by 1718627440 | 2025-11-17 12:53:41+00:00
> There are only 9 car models as of 2024 that ship with CD players and not even all trims of all of those models come with a CD player

And how many people have a car from 2024? That's only relevant for the music market in 20 years, not for now. Also even car dealers now tell you, that you shouldn't buy a new car, because those are shit.

> That has nothing to do with the laws the EU is passing and none of the remedies say anything about it Google Analytics or ads on third party sites.

Google is considered a gatekeeper, because it is the default in browsers and OS, it controls an OS and also controls the UA and ad-market. Apple is a gatekeeper, because they sell a general-purpose device, for which you can only release programs when you ask Apple to allow it.

Spotify does neither of those. It is entirely possible to use another music player and it doesn't market itself as a general-purpose music player, but for access to a music library. When it would have deals with (popular) music players to only allow access to Spotify, or comes pre-installed with the OS, then it could be considered a gatekeeper, but it does none of these things.

> Well two issues, selling CDs at concerts is a horrible method for mass distribution and CD sales are plummeting.

You will of course only reach people that went to the concert, but that is unrelated to the distribution media. But the set of people who pay for listening to you, and the amount of people who pay you for music, so that they can listen to it, has some overlap. The idea that CDs are unsuitable for a mass market has been disproven in practice.

Selling non-physical music is still an unsolved problem and will always be, in my opinion. You essentially have three options:

- Stop selling music, but instead sell subscriptions to music-as-a-service. That's what Amazon, Netflix, Youtube and Spotify are doing. This seems to only come with user-hostile tracking and also is user-unfriendly since you can't replay the music. The UX is worse, since these players typically have a worse interface for skipping, forwarding, playing the music at different speed, categorizing music, etc. . It also needs changes to the legal system, to make replaying already downloaded assets illegal and comes with a built-in cap in price, since at some point the users resort to pirating the music. It only works for music where the piece itself is somehow novel and not available as music to be bought. Why should I use your MaaS to listen to music, when I can also buy the recording from 50 years ago? This also only seems to be a viable business plan for the rent-seeking middle man. It is neither a favorable option for the musician nor for the listener.

- Release the media in a format that can only be played in a special player (DRM). This counts on the user willing to essentially install malware. Also it comes with the same drawbacks to the user as MaaS, unless he again chooses to download the music from some alternative source or modifies the files to be playable without DRM. It also counts on the user to buy hardware that prevents him from doing things he want. It also clashes with the legal concept of ownership. That approach seems to have went extinct, since MaaS allows for more rent extraction.

- Screw it and distribute physical media. For this option CDs seem to be the best option. Bluerays are to expensive and have two much storage for music, USB sticks have a worse form factor. Nobody uses cartridges anymore. Vinyl is an option, but not really doable at home by the musician and also not as mainstream as CDs. microSD cards might be a competition and are in some places, but they are a bit too tiny, to be comfortable to be passed around and try to print a booklet for a microSD card.

The first two options are unethical and partially illegal, the first comes with serious risks for the musician and doesn't seem to be profitable. Both make the musician subject to vendor lock-in and are not possible to do at home by the musician himself. That only leaves the third option.

If you have another novel approach, you could get rich, but I don't think this exists, since the whole point of digital media is that data is trivially copyable.

From your article:

> In the U.S., a Consumer Reports survey found that 45% of adults still use CDs, while only 21% use vinyl.

45% of adults sounds like a viable market maximum to me.

> It might sound strange, but part of the reason CD sales crashed this year is because Taylor Swift didn’t release anything new.

> In Q2 2024, Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department sold 180,236 physical copies in just its first week. That included 109,392 CDs and 66,388 vinyl albums.

> So, her release didn’t just top the charts. It also lifted the entire quarter’s physical sales.

> In fact, that one week of vinyl sales alone was bigger than the entire vinyl sales drop in Q2 2025, which fell by 43,979 units compared to the year before.

So CD sales in the UK without Taylor Swift actually increased since the last year?

> In the UK, streaming growth dropped to 6.4% in the first half of 2025. That’s down from 11% at the same point last year. Vinyl, which has been the bright spot in physical media for years, is slowing too. Its growth rate fell to 6% so far this year, compared to 12.4% in 2024.

So the issue is not the media format?

> During the past year I’ve been to a dozen concerts. Most of them classic Hip Hop artist, two classic R and B, and two pop - Maroon 5 and Justin Timberlake. I’ve also gone to a see a punk rock band where my friend is the lead singer. They sell merch but definitely not CDs

Maybe it is a bias by music genre. I went to things played in a concert hall: old classical music, new classical music, Jazz, film music, etc., to newly composed music on modern medieval-like instruments and to a-capella concerts of music from various centuries from various choirs, some of which I used to or still participate. All of them sell CDs and Spotify would be considered unprofessional and cheap. I also don't see why any of those should give a lot of money to a shady rich company taking only cents, when they could have that money for themself. For me as a buyer it's the same. Why should I give money to some unrelated middle-man, instead of those, whose music I enjoy?

Also I can have listened to music for years and still discover new aspects. I don't see what MaaS gives to me as a user. 30 CDs contain >30 hours of music, spreading a variety of genres and pieces, enough for decades. At an expensive price of 10€/CD, that's 300€. A decade of Spotify is 11€/month[1] * 12month/year * 10years = 1320€. So a very expensive CD per month or more like a reasonable priced CD every week, meaning 12 minutes[2] of never heard music per day when buying music instead. It just sounds expensive, because of a rent-seeking middle-man.

[1] https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/spotify-rai...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio#Sto...