Soundcloud Lays Off 40% of Its Employees - The End May Be Near

[Jerjo]

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/12/soundshroud/

Basically they've bought enough time for just another quarter. So what happens to all the music if they shudder their doors?

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/s...the-music.html

I haven't any answers. But I do find this disconcerting. I wouldn't mourn the death of Spotify but to lose a service like Soundcloud or worse yet, Bandcamp, hurts a lot of great artists just trying to make a buck and get their music heard.

[rcarlberg]

A lot of internet startups -- well more in the Dot Com bubble 1997-2001 than now -- were based on faulty business plans, with no good plan to monetize their popularity. SoundCloud, founded in 2007, should've known better.

There are other major names out there who are similarly surviving on the good graces of venture capitalists.

[JKL2000]

If Bandcamp goes under there should be a class-action lawsuit. I paid a lot for unlimited streaming of all those releases via their app.

[Rarebird]

I've seen several services, where I've put my music coming up and disapearing, like MySpace, Soundclick and several other. Currently I use Bandcamp and I have some demo-work on Soundcloud. The attractive thing is the possibility to post comments, though I have to say, that never happens with me.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Gosh....I haven't updated my Soundcloud page in months (years??)...that should tell ya something.

[Taped Rugs]

If your interests are in sharing your music rather than in selling it, archive.org has been hosting online music (and everything else digital) since the early 1990's. It's non-profit, no advertising, no bullshut. It's like the online Library Of Congress. You can include as many album notes, album art, etc. on every post. There's no limits to file sizes, quantity of files per post. No contracts for $$$. I have posted nearly 300 albums online there.

Here's one of mine for the sake of example... (you might even enjoy the music...)

Shifted By Prevailing Whim

[progmatist]

^^ I'm sure the sucky music I posted 15-20 years ago on sites like IUMA and MP3.com can still be found on archive.org. For me, not really worth remembering.

[Dan Roth]

If your interests are in sharing your music rather than in selling it, archive.org has been hosting online music (and everything else digital) since the early 1990's...I have posted nearly 300 albums online there.

You have recorded nearly 300 albums?

[Mister Triscuits]

You have recorded nearly 300 albums?

Klaus Schulze, is that you?

[Koreabruce]

The music that he linked to (Shifted by Prevailing Whim) was actually pretty interesting.

[JKL2000]

The music that he linked to (Shifted by Prevailing Whim) was actually pretty interesting.

Good, because there are 300 albums of it!

It IS pretty interesting.

[battema]

Might be relevant:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...tors-24-hours/

[helicase]

Might be relevant:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...tors-24-hours/

To follow up on this:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...y-funding-ceo/

[JKL2000]

Those companies that spend like crazy but hardly bring in any profits are crazy. Usually. I guess Amazon was like that at first, but at least their business model was based around selling something. Does Soundcloud charge for anything? I think you can buy music from it, but I don't think I ever have.

When Marillion were working on FEAR they each stored lots of the bits they'd recorded on Soundcloud just for personal listening and deciding what they liked. Pete Trewavas apparently had a ton on musical bits on their, it'd suck if the company went under with no notice at the wrong time!

[Guitarplyrjvb]

They charge artists for hosting fees when their storage time is exceeded. It's basically cheaper than making CD's and more efficient distribution. I imagine they also take a cut when songs are sold for a profit. There's also a premium service that they offer to users, but I never bothered to check it out.

[rcarlberg]

Those companies that spend like crazy but hardly bring in any profits are crazy.

Leading up the vote, CEO Alex Ljung was urging former investors to vote ‘yes’. They did that — but they also voted ‘no’ on Ljung.

Accordingly, Ljung is being slotted into a ‘Chairman of the Board’ role. Sounds like a soft transition out of power, which raises a range of additional questions. At this stage, it’s unclear if Ljung will play an active role in the future direction of the company.

Either way, Ljung is playing along, while heralding the successful round and a bright future. But many point to Ljung as the culprit.

Indeed, as SoundCloud burned, Ljung has been blasted for wasting money and partying like a rock star. That included lavish offices, outrageous perks and scant strategies for monetization. Meanwhile, more focused companies like Spotify, YouTube, and Apple have been eating SoundCloud’s lunch.

..

[progmatist]

Does Soundcloud charge for anything? I think you can buy music from it, but I don't think I ever have.

They charge artists $7 a month for a premium account. What artists get in return is more server space for more music, and less advertising on their page, compared to a free standard account. Soundcloud used to charge far more for premium accounts, but drastically reduced the price because hardly anyone was buying them.

The business model of sites like Soundcloud used to be even worse than it is now. Sites like IUMA, Ampcast and MP3.com used to pay artists for every download, at a rate more generous than current streaming sites like Spotify and Pandora. Needless to say, most of the Soundcloud forerunners went out of business.

[JKL2000]

..

Yeah, those paragraphs are what inspired my post.