|
RIP Soundcloud? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
Mixcloud is a piece of compare to soundcloud. You can't backtrack due to territory restrictions (WTF?), no download option, no tracklist and crappy pauses. It's like soundcloud but with all the good features stripped away lol.
Instead you should all be jumping on to https://hearthis.at/
It's a scoundlcoud clone with all the good added (free account is basically a premium SC account).
They're growing at an incredible rate and it's a much better platform.
you're welcome :gsmile: |
|
|
| dj christian |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdevito
Soundcloud is also a pretty good place to discover new music. |
What's your alternative wiseguy? |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
You mean you're downloading tracks that are stream-only or... ? |
Oldschool TA! haha |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
Oldschool TA! haha |
I... don't really know what that means.
It's just that the SC streams are encoded to a lower quality, so downloading them isn't a very good idea. |
|
|
| Johan (DJ Irish) |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Mixcloud is a piece of compare to soundcloud. You can't backtrack due to territory restrictions (WTF?), no download option, no tracklist and crappy pauses. It's like soundcloud but with all the good features stripped away lol.
Instead you should all be jumping on to https://hearthis.at/
It's a scoundlcoud clone with all the good added (free account is basically a premium SC account).
They're growing at an incredible rate and it's a much better platform.
you're welcome :gsmile: |
and will have the exact same problem as soundcloud once it gets big enough but without any financial backing. At which time it will probably shut down or get sued out of existence |
|
|
| Godking5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
You mean you're downloading tracks that are stream-only or... ? |
Its more of a last resort if i cant find the song anywhere else |
|
|
| Godking5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Johan (DJ Irish)
To be fair non of the On-Demand streaming services has ever been profitable. That goes for Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, Tidal and all the rest of the pack. Not sure about Mixcloud though. They all rely on venture money and have to raise new funds on a yearly basis. Spotify is trying to raise a quaint 500 Million USD for 2016
Even YouTube is suspected to still not be profitable despite it's giant user base and low payout to rights holders(Spotify pays 70% of revenue while YouTube is estimated to pay out only 45%)
What has been the main problem for Soundcloud is not how it has tried to monetize (even though that can be argued to be part of it). The main problem is that didn't bother to secure the proper rights until late in the game scaring away risk adverse investors and at the same getting law suits from left to right.
YouTube can be said to be a more extreme version of that type of strategy but because of its size and the backing of Google it hasn't experienced any proper threats to it's existence. |
I was actually reading a book by Peter Thiel and he briefly mentioned how these streaming services stay afloat based off continual capital infusions based off future projected revenues. Im not as familiar with the situation as you seem to be. What were the big lawsuits against soundcloud? |
|
|
| Johan (DJ Irish) |
| quote: | Originally posted by Godking5
I was actually reading a book by Peter Thiel and he briefly mentioned how these streaming services stay afloat based off continual capital infusions based off future projected revenues. Im not as familiar with the situation as you seem to be. What were the big lawsuits against soundcloud? |
That sounds about right from Thiel. Capital infusion which the investors hope to make a profit from when the company goes public with an IPO.
Soundcloud got sued by PRS for Music last year (They represent the rights of around 115,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers in the UK) but they settled in December.
And last summer Universal Music Group and Sony Music both threatened with law suits but they soon found an agreement.
These settlements and agreements are costly and is part of why it's difficult for SC to become profitable. They need some new revenue streams and many think that their proposed subscription service is their only chance. But it has yet to materialize.
All this noise about SC and YouTube have made industry analysts point out that the time when a music service can launch and worry about the license stuff later might be over. The Music Industry is more vigilant and less inclined to accept passed transgressions for the sake of building a user base. |
|
|
| Godking5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Johan (DJ Irish)
That sounds about right from Thiel. Capital infusion which the investors hope to make a profit from when the company goes public with an IPO.
These settlements and agreements are costly and is part of why it's difficult for SC to become profitable. They need some new revenue streams and many think that their proposed subscription service is their only chance. But it has yet to materialize.
All this noise about SC and YouTube have made industry analysts point out that the time when a music service can launch and worry about the license stuff later might be over. The Music Industry is more vigilant and less inclined to accept passed transgressions for the sake of building a user base. |
Monetization for them will be difficult, especially this late in the game. Streaming services enjoy the luxury of "high multi homing costs" and "user stored investment" . Its the type of platform in which when you choose 1 and start building up your library of essentially "rented choons" , your committed. However platforms can have low multi homing costs as well, for example ride sharing services like lyft and uber. Theres no "non monetary or monetary" cost associated with using multiple rise sharing services on your phone; especially since its pay as you go.
The only way I see soundcloud moentizing is to "pivot" to some smaller niche market, kinda similar to how mixcloud pivoted to its niche market. I dont SC being successful any other way. In terms of dance music, there are still alot of ineffeciencies with the larger streaming services. Only perhaps a 1/3 of my search queries in apple music return anything, their dance music selection is piss poor.
In what ways do you predict soundcloud could monetize with a subscription service or some other type of way? |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Godking5
The problem is that with the "earning potential" of tech companies (Uber and Gilt are prime examples), they aren't run in the way a business should run. They spend like they're a successful company from day one (expensive staff, offices, expense accounts etc) even though they've made little to no money and just endlessly rely on finance hoping at some distant point in the future they can pivot it in to a big enough solvent business model to pay off the investors. It's bonkers.
Some of these companies are basically giant Ponzi schemes - they rely on later investment to pay off the earlier investors. I know a guy who has made millions of investing in startups that to this day have never made a penny, but because they keep getting investments his shares become worth more and more so he keeps chipping away at them and make a ton.
|
|
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Godking5
I was actually reading a book by Peter Thiel and he briefly mentioned how these streaming services stay afloat based off continual capital infusions based off future projected revenues. Im not as familiar with the situation as you seem to be. What were the big lawsuits against soundcloud? |
I posted this up a month ago when the first losses forSC were released:
| quote: | Originally posted by RANN
The problem is that with the "earning potential" of tech companies (Uber and Gilt are prime examples), they aren't run in the way a business should run. They spend like they're a successful company from day one (expensive staff, offices, expense accounts etc) even though they've made little to no money and just endlessly rely on finance hoping at some distant point in the future they can pivot it in to a big enough solvent business model to pay off the investors. It's bonkers.
Some of these companies are basically giant Ponzi schemes - they rely on later investment to pay off the earlier investors. I know a guy who has made millions of investing in startups that to this day have never made a penny, but because they keep getting investments his shares become worth more and more so he keeps chipping away at them and make a ton.
|
|
|
|
| Godking5 |
| wasnt old enough for the tech bubble burst of the 90s ....but would you say this is something similar. Seems like it. I remember a prominent guy in Silicon Valley named Andrew Chen writing about this exact scenario not too long ago |
|
|
|
|
