or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Michael Scrip

I'm not sure I follow. Spotify has investors... and they also pay the record companies for music licensing. Those are two different entities.Spotify received tons of venture capital money from investors. There were 17 VC firms who invested in Spotify.They previously got $537 million in earlier funding rounds... and they recently received an additional $350 million in funding.Those VC firms hope, someday, that Spotify will eventually make money so they will get their...
Streaming will be the future... only if these streaming services figure out how to make money. It's not that they don't know how... it's just that it's very difficult to do.Spotify brought in $1.2 billion in revenue... but they had to spend $980 million just for the music rights. And another $200 million to pay their staff... plus marketing and other costs.When it was all said and done... Spotify lost $180 million. And that was an even bigger loss than the previous...
Possibly.But I've heard VC people say that services like Spotify might never become profitable. It's just a very expensive business to be in.Spotify had €1.08bn in revenue... but they had to pay out €882m just in music licensing. And those costs are continuous... it's not something that you buy once and keep forever like a piece of equipment.Their biggest expense is the music itself.... and it's a huge expense.And even if they grow and add subscribers... their costs also...
Warner is making money... but the services that stream their songs, like Spotify, are not. Articles like these make me wonder what the future holds for streaming music in general: "Spotify financial results show struggle to make streaming music profitable - Its 15m paying subscribers helped Spotify to more than €1bn of revenues in 2014, but its losses are still growing faster than its income" Even if Spotify adds more paying customers... they will end up paying even...
...and who is ultimately hired for a voiceover job for a South Korean electronics company.
I've been using an iPad without a stylus for years. Apple designed it to work that way... agree?Now... if Apple added a stylus for drawing... that would be an extra feature... not an essential method of input.In contrast... Windows Tablet Edition pretty much required a stylus to do any sort of screen-input. And those were the tablets Steve was referring to.
Steve Jobs meant that you didn't NEED a stylus to operate the iPhone. It was designed to work with your finger as the primary input method.In contrast... other smartphones of the day depended heavily on the stylus. Just look at those tiny icons and menus:If Apple offered a stylus for the iPad Pro it would be for specific tasks like drawing... not for the primary operation of the iPad Pro.You could theoretically use the iPad Pro and never touch a stylus.But good luck using...
Apple uses a British guy for their voiceovers. But he's actually Jony Ive, Apple's Senior VP of Design, and he happens to be British. I wonder if Samsung's production company had a selection of voiceover actors with different accents to choose from. Seems like an odd coincidence that they're both using British guys... dontcha think? Well... it's not so weird for Apple... since they have a British guy working for them. But Samsung? .
It's the "Raid-1" of Presidential aircraft
You're right... most people have never seen the Jony Ive presentation videos. But Apple's success isn't from those videos.It's that Apple makes great products and lots of people buy them. (and they happen to carry high margins)So if Samsung (or Nokia, Motorola, anyone) thinks they can be successful by creating "Apple-style" videos... good luck.That is NOT the solution to their problems.
New Posts  All Forums: