Spotify Now Has 124 Million Subscribers

Posted on February 5, 2020 by Mehedi Hassan in Music + Videos, Spotify with 13 Comments


Spotify today reported its earnings for Q4 2019, along with some other new stats. The company reported total revenue of €1.9 billion for the fourth quarter of 2019, which is up slightly from the last quarter.

Spotify’s total revenue has seen a 24% growth year-over-year, but the company posted an operating loss of €77 million in the last quarter.

The music streaming service also reported that it now has 124 million subscribers worldwide, growing 29% year-over-year from the 96 million it had back in 2018. The company said that its retention rate has improved in all of its top 20 markets, with monthly active users growing 31% year-over-year to 271 million. Amazon Music, on the other hand, has 55 million active users. The last time Apple reported Apple Music subscriber figures was back in June 2019, and the service had 60 million subscribers at the time.

Spotify has also been investing quite a lot into its Podcasts business, so the company is obviously highlighting the growth in that area, too. According to Spotify, podcast consumption hours has grown 200% year-over-year, which makes a lot of sense considering the fact that Spotify introduced a new interface that puts a lot of focus on podcasts.

The company also said that more than 60 million users engaged with its first-ever “My Decade Wrapped” experience, and its Year + Decade Top Songs playlists had more than 6.5 billion streams worldwide.

Tagged with

Join the discussion!


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Comments (13)

13 responses to “Spotify Now Has 124 Million Subscribers”

  1. BrianEricFord

    Hard to argue Apple is a monopoly and also brag about subscriber growth but somehow they manage.

    • Andi

      In reply to BrianEricFord:

      Spotify's global success has nothing to do with Apple's monopolistic bullshit. Apple is using its platform control to harm all competition including Spotify to lift its 2nd rate services. In the US Apple controls 70% of the mobile economy revenue and almost half of the market by users. That's monopoly power.

    • Paul Thurrott

      It's not hard to argue that Apple abuses its monopoly power over Spotify, as it is. And it makes one wonder how much better Spotify would be doing if Apple wasn't doing that.
      • lvthunder

        In reply to paul-thurrott:

        So what market does Apple have a monopoly in?

        • Paul Thurrott

        • Andi

          In reply to lvthunder:

          You Apple fanboys are incredible. Apple, the richest company in the world, does not need to have 100% of the market to have dominant position. In the context of a DUOPOLY of mobile platforms in the States - reminder, duopoly is not "healthy competition" - Apple has almost half of the users, by itself as an OEM is the largest individual player and, crucially, controls 70% of mobile app market by revenue. When you are a mobile dev you are absolutely at the mercy of the entity that controls 70% of the market revenue.

          • red.radar

            In reply to Andi:

            Monopoly has nothing to do with the issue.

            it’s anti-competitive and anti-trust. That is the central question. Market share is irrelevant it’s the fact that the competition has an unfair advantage because they control the platform.

            • Paul Thurrott

              People misunderstand the term monopoly. It's not as simple as "x percent" of usage/marketshare. Apple does have a monopoly on an audience of billions, and Spotify is paying the price. That needs to change. And it looks like it will.
  2. lvthunder

    Ouch a 77 million operating loss. That's not good for the company. I don't see how Spotify survives unless it changes its business model or cuts costs.

  3. JH_Radio

    I'm curious how Tidal lossless (my prefered music service) survives. I know Amazon Music Unlimited HD (i subscribe to that too) has its other businesses to prop it up. and then there's Google Play Music (which I also have), and we know how Google makes money. add dollars .

  4. mixedfarmer75

    So they are losing about 0.62/subscriber. A price increase by 1.00 could mean a profit of almost 50 million. That is if they they can do it without losing subscribers. Even if my numbers don't exactly translate, which they probably don't, the profit problem should solvable.

    • mattbg

      In reply to MixedFarmer75:

      Perhaps they could go after people sharing the Family service against the terms of service (i.e. 5 unrelated people get together and chip in $3/mo for 1 of 5 accounts).

      You have to be unbelievably cheap to see the full prices of these services as unreasonable for what you get.

      I suppose the question is: "how?", because I'm sure Netflix would love to do the same when the time is right (or necessary).

      I wonder if Apple has the same problem with Apple Music seeing as family sharing is part of the Apple-wide "Family" functionality. Creating a "Family" in Apple's ecosystem has many more implications than just who is sharing the music service, such that it may be risky for people who are not genuinely families to use it - apps, books, location/device tracking, ScreenTime stats, and iCloud are shared, and purchasing with payments going to the owner's account are also part of the equation.