Why Spotify Will Be Replaced (And What Comes Next)

Jonathan Phillips
Feb 20
12 min read

Spotify is a marvel of modern convenience. For under £20 a month, you can access almost every song imaginable. It’s an all-you-can-eat buffet of music - no scratched CDs, no rewinding cassettes, no stacks of jewel cases cluttering your shelves. Just pure, instant gratification.

But beneath this seamless experience lies an uncomfortable truth: Spotify is a broken model for artists. And once a viable alternative emerges - one that gives musicians true control over their revenue - Spotify won’t just struggle; it will cease to exist.

The Value Shift: How Music Became Disposable

Rewind a few decades, and music had a tangible presence in our lives. We paid £14 for a single CD - one album, one artist, one physical product. Mixtapes required patience, a steady hand, and a radio with record function. Music was effortful, and that effort gave it weight.

Today, everything is frictionless. We can summon entire discographies in seconds, algorithmically tailored to our moods and habits. And yet, the shift from ownership to access has eroded music’s perceived value - not for the listener, but for the creator.

The Challenge: Will Listeners Pay More for Fairness?

But there's a deeper cultural cost to treating music as a mere commodity. When we reduce songs to background noise in an infinite playlist, we lose something fundamental about music's role in human culture. Music has historically been a communal experience, a form of storytelling, a marker of significant moments in our lives. The streaming era has given us access to more music than ever, but paradoxically made it mean less.

Artists aren't just fighting for fair compensation - they're fighting for the right to create music that matters, that takes risks, that isn't algorithmically optimized for passive consumption. The question isn't just whether listeners will pay more for fairness, but whether we're willing to reimagine our relationship with music itself.

Of course, this raises questions. Would people be willing to pay more for streaming if they knew their money went directly to artists? Would they embrace micropayments after years of unlimited access?

Or is Spotify’s current model - where we pay one low price for unlimited music - too addictive to abandon, even if it means artists continue to struggle?

The answer likely lies in gradual evolution rather than abrupt revolution. We might not see a Spotify killer overnight, but we will see hybrid models emerge. Bandcamp, SoundCloud, and Patreon-like artist funding already hint at alternative futures. Blockchain and decentralised platforms may offer the tools to make direct artist monetisation scalable.

More Real-World Examples of Artist Rebellion

In perhaps the most striking illustration of how broken the current system is, Lily Allen revealed that her earnings from selling pictures of her feet on OnlyFans have surpassed the revenue she generates from Spotify streams. This decision appears to stem from the low payouts artists often receive from music streaming platforms and her realisation of a niche market for her content.

Allen charges £10 per month for access to her OnlyFans account, which reportedly has around 1,000 subscribers, translating to approximately £10,000 monthly (before OnlyFans' 20% cut). In contrast, despite having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on Spotify, her actual income from the platform is significantly reduced due to the distribution of royalties among record labels, producers, and other stakeholders. While Spotify pays between £0.003 and £0.005 per stream, most of this revenue does not go directly to the artist.

Lily Allen’s OnlyFans pivot is just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that artists have been trying to shake off Spotify’s stranglehold for years - but the industry’s addiction to streaming makes it hard to escape. That hasn’t stopped some of the biggest names in music from taking a stand.

While Allen's case may be unique, the underlying frustration is not. Artists have been trying to shake off Spotify's stranglehold for years. Artists can no longer afford to rely on Spotify as a primary income source - streaming simply doesn’t pay enough to sustain a career. With royalties often amounting to mere pennies per thousand streams, even top artists struggle to make a living from their music alone. This has forced musicians to seek alternative revenue streams, from merchandise and live performances to crowdfunding and, in some cases, platforms like OnlyFans.

Lily Allen’s example is a stark reminder of this reality - when a globally recognised artist earns more selling pictures of her feet than from millions of Spotify streams, it exposes just how broken the system is. The issue isn’t just low payouts - it’s that the entire economic model of streaming is unsustainable for the very people creating the music.

As more artists realise they cannot survive on exposure alone, they will inevitably look for platforms that offer them true financial control.

Taylor Swift vs. SpotifyTaylor Swift was one of the first mainstream artists to publicly call out Spotify’s exploitative model. In 2014, she removed her entire discography, arguing that streaming devalued music and paid artists too little. At the time, Spotify tried to downplay her exit, claiming she’d return. But Swift doubled down, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for."

It took three years before she reluctantly returned - only after using Apple Music as leverage to secure better terms. But the damage was done: her boycott exposed the cracks in Spotify’s system, forcing the industry to take artist concerns more seriously.

Neil Young’s Spotify Boycott

Fast-forward to 2022, and Neil Young made waves by pulling his catalogue from Spotify, but for a different reason. This time, it wasn’t just about money - it was about power. When Spotify refused to remove Joe Rogan’s podcast, which Young claimed was spreading vaccine misinformation, he gave them an ultimatum: him or me.

Spotify picked Rogan.

Young’s departure sparked a wave of high-profile exits, with Joni Mitchell, David Crosby, and others following suit. But it also highlighted a deeper truth: Spotify holds all the cards. Even legendary artists with decades of influence couldn’t meaningfully dent the platform’s dominance. The system wasn’t just unfair - it was unbreakable. Or so it seemed.

The Kanye Factor

Say what you will about Kanye West, but he saw the writing on the wall. In 2022, he refused to release his album Donda 2 on Spotify or Apple Music, instead launching it exclusively on his own $200 Stem Player device. The result? He reportedly made $2 million in 24 hours - more than most artists make in a lifetime of streaming revenue.

West’s experiment wasn’t perfect, but it proved a point: if an artist builds it, fans will follow. And if enough artists decide they’ve had enough, Spotify’s dominance could crumble overnight.

The cracks are already there. It’s just a matter of time before the dam breaks.

A Napster 2.0? The Rebirth of Direct Music Ownership

Spotify disrupted the record industry, but could it be disrupted in turn? If history has shown us anything, it’s that unsustainable models collapse - or evolve.

What if the future of music wasn’t owned by a single platform, but by the artists themselves? Imagine a system where Spotify-like convenience remains, but instead of revenues passing through a central gatekeeper, they flow directly to the musicians.

Think of it as a Napster-style system, but instead of pirated downloads, it enables direct artist control. You browse, search, and stream just as you do now, but the infrastructure is decentralised. The platform exists to facilitate discovery and transactions, but the music is hosted and controlled by the artists.

Instead of a monthly subscription that pays pennies per play, there could be a blend of models:

Micropayments per stream - fractions of a penny, but with artists keeping 95% of the revenue.
Ownable digital albums - buy an album outright, with unlimited access.
Direct subscriptions - pay your favourite artists for exclusive content, early releases, or behind-the-scenes access.

This isn't just a fairer revenue model - it re-establishes the connection between artist and fan. When people pay for music, they value it more. They form attachments. They don’t just consume; they invest.

The Barriers to Artists Leaving Spotify

The barriers to artists leaving Spotify are significant and multifaceted. Network effects have created a powerful ecosystem where playlists, social sharing, and discovery features keep users locked in. Any alternative platform would need to rebuild these complex webs of connection from scratch, while convincing millions of users to migrate their carefully curated libraries and following.

The institutional reality presents another formidable obstacle. Major record labels aren't just partners with Spotify - they are shareholders, bound by intricate contracts and financial interests. Artists signed to these labels often don’t fully control their streaming rights, making independent platform choices nearly impossible. The technical challenges of building a decentralised alternative are equally daunting, requiring massive infrastructure investment to match Spotify’s seamless content delivery and user experience.

Yet these barriers, while imposing, may ultimately prove less significant than the status quo’s mounting pressure on artists. When streaming payouts amount to fractions of pennies, tour costs keep rising, and median musician incomes continue to fall, the risk of leaving Spotify’s ecosystem might become less frightening than the certainty of staying within it. Perhaps artists have no choice because they are so disadvantaged at the moment they have nothing to lose.

Record Labels as Gatekeepers: A Losing Battle Against the Tipping Point?

It is true that many artists do not control their own streaming rights, with major record labels owning the vast majority of commercial music catalogues. This has often been cited as a major obstacle to any meaningful exodus from Spotify. However, this does not necessarily stop record labels from moving away from Spotify either.

If a tipping point occurs - where enough high-profile artists abandon Spotify - labels will face the same pressure as independent artists. Their entire business model relies on consumer access to their music. If Spotify no longer offers enough value to listeners, then labels will be left holding onto rights that are locked inside a sinking platform.

Labels are profit-driven entities. They have no loyalty to Spotify itself - only to the revenue it provides. If another model offers:

Better revenue-sharing opportunities than Spotify's current fractions of a penny per stream,

Direct access to consumers with better monetisation options for premium content,

A migration of talent and audience away from Spotify,

then labels will be forced to either negotiate their own exit or risk losing the value of their catalogues.

The argument that labels will prevent this shift underestimates their own need for consumer access. If Spotify no longer serves as the primary way for listeners to discover and engage with music, labels would have no rational incentive to remain tethered to it.

This also raises the question: if a new platform was viable and generated better artist revenues, would labels try to integrate into it or fight against it?

One possibility is that labels might invest in the alternative platform, ensuring their control remains intact while benefiting from a higher revenue model. Another possibility is that they could try to stifle its rise - but they cannot stop artists from leaving, and if fans migrate too, labels will be forced to follow.

The Consumer Behavioural Barrier: Will Listeners Accept a New Model?

There is no doubt that Spotify’s fixed monthly fee is an addictive, deeply embedded model in consumer behaviour. The ability to access unlimited music for a low subscription price has redefined music consumption.

Moving to a micropayment model - where listeners must pay per stream, per album, or per artist - could create friction in adoption. People are accustomed to the idea that music is a limitless, all-you-can-eat buffet. However, that model only exists because artists are being severely underpaid. If streaming is to become sustainable for musicians, the pricing model must change.

Possible solutions include:

Hybrid models that allow a base subscription fee with additional options for premium artist content.
Bundled artist memberships - fans could subscribe directly to artists, much like Patreon, gaining access to exclusive releases and perks.
Flexible pricing tiers, allowing consumers to support their favourite artists while still accessing a larger library.

The key psychological shift is in making fans understand that they are not paying for convenience - they are paying for the sustainability of music itself.

Streaming has conditioned users to believe that music is cheap and limitless, but that illusion is breaking. If high-profile artists make it clear that they can no longer sustain their careers under this model, fans will be forced to choose. Would they rather pay slightly more for music they value, or continue using a service that no longer provides access to their favourite artists?

Once the reality of artist withdrawals hits a mainstream audience, the behavioural resistance may break down faster than expected.

Scaling an Alternative Platform: Why This is Not a Technical Problem

There is an assumption that building an alternative to Spotify is an insurmountable infrastructure challenge. However, this is not a major barrier at all.

Technology is easily scalable with the right structure and management. If an alternative model gained traction, the same capital that fuels Spotify could easily shift to back a new platform.

Some key points:

Content delivery networks (CDNs) already exist that could handle music distribution at scale.
Cloud-based streaming infrastructure is readily available through services like AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure.
Existing players like Apple, Amazon, or even new entrants could pivot to build a fairer platform with the same level of convenience.

Spotify was once a startup that scaled massively—there is no reason the same could not happen again with better economics for artists.

Additionally, many of Spotify’s features - curated playlists, algorithmic discovery, personalised recommendations - are based on machine learning models that any well-funded tech company could replicate. There is no proprietary magic behind them.

The real challenge is not the infrastructure itself - it is getting the music and the audience to migrate.

If a major artist-backed platform launched and started pulling fans away, the infrastructure could be built in parallel, with rapid iteration and development.

Why Hasn’t an Alternative Already Emerged?

If Spotify’s model is so broken, why hasn’t a true competitor risen to replace it? The truth is, the music industry is locked in a hostage situation.

Labels Have a Stranglehold. Spotify isn’t just a music platform - it’s a business deal. The major record labels own a piece of Spotify and hold the rights to the vast majority of mainstream music. They don’t want a better system. Why? Because they already win under the current one. Labels pocket the bulk of streaming revenue, leaving artists with scraps. Any new competitor would need to either pay off the labels or convince artists to leave them behind entirely - a nearly impossible task.

The “All You Can Eat” Addiction. Consumers have been trained to expect infinite music for pennies. Streaming killed ownership, and the idea of paying per album or song feels outdated. Any new model that asks listeners to pay more per artist or per play risks immediate rejection. Spotify’s biggest strength is its psychological hold on consumers - breaking that will take time.

Artists Are Terrified of Jumping First. The reality is, Spotify works - for now. No artist wants to be the first to abandon a platform that still provides exposure, playlist placements, and passive revenue. The risk is too high. Until a major collective shift happens, artists remain stuck playing along in a game they know is rigged.

Tech Alone Won’t Save Music. Plenty of platforms exist that could rival Spotify - Bandcamp, SoundCloud, Audius - but none have the scale or convenience to break through. The problem isn’t infrastructure. It’s getting both artists and consumers to agree on a new system at the same time. Until then, Spotify remains the default, not because it’s fair, but because it’s familiar.

But history tells us every empire falls. It’s not a matter of if - it’s a matter of when.

The Tipping Point: When Spotify Becomes Obsolete

Tipping points in consumer behavior often follow a predictable pattern: slow change, then sudden collapse. Think of how quickly social networks can die - one day everyone's there, the next they're gone. The same psychological triggers apply to music platforms. Each artist who leaves creates small cracks in user loyalty.

But unlike typical product shifts, music streaming has an emotional component - fans follow their favorite artists not just out of convenience, but out of connection.

When enough of these emotional bonds are broken, no amount of algorithmic playlists or cheap subscriptions can hold users back. The platform's perceived value doesn't decline gradually - it collapses.

Now, here’s where things get interesting.

If such a platform existed - one that allowed artists to retain control of their music and earn a fair share of the revenue - Spotify would collapse almost overnight.

Why?

Because artists would withdraw their music from it.

At first, it would be gradual. A few independent artists would leave, then some mid-level names. Fans might not notice at first, because Spotify’s catalogue is massive. But then, a major artist - someone with global influence - would make the switch. They’d tell their fans: "My music is no longer on Spotify. If you want it, come here."

And fans would follow.

The moment this shift begins to gain momentum, investors will start pulling their money from Spotify, because its entire value proposition relies on having all the music. If enough high-profile artists leave, subscribers will start questioning why they’re still paying for an incomplete library. A tipping point will arrive where there simply isn’t enough valuable music left on Spotify to justify a subscription.

And then? Spotify won’t just struggle - it will die.

This isn’t a case of competing with Spotify. It’s a case of rendering it irrelevant.

The End of Spotify (As We Know It)

Spotify, in its current form, is unsustainable. Not because it’s failing—on the contrary, it’s wildly successful for consumers and shareholders - but because it relies on an ecosystem that increasingly exploits the very artists who make it valuable.

The music industry is cyclical. Vinyl came back. Tapes had a moment. CDs became nostalgia pieces. The streaming era has dominated for over a decade, but no empire lasts forever.

For years, artists have been trapped in a system that treats them like content machines - churning out songs just to stay relevant while being paid in fractions of pennies. Some have walked away. Some have fought back. Some have built their own platforms.

And soon, the trickle will become a flood.

At first, it will be the independent artists, then the mid-tier names. Fans might not notice right away, because Spotify’s library is vast. But then, a major artist will make the switch. And when they do, they won’t just leave quietly - they’ll take their audience with them.

"My music is no longer on Spotify. If you want it, come here."

And fans will follow.

The moment this happens at scale, Spotify’s entire foundation crumbles. Investors will pull out. Users will start questioning why they’re paying for a library that’s losing its biggest names. A tipping point will come when there simply isn’t enough valuable music left to justify a subscription.