of brains and you get feature/vision creep that starts degrading core product. Where/when that point is of course highly subjective.
But how many employees does a music streaming service need? I don't know, but last I read, Valve had less than 500 employees on everything including Steam before they ramp up headcount for hardware. Did spotify need 20x more? Maybe nature of music streaming needs 9000 more employees to deal with labels. But my uninformed opinion is, probably not.
But how many employees does a music streaming service need? I don't know, but last I read, Valve had less than 500 employees on everything including Steam before they ramp up headcount for hardware. Did spotify need 20x more? Maybe nature of music streaming needs 9000 more employees to deal with labels. But my uninformed opinion is, probably not.
Well I just googled and Valve has 1,139 employees, and Spotify will now have 7,800 - It's nowhere near 20x.
Still a big gap, although I suspect they are very different offerings and companies. Differences include:
* Spotify needs to sell ads (to support it's free tier). This requires engineering and people to sell the ads.
* Spotify is in a more competitive market than Steam (who have a nearly de-facto monopoly) so more advertising/marketing effort is required.
* Interfacing with the entire global music industry takes time and resource.
There may also be differences to the extent these companies outsource and use contractors which could make it more difficult to see actual headcount.
Still a big gap, although I suspect they are very different offerings and companies. Differences include:
* Spotify needs to sell ads (to support it's free tier). This requires engineering and people to sell the ads.
* Spotify is in a more competitive market than Steam (who have a nearly de-facto monopoly) so more advertising/marketing effort is required.
* Interfacing with the entire global music industry takes time and resource.
There may also be differences to the extent these companies outsource and use contractors which could make it more difficult to see actual headcount.
Spotify is also a de facto monopoly.
Spotify has ~30% of the market, Apple Music, Tencent, and Amazon have each ~13%, YouTube Music another ~9%.
That's far from a monopoly...
That's far from a monopoly...
Didn’t even know Tencent had a music streaming service, but their numbers look amazing:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TME/tencent-music-...
I presume they don’t have to pay rent to a few big copyright holders like Spotify does.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TME/tencent-music-...
I presume they don’t have to pay rent to a few big copyright holders like Spotify does.
A monopoly of what? A few people’s podcasts?
Those were the days. Winamp. The tiny media player that booted instantly, had such a low fingerprint you could safely have it playing while gaming. The media player you could re-skin. You could later hook into lastfm to "scrobble" your listens if you wanted them to persist after a WinXP reinstall.
Spotify also has studios in multiple locations.
https://spotifystudios.com/
https://spotifystudios.com/
If a company needs to fire people to prevent a product from degrading then it’s too late the company culture is rotten to its core.
They have 9,500 employees, yet their web app doesn't even offer a simple feature to speed up a podcast. How pathetic...
Geesh, glad they're trying to save the company by firing people. Lord knows they wouldn't survive otherwise. They gotta tighten their belts in this profit drought!
I mean, uh, actually they're just trying to save money by competing with their workforce instead of making their products better, am I getting that right?
I mean, uh, actually they're just trying to save money by competing with their workforce instead of making their products better, am I getting that right?
Maybe now they will be able to focus on what matters instead of enshittening UI every few months
So...
Bodybuilders do this thing called "bulking and cutting." The best way to add muscle fast is to overeat. Work out lots. Sleep lots. Eat lots.
You get fat, but you also get muscular because food is never a limiting factor.
Then, they lose the extra fat with a crash diet.
Google, FB and such are such money machines that they never have to cut. They can just bulk. The others... they want some of that rapid growth potential too, but can't afford to add fat forever.
Corporate bulking and cutting.
Bodybuilders do this thing called "bulking and cutting." The best way to add muscle fast is to overeat. Work out lots. Sleep lots. Eat lots.
You get fat, but you also get muscular because food is never a limiting factor.
Then, they lose the extra fat with a crash diet.
Google, FB and such are such money machines that they never have to cut. They can just bulk. The others... they want some of that rapid growth potential too, but can't afford to add fat forever.
Corporate bulking and cutting.
But Google and Facebook did cut earlier this year?
This analogy doesn’t seem to add any explanatory power.
Corporations can’t magically know the optimal number of employees to maximize profits. And even if they could this will change over time. So we should expect them to cut when they have too many and hire when they have too few.
Corporations can’t magically know the optimal number of employees to maximize profits. And even if they could this will change over time. So we should expect them to cut when they have too many and hire when they have too few.
>Google, FB and such are such money machines that they never have to cut.
Not sure what you are trying to achieve by saying something so blatantly untrue that a two-word query into any search engine can debunk it as fast as your browser loads a web page.
Not sure what you are trying to achieve by saying something so blatantly untrue that a two-word query into any search engine can debunk it as fast as your browser loads a web page.
What "muscle" did spotify add? Not sure the metaphor works. It's bloat from bad management and copying what other companies are doing.
There is only so much metaphorical food in the world.
That’s much
> Yet, considering the gap between our financial goal state and our current operational costs, I decided that a substantial action to rightsize our costs was the best option to accomplish our objectives.
or, otherwise said: "we fired you to make our bottom line look nicer"
or, otherwise said: "we fired you to make our bottom line look nicer"
Er... There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, we do live in a world where businesses are supposed to be profitable. Companies hire and companies fire, that is part of the deal.
One thing is to have layoffs when you are raking in record profits. This doesn't seem to be the case. The text makes a decent enough case.
One thing is to have layoffs when you are raking in record profits. This doesn't seem to be the case. The text makes a decent enough case.
sure, but call a spade a spade instead of making the layoffs seem mandatory. there are inputs to financial goals - including executive greed.
What would your plan be to stop Spotify from losing tens and hundreds of millions of Euros per year?
Raise prices to a point where the company can be a going concern without needing to find new financing to buy every podcast under the sun.
Spotify is one of the few companies that raises prices every year but somehow get further away from making a profit.
Spotify is one of the few companies that raises prices every year but somehow get further away from making a profit.
Their competition, Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon, sets the price above which Spotify becomes unattractive to many. Streaming audio is a pretty low barrier to entry and fungible business. And Apple can bundle it with iCloud, Alphabet can bundle it with YouTube, and Amazon can bundle it with prime.
Well, if they determine that firing 17% of staff will lead to greater profits then it seems pretty mandatory based on his fiduciary duty to the board.
That’s mythology: executives have no such obligation to either shareholders or the board because business decisions are very rarely unambiguous wins or losses, and a great deal of discretion is given to their judgement over any non-trivial timeframe.
Consider, for example, the number of people who thought turn of the century Apple should become a Windows reseller or, later, sell the iPod brand to a business which understood how to be successful in the phone market like Nokia. There were certainly times where that could have generated a great deal of short-term gain, and it was easy to find some analyst prattling on about why they had to do it.
In the case of Spotify, the only situation where 17% of their company is an unambiguous waste of money with no benefit to the future business should be accompanied by the CEO’s resignation because that would be an enormous managerial failure in the hiring process. Since it seems unlikely that even 1% of their workforce is that bad, it’s far more likely that this has nothing to do with long-term success and everything to do with pleasing the activist investors and consulting firms who’ve been pushing the idea of layoffs as a way to remind workers not to ask for more.
Consider, for example, the number of people who thought turn of the century Apple should become a Windows reseller or, later, sell the iPod brand to a business which understood how to be successful in the phone market like Nokia. There were certainly times where that could have generated a great deal of short-term gain, and it was easy to find some analyst prattling on about why they had to do it.
In the case of Spotify, the only situation where 17% of their company is an unambiguous waste of money with no benefit to the future business should be accompanied by the CEO’s resignation because that would be an enormous managerial failure in the hiring process. Since it seems unlikely that even 1% of their workforce is that bad, it’s far more likely that this has nothing to do with long-term success and everything to do with pleasing the activist investors and consulting firms who’ve been pushing the idea of layoffs as a way to remind workers not to ask for more.
Really their ceo should resign for making the same mistake as almost every tech company
Or stock market greed... of course, if you subscribe to the "greed is good" school of thought, you may also see that as positive.
Spotify stock has lost 10% per year relative to SP500 (riskless). It is crazy to call not wanting to lose 10% per year “greedy”.
Not sure if I’d go so far as saying “greed is good”, but if it weren’t for the expectation by investors that companies would attempt to be as profitable as possible, companies like Spotify wouldn’t exist.
> One thing is to have layoffs when you are raking in record profits.
if the future prospects of the business doesn't look great despite the current record profits, a layoff is also not a bad decision. There's no reason why an employee is kept if that employee's work is not going to generate future profits. Current profits are already generated from past work of said employee.
if the future prospects of the business doesn't look great despite the current record profits, a layoff is also not a bad decision. There's no reason why an employee is kept if that employee's work is not going to generate future profits. Current profits are already generated from past work of said employee.
Eh, what's the alternative? Some people have this weird attitude that businesses are not allowed to shrink/fail. Businesses can only ever go one direction and that is more headcount, otherwise give them govt bailout.
Businesses need to be able to grow and shrink. Otherwise we just end up with "too big to fail".
Businesses need to be able to grow and shrink. Otherwise we just end up with "too big to fail".
It’s not that businesses can never shrink but that it should be considered and linked to a specific reason (e.g. a change in business strategy or consumer preferences). If they were, say, RIM a decade ago, layoffs would make sense once they had no path back into the consumer market and also were bleeding cash to the point where they soon wouldn’t be able to make payroll. When the Cold War ended, manufacturing layoffs were inevitable at some of the big defense contractors because the market for stealthy aircraft shrunk and nobody else needed to buy them.
A layoff this large means one of two things: the management screwed up on an epic scale (and should be the first to go) or it’s just giving investors a short-term stock boost at the expense of long-term success. Broad layoffs are usually bad for companies long-term because they signal both a lack of management skills and mean that everyone still working there is going to be worried about another round, so politics and making yourself harder to replace will consume a certain amount of otherwise productive time.
A layoff this large means one of two things: the management screwed up on an epic scale (and should be the first to go) or it’s just giving investors a short-term stock boost at the expense of long-term success. Broad layoffs are usually bad for companies long-term because they signal both a lack of management skills and mean that everyone still working there is going to be worried about another round, so politics and making yourself harder to replace will consume a certain amount of otherwise productive time.
I don’t think the complaint was in the action, but the horrible wording.
I'm not sure which of the wordings is supposed to be worse. They are both bad. But that is the nature of a company on the edge of survival.
Spotify is not merely surviving. They have numerous monopolistic exclusive contracts and paid $200M for Joe Rogan's podcast. Be the judge on whether that's worth 1500 employees keeping their job
Well, IMO they have a duty to not be frivolous on firing.
It must not be something impossible to do, but it must be hard. And they should favor most other courses of action.
But anyway, it's up to the government to enforce this, and the US (where they are hosted) seems to almost completely disagree. So we get those companies hiring like mad, just to fire like mad in a couple of years, and begin the cycle again a few years down.
It must not be something impossible to do, but it must be hard. And they should favor most other courses of action.
But anyway, it's up to the government to enforce this, and the US (where they are hosted) seems to almost completely disagree. So we get those companies hiring like mad, just to fire like mad in a couple of years, and begin the cycle again a few years down.
That's not wrong, but they also hired-up for a new podcast business that wasn't as successful as they hoped.
? it's a normal capitalist corporation, what exactly did you expect
There were 1,600 people at Spotify?
From the article:
Spotify reported that it had 9,400 employees at the end of the third quarter of 2023. It had already cut back employee numbers by 6% in January and by a further 2% in June.
Spotify reported that it had 9,400 employees at the end of the third quarter of 2023. It had already cut back employee numbers by 6% in January and by a further 2% in June.
> Spotify reported that it had 9,400 employees at the end of the third quarter of 2023. It had already cut back employee numbers by 6% in January and by a further 2% in June.
I'm also curious what they need 10k people for. What of the business is so labor-intensive?
I'd guess managing labels, podcasters, marketing & ads + moderation takes a huge chunk there.
[deleted]
the constant interface overhauls they do, probably
I wonder what they were all doing. Their special apps, like the iWatch, are below par and they are pretty much the last service that doesn't offer HQ audio. AI does most of the editorial playlist generation. What are nearly 10K people doing?
Probably just a fraction of employees are doing software, the bulk of the work is managing contracts, labels, legal compliance in 250 countries, marketing, administration, etc.
Product sprints aren't going to run themselves
Reminds of the quote attributed to Naval Ravikant (paraphrased):
You have one person running the website. They leave and, of course, you need two people to replace that one person. Then, eventually, one of them leaves, you need two people to replace them etc. This brings you to a scenario where you have 5,000 people maintaining the website and changes take years.
You have one person running the website. They leave and, of course, you need two people to replace that one person. Then, eventually, one of them leaves, you need two people to replace them etc. This brings you to a scenario where you have 5,000 people maintaining the website and changes take years.
yea seriosuly.. they're desktop app is electron. its not like their individual apps are getting special attention.
imho, I'd pay extra for a good NATIVE spotify client for the mac
imho, I'd pay extra for a good NATIVE spotify client for the mac
> they're desktop app is electron
AFAIK, it's not actually Electron, but their own tooling using Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF). Also AFAIK, they came up with their solution for this before Electron was even a thing (so before Atom the code editor, which Electron came from).
AFAIK, it's not actually Electron, but their own tooling using Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF). Also AFAIK, they came up with their solution for this before Electron was even a thing (so before Atom the code editor, which Electron came from).
No you wouldn't
[deleted]
Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount".
In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but don't fill up your tank when gas is cheap just to do doughnuts in the parking lot.
In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but don't fill up your tank when gas is cheap just to do doughnuts in the parking lot.
This is completely backwards.
They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive -- e.g. what if people start moving over to Amazon instead with its Music+Wondery+Audible, or other competitors?
Now it's turned out those bets haven't been as successful as they wanted, so they're keeping them but massively scaling back on future investment. Which means they don't need those employees anymore.
Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do? Not try to stay competitive, and risk a competitor taking their place, and then go the way of Pandora? Do you think it's wrong to hire teams to build products when you hope the products will succeed but you can't know 100% for sure?
This is just how normal, healthy business goes. You make bets, sometimes they succeed wildly, and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it often results in layoffs because there's not enough profit to keep paying those employees with, and there isn't immediately any new product for them to work on.
Believe me, a company with profit margins as thin as Spotify's can't afford to "hire for the sake of hiring". That's just not how it works.
They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive -- e.g. what if people start moving over to Amazon instead with its Music+Wondery+Audible, or other competitors?
Now it's turned out those bets haven't been as successful as they wanted, so they're keeping them but massively scaling back on future investment. Which means they don't need those employees anymore.
Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do? Not try to stay competitive, and risk a competitor taking their place, and then go the way of Pandora? Do you think it's wrong to hire teams to build products when you hope the products will succeed but you can't know 100% for sure?
This is just how normal, healthy business goes. You make bets, sometimes they succeed wildly, and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it often results in layoffs because there's not enough profit to keep paying those employees with, and there isn't immediately any new product for them to work on.
Believe me, a company with profit margins as thin as Spotify's can't afford to "hire for the sake of hiring". That's just not how it works.
I recently left Spotify for Apple Music, in large part because of this new development path. I don't want podcasts, audiobooks, etc mixed in with my music. I prefer separate apps.
I think what bothered me more was the focus on branching into these new paths without any innovation in the music department--I'm sure there was innovation that wasn't visible to me. I'm tired of the same black and green color scheme. I don't like that I don't have a 'Library' and everything just goes in liked or a playlist.
I think their expansion into other media was a signal to me to look for someone doing a better job at specializing.
I think what bothered me more was the focus on branching into these new paths without any innovation in the music department--I'm sure there was innovation that wasn't visible to me. I'm tired of the same black and green color scheme. I don't like that I don't have a 'Library' and everything just goes in liked or a playlist.
I think their expansion into other media was a signal to me to look for someone doing a better job at specializing.
> I don't like that I don't have a 'Library' and everything just goes in liked or a playlist.
I left Spotify a while ago, but one thing I hate is that there's no way of differentiating when you add complete albums to your collection vs only one song.
I left Spotify a while ago, but one thing I hate is that there's no way of differentiating when you add complete albums to your collection vs only one song.
Same here, plus the constant house ads. It seemed like every time i opened the App I had to close some banner ad for a new feature/record/whatever.
This is precisely why I also switched to Apple Music, it was annoying to have Spotify constantly pushing podcast content to me as someone who had no interest in Podcasts and no way to enable a "music only" mode either.
I switched to Apple Music for exactly the same reason.
I too recently left Spotify for Apple Music because it works better on my Home Pod and Apple TV. I don't know why Spotify doesn't fix this. I know they are in a feud with Apple and maybe they think this is a way to apply pressure to Apple, but the risk is they lose people like me.
There were other reasons for leaving. I don't like that I can't hide or disable audiobooks or podcasts. They take up a lot of important screen space and are useless to me. I also really dislike the notifications from Spotify. I have them all turned off, but ever once in a while they decide to show one anyway.
There were other reasons for leaving. I don't like that I can't hide or disable audiobooks or podcasts. They take up a lot of important screen space and are useless to me. I also really dislike the notifications from Spotify. I have them all turned off, but ever once in a while they decide to show one anyway.
frequently apple has non official api they use for inhouse apps that provide better interfacing with hardware
What I found thoroughly missing in all music streaming was emotional composition, aka the Algo being able to play music tailored to what situations I I'm experiencing and giving it an arc.
Example:im programming and the concentration music goes towards a victorious crescendo once it works.
Example:im programming and the concentration music goes towards a victorious crescendo once it works.
Part of my dev process at work involves running a (rather) flaky test suite on my laptop. The test suite takes several minutes to run, and it doesn't fail fast. No good for my short attention span.
I wrote a script which runs the test suite in a loop. When the tests fail, it plays horns.aiff (from The Price is Right). When the tests pass it plays the epic Champions League theme music.
The best part is, I can do other stuff while waiting for the flaky tests to pass, without having to remember to check the terminal they're running in. Audio cues are really great.
I wrote a script which runs the test suite in a loop. When the tests fail, it plays horns.aiff (from The Price is Right). When the tests pass it plays the epic Champions League theme music.
The best part is, I can do other stuff while waiting for the flaky tests to pass, without having to remember to check the terminal they're running in. Audio cues are really great.
That’s me too. I disliked having podcasts in otherwise perfectly OK music app, and also Spotify’s efforts to rebrand ‘podcasts’ as something else than “mp3s on RSS”. But I was a paying customer for 10+ years so they had a good run.
Counter-anecdote, I like that Spotify hasn't changed, and if it changed significantly tomorrow, it might prompt me to look at competitors and decide afresh which music service to use.
I left spotify after reading their privacy policy and some news stories about how they plan to use your listening data to infer things about you and sell the results
Congrats! Now you get to experience the glory of the deque. Your days of being restricted to stack pushing are in the past.
That (deque) is actually one of my favorite features, and something that had tempted me in the past. I have to relearn some behavior on queue creation though. I'm use to just clicking play, rather than adding to queue, so I end up with a bunch of songs in queue that I didn't intend (because I played a song from a longer playlist to start).
There’s definitely some annoyances… the paramount one for me is actually the opposite of what you describe: I click on an item to simply play it and it makes me deal with a pop up asking me how it should interact with my queue, even when I have no queue at all! Just play the damned song, stop asking me questions.
Ugh… things like this make me wish we had just one FOSS music player with a paid backend. I’d comment out all the modals and get on with life.
Ugh… things like this make me wish we had just one FOSS music player with a paid backend. I’d comment out all the modals and get on with life.
Lots and lots of FOSS music players use libspotify or can otherwise connect to your Spotify account.
Here's just one. It's BYO frontend. Last I knew, there were a bunch of them. https://mopidy.com/
Also look into mpd, the music playing daemon.
Here's just one. It's BYO frontend. Last I knew, there were a bunch of them. https://mopidy.com/
Also look into mpd, the music playing daemon.
That's a good attempt, but I'd rather not run a server - if I'm paying for the service I'd like to have an API I can run/write a frontend against. And ideally I'd have the ability to listen to lossless music, not whatever encoding Spotify thinks I deserve.
Nothing is stopping you from donating to Navidrome development
As I understand it that is for listening to a library of personally owned material remotely? That's not really what I'm looking for. I appreciate the MAAS model, it's just the UI's that suck.
[deleted]
Looking to do this - how did you migrate your playlists? Also my family was using my main Apple Music account - so I have to "clear out the new place" as I setup a family account for them.
Not OP, but I used SongShift for iOS. Worked great.
I have migrated services couple of times and used Soundiz and Songshift. They miss few matches but overall gets the job done.
I used Soundshift. You can pay ~$7 to have unlimited exporting or do playlists 200 at a time for free.
Umm, what? There’s been plenty of innovation…
The new cover videos bands can post on songs are ill. The changing of the like button to not be just for liked songs is great (usually, tho sometimes I wish it was two separate buttons). There’s constantly a bunch of new tools to find new music, some hitting better than others. The “listen with friends,” while still buggy asf, is a great feature.
5 years ago, Spotify updates were more like “we changed the colors and layout of the UI and that’s about it.”
It’s true though. They haven’t reinvented music completely.
The new cover videos bands can post on songs are ill. The changing of the like button to not be just for liked songs is great (usually, tho sometimes I wish it was two separate buttons). There’s constantly a bunch of new tools to find new music, some hitting better than others. The “listen with friends,” while still buggy asf, is a great feature.
5 years ago, Spotify updates were more like “we changed the colors and layout of the UI and that’s about it.”
It’s true though. They haven’t reinvented music completely.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Like/Love button. It seems to be the same as it ever was for me, except the UI is different based on whether you're in CarPlay, mobile app, or desktop app, so sometimes it's a heart and sometimes it's a plus sign.
One of my biggest complaints for Spotify is the removal of star ratings, but that's been probably a decade ago at this point. Apple Music has it for the desktop app, but it's missing from mobile.
One of my biggest complaints for Spotify is the removal of star ratings, but that's been probably a decade ago at this point. Apple Music has it for the desktop app, but it's missing from mobile.
Buying music, downloading it and putting it into your music folder also works great! Then you can organize it, display it, order it and listen to it however you want by using a player that suits your preferences, decoupling the source of your music from the application you use to play it.
I think trying to normalize a ~20% workforce reduction as business as usual is a little bit much here.
Management made a lot of mistakes to get to this situation. It wasn't we tried a few things and it didn't work out, it was we burrowed too much money, spent too much money, and risked too much.
What other tech company has cut this deeply recently? You name their competitors, like Amazon and Apple -- is it happening there? 20% is not 2-3%.
Management made a lot of mistakes to get to this situation. It wasn't we tried a few things and it didn't work out, it was we burrowed too much money, spent too much money, and risked too much.
What other tech company has cut this deeply recently? You name their competitors, like Amazon and Apple -- is it happening there? 20% is not 2-3%.
> You name their competitors, like Amazon and Apple -- is it happening there?
Their competitors are not direct comparisons, though, and percentages can be a little misleading. Spotify is ~7.5k employees, and does one thing. Amazon is ~1.5m employees, and does many, many things.
Their competitors are not direct comparisons, though, and percentages can be a little misleading. Spotify is ~7.5k employees, and does one thing. Amazon is ~1.5m employees, and does many, many things.
Amazon's layoffs are a percentage of corporate workforce, not their ~1.5 million warehouse + corporate pool.
Around end of 2022 and start of 2023, Amazon laid off 18k people from their corporate workforce - about 1.2% of their global employee count[0]. That seemed to be the figure the % above was from, as the % from their corporate workforce was 6%.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/05/amazon-to...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/05/amazon-to...
They placed a bet, and that bet didn't pay off.
But what I'd expect is for them to cut only a little (not 17%), because they would place another bet on something else to remain competitive.
To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
But what I'd expect is for them to cut only a little (not 17%), because they would place another bet on something else to remain competitive.
To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
> because they would place another bet on something else to remain competitive.
Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
Revolving loans might cost more to service, which also impacts R&D and product expenditures. It's very dynamic.
> To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Exactly this. And that's just reality. No company has perfect information.
> Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
AI clearly is looking interesting and shaping up in a big way for music, but the iron probably isn't hot enough to strike yet.
These are hard problems that leadership constantly grapples with.
Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
Revolving loans might cost more to service, which also impacts R&D and product expenditures. It's very dynamic.
> To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Exactly this. And that's just reality. No company has perfect information.
> Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
AI clearly is looking interesting and shaping up in a big way for music, but the iron probably isn't hot enough to strike yet.
These are hard problems that leadership constantly grapples with.
> Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
This is true, but I personally believe that the loss of knowledge and experience from within is a significant drag on momentum for when you do want to hire again... these people likely won't return even if the markets change, they've been burned, why would they return.
If it's possible to place the next bet, retain as much knowledge and experience as possible, and leverage that towards something new, then surely that is the best thing to do.
Could there have been other bets? Probably, if audio is the definition of the market and what you have at the moment is predominantly Western music, then stronger pushes into native apps for different markets? A classical specific app / flavour? A jazz specific app / flavour? Podcasts are good, but I think audiobooks are better... the audiobook market does not feel "done" at all, there's a lot more that could be done here too. Generational AI dynamic music could be a thing too, not streaming a file but streaming the basis of a constantly generated infinite thing, i.e. study aids, sleep aids, etc. Or how about audio app sync with video devices to enable the audio from your film to come out of your smart speakers or Hi-Fi even without a 5.1 amp?
A lot of these are smaller bets than "podcasts will be worth a gazillion dollars", but each is still significant, sticky, and leads to higher retention, and fights against the commoditization of music playback and the low margins there.
17% cuts does signal a lack of ambition despite "economic headwinds", it feels like a "we need to cut deep" rather than a "what are all the new bets we can make and then we are compelled to cut the difference".
This is true, but I personally believe that the loss of knowledge and experience from within is a significant drag on momentum for when you do want to hire again... these people likely won't return even if the markets change, they've been burned, why would they return.
If it's possible to place the next bet, retain as much knowledge and experience as possible, and leverage that towards something new, then surely that is the best thing to do.
Could there have been other bets? Probably, if audio is the definition of the market and what you have at the moment is predominantly Western music, then stronger pushes into native apps for different markets? A classical specific app / flavour? A jazz specific app / flavour? Podcasts are good, but I think audiobooks are better... the audiobook market does not feel "done" at all, there's a lot more that could be done here too. Generational AI dynamic music could be a thing too, not streaming a file but streaming the basis of a constantly generated infinite thing, i.e. study aids, sleep aids, etc. Or how about audio app sync with video devices to enable the audio from your film to come out of your smart speakers or Hi-Fi even without a 5.1 amp?
A lot of these are smaller bets than "podcasts will be worth a gazillion dollars", but each is still significant, sticky, and leads to higher retention, and fights against the commoditization of music playback and the low margins there.
17% cuts does signal a lack of ambition despite "economic headwinds", it feels like a "we need to cut deep" rather than a "what are all the new bets we can make and then we are compelled to cut the difference".
[deleted]
Interesting way to look at it, a bet. A bet involving people's livelivehoods.
This is literally how all commerce works, though. If someone opens a restaurant, for example, it's a bet that there's a market for the food they're preparing, and that their staff will be capable of being able to meet the demand. Sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong.
A bet involving paying people a salary for as long as is feasible? Cool!
and destroying their future plans they might have set in motion that will be derailed because of management's incompetance, they don't have money that much money to float on specially in this economy where everything is overpriced, almost like they are humans with their own histories and possibly other people depending on them, did you really try and consider their perspective or was dehumanizing them your first instinct?
but i doubt management will be fired will it? they'll end up with nice fat stacks of bonuses for making terrible business decisions
keep defending the real incompetants though
but i doubt management will be fired will it? they'll end up with nice fat stacks of bonuses for making terrible business decisions
keep defending the real incompetants though
Believe me, I have very very close experience with what it’s like to go through layoffs, and I feel for those who have just now realized that nothing in this world is guaranteed.
But griping that management should have kept paying salaries when the money wasn’t there won’t get anyone anywhere. Take your severance, hone your skills, apply for jobs. If you can, maybe take some time to go on a trip. Life will go on.
But griping that management should have kept paying salaries when the money wasn’t there won’t get anyone anywhere. Take your severance, hone your skills, apply for jobs. If you can, maybe take some time to go on a trip. Life will go on.
[deleted]
> when the money wasn’t there
What about when the money is there? Spotify is profitable.
What about when the money is there? Spotify is profitable.
Companies don't stay profitable by investing in unprofitable markets, though. If they don't think this approach is going to work out long-term, they should stop spending money on it, even if that means reducing headcount.
Barely, and only after their previous layoffs this year.
> or was dehumanizing them your first instinct?
This is a really poor approach to discourse. I imagine you don't really think that every job must last forever. Jobs come and go, and working them means we can live and make choices. It's not fun being laid off (I have been), but it's just life.
This is a really poor approach to discourse. I imagine you don't really think that every job must last forever. Jobs come and go, and working them means we can live and make choices. It's not fun being laid off (I have been), but it's just life.
People should know that know job is permanent and plan accordingly. Do you really expect to work at one company the rest of your career and get a gold watch and a pension ?
That is entirely correct. But it also implies that employees need to price that uncertainty into their salary demands.
Do they not? American salaries sire much higher than european ones with more job security for example.
Exactly
You're stating obvious things.
It's worth noting that. Sweden, where Spotify is based, still does that whole pension thing, so culturally, relatively, actually yes.
But why shouldn't we expect to be able to work for one company and earn a gold watch (at some anniversary date, I guess?) and a pension?
It used to work that way. Why not now? It worked that way for my grandpa. It looked like it was going to work that way for my dad, until the corporate world did its huge pension rug-pulls. But it could still work that way.
I have a pension now (Sweden). My wife has one (Germany). You could, too.
It used to work that way. Why not now? It worked that way for my grandpa. It looked like it was going to work that way for my dad, until the corporate world did its huge pension rug-pulls. But it could still work that way.
I have a pension now (Sweden). My wife has one (Germany). You could, too.
I wonder how pensions will work when there is 1 worker for every 2-3 retirees (maybe 1 personal on Social welfare too)
A true “pension” should invest enough money in the present where the future value is enough to suppport today’s workers when they retire.
Modern government pensions are Ponzi schemes.
Modern government pensions are Ponzi schemes.
> A bet involving people's livelivehoods.
Giving the employment market another livelihood option was the bet.
Giving the employment market another livelihood option was the bet.
This is what happens during periods of economic uncertainty. It's like counting cards with a freshly shuffled deck: nobody can tell what the state of the game is, so you place a minimum bet until you can get a feel for things again.
The movie is meh, but the boardroom scene in Margin Call has a great line:
"I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence."
Consumer confidence is down three straight quarters in a row. Nobody feels good about what the music is going to do next.
The movie is meh, but the boardroom scene in Margin Call has a great line:
"I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence."
Consumer confidence is down three straight quarters in a row. Nobody feels good about what the music is going to do next.
> Consumer confidence is down three straight quarters in a row. Nobody feels good about what the music is going to do next.
Sure, but you can leave a downturn four ways:
1. You went out of business
2. You experienced a decline and let a lot of people go
3. You managed to stay roughly where you were, no further forward, no further backwards (this is a small success but still a great achievement) and you may have let some people go — the expression "running to stand still" applies here
4. You find a way to come out better than you went in and maybe continued to hire
Spotify feel like they've gone from #3 to #2, but they had ambitions to be #4 of those scenarios, they will likely survive, but in what form and with what potential? And more to the point, if their competitors manage to achieve #3 or #4, at what long-term cost to Spotify?
Sure, but you can leave a downturn four ways:
1. You went out of business
2. You experienced a decline and let a lot of people go
3. You managed to stay roughly where you were, no further forward, no further backwards (this is a small success but still a great achievement) and you may have let some people go — the expression "running to stand still" applies here
4. You find a way to come out better than you went in and maybe continued to hire
Spotify feel like they've gone from #3 to #2, but they had ambitions to be #4 of those scenarios, they will likely survive, but in what form and with what potential? And more to the point, if their competitors manage to achieve #3 or #4, at what long-term cost to Spotify?
You left off:
5. Cut your losses and keep whatever cash stores you can for the storm to come.
We have zero insight into what the Spotify execs are seeing. Maybe ad revenue is already down. Maybe subscriptions aren’t renewing. Maybe costs are increasing.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is cut some employees now, so you don’t have to cut more later.
5. Cut your losses and keep whatever cash stores you can for the storm to come.
We have zero insight into what the Spotify execs are seeing. Maybe ad revenue is already down. Maybe subscriptions aren’t renewing. Maybe costs are increasing.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is cut some employees now, so you don’t have to cut more later.
They should feel good, because their capitalist machine has done just what it has aspired to do - get people to spend money they don't have:
https://apnews.com/article/spending-consumers-inflation-econ...
That's peak capitalism right there - you've got people spending to buy products with money borrowed from credit card companies and banks, which they will have difficulty paying off and will pay a good amount of interest on.
If you can't make a company work in that environment, you might want to do a bit of a self examination and notice that your advertising is annoying and off-putting and your web-browser based client is utter shit.
https://apnews.com/article/spending-consumers-inflation-econ...
That's peak capitalism right there - you've got people spending to buy products with money borrowed from credit card companies and banks, which they will have difficulty paying off and will pay a good amount of interest on.
If you can't make a company work in that environment, you might want to do a bit of a self examination and notice that your advertising is annoying and off-putting and your web-browser based client is utter shit.
It’s also healthy to get backlash from the public and investors for layoffs. Personally I don’t think it’s ever right to layoff employees for leaderships mistakes. It should be used as a last resort only when the entire company is at risk of going under. Based on their post it doesn’t sound like that’s the case, they even bragged about a “positive earnings report”.
So, can at least the execs that made the wrong bets be fired? Those are multi million dollar mistakes. But nope… they just take “complete responsibility” and fire the dev teams.
You're half right. The podcasting and audiobook areas already had layoffs before. This is now layoffs across all areas of the business.
I think that people get really upset about layoffs like they're an example of poor planning, but in reality it's all a calculated risk.
Laying off employees isn't a very negative thing from the perspective of the corporation. Very few costs are associated with laying off employees. A few months of salary, but that's it. It's an at-will arrangement.
I learned in a business class that, mathematically, most companies acutally take too few risks. It's not hard to understand why when you start doing some the math: if you invest $1 million into 10 projects 9/10 of those projects fail but the one successful project makes $10 million, then your investment broke even. But our brains see a 90% failure rate and want to be more conservative with our investments. Let's say, alternatively, we invest in 5 projects to be more conservative with our money, but because we didn't take enough moonshots we never found a project that paid off, so now we lost $5 million instead of breaking even. This hypothetical thought experiment is why many companies should be over-hiring and taking risks.
If you make a mistake, so what? You lay off the workers and you immediately stop paying for that cost, and you might even have something to show for taking the risk.
Also, yes, it takes more people to build something than to maintain it. Employees don't like to hear it, but hiring employees that you deliberately plan to lay off in a few years is a completely valid strategy.
If we want this to change then we need to have our governments have better layoff protections in place, like mandatory severance or notice periods. The WARN Act does this but only for large employers making large cuts.
Laying off employees isn't a very negative thing from the perspective of the corporation. Very few costs are associated with laying off employees. A few months of salary, but that's it. It's an at-will arrangement.
I learned in a business class that, mathematically, most companies acutally take too few risks. It's not hard to understand why when you start doing some the math: if you invest $1 million into 10 projects 9/10 of those projects fail but the one successful project makes $10 million, then your investment broke even. But our brains see a 90% failure rate and want to be more conservative with our investments. Let's say, alternatively, we invest in 5 projects to be more conservative with our money, but because we didn't take enough moonshots we never found a project that paid off, so now we lost $5 million instead of breaking even. This hypothetical thought experiment is why many companies should be over-hiring and taking risks.
If you make a mistake, so what? You lay off the workers and you immediately stop paying for that cost, and you might even have something to show for taking the risk.
Also, yes, it takes more people to build something than to maintain it. Employees don't like to hear it, but hiring employees that you deliberately plan to lay off in a few years is a completely valid strategy.
If we want this to change then we need to have our governments have better layoff protections in place, like mandatory severance or notice periods. The WARN Act does this but only for large employers making large cuts.
> If we want this to change then we need to have our governments have better layoff protections in place, like mandatory severance or notice periods.
But then you push companies in the exact opposite direction than you say you want them to go. If it's harder to do layoffs, companies will take less risks that require hiring.
But then you push companies in the exact opposite direction than you say you want them to go. If it's harder to do layoffs, companies will take less risks that require hiring.
You're right, but remember that I was speaking from the corporations' perspective. They can make more money by taking more risks, but at some point larger society has to weigh corporate profitability against societal well-being.
For example, a factory could make more money if it dumped its pollutants into a river rather than paying extra to dispose them properly. That difference in incentives between greater society versus the individual business is why we have the EPA.
Basically, the intention of my last comment was to answer the common question that might be asked of: "Wow, this company laid off so many people, what were they thinking? Maybe they should plan ahead next time?" And the answer to that is usually "yes they planned for this scenario and they're perfectly okay with having a layoff."
For example, a factory could make more money if it dumped its pollutants into a river rather than paying extra to dispose them properly. That difference in incentives between greater society versus the individual business is why we have the EPA.
Basically, the intention of my last comment was to answer the common question that might be asked of: "Wow, this company laid off so many people, what were they thinking? Maybe they should plan ahead next time?" And the answer to that is usually "yes they planned for this scenario and they're perfectly okay with having a layoff."
I am honestly looking to move to a competitor because of their podcasting and audiobook efforts. Well, and I don't necessarily care about those things per se but Spotify used to be a focused music app, and they keep removing things from the app in favor of whatever new "growth thing" they want to do this year. I never know when I load up the app what is going to have changed and take me an extra 5 minutes to find what I want.
They have done so much damage to their app's usability by trying to "grow" that someone could probably sell me on some ultra-premium subscription that actually had a good music player that functioned more like the music players of 15 years ago.
They have done so much damage to their app's usability by trying to "grow" that someone could probably sell me on some ultra-premium subscription that actually had a good music player that functioned more like the music players of 15 years ago.
FWIW I switched to Apple Music and the player is pretty good, plus the music is lossless.
There’s a lot about the Music app for Mac that makes me wonder how a trillion dollar company can produce such a crappy website (yes it’s a webview, not native), and the iOS app is jittery and buggy in its own way, but in the end I do agree it’s the best option around, and I’ve been a happy-ish paying customer for almost a decade now. (part of that time I had Spotify too)
You can avoid most of the annoyances by always using the Songs view and hitting Command-B to get the columns browser like iTunes. Then edit the columns to browse in the menu.
That's a neat trick! I just wish there was a Playlist option and Favorites. (The "Groupings" component is empty for me, not sure if that is supposed to have the playlists)
For playlists you can choose “view as songs” in one of the menus and then enable the column browser. I have a smart playlist for the classical genres that I do this for.
The groupings is a tag that’s free-form text: one nice thing about Apple Music is you can edit the tags, even if you don’t buy the music. I typically split “Classical” into “Baroque”/“Classical”/“Romantic” and then rewrite “composer” to be “last name, first name (years of life)”
The groupings is a tag that’s free-form text: one nice thing about Apple Music is you can edit the tags, even if you don’t buy the music. I typically split “Classical” into “Baroque”/“Classical”/“Romantic” and then rewrite “composer” to be “last name, first name (years of life)”
Same. If you use the Apple ecosystem it works well. I switched long ago once Google started pushing GPM to YTM.
Is it though?
There's always a business justification for hiring, simply because there has to be to get the headcount approved. That doesn't mean that it's the actual reason, as in the deciding factor that gets the decider to say "yes, we're going to hire more people". Principle agent problems are a thing. You can always come up with reasons that are true but wouldn't by themselves change your decision. And conversely, you can figure out what someone's actual reasons are by looking at counterfactuals where those conditions didn't occur and the person (or a peer) made a different decision.
Between 2020 and 2023, Google went from 118k employees to 190k. Meta went from 58,604 to 86,482. Stripe went from ~2000 to ~7000. Coinbase went from 1200 to 4500. These companies are not competing significantly in podcasting and audiobook efforts. But what they do have in common is that they are growth tech companies whose business models are pretty sensitive to interest rates and availabilty of capital. Who didn't hire in 2021-2022? Mostly industries like restaurants and hospitality that are not particularly interest rate sensitive, and were still recovering from COVID. They're catching up now that people are spending more.
That makes me strongly suspect that directors hire simply because there are funds available, and there are funds available because rates are low. Indeed, this is the Fed's lever on the unemployment rate. If they didn't, then changing the money supply wouldn't have any effect on unemployment or wage inflation, which would be purely determined by shifts in consumer demand.
There's always a business justification for hiring, simply because there has to be to get the headcount approved. That doesn't mean that it's the actual reason, as in the deciding factor that gets the decider to say "yes, we're going to hire more people". Principle agent problems are a thing. You can always come up with reasons that are true but wouldn't by themselves change your decision. And conversely, you can figure out what someone's actual reasons are by looking at counterfactuals where those conditions didn't occur and the person (or a peer) made a different decision.
Between 2020 and 2023, Google went from 118k employees to 190k. Meta went from 58,604 to 86,482. Stripe went from ~2000 to ~7000. Coinbase went from 1200 to 4500. These companies are not competing significantly in podcasting and audiobook efforts. But what they do have in common is that they are growth tech companies whose business models are pretty sensitive to interest rates and availabilty of capital. Who didn't hire in 2021-2022? Mostly industries like restaurants and hospitality that are not particularly interest rate sensitive, and were still recovering from COVID. They're catching up now that people are spending more.
That makes me strongly suspect that directors hire simply because there are funds available, and there are funds available because rates are low. Indeed, this is the Fed's lever on the unemployment rate. If they didn't, then changing the money supply wouldn't have any effect on unemployment or wage inflation, which would be purely determined by shifts in consumer demand.
> They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive
How many employees does it take to take an app that already works great on playing audio files and do a bit of UI redesign and change those audio files from music to podcasts and books? It's not like they're building this thing from the ground up.
The podcast app I use was built by one person, granted over a few years, and it works way better as a podcast app than spotify does. They are going to layoff 1,500 people. I assume those aren't all engineers but I think a team of 10, (including devops and QA) could build each of these features in the timeframe they did plus the additional business side of the ventures (negotiating contracts, acquiring rights, etc.).
What were the other 1450 people doing?
How many employees does it take to take an app that already works great on playing audio files and do a bit of UI redesign and change those audio files from music to podcasts and books? It's not like they're building this thing from the ground up.
The podcast app I use was built by one person, granted over a few years, and it works way better as a podcast app than spotify does. They are going to layoff 1,500 people. I assume those aren't all engineers but I think a team of 10, (including devops and QA) could build each of these features in the timeframe they did plus the additional business side of the ventures (negotiating contracts, acquiring rights, etc.).
What were the other 1450 people doing?
>This is just how normal, healthy business goes
17% layoffs is healthy? No thanks
17% layoffs is healthy? No thanks
>They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive -- e.g. what if people start moving over to Amazon instead with its Music+Wondery+Audible, or other competitors?
If this were true then wouldn't the cuts be limited to the podcasting and audiobook arms of the company i.e. the source of the overstaffing? The announcement however states the cuts are across the entire company - "To align Spotify with our future goals and ensure we are right-sized for the challenges ahead, I have made the difficult decision to reduce our total headcount by approximately 17% across the company."
If this were true then wouldn't the cuts be limited to the podcasting and audiobook arms of the company i.e. the source of the overstaffing? The announcement however states the cuts are across the entire company - "To align Spotify with our future goals and ensure we are right-sized for the challenges ahead, I have made the difficult decision to reduce our total headcount by approximately 17% across the company."
I'm not saying businesses shouldn't make bets or innovate, but in my experience hiring more people to do those things has a point of diminishing returns, and that point is much lower than most people think. From what I've experienced, more people tend to slow innovation, not accelerate it.
And while Spotify may not have hired for the sake of hiring, my comment was more targeted to the general behavior of tech startups during the ZIRP years, where I've personally experienced companies just hiring to show they they're growing, even when they have very little work for those extra personnel to do. It's not often intentional, but is rather the result of poor discipline or lack of forethought.
And while Spotify may not have hired for the sake of hiring, my comment was more targeted to the general behavior of tech startups during the ZIRP years, where I've personally experienced companies just hiring to show they they're growing, even when they have very little work for those extra personnel to do. It's not often intentional, but is rather the result of poor discipline or lack of forethought.
Maybe it’s just me, but as a CEO if you misjudge enough to have to fire a double-digit percentage of your staff shouldn’t you face some consequences, like demotion or losing your job yourself? Daniel only owns 7.5% so it’s not like he’s a majority that can push anything through.
Since when does the ruling class of C levels and board members feel ANY pain?
Any apologism for the "Idea men" and "Decision makers" is absurd until they start feeling the pain from THEIR bad ideas and poor decisions.
They will make a shitty zoom recording saying "I take full responsibility for cutting 20% of our yearly payroll" while signing off on their own bonus.
Wish I got to sign off on my own bonus!
Any apologism for the "Idea men" and "Decision makers" is absurd until they start feeling the pain from THEIR bad ideas and poor decisions.
They will make a shitty zoom recording saying "I take full responsibility for cutting 20% of our yearly payroll" while signing off on their own bonus.
Wish I got to sign off on my own bonus!
The members of the board sign off on executive compensation. And shareholders vote for board members.
If Spotify had a brain in their head they would’ve known that Amazon’s offering was desperation against losing so badly to the main big baddie, not a genuinely good product. The Amazon music player is a joke and the service sucks at integrating with other services and products.
>Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do? Not try to stay competitive
That's a reductionist way of looking at it, but an alternative way would have been what Daniel said on that letter; They were "more productive and less efficient and they needed to be both".
From my ivory tower I do see some things that could have been done differently, such as adding only one new offering (maybe just podcasting), or rely more in contractors than employees and set the temporary expectation of the roles up front.
That's a reductionist way of looking at it, but an alternative way would have been what Daniel said on that letter; They were "more productive and less efficient and they needed to be both".
From my ivory tower I do see some things that could have been done differently, such as adding only one new offering (maybe just podcasting), or rely more in contractors than employees and set the temporary expectation of the roles up front.
> Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do?
Not spend a fortune on Joe Rogan and then lay off people.
Not spend a fortune on Joe Rogan and then lay off people.
One could argue that Joe Rogan brought in a lot of new users and thus profits.
The employees being fired worked on a failed ideas and were just a lot of expenses.
The employees being fired worked on a failed ideas and were just a lot of expenses.
> The employees being fired worked on a failed ideas and were just a lot of expenses.
$200 million worth?
$200 million worth?
> Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do?
Innovate to grow, if growth is the objective. For example, they could better serve the audiophile market with higher quality offerings. Not as much growth there though.
Innovate to grow, if growth is the objective. For example, they could better serve the audiophile market with higher quality offerings. Not as much growth there though.
And how does that help them make more money if they still have to always give the record label more money?
How does innovation help them make more money? In the case of higher quality, they can charge more. There are premium services such as TIDAL doing that.
And if they charge more for the relative few people who want it, the record label still gets 70% of the revenue. They have to do something that is not dependent on music licensing.
My point still stands. They chose the path of trying to get market share from incumbents in the podcast and audiobook market rather than trying to innovate in their core music business and that has cost them in multiple ways.
I don't even know what the incumbents are. I had never listened to a podcast before they came to Spotify. So I can easily imagine there was a big untapped market of getting people to spend more time with podcasts, which I assume is much cheaper for Spotify than music licensing. So more customers and less royalties -- I can see a potential in that.
Audible for audiobooks is the most obvious there. That's an interesting point about podcasts, I naively assumed most people were familiar with them long before Spotify offered them. I have been using PocketCasts for many years but iTunes has also carried podcasts for a long time.
same way netflix does - make their own label
I agree in theory but practically this is a non-starter as the big 3 record companies are also investors in the company. Even if they weren't however the downside risks of the big 3 not agreeing to renegotiate licensing in the future would be catastrophic to Spotify. This is where I think Tidal got it right both in terms of a business model and something that was good for artists. It's a shame what became of Tidal.
> this is a non-starter as the big 3 record companies are also investors in the company.
The big 3 record companies have negligible investments in Spotify:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
Even if they did have a non negligible interest in Spotify, that is not the reason it is a non starter. It is a nonstarter because everyone wants to listen to music owned by the big 3 record companies.
Insufficient people are going to be interested in paying for a music streaming service without Michael Jackson, Sinatra, and a whole bunch of other big names and old songs that span decades. And people want to listen to music on demand, and repetitively. People are not going to be signing up for 1 month at a time like video streaming businesses, because people do not consume music the same way as video.
The big 3 record companies have negligible investments in Spotify:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
Even if they did have a non negligible interest in Spotify, that is not the reason it is a non starter. It is a nonstarter because everyone wants to listen to music owned by the big 3 record companies.
Insufficient people are going to be interested in paying for a music streaming service without Michael Jackson, Sinatra, and a whole bunch of other big names and old songs that span decades. And people want to listen to music on demand, and repetitively. People are not going to be signing up for 1 month at a time like video streaming businesses, because people do not consume music the same way as video.
>"The big 3 record companies have negligible investments in Spotify":
This was not always the case however. The big 3 historically had interest at over 6% and they took money off the table only recently. [1]
>"Even if they did have a non negligible interest in Spotify, that is not the reason it is a non starter. It is a nonstarter because everyone wants to listen to music owned by the big 3 record companies."
Yes we are saying the exact same. I clearly stated that losing that licensing would be catastrophic.
[1] https://archive.is/KaI0X
This was not always the case however. The big 3 historically had interest at over 6% and they took money off the table only recently. [1]
>"Even if they did have a non negligible interest in Spotify, that is not the reason it is a non starter. It is a nonstarter because everyone wants to listen to music owned by the big 3 record companies."
Yes we are saying the exact same. I clearly stated that losing that licensing would be catastrophic.
[1] https://archive.is/KaI0X
What happened to Tidal? I'm a user and swiched to Tidal because I was done waiting for Spotify hi-fi.
Tidal was sold to Block. The sale itself was somewhat controversial and there was a lawsuit filed as a result, albeit unsuccessful. See:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-b...
I also think that alot of those Tidal jobs were probably eliminated in Block's own layoffs. See:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/11/08/block-square-cashapp-layof...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-b...
I also think that alot of those Tidal jobs were probably eliminated in Block's own layoffs. See:
https://sfstandard.com/2023/11/08/block-square-cashapp-layof...
> Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do?
The people who made the decision could bear the brunt of the failed "bet". But I'm willing to wager that the CEO's year-end bonus isn't going to change radically in light of this.
The people who made the decision could bear the brunt of the failed "bet". But I'm willing to wager that the CEO's year-end bonus isn't going to change radically in light of this.
What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should.
For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources, and it's very likely none of us are irreplaceable, none of us matter really all that much to our employers and the cost cutting via offshoring/remote employee replacement / no backfill is probably just getting started.
For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources, and it's very likely none of us are irreplaceable, none of us matter really all that much to our employers and the cost cutting via offshoring/remote employee replacement / no backfill is probably just getting started.
> I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources, and it's very likely none of us are irreplaceable, none of us matter really all that much to our employers...
Interestingly, there was a really good article in the NY times yesterday that made that exact point: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/business/economy/doctors-...
Basically, the article was talking about how being a doctor or pharmacist used to be a very respected profession, and most doctors/pharmacists didn't previously see the need to unionize. With all the consolidation that's gone on in medicine over the past couple decades, though (the article talks about how many of them used to be partners in small doctor groups, that is increasingly rare these days), they now realize they're wage slaves just like the rest of us, and their management has been treating them like interchangeable widgets to squeeze the most productivity out of.
If doctors are unionizing, maybe software developers should rethink their historical aversion to the idea.
Interestingly, there was a really good article in the NY times yesterday that made that exact point: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/business/economy/doctors-...
Basically, the article was talking about how being a doctor or pharmacist used to be a very respected profession, and most doctors/pharmacists didn't previously see the need to unionize. With all the consolidation that's gone on in medicine over the past couple decades, though (the article talks about how many of them used to be partners in small doctor groups, that is increasingly rare these days), they now realize they're wage slaves just like the rest of us, and their management has been treating them like interchangeable widgets to squeeze the most productivity out of.
If doctors are unionizing, maybe software developers should rethink their historical aversion to the idea.
[deleted]
Quite a stretch from "This company hired too many people and ended up having to lay off some" and "Hmm, maybe we're not as irreplaceable as we like to think" to "Let's all make ourselves less attractive to our employers by threatening to gang up on them."
But I guess unionization is the universal solvent for every HR problem around here.
But I guess unionization is the universal solvent for every HR problem around here.
If Human Resources are just replaceable resources, you don't care about them outside of what they can do for you. If a company is consistently failing to recognize their employees as people who deserve dignity, maybe a collective group is necessary to ensure they start to. This can be government based or be a private union, but companies don't usually make changes beneficial to employees without some kind of outside pressure.
How is that a stretch? If we're not irreplaceable then ganging up on our employers is a way for us to reclaim some of the leverage in this transaction that we lose by being replaceable.
If we're not irreplaceable then ganging up on our employers is a way for us to reclaim some of the leverage
Let's say I have a company with an R&D budget of $1 billion. $100 million goes into robotics and AI, $900 million goes into core business interests. You form a union and demand all kinds of ridiculous accommodations that you could never have reasonably asked for on your own.
What will happen when budgeting for the next fiscal year? Replacing you is a core business interest now, and so is avoiding the need to hire your replacement. The R&D budget will be adjusted accordingly.
If you want "leverage," the best way to achieve that is to make yourself more valuable, not less.
Let's say I have a company with an R&D budget of $1 billion. $100 million goes into robotics and AI, $900 million goes into core business interests. You form a union and demand all kinds of ridiculous accommodations that you could never have reasonably asked for on your own.
What will happen when budgeting for the next fiscal year? Replacing you is a core business interest now, and so is avoiding the need to hire your replacement. The R&D budget will be adjusted accordingly.
If you want "leverage," the best way to achieve that is to make yourself more valuable, not less.
> If you want "leverage," the best way to achieve that is to make yourself more valuable, not less.
This is really irrespective of union membership. Sometimes people have this odd view of unions as "Now you're basically consigning yourself to 'lowest common denominator' employee", but that need not be the case. There are many unions that have vastly different pay scales and include "stars" (think actors' unions, sports players' unions, etc.) Even Tom Cruise joined the negotiations as a SAG member, and my guess is he's got plenty of leverage all by himself: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/07/tom-cruise-repo...
This is really irrespective of union membership. Sometimes people have this odd view of unions as "Now you're basically consigning yourself to 'lowest common denominator' employee", but that need not be the case. There are many unions that have vastly different pay scales and include "stars" (think actors' unions, sports players' unions, etc.) Even Tom Cruise joined the negotiations as a SAG member, and my guess is he's got plenty of leverage all by himself: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/07/tom-cruise-repo...
One thing the Hollywood people have in common with each other, but not with us, is that they move from one employer to the next frequently as a matter of course. Those employers explicitly do NOT want to carry them on their books when they don't have specific jobs for them to perform.
Unionization makes a lot more sense in those cases. If I need a ship unloaded, I call up some dockworkers. If I need some heavy boxes moved, I call up some Teamsters. If I need someone to look good on a screen, I call up Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence. If I need someone to feed the actors, I call the craft union. Etc. Like the old joke about hookers, I don't pay these people to come to work, I pay them to go away.
None of that is comparable to what I do, or (probably) to what you do. Your employer can only become less competitive if you join a separate outside organization that acts as a middleman for your labor. That's not the case in other industries.
Unionization makes a lot more sense in those cases. If I need a ship unloaded, I call up some dockworkers. If I need some heavy boxes moved, I call up some Teamsters. If I need someone to look good on a screen, I call up Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence. If I need someone to feed the actors, I call the craft union. Etc. Like the old joke about hookers, I don't pay these people to come to work, I pay them to go away.
None of that is comparable to what I do, or (probably) to what you do. Your employer can only become less competitive if you join a separate outside organization that acts as a middleman for your labor. That's not the case in other industries.
That's certainly not the case with all unions like that, e.g. sport players' unions, where a player works for a team for a couple of years, then may go to another team, or (an area where I'm familiar) AGMA, the American Guild of Musical Artists, where many union members are employed by the same dance or opera company for years, sometimes their entire career.
(Shrug) Sports figures are just a case of apples and pears, rather than apples and oranges.
> demand all kinds of ridiculous accommodations that you could never have reasonably asked for on your own
The union oughtn't seek "ridiculous" accommodations then. It should seek at least reasonable ones, and possible aspirational ones, and negotiate it out from there. The problem we're seeing now is that even demands that most would find reasonable are cast as ridiculous by management. And if a union has trouble getting employers to listen, there's no hope that someone on their own can.
I've personally lost faith that a typical employer is capable of recognizing the value of an individual employee. So many of the recent layoffs have not accounted for individual performance or criticality to the business (Twitter's being a good example). So my own value isn't as strong of a bargaining chip.
The union oughtn't seek "ridiculous" accommodations then. It should seek at least reasonable ones, and possible aspirational ones, and negotiate it out from there. The problem we're seeing now is that even demands that most would find reasonable are cast as ridiculous by management. And if a union has trouble getting employers to listen, there's no hope that someone on their own can.
I've personally lost faith that a typical employer is capable of recognizing the value of an individual employee. So many of the recent layoffs have not accounted for individual performance or criticality to the business (Twitter's being a good example). So my own value isn't as strong of a bargaining chip.
So many of the recent layoffs have not accounted for individual performance or criticality to the business
And you think a union will?
Unions make more sense when the workers actually are interchangeable. Are you?
And you think a union will?
Unions make more sense when the workers actually are interchangeable. Are you?
It doesn't matter, if my employer would treat me as interchangeable anyway.
And even interchangeable employees deserve reasonable accommodations. I do think a union can highlight those needs more effectively than individuals (especially for interchangeable ones, to your point).
And even interchangeable employees deserve reasonable accommodations. I do think a union can highlight those needs more effectively than individuals (especially for interchangeable ones, to your point).
> If you want "leverage," the best way to achieve that is to make yourself more valuable, not less.
In today's world, making yourself valuable gives you a pat on the back, maybe a pizza party and a $25 Chipotle gift card if your employer is generous.
CEOs are sitting on massive piles of money while telling workers that their greed is bad for the economy.
In today's world, making yourself valuable gives you a pat on the back, maybe a pizza party and a $25 Chipotle gift card if your employer is generous.
CEOs are sitting on massive piles of money while telling workers that their greed is bad for the economy.
Presumably the union should calibrate its demands to the point where the cost to the employer is lower than the cost of replacing the workers but higher than what they get without the union.
Surely there is some room there. If the cost of labor were already equal to the cost of replacing the labor, then the employer might as well just replace them now. So it must be lower by some amount. The point of a union (it seems to me) is to capture a larger portion of that surplus, but leave the employer with enough that the arrangement is still worthwhile.
Surely there is some room there. If the cost of labor were already equal to the cost of replacing the labor, then the employer might as well just replace them now. So it must be lower by some amount. The point of a union (it seems to me) is to capture a larger portion of that surplus, but leave the employer with enough that the arrangement is still worthwhile.
it's not even ganging up, it's just hiring a middleman to do your negotiation for you, and they take a cut.
I'm good
I'm good
> it's just hiring a middleman to do your negotiation for you, and they take a cut.
That's a bad take. I can understand reasons for not wanting to join a union, but that's a pretty ridiculous assessment of what goes on.
The thing is, all of us like to believe we're special snowflakes and uniquely valuable. What many are realizing is that some of the only real power most of have is if we act collectively. It's not just "a middle man doing the negotiation for you", it's union members acting together, and organizing that way, that gives unions any power at all.
Just look at the recent Hollywood strikes - the only reason they got anywhere is the strong power of their unions (e.g. union members aren't allowed to work for any struck employer, worldwide, while a strike is ongoing). And actors and writers really do have special snowflakes, the big stars that make millions per film, and they're all union members, too.
That's a bad take. I can understand reasons for not wanting to join a union, but that's a pretty ridiculous assessment of what goes on.
The thing is, all of us like to believe we're special snowflakes and uniquely valuable. What many are realizing is that some of the only real power most of have is if we act collectively. It's not just "a middle man doing the negotiation for you", it's union members acting together, and organizing that way, that gives unions any power at all.
Just look at the recent Hollywood strikes - the only reason they got anywhere is the strong power of their unions (e.g. union members aren't allowed to work for any struck employer, worldwide, while a strike is ongoing). And actors and writers really do have special snowflakes, the big stars that make millions per film, and they're all union members, too.
Don’t forget all the “oh yeah I’m not allowed to fix that, that’s a CSS bug and I’m a JS Developer. You’ll need to bring in a CSS development team to look at that one”.
You understand that that only happens in unions when the union assents to those divisions, right? You understand that you get to vote about whether your union operates that way?
You understand you’ve removed all personal agency from the worker? They must now do what the thousands of others have decided is best for their job security, not what that individual actually wants to do. My gf used to be a split artist/technical person at her job, she loved it. It got unionized, and now: “Sorry bub, union says you aren’t allowed to make art any more. Keep your head down and script your scripts, we’re getting a real artist for the other parts. Oh yeah and it will be way more work to integrate with them than if you were doing the full stack, but we still want it done in the same amount of time so work late or whatever. Thanks!”
If that's an accurate representation of what happened, that sounds like a shitty union that's insufficiently understanding of the reality that efficiencies improve the bottom line in ways that workers can benefit from, too. Maybe, then, one should engage in that dreaded politics and make it better--because on the flip side, "personal agency" for a worker is just as likely to be "RTO and work late and no raises this year".
Only outliers ever win by atomization--and as somebody with a track record of being an outlier and operating successfully in atomized environments, I'd certainly rather not have my entire technical career be a high-wire act because companies can get away with it!
Only outliers ever win by atomization--and as somebody with a track record of being an outlier and operating successfully in atomized environments, I'd certainly rather not have my entire technical career be a high-wire act because companies can get away with it!
I do not know what RTO is, but her union is certainly shitty - and still doesn't give raises. And your advice of "in addition to taking on the job of training these artists, and doing extra work to integrate with their sub-par assets, you should take on the job of a politician too, then you'd see how great unions are!" doesn't really gel. Some people want to just have a conversation with their boss about what work they want, not take up three new jobs they don't want because "The Guild" gave them a shitty contract.
I'm just trying to understand why on earth you wrote "gang up" here.
The corporation has an HR department. Usually, this consists of more than one person. The corporation has a hell of a lot more money, legal resources, (money is speech, my friend) and so on than you do. Why isn't it obvious... the most natural thing in the world... That you would also want more than just you on your side?
This is like saying "why did you join an army instead of just fighting the bad guys single-handed?"
I must be missing something here, because you said this and everybody just went along with it like "oh yeah why would we do that? when this seems like asking "Why did you start a company with your friend to gang up on that new project you guys were talking about instead of just doing it yourself?" Totally, completely confused.
The corporation has an HR department. Usually, this consists of more than one person. The corporation has a hell of a lot more money, legal resources, (money is speech, my friend) and so on than you do. Why isn't it obvious... the most natural thing in the world... That you would also want more than just you on your side?
This is like saying "why did you join an army instead of just fighting the bad guys single-handed?"
I must be missing something here, because you said this and everybody just went along with it like "oh yeah why would we do that? when this seems like asking "Why did you start a company with your friend to gang up on that new project you guys were talking about instead of just doing it yourself?" Totally, completely confused.
I've been lucky, I guess. I've never felt like I was working for the "bad guys."
As usual, the anti-union argument on HN is "The rest of you shouldn't put up lion defenses to protect you because I'm strong enough to fight off a lion and the fences would just get in my way".
Hopefully for you, your luck holds, and you never get ill/weak/sick/unable to fight lions. Like everyone else does eventually.
Hopefully for you, your luck holds, and you never get ill/weak/sick/unable to fight lions. Like everyone else does eventually.
(Shrug) The site is run by a VC fund, and is intentionally (but increasingly ineffectively) geared towards an audience of people interested in, or actively working on, startup companies. Is this really the best place to sell the whole "dark Satanic mills" schtick?
> I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources
I think that's just a normal process of growing older. Also: yes, of course you are a resource to your employer. An annoying one (stell or laptops don't usually talk back and has demands). I also don't think there's anything wrong with companies behaving this way. By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more. Of course, ideally your interests and the companies' align beyond that narrow scope; e.g. you're both interested in you becoming an expert in X, or in solving problems in area Y. But it really comes down to you being a resource for the company to produce stuff. Thinking back I realized that my elders and mentors and everyone worth listening to always tries to tell me that (e.g. by telling me "you're not your job", "look out for your WLB, noone else will", "a job is just a means to an end", "HR protects the company, not you", "always keep in mind that you're disposable"...). And yet it seems to be a lesion that everyone needs to rediscover for themselves eventually.
I think that's just a normal process of growing older. Also: yes, of course you are a resource to your employer. An annoying one (stell or laptops don't usually talk back and has demands). I also don't think there's anything wrong with companies behaving this way. By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more. Of course, ideally your interests and the companies' align beyond that narrow scope; e.g. you're both interested in you becoming an expert in X, or in solving problems in area Y. But it really comes down to you being a resource for the company to produce stuff. Thinking back I realized that my elders and mentors and everyone worth listening to always tries to tell me that (e.g. by telling me "you're not your job", "look out for your WLB, noone else will", "a job is just a means to an end", "HR protects the company, not you", "always keep in mind that you're disposable"...). And yet it seems to be a lesion that everyone needs to rediscover for themselves eventually.
> By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more
That's exactly the opposite of what 99% of the companies sell to candidates. You must have seen stuff like this is a great place work, join the family, etc. So maybe you mean the hidden intent was that but that's not the message being broadcasted.
That's exactly the opposite of what 99% of the companies sell to candidates. You must have seen stuff like this is a great place work, join the family, etc. So maybe you mean the hidden intent was that but that's not the message being broadcasted.
Of course it is. That's why I'm pointing out that everyone learns the lesson eventually. If it were obvious from the outset it wouldn't require learning. If it was easy to discover, it would be learned immediately. But as it stands, it's a difficult thing to learn because it's not in the employer's interest: they definitely do want people who are are better aligned with the goals of the company outside of "work for payment". They want people that are passionate about the job and the company, because ceteris paribus those people will do a better job. And a way of getting there is trying to be a company worth working for. To have a good culture, great goals, or great colleagues. But taking a more cynical view, that's just a different form of payment, in the sense that 60k/year at a great place to work is probably worth more to you than 70k/year at a not-so-great job. But as soon as a company enters some hardship and needs to cut cost, it needs to take a sober and realistic look at its expenses. And personal costs tend to be a huge expense.
In fact they will try to terminate hires or reject candidates who express primary interest in work being "for payment". Every business looks for an edge, including exploitability checks (and checks against disrupting that line of thought for their other hires)
Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual.
>Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual.
Advertisers have somehow gotten away with lying to you for your whole life, so obviously it's your fault your employer did too!
Just ... What?
Advertisers have somehow gotten away with lying to you for your whole life, so obviously it's your fault your employer did too!
Just ... What?
People want to be seduced, it's why you said 99%, some percent of advertising works on all of us, and a major decision like "this is my job and how I spend most of my waking hours on this earth" is ripe for the employee to accept the seduction.
The flip side is that these people had a good job for a few years, and can hopefully springboard on. The alternative is that they weren't hired by Spotify, or potentially at all.
As long as they were hired in good faith, and not to just see which people worked out, I don't have a problem.
As long as they were hired in good faith, and not to just see which people worked out, I don't have a problem.
>As long as they were hired in good faith
I think that's the OP's point. They were not hired in good faith and I agree. This mass hiring/firing cycle is playing games with people's lives and, as always, the people at the top are unaffected by it, and in fact maybe rewarded for it. This isn't a game, this is people's lives. It's a little less horrible if it's a remote position but people upend their lives and move for jobs all the time.
I think that's the OP's point. They were not hired in good faith and I agree. This mass hiring/firing cycle is playing games with people's lives and, as always, the people at the top are unaffected by it, and in fact maybe rewarded for it. This isn't a game, this is people's lives. It's a little less horrible if it's a remote position but people upend their lives and move for jobs all the time.
I don't think there's any particular malice to the ups and downs - it's just the nature of work these days. Employers and employees have pretty much laid bare their view that the other is simply a cog in their machine. That being true, folks need to understand, plan for, and not be particularly surprised when these ups and downs happen. That means having a runway for lean times, and knowing your worth, how to communicate it, and being flexible when things go pear-shaped. People do move for jobs all the time, yes, but I hope that part of the planning for that involves asking the question - "what happens if this job evaporates?"
I agree. The employees got a lot out of the trade. Money, experience, connections. In addition, anyone participating in the tech economy should be aware of the boom/bust cycles that have plagued its history. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a tech company had a large round of layoffs. The employees should have been aware of the risks when they signed on.
> we ARE human resources, and it's very likely none of us are irreplaceable, none of us matter really all that much to our employers
Now, remember this the next time you’re tempted to lose sleep, sacrifice family time or leisure for your employer and then act accordingly.
Now, remember this the next time you’re tempted to lose sleep, sacrifice family time or leisure for your employer and then act accordingly.
It's not just that, most of us are knowledge workers, think about how many hours off the clock you spent trying to solve some business problem. Why aren't you enjoying your kid's soccer game and instead thinking about that problem at work? To make your upcoming work day easier, or is it because you're spending many many more hours on the clock actually, working for your employer?
When employers wanted your body, it was a lot easier to have separation between work and home life, but now that employers want your mind, that separation is incredibly illdefined for most of us I think. I used to give that time freely but now I wonder what's the point.
When employers wanted your body, it was a lot easier to have separation between work and home life, but now that employers want your mind, that separation is incredibly illdefined for most of us I think. I used to give that time freely but now I wonder what's the point.
This is very true. I spend a lot of time thinking about work problems. On the one hand it does help me in some ways because those problems are there whether I like it or not and I don't seem to have the control to stop thinking about them. So it does help that sometimes I'll settle on a vague solution in my head before I fall asleep at night, but of course it would be better not to have to do this at all.
I have at times had idle daydreams about doing a job that ends at the end of the work-day and you literally do not have to think about it again. I'd say those sort of jobs are not well paid these days.
I have at times had idle daydreams about doing a job that ends at the end of the work-day and you literally do not have to think about it again. I'd say those sort of jobs are not well paid these days.
One of the big things I saw when a company I worked at did layoffs was that more people left voluntarily than were fired, especially a lot of the people I saw as the best and brightest. Heck, it's why I left. To me, that's the biggest side affect of the layoffs. There's going to be a brain drain, not because you fired people, but because the morale and mental of the company has shifted.
“The graveyards are full of indispensable men(/women)”
It doesn’t matter how important or irreplaceable you think you might be - life/businesses/people will carry on without you.
It doesn’t matter how important or irreplaceable you think you might be - life/businesses/people will carry on without you.
Even if you THINK you are indispensable, even if you are 100% CORRECT that you ARE indispensable, plenty of gamblers exist in management, and will happily try and route around you. Maybe it doesn't work out every time, but it works out often enough to encourage companies to keep doing it.
It's so much easier to fire one person than the entire department. It's really hard for your manager to replace you when your coworkers say "naw we aren't doing their work without being paid their salary". And guess what? If you're a cunt, unions can, you know, not strike! They can 100% stand by as someone gets fucked over. Ask any member of a teachers union.
Companies don't jettison entire profitable divisions of the company to kill Unions in the crib (walmart) because they DON'T get the workers a larger slice of the pie lol. Companies don't play you anti-union propaganda on your training day because unions mean they pay less for talented workers lol. If unions truly reduced the price of real talent, companies would start unions themselves!
It's so much easier to fire one person than the entire department. It's really hard for your manager to replace you when your coworkers say "naw we aren't doing their work without being paid their salary". And guess what? If you're a cunt, unions can, you know, not strike! They can 100% stand by as someone gets fucked over. Ask any member of a teachers union.
Companies don't jettison entire profitable divisions of the company to kill Unions in the crib (walmart) because they DON'T get the workers a larger slice of the pie lol. Companies don't play you anti-union propaganda on your training day because unions mean they pay less for talented workers lol. If unions truly reduced the price of real talent, companies would start unions themselves!
> none of us are irreplaceable
But the smart ones know now to be as irreplaceable as possible, however they have to.
But the smart ones know now to be as irreplaceable as possible, however they have to.
Be careful though, my father in law has told stories about people who made themselves irreplaceable by being the only person who can fix a machine because they allegedly fixed it in a way that breaks often enough that they can be the hero. A stain like that on your resume means your burned trust for potentially short term gains and may find trust is not given as easily as a result.
Actually doesn't matter if you do or if you don't, since it can't be proven. What matters is whether or not somebody accuses you of "fixing it in a way that it breaks".
In this case it was apparently proven enough that the place wanted to fire the person, the union said "you can't fire him but you can escort him out and tell him never to come back" so being accused is just the tripwire that brings the rocks down. Don't pile rocks up there in the first place and there aren't rocks to fall!
Just remember they signed Joe Rogan for over 200 million and he's not brought in nearly that amount for them.
Did they retrench the people who made that decision? Did they retrench the management who approved that contract?
Spotify employees should be pushing for some degree of corporate and fiscal responsibility given they are retrenching, but they still gave Joe the bag.
Did they retrench the people who made that decision? Did they retrench the management who approved that contract?
Spotify employees should be pushing for some degree of corporate and fiscal responsibility given they are retrenching, but they still gave Joe the bag.
They also signed a deal with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry that was worth 20 million. They agreed to part ways in June. I'm guessing the reason was that it failed to deliver financially. See:
https://archive.is/Hgh3V
https://archive.is/Hgh3V
Reportedly only a fraction of this sum was actually paid out though.
A "fraction" of 20 million is still a lot of salary runway though. They were paid out on 2.5 years worth of that 20 million dollar deal. Even if their deal's earn out was only million dollars a year for 20 years it would be 2.5 million. Of course no earn out period is that long so it's likely they were paid out much more than that.
i feel like this is a pretty hard thing to assess without access to internal metrics
Under What metric do you apply that? What goals did they have for his program?
My understanding was the purpose of buying Joe Rogan was 2 fold, one of course is to bring in new users, but that was not the only goal (maybe not even the primary goal) the other goal was to get more of their current users to have more listen time on podcasts and less on Music, they pay far far far far less for podcasts (in many cases nothing) than they do for Music.
If they were able to shift the total listen time it could have more than paid for Rogan even with out new subscribers
The contract is up for renewal very soon so if they drop him we know he did not meet their objectives. Somehow I bet they renew
My understanding was the purpose of buying Joe Rogan was 2 fold, one of course is to bring in new users, but that was not the only goal (maybe not even the primary goal) the other goal was to get more of their current users to have more listen time on podcasts and less on Music, they pay far far far far less for podcasts (in many cases nothing) than they do for Music.
If they were able to shift the total listen time it could have more than paid for Rogan even with out new subscribers
The contract is up for renewal very soon so if they drop him we know he did not meet their objectives. Somehow I bet they renew
> Just remember they signed Joe Rogan for over 200 million and he's not brought in nearly that amount for them.
The fact that they signed Joe for that amount, and continued to air everything throughout all the controversies, throughout all the COVID years, and through some artist departures over him, signals that he has more than recouped that investment for them.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-more-popular-ever-statist...
The fact that they signed Joe for that amount, and continued to air everything throughout all the controversies, throughout all the COVID years, and through some artist departures over him, signals that he has more than recouped that investment for them.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-more-popular-ever-statist...
Unless you are pretty high up at Spotify, you have literally no idea how much Joe Rogan has brought in for them. His podcast has been number one on the platform since it launched.
Personally, I cancelled my Spotify premium family plan over it. I doubt I’m the only one.
OTOH, the only reason I ever downloaded the Spotify app was because there was an episode of that show that I wanted to listen to, and it wasn't available anywhere else.
I guarantee you're not the only one. Do you think Spotify brought on someone like Rogan without considering protest cancellations?
Likewise.
Where you the only one. no..
Are you in an extreme minority that was likely far offset by new members... yes
Are you in an extreme minority that was likely far offset by new members... yes
I suspect you didn't cancel your subscription because of Joe Rogan being given a deal at Spotify.
I think you cancelled your subscription so you could TELL people you cancelled your subscription as a result of Joe Rogan being given a deal at Spotify.
I think you cancelled your subscription so you could TELL people you cancelled your subscription as a result of Joe Rogan being given a deal at Spotify.
Is that a useful distinction? In both cases, the event that eventually resulted in a canceled subscription was giving Joe Rogan a Spotify deal.
The second option is mildly insufferable, and a very transparent way to grift upvotes from other like minded contrarians addicted to trendy knee-jerk alarmism.
Me, pointing this out, might also be a bit insufferable, but I guess I just enjoy pointing these things out, because everyone who uses this site is so intelligent (on average).
It sucks seeing such intelligent people get caught up in these pits of cognitive dissonance.
Me, pointing this out, might also be a bit insufferable, but I guess I just enjoy pointing these things out, because everyone who uses this site is so intelligent (on average).
It sucks seeing such intelligent people get caught up in these pits of cognitive dissonance.
What's the difference, and who does that difference matter to?
To Spotify, it's still a cancelled subscription and the root cause is still Joe.
To Spotify, it's still a cancelled subscription and the root cause is still Joe.
No the second is the person was going to cancel anyway and Joe provides a rather weak and pathetic way to virtue signal to a very minor political in group they are "with them" while doing something they were going to do anyway
What people say vs what they do:
https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare2/comments/1733bhk/im_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare2/comments/1733bhk/im_...
I haven’t told anyone in person I did, but the fact you think I did it to virtue signal says more about you than me.
And if I was doing it to “grift internet points” nothing stops me from just lying.
Some people do things because they genuinely believe it’s the right (or at least less bad) thing to do.
And if I was doing it to “grift internet points” nothing stops me from just lying.
Some people do things because they genuinely believe it’s the right (or at least less bad) thing to do.
[deleted]
I read it more like "we hired when money was cheap and were hoping that we could create some new revenue streams but that didn't work out and now we don't have much hope of revenue growth in these areas so we have to reduce costs."
That is how it should be read, because this is how these companies operate. My company's CFO was talking about this as we pushed for profitability (since the market expectations changed) and rationale for investment was exactly like you said.
"It's our job to grow, profitably, so if we think we can generate more than what we spend, we can invest. But if its not working, we will cut it."
Unless you have a specific reason to believe it to be otherwise.
"It's our job to grow, profitably, so if we think we can generate more than what we spend, we can invest. But if its not working, we will cut it."
Unless you have a specific reason to believe it to be otherwise.
And they were still hiring too! My first day was last Monday haha, last day today
Wait, you were hired and laid off in the same week? I'm really sorry that happened to you. The fact that that was allowed to happen suggests a very dysfunctional and incompetent management culture.
[deleted]
I agree it's not a fun situation, but I'm curious what you expect to have happened instead. What would the "competent management" version of the situation look like?
In a competent management culture plans of impending downsizing would have been communicated to hiring managers and they would have adjusted their open reqs. It is not uncommon to be told during the interview process that a role has been frozen. It's personally happened to me on 3 occasions.
That's so messed up when companies do that. Curious what your separation package was?
[deleted]
Hope they gave you a fat severance package
What team. What role.
I keep reading this.
I don’t know how much Spotify pays or if it pays above market. But I much rather have a high paying job - especially if it doesn’t require relocation and then get laid off than not have a high paying role at all.
A job is not a marriage, it’s more like a a semi serious dating relationship. I’ve had 9 jobs in 27 years and 7 since 2008.
A job is merely a method to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter.
Once either me or the company decide it isn’t on our best interest to continue the transactional relationship, we break up and I change my relationship status to “open for work” and put myself back out there.
Amazon was my 8th job. I knew from reputation and 2nd hand experience, that eventually Amazon was going to Amazon.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38474212
And I planned accordingly from day 1.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37969302
I don’t know how much Spotify pays or if it pays above market. But I much rather have a high paying job - especially if it doesn’t require relocation and then get laid off than not have a high paying role at all.
A job is not a marriage, it’s more like a a semi serious dating relationship. I’ve had 9 jobs in 27 years and 7 since 2008.
A job is merely a method to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter.
Once either me or the company decide it isn’t on our best interest to continue the transactional relationship, we break up and I change my relationship status to “open for work” and put myself back out there.
Amazon was my 8th job. I knew from reputation and 2nd hand experience, that eventually Amazon was going to Amazon.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38474212
And I planned accordingly from day 1.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37969302
Nine serious relationships in 27 years, but no marriage? I bet you live in one of those heathen countries where sex before marriage is legal, don't you? If you weren't allowed to have sex before marriage, would you still be unmarried after 27 years of relationships? Sweden, where Spotify is headquartered, is 8,600 kilometers from the San Francisco VC-backed tech scene, and is just as culturally removed from it as well.
That’s the first time I’ve heard my analogy to job - relationships being taken to its logical extreme.
>Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount".... In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but don't fill up your tank when gas is cheap just to do doughnuts in the parking lot.
I struggle to understand comments like this one. Spotify were being responsible at the time. Their employees are not 30-year mortgages, they are volunteer employees given no promise of continued employment.
Through a few degrees of separation it all boils down to "we could do X when prime interest rates were 3%, and now they are 8% we can only afford Y"
I struggle to understand comments like this one. Spotify were being responsible at the time. Their employees are not 30-year mortgages, they are volunteer employees given no promise of continued employment.
Through a few degrees of separation it all boils down to "we could do X when prime interest rates were 3%, and now they are 8% we can only afford Y"
> They were being responsible at the time.
Another strong contender for humanity's future epitaph.
Another strong contender for humanity's future epitaph.
Remember hindsight is 20/20. If capitalists were as risk-averse as some would like, we'd be stuck in the past forever
I get annoyed with comments like yours that reach for absolutisms to try and make a point. No, we wouldn't be stuck in the past "forever". We may just move more slowly into the future than you would prefer.
Given our historic inability to predict the long-term externalities of present-day technologies, I'd say a more cautious approach is warranted compared to the current YOLO strategy.
The only way the human race becomes stuck in the past forever is if it goes extinct.
Given our historic inability to predict the long-term externalities of present-day technologies, I'd say a more cautious approach is warranted compared to the current YOLO strategy.
The only way the human race becomes stuck in the past forever is if it goes extinct.
> we'd be stuck in the past forever
You say this like it's self-evident it's a bad thing, but it's not, even if I'm a middle-class white guy in 1975, let alone an Oneida in 1475.
You say this like it's self-evident it's a bad thing, but it's not, even if I'm a middle-class white guy in 1975, let alone an Oneida in 1475.
Who is "they"? Spotify executives who assumed the money printer would never run out of ink? The managers who hired and hired to expand their own empire? The software engineers who engaged in "resume driven development" by stacking abstractions on top of abstractions so they could play with cool new tech at work?
There is a lot of opportunism out there.
There is a lot of opportunism out there.
Top blame is on middle-management (100+ reports), because they set the rules-in-practice for how the organization actually operates, and second blame goes to top management (C-level), because their job is to keep the middle-management in check.
The line employees are just responding to the incentives that these two groups create, they aren't the ones steering the ship into the ground.
Any significant layoff that doesn't have a disproportionate number of people from those two groups thrown overboard is ass-covering. They are the ones who screwed up.
The line employees are just responding to the incentives that these two groups create, they aren't the ones steering the ship into the ground.
Any significant layoff that doesn't have a disproportionate number of people from those two groups thrown overboard is ass-covering. They are the ones who screwed up.
In what I've seen, this generally comes from top management, the board even in some cases. They set the agenda and approve budgets for everything the company does. Head count is a direct translation of this. In normal scenarios, head count becomes the bottleneck and limits how many things can be taken up for a given year. But during the pandemic, dollars became plenty and execs reached deeper into their wish list and triggered a hiring frenzy. Middle management rarely has a say in these matters. They only need to come up with plans that can ultimately fulfill management's agenda.
>
In what I've seen, this generally comes from top management, the board even in some cases. They set the agenda and approve budgets for everything the company does.
They do, but they are often blind, due to fog of war, of what actually happens in their firm.
Middle management controls that - by deciding on what kind of line-work (which they have visibility over) gets rewarded or prioritized. If the line engineers are spinning their wheels, doing architecture-astonaut nonsense for the sake of promotion, that's not because the CTO is rewarding it - it's because their 100-person director (who should at least vaguely know what each of their reports is doing this year) is.
They do, but they are often blind, due to fog of war, of what actually happens in their firm.
Middle management controls that - by deciding on what kind of line-work (which they have visibility over) gets rewarded or prioritized. If the line engineers are spinning their wheels, doing architecture-astonaut nonsense for the sake of promotion, that's not because the CTO is rewarding it - it's because their 100-person director (who should at least vaguely know what each of their reports is doing this year) is.
You're kinder than I am, ascribing an actual staffing problem to their layoffs. All I see and hear these days is, "We want to bump up our share prices, and it's easiest to just lay off some people."
> Innovate sure, but don't fill up your tank when gas is cheap just to do doughnuts in the parking lot.
Thats a nice ideal, but its not something that the companies are made to consider seriously. To them, cheap capital signals an opportunity to juice up their growth numbers, and expensive capital signals an opportunity to cut problematic employees from the team (and keep others on their toes).
Until there are real consequences these companies will not change.
Thats a nice ideal, but its not something that the companies are made to consider seriously. To them, cheap capital signals an opportunity to juice up their growth numbers, and expensive capital signals an opportunity to cut problematic employees from the team (and keep others on their toes).
Until there are real consequences these companies will not change.
> All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth'
In a healthy company, I would expect every employee to contribute to the bottom line, either directly or indirectly. They hired these people because they needed them to do a job, a job that somehow helps making the company money.
As such, unless there are sudden significant changes to the market and product (which as far as I can tell is not the case here), firing employees should result in lower revenues. After all, employees generate more money than they cost, that's the entire point of employees.
This leaves me with a bunch of questions when I read things like this:
1) If the company can get by without these people, what were they doing in the first place? 2) If these people did not contribute to the bottom line (directly or indirectly) what was the point in hiring them? 3) If they did contribute, why let them go?
In a healthy company, I would expect every employee to contribute to the bottom line, either directly or indirectly. They hired these people because they needed them to do a job, a job that somehow helps making the company money.
As such, unless there are sudden significant changes to the market and product (which as far as I can tell is not the case here), firing employees should result in lower revenues. After all, employees generate more money than they cost, that's the entire point of employees.
This leaves me with a bunch of questions when I read things like this:
1) If the company can get by without these people, what were they doing in the first place? 2) If these people did not contribute to the bottom line (directly or indirectly) what was the point in hiring them? 3) If they did contribute, why let them go?
I've been a spotify subscriber for over a decade. Every single update has made the windows version worse at least. They've rebuilt and redesigned it repeatedly, for whose benefit I don't know.
Obviously that is just the app side part of the whole org.
I feel the same way, and wonder if it's just product and UX teams justifying their existence?
As a paying customer I don't appreciate being a beta tester for some random UI fiddling.
Never mind that I have things forced on me like podcasts and audiobooks that I will never engage with on Spotify, and that I can't simply hide...
As a paying customer I don't appreciate being a beta tester for some random UI fiddling.
Never mind that I have things forced on me like podcasts and audiobooks that I will never engage with on Spotify, and that I can't simply hide...
The 2011 app with blatant iframes partitioning the sections of the app was peak Spotify Desktop, imo
> After all, employees generate more money than they cost, that's the entire point of employees.
That is only true for profitable business and only true _on average_ across all employees. It isn't true for each employee individually.
Some employees are a lot more valuable at generating money than others. This isn't necessarily the employee's fault.
With layoffs and restructurings the business should be trying to improve that average profitability per employee.
That is only true for profitable business and only true _on average_ across all employees. It isn't true for each employee individually.
Some employees are a lot more valuable at generating money than others. This isn't necessarily the employee's fault.
With layoffs and restructurings the business should be trying to improve that average profitability per employee.
firing employees should result in lower revenues
Why? They built the product and live off the subscription fees. The service is running, people are paying. They don't need to build anything new to keep getting paid. Does a landlord need to keep paying for the construction crew after his building is finished?
There is still no crystal ball. You take the opportunities as they are presented, especially given that your competitors are doing the same. Where exactly was your commentary on Spotify's business when times were better, urging them to leave more people without jobs?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are plenty of other lower risk companies that have way lower chances of layoffs, but they don't pay as well. Working at a company that tasks risks and has a high rate of return also has a higher chance of making the wrong bet and needing to cut you. If you want a perfectly stable job go work in the government: you'll be practically unfirable.
- someone who was layed off from a FAANG corp. I was not done a disservice, I knew what I was getting into.
- someone who was layed off from a FAANG corp. I was not done a disservice, I knew what I was getting into.
Or the public sector. Anyone who thought a money-losing company like Spotify was a safe ship to jump on board didn't think things through.
If we put ourselves back into the shoes of 2019-2020 there were people who were talking about a post-capital world because money was so cheap.
I'm not defending all the companies that hired quickly - but if you all recall it did seem like the world had changed significantly with way more use of technology. I believe the underlying bet was once everyone uses these tools people will inevitably keep using them. Coupled that with cheap money (for the past decade) and incredibly fast growth and no-one thinking that the rates were going to go up at least not in the near future.
I find it hard to act so certain and so clearsighted that companies were acting in bad faith as you seem to point to.
I'm not defending all the companies that hired quickly - but if you all recall it did seem like the world had changed significantly with way more use of technology. I believe the underlying bet was once everyone uses these tools people will inevitably keep using them. Coupled that with cheap money (for the past decade) and incredibly fast growth and no-one thinking that the rates were going to go up at least not in the near future.
I find it hard to act so certain and so clearsighted that companies were acting in bad faith as you seem to point to.
A business by definition is not a valuable and transferrable business if every single person (including the C-suite) cannot be replaced without the business collapsing.
No one is immune to this or an exception. Top to bottom.
No one is immune to this or an exception. Top to bottom.
It’s hard to know what’s “responsible” when you’re operating a business at a loss in the hopes of becoming profitable eventually and then it just keeps going for years and years without making money.
Hot take: it's a life skill to look at a company beyond the salary they offer you and get at least a basic sense of whether they are over staffed, well managed, offering a valuable service, and not in a dying industry - or at least be sure your role there is doing something high value to the critical service provided. Too many employees IME are just too comfortable with ignorance about their employer outside of their team and the other teams they work with directly.
? If you are hired by a architect and a company is downsizing, its actually a recommendation. Your software works- it needs less people for maintenance then for growth. And at a company thats stagnating and going into survival mode- your skills will not be needed except for the last ditch pivots (which will be a architectural mess).
Once more from the the top - to be let go in a software role from such a company, is a recommendation.
> "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth'...
But that's the whole point of modern day life. Any benefit we have gotten we never looked critically what was the cost. It is only at discomfort and disruption we gain this great self-awareness of the world.
They did disservice in same sense if we consider giving job in people is some service to employees.
But that's the whole point of modern day life. Any benefit we have gotten we never looked critically what was the cost. It is only at discomfort and disruption we gain this great self-awareness of the world.
They did disservice in same sense if we consider giving job in people is some service to employees.
Why, though? Investors are paying for doughnuts and smoke, and many tech companies are really in the drift racing business, not in "commute rationally" business.
The reality is, current economy has much less demand for this kind of a road show, but all their hiring was totally rational.
The reality is, current economy has much less demand for this kind of a road show, but all their hiring was totally rational.
> In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place.
These people got a high(er)? paying job during the period, have a well known company on their resume, and are being let go during a layoff such that no blame is assigned to their exit. What’s not to like?
These people got a high(er)? paying job during the period, have a well known company on their resume, and are being let go during a layoff such that no blame is assigned to their exit. What’s not to like?
If they knew that was what they were getting into, great.
On the other hand, if I hire a guy, he quits a secure job, he moves his family all the way across the country, and then 3 months later I fire him because I changed my mind about what I need? That guy is absolutely not going to thank me.
On the other hand, if I hire a guy, he quits a secure job, he moves his family all the way across the country, and then 3 months later I fire him because I changed my mind about what I need? That guy is absolutely not going to thank me.
Yes, it depends on those factors. One other factor is what would have happened at his old job. I have a friend who went from one big tech company to another was then laid off recently. There's a good chance the result would have been the same either way, since the first company cut a lot as well.
One factor that keeps people at a company is the knowledge that, all things equal, last hired is first fired. It's not hard and fast, but you tend to have fewer allies at a company you just joined, making you more susceptible. When someone decides to leave one company and join a new one, they know that they're giving up this advantage.
One factor that keeps people at a company is the knowledge that, all things equal, last hired is first fired. It's not hard and fast, but you tend to have fewer allies at a company you just joined, making you more susceptible. When someone decides to leave one company and join a new one, they know that they're giving up this advantage.
[deleted]
On the other hand, 17% of headcount had a job during that time. Which one is better?
Put a cost to unwanted behavior and make people think twice with siding with Moloch
> don't fill up your task when gas is cheap
Of course you should!
> do doughnuts in the parking lot
Of course you shouldn't!
Did Spotify do that?
Of course you should!
> do doughnuts in the parking lot
Of course you shouldn't!
Did Spotify do that?
I wholeheartedly agree. It's about time governments started signalling to employers that this sort of behaviour will not go unpunished. After all, it's the state that will have to pick up the tab for the rampant over-hiring in the form of social security and healthcare.
What should the punishment be? Fines for layoffs?
Sure. There are all kinds of things that could be done to increase their consideration of moves like this and simultaneously benefit the people affected.
E.g., rather than considering only percentages of unemployed/employed to set rates for Unemployment Insurance, they could also add a "capriciousness" factor for events like this. Or, they could also require funds be provided for continuing education for those laid off. Heck, they could also just make a basic adjustment for the inherent bias in the Unemployment Insurance rates against small biz, where a single layoff/firing has a huge negative effect on your rates, more than firing 100 people for a medium-sized company.
But of course, for the "libertarians", this is evil regulation.
E.g., rather than considering only percentages of unemployed/employed to set rates for Unemployment Insurance, they could also add a "capriciousness" factor for events like this. Or, they could also require funds be provided for continuing education for those laid off. Heck, they could also just make a basic adjustment for the inherent bias in the Unemployment Insurance rates against small biz, where a single layoff/firing has a huge negative effect on your rates, more than firing 100 people for a medium-sized company.
But of course, for the "libertarians", this is evil regulation.
Your comment was pretty good, but didn't need the weird potshot at libertarians at the end.
What your comment touched on though is how the companies already are "punished" in a way for it because it affects their unemployment insurance rates. That was established as a way to balance the needs of the company (unintended bad consequences happen to unemployment rates when you tie the hands of firing) with the needs of the people who are affected. Arguing that the balance is off seems like a much different argument than GP though.
What your comment touched on though is how the companies already are "punished" in a way for it because it affects their unemployment insurance rates. That was established as a way to balance the needs of the company (unintended bad consequences happen to unemployment rates when you tie the hands of firing) with the needs of the people who are affected. Arguing that the balance is off seems like a much different argument than GP though.
I remember comments clamoring how great Spotify was going to be because of their European roots compared to Apple (Music) a U.S. company.
I'm going to say it, this is why we need unions. Only a union can tell them "no, you're not. Maybe 5%." And then negotiate something. The only saving grace here is the generous severance package.
Post-pandemic, the trend of Corporations raking in higher and higher profits, while needing fewer and fewer staff scares me.
The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
With rise of AI and automation, that trend will likely accelerate. The top 10% hold more than 50% of wealth. It's likely in a few decades, the top 1% will hold more than 50% of the wealth. They already hold 28% of wealth.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/10/the-wealthiest-0-1-o...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UdXz
The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
With rise of AI and automation, that trend will likely accelerate. The top 10% hold more than 50% of wealth. It's likely in a few decades, the top 1% will hold more than 50% of the wealth. They already hold 28% of wealth.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/10/the-wealthiest-0-1-o...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UdXz
> Corporations raking in higher and higher profits,
To what is this claim responding? Spotify only turned a profit in 1 of the last 5 quarters. It has never turned an annual profit.
I actually think the story is quite different here. Tech companies had been hiring like drunken sailors leading up to the pandemic. They're only in the last year rationalizing down to levels that are necessary and productive. I have close friends at a few FAANGs and the stories of bureaucracy, bloat, and entitlement are mind blowing. Meta/Facebook made the right move by taking a hatchet to middle management. Let's hope the other big ones do the same before the plague spreads further.
To what is this claim responding? Spotify only turned a profit in 1 of the last 5 quarters. It has never turned an annual profit.
I actually think the story is quite different here. Tech companies had been hiring like drunken sailors leading up to the pandemic. They're only in the last year rationalizing down to levels that are necessary and productive. I have close friends at a few FAANGs and the stories of bureaucracy, bloat, and entitlement are mind blowing. Meta/Facebook made the right move by taking a hatchet to middle management. Let's hope the other big ones do the same before the plague spreads further.
> Meta/Facebook made the right move by taking a hatchet to middle management.
They are all back( layer reduction was never really done in practice). It was just a dog and pony show. Meta is hiring aggressively again and middle management is bloated than ever before.
They are all back( layer reduction was never really done in practice). It was just a dog and pony show. Meta is hiring aggressively again and middle management is bloated than ever before.
The pandemic trend at many of these companies was to aggressively overhire. If you look at headcount for many of these companies it’s still significantly above 2020 levels and even often above the old trend lines.
If you hire an unprecedented number of people in short period of time, you’re almost always going to have to cut a significant number of them later. Hiring is hard and even during good times a rapid expansion like we saw during COVID hiring is going to bring in people and departments that don’t work out.
> The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
I think this doesn’t obviously follow. Like I said, hiring trends aren’t all that distorted if you average out the recent layoffs with the excessive COVID hiring.
If you hire an unprecedented number of people in short period of time, you’re almost always going to have to cut a significant number of them later. Hiring is hard and even during good times a rapid expansion like we saw during COVID hiring is going to bring in people and departments that don’t work out.
> The most obvious and likely outcome is it drastically separates the ultra wealthy from middle class.
I think this doesn’t obviously follow. Like I said, hiring trends aren’t all that distorted if you average out the recent layoffs with the excessive COVID hiring.
Things are probably just going back to normal. Companies went on hiring binges while unprecedented cash was pumped into the economy and interest rates were historically low. Now that all that is being walked back employment levels are going back to 2019 or a bit before.
How is that different than the IMF pumping cash in 1998 into the Russia economy, only so that private companies take the profits and create oligarchs and various lords, who then emigrated to the French Riviera with women who became widows there, empoverishing the Russian land even further, as shows by the economist Joseph Stieglitz in his book Globalization and its Discontents?
Presumably it’s different because the point of the cash was to support people whose livelihoods were disrupted by the pandemic?
Are you talking about the economic crisis of 1998 in Russia or about the pandemic? Both were emergencies with lives at stake.
They’re not “taking in higher and higher profits” so much as abandoning speculative investments.
isnt this just massive overhiring due to free money during the pandemic? Not sure this is an example of needing fewer and fewer stuff. Spotify is just not profitable except barely like 1 quarter
Spotify isn’t really profitable, and their deals with the labels mean that they probably never will be IMO
Short term profits are almost completely defined by historic investment (and thus, historic staff).
How long term profits will react to those changes is entirely still to be seen. There's nothing telling you profits will get higher and higher, or that they will diminish, or anything else.
How long term profits will react to those changes is entirely still to be seen. There's nothing telling you profits will get higher and higher, or that they will diminish, or anything else.
Can't wait for the Butlerian Jihad to begin!
Flippancy aside, as others have pointed out, Spotify isn't turning a profit. Other than the tangency of blaming AI for all of our ills, this seems like a non-sequitur.
Flippancy aside, as others have pointed out, Spotify isn't turning a profit. Other than the tangency of blaming AI for all of our ills, this seems like a non-sequitur.
The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago.
It’s not perfect but a rising tide does raise all ships.
Regarding the ultra wealthy, the disparity was actually greater in the past.
All that said, you distribute wealth by reducing taxes on the poor and increasing it on wealthy. Alternatively, shifting the growth differential such that the poor grow faster than the wealthy (hard in a capitalistic economy). That said, I don’t see the wealth disparity as a problem itself; if you have the top 1% gain more wealth but it’s easier to become the top 1% or the top 1% rotates out often it’s probably better
It’s not perfect but a rising tide does raise all ships.
Regarding the ultra wealthy, the disparity was actually greater in the past.
All that said, you distribute wealth by reducing taxes on the poor and increasing it on wealthy. Alternatively, shifting the growth differential such that the poor grow faster than the wealthy (hard in a capitalistic economy). That said, I don’t see the wealth disparity as a problem itself; if you have the top 1% gain more wealth but it’s easier to become the top 1% or the top 1% rotates out often it’s probably better
> The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago.
I've yet to hear this claim from someone who has been truly poor at least once in their life. When you have to live paycheck to paycheck, and stress out every single month over the uncertainty, not knowing if you'll be able to pay the bills and have enough to eat, let me know if you feel like "the king of 300 years ago".
I've yet to hear this claim from someone who has been truly poor at least once in their life. When you have to live paycheck to paycheck, and stress out every single month over the uncertainty, not knowing if you'll be able to pay the bills and have enough to eat, let me know if you feel like "the king of 300 years ago".
People are better off in absolute terms, yes. That is incontrovertible.
What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers. And by those measures, the 'middle class' is demonstrably worse off than 50 years ago.
What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers. And by those measures, the 'middle class' is demonstrably worse off than 50 years ago.
> People are better off in absolute terms, yes. That is incontrovertible.
That people are better off now than 15–20 years ago (see OP) is absolutely not obvious.
> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers.
Uh, see the Neoliberal shift that happened some decades ago. Things got worse. The rich got richer and the rest got poorer.
This isn’t some psyche thing for crying in the sink.
That people are better off now than 15–20 years ago (see OP) is absolutely not obvious.
> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers.
Uh, see the Neoliberal shift that happened some decades ago. Things got worse. The rich got richer and the rest got poorer.
This isn’t some psyche thing for crying in the sink.
We're on the same side of the argument.
> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers
Like it or not, that's how we primates work, yes.
Of course, in aggregate that distribution never changes. If you or your group gets lower status, someone else gets higher. It's a true zero sum game. And half of us will always be below average.
Like it or not, that's how we primates work, yes.
Of course, in aggregate that distribution never changes. If you or your group gets lower status, someone else gets higher. It's a true zero sum game. And half of us will always be below average.
No this is not correct. Half of us will always be below the mean, this much is true, but we can obviously do something about the spread of the distribution.
Depends on if you think people care about their place in the social ranking, which is what I thought of, or if it is their wealth compared to the average, which is maybe your theory.
There is probably some of both, now that I think of it.
There is probably some of both, now that I think of it.
I see where you're coming from.
I think that wealth compared to the average is more important because it's so hard to place oneself in the social ranking when much of it is driven by priorities. For example where I live it wouldn't be unusual for an electrician to drive a nicer car than a doctor. On the other hand they might spend less on vacations. But as long as most people are somewhat close to the mean I think they are not so concerned about precisely where in the ranking they are. At least compared to a world where some people live like serfs while the upper middle class can afford drivers, maids and cooks.
I think that wealth compared to the average is more important because it's so hard to place oneself in the social ranking when much of it is driven by priorities. For example where I live it wouldn't be unusual for an electrician to drive a nicer car than a doctor. On the other hand they might spend less on vacations. But as long as most people are somewhat close to the mean I think they are not so concerned about precisely where in the ranking they are. At least compared to a world where some people live like serfs while the upper middle class can afford drivers, maids and cooks.
> a rising tide does raise all ships
The thing that has always bothered me about this analogy is that a sea level rise affects all ships uniformly while the magnification of wealth doesn't. It's more like everyone standing on a plain and then the centre deforms upwards, creating a peak of wealth while most people are on the (only slightly higher) foothills.
The thing that has always bothered me about this analogy is that a sea level rise affects all ships uniformly while the magnification of wealth doesn't. It's more like everyone standing on a plain and then the centre deforms upwards, creating a peak of wealth while most people are on the (only slightly higher) foothills.
Middle class 15-20 years ago was able to buy, or even finance building of their own houses. How many poor you know who do that?
Only thing that has really improved is access to cheap Made in China goods, and perhaps plane tickets. But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.
Only thing that has really improved is access to cheap Made in China goods, and perhaps plane tickets. But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.
[deleted]
> But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.
That has to do with supply restrictions with NIMBY and environmet regulatory capture by nimbies. Blame your local boomer neighbor not a billionaire.
That has to do with supply restrictions with NIMBY and environmet regulatory capture by nimbies. Blame your local boomer neighbor not a billionaire.
The poor of today (2023) are the middle class of 2003-2008? That's a hard comparison with the housing crash of 2008, but I don't think the tide has risen enough for that comparison to be accurate.
Yeah I agree, I don't think that's true overall.
Maybe in some very small senses, like many of the poor today have iPhones, which are way more capable than even the middle class phones of mid 00s. But yeah middle class in the mid 00s owned a decent house. Most of those houses haven't changed much since then.
Maybe in some very small senses, like many of the poor today have iPhones, which are way more capable than even the middle class phones of mid 00s. But yeah middle class in the mid 00s owned a decent house. Most of those houses haven't changed much since then.
"a rising tide raises all ships." What happens to the ships when the proverbial glass runneth over?
I often wonder what kind of work actually happens at Spotify. Pretty much every major change to the software or api since I started using it has made the product worse.
Breaking libspotify, pointless UI redesigns, obvious, user-facing bugs that go unfixed for years. Removing features like play queue for long periods. There's metadata errors and even audio corruption in some albums that I actually reported to them years ago, never fixed.
As for new features, there may be more but the only one I noticed somewhat recently was the ability to view lyrics at least for some songs, and sometimes but not always synced to the music. But this was already an add-on for Spotify wayyy back in their original client, and then they axed add-on support! This feature was gone for years after that.
I'm legitimately curious at this point what people actually do at Spotify besides billing and accounting.
Breaking libspotify, pointless UI redesigns, obvious, user-facing bugs that go unfixed for years. Removing features like play queue for long periods. There's metadata errors and even audio corruption in some albums that I actually reported to them years ago, never fixed.
As for new features, there may be more but the only one I noticed somewhat recently was the ability to view lyrics at least for some songs, and sometimes but not always synced to the music. But this was already an add-on for Spotify wayyy back in their original client, and then they axed add-on support! This feature was gone for years after that.
I'm legitimately curious at this point what people actually do at Spotify besides billing and accounting.
I don't work for and am not affiliated with Spotify in any way, but I can honestly say Spotify has added more value to my life than almost any other app I have downloaded. I have discovered so much music that I genuinely adore. It's honestly mind-boggling. I'm so excited to open up my Discover Weekly. I'm very grateful for the work that has gone into their curation of certain playlists and of the similarity scoring they are doing because my musical perspective has broadened tremendously since I regularly started listening to my Discover Weekly.
Again, sounds like I'm some secret corporate shill or something but I truly am just genuinely appreciative of the service.
Again, sounds like I'm some secret corporate shill or something but I truly am just genuinely appreciative of the service.
I agree with you, but these features have been around for years. music radios, discover weekly, their premade mixes. Spotify has genuinely great recommendation algorithms. But they've had them the whole time. I don't know what they've been doing for the past few years, but I haven't seen any additional value add. They still don't even support Airplay 2.
I'm in both camps: Spotify is hands down the best ROI for me in terms of where my streaming dollars go.
OTOH, it drives me crazy that customers like myself have been begging them for many years to add basic features like remembering my spot in a playlist.
OTOH, it drives me crazy that customers like myself have been begging them for many years to add basic features like remembering my spot in a playlist.
> remembering my spot in a playlist
Can you elaborate? Seriously curious how that exactly would look like.
Can you elaborate? Seriously curious how that exactly would look like.
It's the equivalent of an automatic bookmark in book reader apps. While playing songs in a playlist, there is a tiny bit of state information - primarily what song you're on. As soon as you play something else, that state is discarded. There's no way to automatically pick up where you left off.
For example, I really enjoy curated playlists, and some of them are really long. I'd love the ability to work my way through a playlist but also be able to take a break and listen to something else. Or to go to the gym and listen to other music while I'm there. Or temporarily stop and listen to a new song a friend shared. None of these scenarios work very well currently.
Spotify already stores and syncs playlist name/ID/owner/etc. All I want is for them to add 2-3 bytes of sync'd data - just store the current sort field, sort direction, and a song index. It'd be totally fine if it didn't remember playlist state if you're on shuffle play.
For example, I really enjoy curated playlists, and some of them are really long. I'd love the ability to work my way through a playlist but also be able to take a break and listen to something else. Or to go to the gym and listen to other music while I'm there. Or temporarily stop and listen to a new song a friend shared. None of these scenarios work very well currently.
Spotify already stores and syncs playlist name/ID/owner/etc. All I want is for them to add 2-3 bytes of sync'd data - just store the current sort field, sort direction, and a song index. It'd be totally fine if it didn't remember playlist state if you're on shuffle play.
Maybe a "resume" button next to the "play" button in the playlist page. Or just an option hidden in the "..." menu.
Same here. My Spotify Premium sub will is the last one I would give up (after Netflix, or Apple, or Google). I got thousands of hours per year listening (yes, including podcasts) and so do lots of other people I know.
Spotify is basically "audio" for hundreds of millions of people. Think about that: a single app that defines/owns one entire medium. Yet, they haven't been profitable, ever. That's the problem and should probably be fixed with regulation: to enable streaming, the music industry has made sure the streamers get a tiny slice of the value-add. Which leaves room for exactly one, barely surviving, pure audio streamer, and then a bunch of subsidized side-bets of the monsters (Apple, Amazon, Youtube).
Spotify is basically "audio" for hundreds of millions of people. Think about that: a single app that defines/owns one entire medium. Yet, they haven't been profitable, ever. That's the problem and should probably be fixed with regulation: to enable streaming, the music industry has made sure the streamers get a tiny slice of the value-add. Which leaves room for exactly one, barely surviving, pure audio streamer, and then a bunch of subsidized side-bets of the monsters (Apple, Amazon, Youtube).
Yeah, both are true for me. I love Spotify, and the app is getting worse. They got rid of the "make a radio from a playlist" feature, which made no sense to me - the tech is there. Instead, they're suggesting the "Enhance Playlist"/"Smart Shuffle" features, which are worse. Making radio from playlists was a major feature for me, and I really miss it. I have no idea why it's gone.
The start a jam and speaker sharing functionality is partly new and partly old. What is definitely new is that it works well now and doesn’t glitch out.
For better or for worse, Spotify has a lot of customized playlists. At some point, the “workout” playlist playlist stopped being a regular global playlist and started being one customized for individual users.
Their “keep playing more like this” functionality that takes over after the playlist ends is quite good, as is smart shuffle which will mix in tracks that “belong” in the playlist even.
Some songs will play artist uploaded music videos when you play their songs. Their “now playing” widget now shows a larger album art and background information about the band.
I don’t know what happened to the lyrics all of those years, but I’m guessing it was a licensing issue. A random add on is different from first party application support for all of your users, globally.
It’s possible you don’t use any of this and think it’s a waste of time. That’s fine. I think Spotify is seamlessly stitching in extra functionality in non-annoying ways, which I like.
For better or for worse, Spotify has a lot of customized playlists. At some point, the “workout” playlist playlist stopped being a regular global playlist and started being one customized for individual users.
Their “keep playing more like this” functionality that takes over after the playlist ends is quite good, as is smart shuffle which will mix in tracks that “belong” in the playlist even.
Some songs will play artist uploaded music videos when you play their songs. Their “now playing” widget now shows a larger album art and background information about the band.
I don’t know what happened to the lyrics all of those years, but I’m guessing it was a licensing issue. A random add on is different from first party application support for all of your users, globally.
It’s possible you don’t use any of this and think it’s a waste of time. That’s fine. I think Spotify is seamlessly stitching in extra functionality in non-annoying ways, which I like.
I think this is the issue. 10,000 employees vs bad user experience.
Spotify has gotten worse for me as well, I pay for Spotify + SiriusXM. Spotify should be much better, but it's not. I'm thinking of dropping it soon.
Why doesn't Spotify still not have a Pandora style radio station? I just want to create 5 or 10 statiosn that auto pick based on certain criteria, does this exist?
Spotify has gotten worse for me as well, I pay for Spotify + SiriusXM. Spotify should be much better, but it's not. I'm thinking of dropping it soon.
Why doesn't Spotify still not have a Pandora style radio station? I just want to create 5 or 10 statiosn that auto pick based on certain criteria, does this exist?
I'm not sure how specific you want your criteria to be, but you can create a Spotify "radio" station based off of any song, band/artist, or playlist. Spotify's discovery capabilities are miles beyond Pandora, in my opinion.
They removed the ability to create "radio" stations off of playlists, which does make discovery somewhat more difficult.
Looks like they replaced it with the "smart shuffle" feature.
Oh man, I didn't know they did that. Lame.
> Why doesn't Spotify still not have a Pandora style radio station? I just want to create 5 or 10 statiosn that auto pick based on certain criteria, does this exist?
Spotify does have this. They've had it forever. It automatically happens after listening to a song you like, or you can make a playlist and generate a radio off of it.
The recommendations are so far ahead of pandora it's like the difference between AIM chatbots and GPT-4. I use spotify but my boat friend uses pandora when we go out and I am astonished by how bad the matching on it is.
Spotify does have this. They've had it forever. It automatically happens after listening to a song you like, or you can make a playlist and generate a radio off of it.
The recommendations are so far ahead of pandora it's like the difference between AIM chatbots and GPT-4. I use spotify but my boat friend uses pandora when we go out and I am astonished by how bad the matching on it is.
In my experience the recommendations are always converging to songs I've already listened to hundreds of times.
[deleted]
This is why I went with Apple Music. Apple being a hardware company first makes it that they just want to provide a good portal to music. Thus far I have been happy with it.
Just try a different service. There's a zillion of them out there, all more or less interchangeable. Maybe one has the feature you want.
> I just want to create 5 or 10 statiosn that auto pick based on certain criteria, does this exist?
Can you describe the criteria ?
Can you describe the criteria ?
My condolences for when you try to cancel SiriusXM one day.
even though I primarily use spotify for podcasts, the radio functionality is something I've used for like.... 8 years
All the pointless redesigns was a pretty clear sign that they had excess engineering headcount.
It wasn't pointless. Spotify's whole existence depends on moving from background listening to active foreground use.
It would be pointless for them to stay an passive background app. Might as well shutdown the company and cut the losses.
It would be pointless for them to stay an passive background app. Might as well shutdown the company and cut the losses.
I saw it as a sign that they needed to find ways to get people to spend time listening to anything that is proprietary (podcasts, unique recommendation algorithms) to avoid just being the middle man for music streaming and getting squeezed by the publishers for all their revenue.
Edit: By proprietary I mean - owned by Spotify.
Edit: By proprietary I mean - owned by Spotify.
The music is propertiary. Even recordings of Mozart is unless the recording is older than an ever increasing limit of a bazillion years.
Yeah but it's not owned by Spotify, at least the most popular music isn't. I mean: they want you to listen to things they own, not things they license.
There was a meme about Spotify replacing the heart symbol to like a song with a ‘+’ sign.
No one asked for, it benefits no one, and people proactively want the old version.
I’m sure they had countless meetings for this “feature” and how much human hours. There would have been a designer, and a researcher. There would have also been a data scientist lying with statistics about how this change moved the core business metrics.
That’s from my personal experience of working in FANG and people doing unscientific and statistically invalid analysis of noise.
No one asked for, it benefits no one, and people proactively want the old version.
I’m sure they had countless meetings for this “feature” and how much human hours. There would have been a designer, and a researcher. There would have also been a data scientist lying with statistics about how this change moved the core business metrics.
That’s from my personal experience of working in FANG and people doing unscientific and statistically invalid analysis of noise.
This change reminds me of Netflix replacing their 5(?)-star rating system, with a simple thumbs up / down system.
Netflix claimed there was statistical justification for the change, but my most charitable interpretation is that their goals don't align with mine.
Netflix claimed there was statistical justification for the change, but my most charitable interpretation is that their goals don't align with mine.
I'm guessing there's a lot of work at Spotify that goes into anti-copying efforts, for one thing. If the API and clients behave the same way for an extended period, it gets too easy to have spotify downloaders that work reliably for a larger audience. (I realize these things exist and work, but it remains enough of a moving target to keep it from pissing off Spotify's label/music publishing partners too much.)
There's also maintenance for all their platforms, which expands a bit every year. When I first started using Spotify smart speakers weren't a thing yet, and the number of OSes and streaming devices have only increased since. They have to maintain updates for various releases of macOS, Windows, iOS, iPadOS, Roku, etc. No doubt they encounter plenty of bugs that need addressing on those platforms...
They also have to have people negotiating rights for all the regions / countries they do business in, deal with fraud, and all that nonsense.
And they have to keep up social and advertising to compete with all the other streaming music and podcasting platforms. They have editorial needs - maintaining the artist pages and all the incoming new music, building playlists, etc.
Assuming Spotify offers this info in the appropriate languages by country, that's probably not an insubstantial number of people to ensure that you have pages for each artist translated into Spanish, French, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, and on and on. Spotify is available in a lot of countries, if they actually offer the interface and content in half of the primary languages for those countries it's going to be a lot of work. (I doubt they attempt to translate lyrics across the board, that would be an extremely heavy lift...)
That's not to say that Spotify doesn't have some unnecessary staff, but there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes work aside from accounting and such that people don't think about.
There's also maintenance for all their platforms, which expands a bit every year. When I first started using Spotify smart speakers weren't a thing yet, and the number of OSes and streaming devices have only increased since. They have to maintain updates for various releases of macOS, Windows, iOS, iPadOS, Roku, etc. No doubt they encounter plenty of bugs that need addressing on those platforms...
They also have to have people negotiating rights for all the regions / countries they do business in, deal with fraud, and all that nonsense.
And they have to keep up social and advertising to compete with all the other streaming music and podcasting platforms. They have editorial needs - maintaining the artist pages and all the incoming new music, building playlists, etc.
Assuming Spotify offers this info in the appropriate languages by country, that's probably not an insubstantial number of people to ensure that you have pages for each artist translated into Spanish, French, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, and on and on. Spotify is available in a lot of countries, if they actually offer the interface and content in half of the primary languages for those countries it's going to be a lot of work. (I doubt they attempt to translate lyrics across the board, that would be an extremely heavy lift...)
That's not to say that Spotify doesn't have some unnecessary staff, but there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes work aside from accounting and such that people don't think about.
Spotify works on like a million different devices for one thing.
I would assume it's mostly optimisation and bug fixing. Improving their ability to read files globally, improving availability, etc.
Plus internal tools will probably be a major thing too.
Plus internal tools will probably be a major thing too.
I think it's a lot of small changes being a/b tested. Stuff that you might or might not notice/see. But if it passes the test it's there forever. I'd guess the general goal is to first get you to use spotify more but more importantly get you to listen to content they don't have to pay to license like podcasts and whatnot.
I still hate the change about the "add to playlist/like" button with all my heart. I don't want to like all the songs I add to playlists. I have a few hundred playlists with a looooot of songs (I listened to 86000 minutes last year of over 4000 artists ...). That change was utterly idiotic
I've always used that button to "like" songs and used the "Add To Playlist" item under the ellipses menu to add things to a particular playlist. What was your process like before the change, and what is it now?
Before you had two buttons. I'd like songs I really like and add the rest to specific playlists. Now I have to do the cumbersome route via the elipsis, yes. It's just way harder and I do it less. I also still like songs on accident because the button is a fucking plus and not a heart. No idea which idiot at spotify proposed that.
If you have too many UI designers, you’re going to get a lot of UI redesigns. Probably whole devs working on one button each getting laid off today and in future.
[deleted]
I hope they fired the person who came up with "smart shuffle" and thought tying the shuffle button to a successful network call was a good idea
So far the only playlist I'm using smart shuffle with is my Christmas one. I put in a bunch of the weird shit I want to hear, and it injects some mainstream stuff to keep the wife and kids happy. So it's doing a bad job matching my tastes, but I'm exploiting that as a feature.
Seriously such a buggy and undesirable feature. Smart shuffle replaced the default shuffle for me on all interfaces that didn't get updated to switch between the two shuffles, so on Android Auto, the only shuffle option was smart shuffle and I had to use my phone to switch to dumb shuffle.
Then it isn't even really smart or a shuffle. It just inserts the same 3 songs, in every playlist regardless of how well it would fit.
Then it isn't even really smart or a shuffle. It just inserts the same 3 songs, in every playlist regardless of how well it would fit.
The successful network call condition is particularly frustrating. However, I enjoy the feature on the whole.
[deleted]
This was a good layoff note. He didn't say anything gag-worthy like "I take full responsibility for this."
Most SaaS companies got a huge pandemic bump and overhired in 2021 and 2022. I think many if not most that haven't cut 20% will be cutting 20% or more in 2024.
Most SaaS companies got a huge pandemic bump and overhired in 2021 and 2022. I think many if not most that haven't cut 20% will be cutting 20% or more in 2024.
You can't fully remove the "gag-worthy" label unless they use the word "layoff". Calling it "rightsizing" or "headcount reduction" is gag-worthy.
A great gag-worthy line: "Please know we are focused on treating our impacted colleagues with the respect and compassion they deserve".
Also, if the note doesn't include the CEO stepping down (even with a transition period would be fine), then it's not a good layoff note.
A great gag-worthy line: "Please know we are focused on treating our impacted colleagues with the respect and compassion they deserve".
Also, if the note doesn't include the CEO stepping down (even with a transition period would be fine), then it's not a good layoff note.
[deleted]
I wonder how those losing their jobs feel about Spotify's reported $200 million investment in Joe Rogan now.
The Joe Rogan Experience has continued to be at the top of Spotify's podcast charts in 2023. It has the biggest weekly audience in the US (Edison Research) and is estimated to bring in 11 million listeners per episode.
It is also the top podcast worldwide on Spotify. Second place goes to Crime Junkie, which has half the listener numbers.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
It is also the top podcast worldwide on Spotify. Second place goes to Crime Junkie, which has half the listener numbers.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
At least Rogan is still one of the most popular podcasters in the world. They paid a similar ammount for Gimlet and that company is now completely defunct and all their hit podcasts either jumped ship or stopped. So that was probably a worse investment.
Many of them probably came in during the same growth wave:
> In 2020 and 2021, we took advantage of the opportunity presented by lower-cost capital and invested significantly in team expansion, content enhancement, marketing, and new verticals
There's no details here about which teams are effected. I imagine there's many old hands who see this as the inevitable end of an unnecessary conquer-the-world attempt
> In 2020 and 2021, we took advantage of the opportunity presented by lower-cost capital and invested significantly in team expansion, content enhancement, marketing, and new verticals
There's no details here about which teams are effected. I imagine there's many old hands who see this as the inevitable end of an unnecessary conquer-the-world attempt
Assuming that investing in Rogan did what Spotify hoped it would (driving enough subscriptions to make a profit), not having made the investment would have meant more layoffs now.
Opposite for me. I cancelled because of that. Partially because I didn’t like Spotify endorsing his content, but also because I subscribed to Spotify for music, not podcasts.
I wanted to see them invest more in features around music and work on better compensation for artists - not spend my subscription money on shoving podcast content at me.
I wanted to see them invest more in features around music and work on better compensation for artists - not spend my subscription money on shoving podcast content at me.
I wonder why they force podcasts so much. I've never listened to them, and I'm sure they have that data, and the recommendations are way, way off anything I'd consider listening to.
I guess they try to force it because they have higher margins on them.
Podcast are cheaper to produce and requires no record label sharing the profits with Spotify.
Podcast are cheaper to produce and requires no record label sharing the profits with Spotify.
If they produce the podcast they don't have to pay royalties + they've aimed for exclusivity with them. They aren't going to have exclusivity with most music, so podcasts are an opportunity to bring in a new audience and lock them in.
That's, AIUI, the theory. Whether it works in practice is another story.
That's, AIUI, the theory. Whether it works in practice is another story.
Probably the same reason they're pushing so hard into audiobooks right now. They want to be a general audio platform instead of a music platform and there are significant network effects if they can pull it off which ultimately means more customers and a more sticky product.
Why would you assume that?
We will find out soon enough because his contract is running out.
I feel like you’re implying something but I don’t get it.
To spell it out for you, $200 million could pay for well over 1,000 employee-years of salaries.
I get what you are saying but you would be surprised how fast financial forecasts balloon at scale.
200 developers @ $150k a year = $30M
$200M/$30M = 6.5 years
200 developers @ $150k a year = $30M
$200M/$30M = 6.5 years
It’s also not $150k/year. Employees cost far more than their salary.
Rule of thumb is double. So if you're average total comp is $150k then total cost for each of those employees is $300k/employee (office, expenses, HVAC, insurance, etc..)
I think you’re both saying the same thing. Op is saying 1 employee for 1 year is “1 employee-year”.
Companies exist to make money, not to be a charity for their employees.
So you're saying companies shouldn't do acquisitions?
The implication I see is that the $200M was not worth it.
I don't know their financials, but it seems quite unlikely that a single podcast would be worth that valuation.
I don't know their financials, but it seems quite unlikely that a single podcast would be worth that valuation.
Rogan was not making that much less on youtube. Keep in mind pre-spotify he was literally making NFL numbers for listeners+viewers per episode.
I personally think that he was better off pre-Spotify.
Surely a bit of less money, but so does less drama. And Pre-Spotify he had the power to diversify himself in other platforms as well.
I don't think he's that popular anymore.
The Joe Rogan Experience is at the top of Spotify’s U.S. podcast charts, and had the biggest weekly audience in the U.S. so far this year, and is widely estimated to bring in 11 million listeners per episode.
His show is the top podcast worldwide on Spotify each of the last three years — nearly double the second-place podcast, true crime series Crime Junkie, which has an estimated 5.9 million listeners per episode.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
His show is the top podcast worldwide on Spotify each of the last three years — nearly double the second-place podcast, true crime series Crime Junkie, which has an estimated 5.9 million listeners per episode.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
could it be that people that want to listen to his show use spotify for only listening to his show and a real podcast app to listen to regular podcasts? if i was inclined to listen to rogan that’s what i would do.
According to Google Trends, he was more popular in 2020 to early 2022 with some wild spike there, but it seems stabilised for now, at similar rates as in 2018.
Less reach with Spotify
in your bubble
People have been saying the same thing about Howard Stern and his very large Sirius contract. And yet, SiriusXM keeps re-signing him.
Speculations
It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan.
I don't get why people listen to him...
He is not funny nor smart.
It sometimes feels you get better value when watching morning tv shows...
Are “it was a stupid decision to buy him” and “I don't get why people listen to him” supposed to be related statements? The business decision isn’t about your personal feelings, it’s about his objectively measurably enormous audience
I want to see how they got the 200 million back and as they have to lay off 17% of there people it looks like a stupid decision in the end.
It's a ridiculous amount of money for that content.
But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I doubt that the 2nd-best offer was significantly less.
After all, they also paid him to NOT make any further money with the podcast on YouTube or other platforms...
But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content", I doubt that the 2nd-best offer was significantly less.
After all, they also paid him to NOT make any further money with the podcast on YouTube or other platforms...
> But looking back at those days where all platform embraced a strategy to "own ALL content",
I don’t understand how that could have ever been a strategy without buying the businesses that own most of the popular music, such as Warner, Universal, and Sony.
I don’t understand how that could have ever been a strategy without buying the businesses that own most of the popular music, such as Warner, Universal, and Sony.
Spotify is largely owned by those businesses, that was part of the deal to get them to even open their catalog
That is not true.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
Any ownership by the record labels must be less than 1%.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT/holders/
Any ownership by the record labels must be less than 1%.
[deleted]
Would you say that about any other type of media/culture/art you dislike?
"I don't get why people like the Mona Lisa, the painting is neither original nor particularly well done"
Is just as much a subjective statement. JRE is, by most released figures the top interview podcast on the planet, his interviews regularly move Charts of third party media like Book Bestseller Lists and Music Charts.
There obviously is a huge audience and value there and I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math.
"I don't get why people like the Mona Lisa, the painting is neither original nor particularly well done"
Is just as much a subjective statement. JRE is, by most released figures the top interview podcast on the planet, his interviews regularly move Charts of third party media like Book Bestseller Lists and Music Charts.
There obviously is a huge audience and value there and I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math.
> I can only assume their agreement over 200M was based on some pretty solid math.
Working at Microsoft during the Ballmer era and seeing the number of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions written-down to nothing, I would never assume corporations spend large amounts wisely.
Working at Microsoft during the Ballmer era and seeing the number of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions written-down to nothing, I would never assume corporations spend large amounts wisely.
You certainly have a point there, but I also remember being absolutely wrong about the Minecraft aquisition which has now paid for itself multiple times.
Your math doesn't have to work out, even if it's solid.
Your math doesn't have to work out, even if it's solid.
Sometimes it's the case that you do 10 investments, each $1b where one makes you $100b. But in hindsight the 9 looked stupid, but at the time you were using the same strategy to do all the 10 investments.
Not sure if it's case with Joe Rogan, but just how sometimes there's a lot of failure, while the strategy itself is solid.
Not sure if it's case with Joe Rogan, but just how sometimes there's a lot of failure, while the strategy itself is solid.
I think, sometimes, buying the competition and killing it is the intended effect. Especially if you're as anti-competitive as Microsoft.
I will never understand why that idiot was hired as a CEO in the first place.
> "I don't get why people like the Mona Lisa, the painting is neither original nor particularly well done"
And it's so small, too.
And it's so small, too.
The Mona Lisa is art, and it is a "you can like it or not" situation. A podcast that allows for spreading misinformation about vaccines can be responsible for the deaths of many
> I don't get why people listen to him...
People have different tastes. That's OK.
The Joe Rogan Experience has continued to be at the top of Spotify's podcast charts, bringing in 11m listeners an episode. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
People have different tastes. That's OK.
The Joe Rogan Experience has continued to be at the top of Spotify's podcast charts, bringing in 11m listeners an episode. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/07/03/top-pod...
It’s light entertainment and he tends to cover topics I am interested in like BJJ/Muay Thai. If he goes on about Covid etc I just half listen, it’s rarely that long.
It's simple, different people have different opinions in life and his show is still the most popular podcast on spotify. was it worth $200 million, I have my doubts on that one.
He’s a great podcaster.
Good enough to bring in $200M of revenue through subscriptions or ads?
Unless Spotify releases numbers none of us have a clue. Considering his youtube numbers before the move, that number was actually him selling himself short.
that wasnt the purpose of buying him. the purpose was to buy a gigantic audience of listeners that would hopefully now use spotify as their main podcast app
yes that's his valuation since that's what Spotify paid.
By definition he is since that is what spotify paid now.
You don’t listen to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. You listen because he has the most interesting guests on.
Joe Rogan isn't an insightful, active listener like Charlie Rose was and with actual interesting guests at a higher signal level.
And lets people spread fake news and stupid theories.
Just because they are "interesting" they should not get a free promo.
Just because they are "interesting" they should not get a free promo.
That's precisely what people like about it. Anyone can come on his show. No matter how batshit crazy. Many people don't want to be coddled and protected from viewpoints other people have decided are fake news or stupid. They can make up the balance themselves.
That's your opinion. Most guests have a wealth of knowledge that shouldn't be discounted outright.
Who defines what's "Fake"? Who defines what's stupid?
“But but misinfo!”
Man I hate where we’re at for free speech in the West.
I love it when people parrot what they heard - what misinformation? Do you mean the Robert Kennedy stuff? I can have my own strong views that the vaccines were useful and still enjoy content - if you just consume what you hear and relay it of course you shouldn't be around "fake news and stupid theories". Saying that 99% of Rogans podcasts are not like this.
>It was and still is a stupid decision to buy Joe Rogan.
>I don't get why people listen to him...
I think you just contradicted yourself here. Whether or not it was a stupid decision to buy the rights to his podcast is orthogonal to whether or not he's funny or smart or if his content gives "value" to listeners.
>I don't get why people listen to him...
I think you just contradicted yourself here. Whether or not it was a stupid decision to buy the rights to his podcast is orthogonal to whether or not he's funny or smart or if his content gives "value" to listeners.
You don't watch Joe Rogan for Joe Rogan. You watch Joe Rogan for the guests. I love his episodes with Elon Musk.
I feel neither positively nor negatively about Rogan himself (I've never listened to him) but it was plainly a very stupid investment on Spotify's part. Anyone could have predicted (and most of us did) that only a fraction of his audience would follow him behind the paywall and removing him from mainstream free outlets would instantly diminish his cultural relevance.
paywall? all you have to do is sign up for the freemium version of spotify?
‘Diminishing his cultural relevance’ may have been the goal.
Reducing his audience, censoring his most controversial past episodes and preventing certain conversations from happening in front of his large audience in future?
Reducing his audience, censoring his most controversial past episodes and preventing certain conversations from happening in front of his large audience in future?
Spotify paid $200 million… to tie a podcaster to their sinking-ship podcast platform (and this plan only works if they know and intend for their platform to sink)… just to get him from a big spotlight to a small spotlight?
It wasn't a "sinking-ship podcast platform", it was Spotify's strategy to own content and thus reduce cost for per-play licensing.
They went for the Netflix strategy for growth. We now know the podcast-idea didn't translate into as many paid subscribers as they expected, but with ~25% of all Spotify subscribers listening to podcasts [1] it's not a "sinking-ship podcast platform"
[1] https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscr...
They went for the Netflix strategy for growth. We now know the podcast-idea didn't translate into as many paid subscribers as they expected, but with ~25% of all Spotify subscribers listening to podcasts [1] it's not a "sinking-ship podcast platform"
[1] https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/spotify-podcast-subscr...
FWIW, there is rationale for platform to own content vs licensing deal that forces platform's hand to 'make unavailable' items their customers already purchased[1].
Not that I disagree with you.
[1]https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/?et_r...
Not that I disagree with you.
[1]https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/?et_r...
> It wasn't a "sinking-ship podcast platform”
I think you may have missed the context for this thread :) You’re talking about reality - I’m talking about the hypothesis that Spotify chained Joe Rogan to their platform because they wanted him to drown, which implies not only that the platform is sinking, but that it’s doing so deliberately.
I think you may have missed the context for this thread :) You’re talking about reality - I’m talking about the hypothesis that Spotify chained Joe Rogan to their platform because they wanted him to drown, which implies not only that the platform is sinking, but that it’s doing so deliberately.
it would have made more sense to create their own record label than to try to turn a free and open platform like podcasts into a closed platform like they tried with podcasts
That would be Spotify's Direct Distribution Contract, something they also established in 2018, shortly before (or in parallel with) their podcast acquisition strategy.
In the last few months, several podcasts that were only available on Spotify, have become available via traditional podcast means. For example, Heavyweight. Others did so earlier, though for specific reasons (Science Vs had a spat with Rogan over "dis/misinformation", where I largely agree with them factually, but disagree with them on the use of those terms, etc.).
I think it's fair to say there's a reasonable indication that Spotify exclusivity has been a bad bet for a decent amount of their podcast portfolio. Maybe it works still for Rogan-sized podcasts, but even that's unknown.
I wouldn't be dismissive of a label of "sinking ship", even though it's stronger than how I would put it -- it's plausible enough.
I think it's fair to say there's a reasonable indication that Spotify exclusivity has been a bad bet for a decent amount of their podcast portfolio. Maybe it works still for Rogan-sized podcasts, but even that's unknown.
I wouldn't be dismissive of a label of "sinking ship", even though it's stronger than how I would put it -- it's plausible enough.
The frame of reference is "was", so back in 2019 when Spotify negotiated with Joe Rogan
Ha, that's fair, I missed that. I wasn't optimistic about them in 2019, but sinking ship would definitely be a strong claim about that time, and my point is moot about that time.
Probably some motivated forgetfulness on my part, because I'm just so glad that their attempts to bind podcasts exclusively to their platform seem to be failing/diminishing.
Probably some motivated forgetfulness on my part, because I'm just so glad that their attempts to bind podcasts exclusively to their platform seem to be failing/diminishing.
Elon paid vastly more for Twitter, seemingly primarily as an act of activism.
In this incredibly divided world, politics has started to come before profit.
In this incredibly divided world, politics has started to come before profit.
And when they paid an additional several hundred million buying up tens of random science and tech news and D&D podcasts - was that to intentionally kill those podcasts too? Or were they just a necessary sacrifice in order to create a more believable “we want our product to succeed” fascade, so that Joe didn’t realise he was getting tricked?
As a scientist working in public health, this decision burned my faith in Spotify. They were taking down conspiracy theory podcasts daily while bankrolling Rogan to provide a platform with insane reach for cranks like Robert Malone. I cancelled my subscription for a few months in protest.
"for a few months" - so you went back. Honest question - what is Spotify doing so well that you went back rather than just sticking with, say, Apple Music?
Depth and breadth of electronic music catalogue and switching cost. Former is probably narrowing rapidly. What would you recommend? Building Apple's future streaming monopoly isn't particularly appealing. Small perhaps, but pausing a sub with explanation sends a clear signal.
I use a lot of Apple devices and I’m not picky, so Apple Music works well for me. I highly doubt Apple will get a monopoly since Google is also in this space with YouTube Music, so there’s another option for you.
A lot of the smaller players have dropped out of this space, which might be a hint as to why Spotify is leaning in to the podcasts: maybe it’s hard to be independent here with Amazon, Apple, and Google being willing to not make much money on this as they build their moats.
A lot of the smaller players have dropped out of this space, which might be a hint as to why Spotify is leaning in to the podcasts: maybe it’s hard to be independent here with Amazon, Apple, and Google being willing to not make much money on this as they build their moats.
Thanks!
I feel a lot of my faith in public health scientists was also burned.
I also lost faith in certain scientists (and many more politicians) during the pandemic. But be wary of generalising about a such a large and interdisciplinary group of people. Voices amplified by the media (indeed like Robert Malone on Rogan's podcast) often grossly misrepresent scientific consensus.
> for a few months
Heh. There's a zillion perfectly good competitors in this space. Why not just permanently switch to one that doesn't fund conspiracy theory wackos?
Heh. There's a zillion perfectly good competitors in this space. Why not just permanently switch to one that doesn't fund conspiracy theory wackos?
Not absolute, but pausing a sub with an explanation sends an immediate message. Which services would you recommend? I'm mostly after a broad and fresh electronic music catalogue.
> I cancelled my subscription for a few months in protest.
Good for you, I'm sure that made a huge impact.
Good for you, I'm sure that made a huge impact.
[deleted]
danwee(3)
Joe Rogan brings in 10s millions of listeners. On the other hand it's not clear what value those employees who were let go brought. The software behind Spotify is pretty generic. Listening experience isn't much different between say Spotify,YouTube Music and Amazon Music. Software engineers might not want to hear it, but content is more important than software used to consume it. Book vs book's cover.
> Joe Rogan brings in 10s millions of listeners
Has this ever been confirmed by Spotify?
Has this ever been confirmed by Spotify?
A more suitable comparison would be between the book contents and the paper and fonts of the text. I don't know how much you would enjoy a book on bad paper and bad, barely legible text.
Yes, but printing book legibly is a solved problem. So all books in the bookstore are legible. Books are competing on content, not legibility.
What revenue do these listeners bring?
Spotify makes money through ads for non-paying users and subscription fees from paying users. For non-paying users, time listened translates into ad impressions. New content also brings in new paid subscribers, as it makes subscription more valuable to the user allowing listening without ads.
Also, even when you pay, Rogan still has ads.
Why did this drop off the front page after a couple of mins?
Loads of people seem interested.
@dang ?
I assume because HN keeps culture wars/political discussions down in favor of technical discussions. HN is quite heavily moderated and thank god for that.
The upvote to comment ratio is off (too many comments and not enough upvotes), which is a negative signal to the HN algorithm.
[deleted]
iamsaitam(1)
atebri(1)
CartyBoston(1)
Finally.
A few days ago I received "Pay one month, get 3 months" promotion (disclaimer: Accepted). That explains the picture.
I still cannot fathom any board allowing the CEO at the helm of a public that made cuts of 17% to remain in place.
That's a huge pivot in organisational structure by any measure and shows clearly poor judgement.
That's a huge pivot in organisational structure by any measure and shows clearly poor judgement.
17%? Hah, I just got hit by layoffs at my last employer that targeted 25% of the workforce. Guess what happened to the CEO...
That's right. Nothing.
That's right. Nothing.
I have never had Spotify and would like to understand what people like about it?
Admittedly I pay for YouTube Premium which comes with YouTube Music, so I use that for music. YouTube is kind of an integral part of life I find, everybody uses it. It has so much useful content, it has educational content, product reviews, how to guides, and then of course all the entertainment content. So assuming that probably most people subscribe to YouTube Premium, why Spotify as well?
Where do people have all that time for listening to all those podcasts which Spotify buys to lurk people onto their platform? I don't even have time for Netflix, let alone listening to some podcasts. Time taken up by my work, then my hobby projects, playing sports, playing with my child and spending time with my wife, meeting friends and family on our weekends, going outdoors with the kids or just for us to do something in the real world, cooking fresh food every day, doing regular house work and so forth, where is the time left to binge watch one Netflix series after another or to listen to these podcasts?
Even when I was single and didn't have wife and child I didn't have time for these things. In fact I had even less time because I did even more sports, went clubbing, house parties, dating women, going abroad with friends, etc. was even more time consuming than having a stable family now.
This is not criticism, but genuinely asking, do people who subscribe to those services do anything else in their life or are they just transitioning from Spotify to work to Netflix to bed to Spotify to work to Netflix to bed to... ???
Admittedly I pay for YouTube Premium which comes with YouTube Music, so I use that for music. YouTube is kind of an integral part of life I find, everybody uses it. It has so much useful content, it has educational content, product reviews, how to guides, and then of course all the entertainment content. So assuming that probably most people subscribe to YouTube Premium, why Spotify as well?
Where do people have all that time for listening to all those podcasts which Spotify buys to lurk people onto their platform? I don't even have time for Netflix, let alone listening to some podcasts. Time taken up by my work, then my hobby projects, playing sports, playing with my child and spending time with my wife, meeting friends and family on our weekends, going outdoors with the kids or just for us to do something in the real world, cooking fresh food every day, doing regular house work and so forth, where is the time left to binge watch one Netflix series after another or to listen to these podcasts?
Even when I was single and didn't have wife and child I didn't have time for these things. In fact I had even less time because I did even more sports, went clubbing, house parties, dating women, going abroad with friends, etc. was even more time consuming than having a stable family now.
This is not criticism, but genuinely asking, do people who subscribe to those services do anything else in their life or are they just transitioning from Spotify to work to Netflix to bed to Spotify to work to Netflix to bed to... ???
Not Spotify, but I pay for Amazon Music. I listen music all the time, and it also works for 5 of my family members (out of which 1 listens a lot and the rest listen a little). It's cheaper than Youtube Premium and has better quality as far as I can tell.
I don't listen to podcasts, but I know people listen to them in during their commute.
In fact, I am surprised someone with kids and little free time considers Youtube an integral part of life. I watch an average of 2 videos a week, usually skipping most of them. Mostly DIY guides.
Maybe I will subscribe once my kids are in age to watch educational videos, but even then, I am pretty sure I will prefer Curiosity Stream, which I trust waaay more than Youtube for kid-friendly content.
I don't listen to podcasts, but I know people listen to them in during their commute.
In fact, I am surprised someone with kids and little free time considers Youtube an integral part of life. I watch an average of 2 videos a week, usually skipping most of them. Mostly DIY guides.
Maybe I will subscribe once my kids are in age to watch educational videos, but even then, I am pretty sure I will prefer Curiosity Stream, which I trust waaay more than Youtube for kid-friendly content.
> In fact, I am surprised someone with kids and little free time considers Youtube an integral part of life.
Nursery rhymes on YouTube Premium are a blessing. When we were trying to teach my daughter to eat solids we struggled until we played compilation videos of other babies eating really well and then my daughter started to try to copy them. This was a blessing for the first child who doesn't have an older sibling to copy from. So many other useful scenarios where YouTube really helps.
Then of course all the other content. I love watching people doing reviews of products. For example, last Black Friday we bought an Air Fryer and I wanted to know what is the practical difference between the Ninja Dual drawer and single large drawer with divider. Like I'm already sold on buying a Ninja, just need to know which model and those YouTube videos are fantastic to do this kind of research. Same thign when I bought an expensive coffee machine and the brand had 3 different models which were very similar but with minor crucial differences.
Then of course there are all the podcasts on YouTube as well. I mean if I wanted to listen to Joe Rogan there is no shortage of him on YouTube for instance.
I love that YouTube also has sooooooo much other amazing content. Only 5 days ago when I was cooking in the evening I was rewatching an entire Tennis match, one of the classics between Andy Murray and Roger Federer. It's all on YouTube in high-res. Where else do I get so much value for money? It's definitely integral to our life. YouTube has it all.
Nursery rhymes on YouTube Premium are a blessing. When we were trying to teach my daughter to eat solids we struggled until we played compilation videos of other babies eating really well and then my daughter started to try to copy them. This was a blessing for the first child who doesn't have an older sibling to copy from. So many other useful scenarios where YouTube really helps.
Then of course all the other content. I love watching people doing reviews of products. For example, last Black Friday we bought an Air Fryer and I wanted to know what is the practical difference between the Ninja Dual drawer and single large drawer with divider. Like I'm already sold on buying a Ninja, just need to know which model and those YouTube videos are fantastic to do this kind of research. Same thign when I bought an expensive coffee machine and the brand had 3 different models which were very similar but with minor crucial differences.
Then of course there are all the podcasts on YouTube as well. I mean if I wanted to listen to Joe Rogan there is no shortage of him on YouTube for instance.
I love that YouTube also has sooooooo much other amazing content. Only 5 days ago when I was cooking in the evening I was rewatching an entire Tennis match, one of the classics between Andy Murray and Roger Federer. It's all on YouTube in high-res. Where else do I get so much value for money? It's definitely integral to our life. YouTube has it all.
I probably watch more YouTube than SVOD (e.g. Netflix).
Plus the family sub for YT Premium is well worth it. But I do sub to Amazon Music not Spotify because of Alexa.
Plus the family sub for YT Premium is well worth it. But I do sub to Amazon Music not Spotify because of Alexa.
> So assuming that probably most people subscribe to YouTube Premium, why Spotify as well?
Because I don't listen to "educational content, product reviews, how to guides" all the time?
I listen to music, and at its core Spotify is still a music streaming service. And between discover weekly, dj, curated playlists, my own playlists and user-created playlists there are significantly more ways to find the music you want, and not the bullshit non-working search that Youtube has.
Because I don't listen to "educational content, product reviews, how to guides" all the time?
I listen to music, and at its core Spotify is still a music streaming service. And between discover weekly, dj, curated playlists, my own playlists and user-created playlists there are significantly more ways to find the music you want, and not the bullshit non-working search that Youtube has.
> So assuming that probably most people subscribe to YouTube Premium
Why would you assume this?
Why would you assume this?
I listen to podcasts: While doing pretty much anything in the house, while driving. Turns out that is a pretty sizeable chunk of time.
The elephant in the room: Will Spotify survive the coming wave of generative AI audio content? Wasn't any mentioning on that in the letter.
Seems to me like they would need to ditch a lot of silly investments like original content, platform engineering on Kubernetes and scaled agile which together carry costs in the range of $100s millions, to free up resources to battle new disruptive technologies.
Seems to me like they would need to ditch a lot of silly investments like original content, platform engineering on Kubernetes and scaled agile which together carry costs in the range of $100s millions, to free up resources to battle new disruptive technologies.
I would think so, people want to listen to swift and drake not some ML song with no relevance.
Tbh I would rather listen to a ML song than drake. At least the ML song would sound less robotic.
would need an example of this. drake has many (many) styles but i wouldn't describe him as robotic
It is an opinion man. They call it mumble rap for a reason.
- daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check.
- I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subpar. For example, “Well-tempered Clavier, Book 1, J.S Bach, Angela Hewitt, Prelude in C Major is too long to be in the title. Especially, the rat if the album is just a repeat alternate between prelude or fugue and the chord.
- recently play list stopped syncing between my phone and my desktop app after 2022 for some reason. Is it a bug or they just stop doing this since it costs more to sync?
I probably won’t switch to a different stream service for now as there is not much differences for me to migrate.