7 ms·

Ideally I (and I'd assume other commenters) would have preferred to see bandcamp remain independent. It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or pr

Ideally I (and I'd assume other commenters) would have preferred to see bandcamp remain independent. It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships. Bandcamp was an effective way of paying small independent musicians with a good overall website which should have given bandcamp a reliable revenue source. Acquisition likely means the website will get worse, artists will be driven of onto other platforms (i.e. harder to discover ones), and if there's alternative financial incentives then small artists will likely end up making less (e.g. track streaming revenue). I'd be disappointed if apple had made the purchase, though it would be less out of left field.

HellDunkel 5y ago
I too would have prefered seeing bandcamp stay independent but they were a privately owned company so that would have required a huge amount of idealism (which eventually wanes) or ambitions to compete with spotify. You can‘t always get what you want.
- fundamental 5y ago
  Personally I don't buy that line of argument. The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market.
  - kevincrane 5y ago
    Hard agree, I really hate the trend of businesses having to have "an exit", be it IPO or get swallowed by one of like 6 behemoth companies. I love a good "we know who we are and are happy being it" success story which I thought Bandcamp was.
  - HellDunkel 5y ago
    Dont get me wrong, I am not happy at all about this silicon valley „winner takes it all“ mindset. Let me explain how i see things. Bandcamp is for djs and indepenent music lovers. Although djing has managed to evaded streaming so far, it is almost inevitable to come. I am sure the folks at bandcamp were very clear about that and were looking to find a way to deal with the situation.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    > The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market. That's been the state of tech ever since Web 2.0 or so.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      Bandcamp is almost as old as Web 2.0. That's why people are so confused about this. Why does a profitable 15-year-old company need to sell? They didn't say in the post, so all we can do is be frustrated.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    It kind of is now (and I hate it). If you don't sell, it's likely the large companies trying to buy you will copy you and use their piles of money to undercut you out of business (and if they don't, any VC backed startup can try). So you either survive as small and unnoticed, or become big enough to be interesting (and then bought or killed unless you achieve absurd growth). Tech is kind of a dark forest now (https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-what-the-dark-forest-theory-is-and-why-its-so-terrifying/ https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-...). I've worked for 2 companies that didn't sell and were obliterated this way.
- lghh 5y ago
  Why did they have to compete with spotify? They are not a music streaming service (at their core) or a podcast publisher.
  - HellDunkel 5y ago
    Because streaming makes more sense and provides far better metrics for artist compensation.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      Except for those that, you know, prefer to own music. Their actual core audience.
      - HellDunkel 5y ago
        Can you really own music? See i have been collecting vinyl for 20 years and know about the pleasure it can provide. But with digital files scarcity, age, smell, looks, condition no longer matter. There is nothing left to „own“. The only thing you own is your hard disk.
        selfhoster11 5y ago
        I don't care about the tactile aspect of a particular album (as opposed to the "feel"/"UX" of a particular format in general, which I do find fun) or piece of media. I care about one thing, and one thing only: an irrevocable right to experience a particular piece of media where and when I please in the original form it was released, subject to natural degradation of the physical medium. Now that music is digital, I expect the "when" to be "at any point in my life, starting from when I purchased it", and the "where" to be "any device with the ability to play music". Streaming is essentially asking for permission to re-experience a piece of media every time I want to do so, and Spotify's and YouTube's answer is often "no". My music library is simply a necessary evil that facilitates security against their whims.
    - heleninboodler 5y ago
throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
> It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships Is "good enough" compatible with "capitalism"? Even ignoring the money aspect of things; you mention the website getting worse but I'm not sure the website has fundamentally changed (for better or worse) in a decade. Their iOS app isn't even compatible with ipads, it's locked to a phone aspect ratio with massive black bars surrounding it. Yet one could make the argument that things were "good enough" tech wise. Bandcamp (in my opinion) was a product/company that was good enough. But there's doesn't seem to be societal incentives to keep companies like that around in today's world... or maybe you just don't hear about them lol

HellDunkel 5y ago

I too would have prefered seeing bandcamp stay independent but they were a privately owned company so that would have required a huge amount of idealism (which eventually wanes) or ambitions to compete with spotify. You can‘t always get what you want.

fundamental 5y ago
Personally I don't buy that line of argument. The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market.
- kevincrane 5y ago
  Hard agree, I really hate the trend of businesses having to have "an exit", be it IPO or get swallowed by one of like 6 behemoth companies. I love a good "we know who we are and are happy being it" success story which I thought Bandcamp was.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  Dont get me wrong, I am not happy at all about this silicon valley „winner takes it all“ mindset. Let me explain how i see things. Bandcamp is for djs and indepenent music lovers. Although djing has managed to evaded streaming so far, it is almost inevitable to come. I am sure the folks at bandcamp were very clear about that and were looking to find a way to deal with the situation.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  > The endgame for a business is not a binary choice between acquisition or taking over the entire market. That's been the state of tech ever since Web 2.0 or so.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    Bandcamp is almost as old as Web 2.0. That's why people are so confused about this. Why does a profitable 15-year-old company need to sell? They didn't say in the post, so all we can do is be frustrated.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  It kind of is now (and I hate it). If you don't sell, it's likely the large companies trying to buy you will copy you and use their piles of money to undercut you out of business (and if they don't, any VC backed startup can try). So you either survive as small and unnoticed, or become big enough to be interesting (and then bought or killed unless you achieve absurd growth). Tech is kind of a dark forest now (https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-what-the-dark-forest-theory-is-and-why-its-so-terrifying/ https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2021/02/heres-...). I've worked for 2 companies that didn't sell and were obliterated this way.
lghh 5y ago
Why did they have to compete with spotify? They are not a music streaming service (at their core) or a podcast publisher.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  Because streaming makes more sense and provides far better metrics for artist compensation.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Except for those that, you know, prefer to own music. Their actual core audience.
    - HellDunkel 5y ago
      Can you really own music? See i have been collecting vinyl for 20 years and know about the pleasure it can provide. But with digital files scarcity, age, smell, looks, condition no longer matter. There is nothing left to „own“. The only thing you own is your hard disk.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        I don't care about the tactile aspect of a particular album (as opposed to the "feel"/"UX" of a particular format in general, which I do find fun) or piece of media. I care about one thing, and one thing only: an irrevocable right to experience a particular piece of media where and when I please in the original form it was released, subject to natural degradation of the physical medium. Now that music is digital, I expect the "when" to be "at any point in my life, starting from when I purchased it", and the "where" to be "any device with the ability to play music". Streaming is essentially asking for permission to re-experience a piece of media every time I want to do so, and Spotify's and YouTube's answer is often "no". My music library is simply a necessary evil that facilitates security against their whims.
  - heleninboodler 5y ago

throw_nbvc1234 5y ago

> It's not like there's a huge need to scale up quickly or provide large partnerships Is "good enough" compatible with "capitalism"? Even ignoring the money aspect of things; you mention the website getting worse but I'm not sure the website has fundamentally changed (for better or worse) in a decade. Their iOS app isn't even compatible with ipads, it's locked to a phone aspect ratio with massive black bars surrounding it. Yet one could make the argument that things were "good enough" tech wise. Bandcamp (in my opinion) was a product/company that was good enough. But there's doesn't seem to be societal incentives to keep companies like that around in today's world... or maybe you just don't hear about them lol