Exactly, things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them and for a lot of people music is relatively low in the pecking order. I pay for spotify but would leave it they raise the prices.

> People aren’t going to pay more so it is in fact not worth more.

Source?

Spotify is a for-profit company and if they could raise prices without losing customers they would.

Supposedly. They have never made a profit.

Heck even if they did raise prices, the record labels will always get 70% of thier revenue.

*They were profitable last quarter.

They’ve never made an annual profit.

Spotify is reluctant to raise prices because it is still focused on growth and also, raising prices doesn’t really improve its margins (it has 75% COGS).

It may be that they're looking to create a monopoly and price competitors out of the market, and will raise prices (but probably not payments) when/if they succeed. Or perhaps they have already? I don't know of a real competitor to Spotify.

Edit: by real competitor, I mean one that most people will know and hence, can compete. Even monopolies like Google and Facebook have competitors that some random person I ask is likely to know about. Not sure I could say that of Tidal et al.

Like they are going to actually going to survive a price war with trillion dollar market cap companies like Apple, Amazon and Google.

Circular reasoning. You are basically arguing that for-profit companies never make mistakes, know everything,etc. Is that were true, disruption and startups wouldn't exist

It only seems circular because you're being pointed back to the beginning of the argument, instead of the person breaking it down barney style for you to shift the goalposts.

To me your post comes across as trying to draw a distinction between two different types of tautologies. Neither is a valid argument to begin with.

The goalpost is formal logic, they do not shift, I am not shifting anything;

Argument of a form ‘data X,Y,Z shows Spotify is priced correctly’ would be valid. ‘Spotify have priced correctly because they are <insert definition of Spotify>’ is not logically valid. Like in formal logic, it cannot be valid.

If you are wondering if there is baking soda in a container, you could pour some vinegar in there. If there is no bubbling of carbon dioxide, then there was no baking soda. This is not circular logic, this is an observation that necessary evidence that would have accompanied the existence of something isn’t there, so the thing itself isn’t there.

I don't understand this logic. Companies aren't omniscient; they can make mistakes, they can lack some information, etc. They will not inherently make the best choices at the best time just because ... capitalism?

Capitalism

That is actually not how it works, at least not in any sense that carries meaning in the real world, and that's easily verifiable be checking the counter factual: People pay more for things than they are worth all the time. For example: Marketing courses.

Where do you find the objective reference value of all things including marketing courses? Do you have a big book with the true value of everything in it?

People have different amounts of money and value things differently. $30k to me would represent a significant investment and probably not worth a single plane flight, but a billionaire might spend that to charter a jet for one flight and consider it money well spent. It’s relative.

Yikes