An update on my previous post on Ownership vs. Streaming. I focused on the services Spotify is set to bring to the North American market in the near future. In the comments Brooke posted the following question:
Wouldn’t Lala be a similar music rental service? I’m unfamiliar with exactly how the boundaries are set, but I recently joined and it seems very similar.
Since I was only familiar with Lala.com on the surface I had to do a little research. There does seem to be some basic overlap, but there are some distinct differences. I asked Lala CEO Bill Nguyen where he thought Lala differed from Spotify and he commented as follows:
We’ve heard good things about Spotify and from what I’ve experienced with the app it’s really compelling. However, our value proposition is different. We’re very opposed to both advertising and client software. They both hinder the consumer experience and limit the social aspects of music. We view the Web as another platform that can further ownership.
The main difference seems to lie in the client software vs. operating in the browser. The advertising vs. no advertising element is significant as well, but for a relatively small fee you can remove any advertising from Spotify. I am curious to see if customers in large will prefer to work out of a client, such as iTunes, or straight from the web. Personally I lean towards the web-based approach, for simplicity’s sake. Thoughts?
Additional reading
- WSJ on Lala: Listen to Music Free, but Pay to Carry.
- WSJ on Spotify: Spotify’s IPhone App Tests Apple Ear For ITunes
Pingback: Lessons Learned: Ownership vs. Streaming Pt. 3