If the problem is user acquisition, you don't get there with engineering improvements. Only exception is if those tech/product improvements are for increasing virality.
Yes they'll probably spend the money on marketing / PR, which makes sense since that's likely where the bottleneck (or foreseeable bottleneck given the other players in the industry) in their business is now.
Where is that massive growth supposed to come from if the app is too complicated for users older than 30 years and too bloated for devices older than 2 years?
I shuddered a bit when I read this. I worked at Audible - another successful audio media company - for four years, and you just perfectly described the dysfunctional scenario I witnessed while there. Couldn't have described it better myself.
I think Spotify is a great example of why job candidates should look before they leap when it comes to agreeing to be managed in an Agile process or made to work in an open-plan office.
Unfortunately, I agree with you that these types of situations can be good for unproductive employees who want to hide somewhere within a company that might look good on the resume.
I can't say it definitively about Spotify since I have never worked there. All I can say is that the mixture of status signalling open-plan office + needless opulence + Agile strongly suggests dysfunction.
It's further discomforting that they plan to use this money for marketing according to the article. That seems like a big gamble. It's somewhat of a signal that they fundamentally believe what they have engineered is good enough and satisfies customers, and now they just need to generate spam to get more customers.
For a company at their stage and market penetration, I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. I think Spotify might actually do better by creative innovative new engineering features and improvements, rather than just trying to lever up the number of subscribers for what will more or less be the product they have right now.