I mean fucking over people is bad but surely fucking over musicians is a lot less evil than Nestlé willingly murdering habies and draining wells for profit, no?
Yarrr. I’ve not taken part myself, but I hear there be extremely affordable ways to obtain digital files in this age.
Spotify is a last gross gasp of the dying music industrial complex, before direct payments for early access, directly to artists, becomes the primary form of music sales.
Don’t think that will happen so smoothly. People will go where it is easiest to one stop shop. I’m not jumping to multiple artists pages or different delivery services/shops when it’s all available at once, together, curated, with algorithmic lists and suggestions for new content. Sorry man the more I realize what Spotify and yt music offer the funnier the suggestions people would go straight to artists. Artists can’t offer all that.
I’m all for paying for a discovery algorithm, and Spotify has a good one. But as Google found out, staying the top player in a discovery space is hard.
A serious risk that Spotify faces is that new federated social networks are popping up, with great support for finding new artists.
Without the Discovery portion of Spotify, and with the constant pressure by record labels to enshittify the service, I don’t see a long runway ahead for Spotify.
The new default is going to be piracy, again. (The old default was piracy, before streaming got good.) The paid option will be patronage. Then we will see massive amounts of bundling in the patronage services, as they re-discover that people are willing to pay for a discovery service.
If the record labels even still exist at that point, they will pressure the bundled patronage services to enshittify, and the dance will start over at piracy.
For anyone on the selling side who wants to skip a step or win for awhile, here’s the lesson: You can’t sell digital files. You never could - not from day one. You can only sell easy access and discovery.
Digital files are the ulitmate perfectly elastic good, and the consumer community will swing back and forth into piracy or paying, based on how well they are treated as customers.
Name a single boycott that ever managed to take down an international corporation that didn’t end up making them more famous then they where before that. Being “boycotted” is even a marketing tool companies like nike have used before.
Did you think this through or did you just want to be contrarian for no actual reason?
I think what you’re getting at is that the publicity generated by flashy boycott activism only generates free advertising for the companies. Which it certainly can! But that’s also dependent on what is being boycotted and the social and political beliefs behind it. If one group boycotts a product because the company is homophobic, another group buys more of that product because they agree with the company. That sort of thing.
But it isn’t as two dimensional as “boycotting has the opposite effect”. Here are some examples of effective boycotting. Though you did get me interested in how effective boycotting really is, but I couldn’t find any efficacy studies that weren’t behind a paywall…
We both know that you actually don’t think it’s that simple. You just wanted to be contrarian.
I’m actually so correct in what I said that getting targeted with hate campaigns is something companies try to do. As I told another one of you NPCs before, Nike did that exact thing. They intentionally did something that upset a target demographic, those people burned nike products and tried to “boycott” them and it ended up making their sales go up because everyone was talking about them now.
This is such a well known thing that I’m surprised you people got mad at me for saying it. Redditors will get mad at everything for no reason I guess.
They intentionally did something that upset a target demographic, those people burned nike products and tried to “boycott” them and it ended up making their sales go up because everyone was talking about them now.
I bet if you were specific, it was something about supporting a progressive cause that most people support and rightwingers got mad and “protested” by buying Nike products to destroy…
Just because rightwing extremists are the minority and don’t understand how boycotts work, doesn’t mean boycotts don’t work.
It only enables us to. It doesn’t authorize us to. The idea is we should only use the power when the authority we’d otherwise seek is completely illegitimate.
Stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, not officially but I like to think it is. It’s a corporation built around a database engine.
They have a well deserved terrible reputation based on their commercial practices, including but not exhaustive, shipping full fledged software with functionality locked behind paywalls, buying and demolishing established open source companies/projects, suing the shit out of their customers for license violation (see above), price gouging their customers who often have no other choice than to run their products.
The engine itself is nice and reliable but the business practices of Oracle drives a lot of companies to settle for the competition, at least, those who can afford to leave.
Oracle hires more lawyers than they do developers then they do things like “oh? You’re using this product in the cloud with the license you purchased? But you didn’t purchase the cloud license”
They also buy technology and proceed to violate whatever license it has, like ZFS.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the 224 (so far) comments… but another bad guy worth hating is
Hewlett Packard.
Their
“Hey, you need to have our proprietary ink cartrige in your HP inkjet printer plus scanner to print AND to scan as well. The scanner won’t work when you are out of ink”
Add comment