• LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          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.