497
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Fixed costs isn't the cost of having a single server with the storage. I'm thinking everything they need to have built up with the intent of having between N1 and N2 MAU, in order to make that viable.

It's the cost of developing the software stack, of hiring the lawyers and accountants that (1) acquire the music rights and (2) handle the music payouts, it's the lawyers that handle the different legal requirements across every major global economy, it's the servers located in all of those countries with as many sub-national locations as necessary, it's the IT staff that manage that server uptime, it's the software developers that maintain that system and improve upon it so rivals don't jump too far ahead... Etc.

Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Here's a good estimate on their hosting, streaming and licensing costs

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/oct/08/spotify-internet

They tack it down to about 6 million a month that is of course excluding lawyers and other salaries.

[-] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Interesting. That's dated October of 2009 and says Spotify had 5m users. Looks like they have ~200m users today. At a linear scaling it'd be twenty times larger, or £120m=$154m per month. That's $1.85b/year.

In reality it wouldn't scale linearly, but it also accounts for zero salaries, which was the major component of my comment.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Look I appreciate the downvotes and all, but didn't you just say that fixed costs don't go up and down with users?

[-] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(1) I didn't downvote you.
(2) I said something similar but critically different:

Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).

The intended size of the platform dictates the fixed costs.

And...
(3) The data you provided wasn't fixed costs. It was variable costs like server time, music rights, and bandwidth.

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
497 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

59710 readers
2068 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS