>> welcome to the program. we begin this evening with david remnick, the editor of the new yorker magazine. >> the new yorker is doomed to success. doomed to success in the sense that there's a lot of, a lot more of everything now. and there are sites now that are people are terribly excited about that maybe here in 20 years they may be gone in a year, i don't know. but i think if we stick to what it is we value and do which has to do with depth, talent and really fine editing and sensibility and all those things, they sound awfully general but i think you know those go into the new yorker. and we apply that to any technology that we become involved with, and there are many. i think that we are going to be

in really fine shape. >> we conclude this evening with daniel account, he is the creator and founder of spot fi, a company that streams music. >> with spotify which is controversial when you think about it because we're essentially saying hey you can get access to all that music for free but we knew that when people were listening to music and starting to listen, they would listen more. and that's when they start caring about the extra benefits of having it in better quality. not having to endure the advertising, being able to off line and download it so when you didn't have a network connection you would be able to still have the music available. so you know, we thought those are really really big things that people are willing to pay for. if we can just get people to listen to even more music, we'll be in a great position. and that's what ultimately happened. >> david remnick and daniel account when we continue.

>> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: david remnick's here, he's the editor of the new yorker magazine. he brings with him a new book, the book is called the 40's, a story of the decade. anthology that looks at 1940's history and culture through articles, stories and poems, no surprise there. in the introduction david says the collection collect represew york represents a great turn. i'm pleased to have david remnick, welcome. >> thanks for having me, charlie. >> rose: how did you decide to do this. you got all this material. >> in internet, what's the term, you want to surface your archival materials. the new york's been around coming up on 90 years. >> rose: it's actually just plowing the ground. >> but you know, if you're 25 years old or 30 years old and

you're starting to read the new yorker, it's becoming part of your reading habits, you have no idea, maybe other than john hershey's hirshorma. and my great colleague and friend henry scinder. the new yorker was started out with a comic weekly. it was light, it was lively, it was a jazz age creation. and it kind of, it didn't ignore the depression but it was the facts of the matter of the depression were kind of in contra distinction to the spirit of the magazine. if it didn't consider itself a political magazine at all in the beginning. during where it grew up like so many other things, so many other institutions, it got more

serious. >> rose: because the war was more serious or something else. >> how could you not. this the catastrophic world-changing event of our times. to go on dancing toward the edge of apocalypse would have been ridiculous. and herald rossy who founded the magazine found himself a veteran, previously of stars and stripes. >> rose: and -- wrote for him. >> right. and he sent writers off to war. not pyletypes, not ap dispatch peoples. that was left to the news and the wires. but people like janet flanker and aj -- writer writers as it were to see what they would make of the war and take their different kind of approach tight without the vicious deadlines, the daily deadlines that ordinary correspondents had to deal with. and great war literature evolved

into the pages of the new yorker beginning in the late 30's and right through the end of the war. >> rose: how would you describe the new yorker today. >> deeply influenced by that. when you think of somebody like dexter fillkins when he goes to the middle east or the investigative worker jane mayor or even very literary voice of somebody like adam gopnick. they're steeped in this stuff. >> rose: you mean they write -- >> i think a writer -- >> rose: letting loose for the 40's. >> this was the pivotal moment. there were two writers together, hazard rousty the founding editor and william sean who had gone to edit the magazine as its leader for 30-odd years, really working with very little resources because so many of the writers went off to war not just as writers but as soldiers.

and through that period because the room emptied out, the magazine was forced to, thank god, hire a lot more women. so that's who was holding down the forth in places like new york but also in paris. >> rose: when you look at great american writers, faulkner, hemingway, how many have been associated or what are the names that have been associated with the new yorker magazine? >> well, it's interesting charlie. in terms of fiction, the new yorker's strategy when it began in the mid 20's is that it could be afford to pay hemingway and fitzgerald. in those days, there were loads of magazines that publish fiction in this country. the saturday evening post paid wonderful rates for short stories, imagine that. and the new yorker couldn't afford that strategy of going for the big names. and so instead,bm>;ñ they scoutr names that weren't quite

surfaced. so kathryn white, the greal great first fiction editor, rogerrer angel's mother found writers like shaver and updike. >> rose: what does an editor do. easy, find good writers. >> that's a huge part of the job. >> rose: find good writers. >> and find new ones you haven't heard of yet. it is, you know, when i started, i think within a couple weeks, i found myself, i was reading a novel, the gallant novel, by my favorite writer philip roth and i didn't know what it was to be an editor. i was doing this for two weeks and i never he had at this time anything in my life other than a high school newspaper. i didn't like the short story we were about to run and it occurred to me why don't we run a piece of something. something a real editor would know how to do automatically.

that's easy running philip roth when he's already at that time 60's, that doesn't take much of a brain. but when debra treesman our fiction editor says you must read this and you never read this before and never heard of this person and he's excited about that. the happens with henry singerbringson and david eggers about basically raising his siblings when his parents died when he was a teenager, that's as exciting as it get. >> did david foster he ever write. >> we published him certainly. but david fosterwalled -- jonathan franson is a great friend. a magazine can't get everything. and you'll see in this anthology, for example, in the poetry section, the new yorker was great about elizabeth bishop, great poet. it completely missed the vote on

wallace stevens. but that's what shapes the character of a magazine, the decisions in real time. you wish looking back historically that you had been wise about everything. that's just not going to happen. so you know, the san francisco poets, the beat poets and later on it was more in later life and avant-garde magazines. >> rose: when did you think before you were offered the job, i would love to be the editor. >> not once. not a minute, not one day. and this is not, because it didn't make any sense. i loved writing, i loved reporting and i was no where near an editing track. the only editing i did was occasionally tina brown would give me a piece or a manuscript to look at and she's say what do you think. and i would go to a meeting or two. but it was so oblique to what i was really doing. >> rose: how long did it take

you to decide to take the job. >> i was talked to newhouse bit on a friday and over the weekend he offered it to someone else. that fell apart and it was someone i respected enormously and published three weeks ago, he's a wonderful writer and has been a great editor in the past at harper's and new republic. i came in on a monday morning and i had no idea what happened happened with michael kinsly and he offered me the job and gave me about 20 minutes to decide. i had a phone call with my wife and that was it. >> rose: what did she say. >> she said well, it would be a great adventure. >> rose: there you go. >> that was 16 years ago. >> rose: that's what i would expect her to say. great adventure. hop a board. >> that's the story. >> rose: at what point will it become too much of a burden for you to do other things that you really want to do? >> you know, i think the best editor in new york is and has been for a long time, is bob

silvers who has senior new york review of books. he not only edited but he invested in new york review of book. he's now in his early 80's. i can't imagine doing what he does. >> rose: in his early 80's. >> and he does it with a pretty small staff. he does not write, it's true. he's more purely an editor. and he's a kind of genius too, i think. i just can't think that far in advance. but i don't expect to be anywhere near. >> rose: i'm not sure what it might be. >> i have no idea. >> rose: i watched the olympics and thought perhaps you were thinking about being a sports caster. >> i did that once and the expression is once a philosopher, twice a -- i don't expect to repeat that stunt again. you know, nbc called me up. they needed a russia person.

maybe to kosher them on that because matt laur and meredith knew a lot of things but not a russia specialist. for me i don't think it was the russia part because i lived there for a long time and sochi looked like new jersey with steep slopes. it didn't look like russia. >> rose: nothing wrong with form law one. >> they have other problems. but for me what the great glimpse of this big time tv. i was there with, i don't know what nbc must have had 2000 people there. when you go to cover a story it's me and a pencil. maybe if it's a foreign language. >> rose: the reason i'm so jealous of you is that you have act, and obviously because of your talent, bob dylan, philip

roth. >> but these are enthusisms. you get into journalism. i went to columbia university graduation today, and there was the journalism school kids. >> rose: did you speak. >> i did not. i sat there like a lox. and there was med school students not knowing what they were going to do. and the business school people. and there's the journalism people going into this absolutely radically changed field. if you asked them seriously do they know what they're going to do six months from now, a lot of them had no idea. but the one thing they want in on is the adventure of it. they want to get lucky. and i've had parts of my life that are completely unlucky. this part has just been, i'm awed. >> rose: i understand. i walk out every morning, 5:00. especially it's so great when the sun's up. i say i am the luckiest person in the world. i go over and open the doors and say this is what's happening

today. and i've got the greatest group of correspondents around the world. you're a word smith and you understand picture and words. and they're going to tell you stories. >> i feel this way too. >> rose: it's unbelievable. then i come over here and i do what is most important to me, the deeper understanding that comes with time. >> but you know, the job, my job, vis-a-vis my predecessors has changed a lot. easily the best thrilling part of this, last night i got a manuscript from nathan heller about silicon valley. he's a young writer in his 20's. i read this thing, and it just made me feel good. i got something from sarah stillman, another young writer, similarly. fantastic young reporter, clearly going to be an enormous

presence in the journalistic scene. but at the same time in my job people at the times, people all over, we're navigating an enormous communications revolution. and how people read the new yorker, how we should integrate the web into values of and the processes of the print magazine and other kinds of devices. and to see the number of people reading on their phones serious things. how to rationalize that with the way you think about design and speed and editing and checking. these are issues that didn't occur to me in this job before. and they demand enormous attention. and they change all the time. >> rose: but my impression is that the future is clearer than it has been. people are beginning to see how

it's going to evolve. >> in some ways, yes. in some ways, yes and some ways i can't say that's the case. >> rose: and the technology's helping you do that. >> yes. but i don't have all the answers to this. >> rose: what don't you have the answer to. >> i think the orthodoxy shifts all the time. when i first started meeting with people certainly younger than me, kind of great evangelists of the web that's emerging. i would go to these dinners or i would go to meet people. and you felt, you felt in a defensive crowd because you felt like you were being invited at the dinosaur. >> rose: always described new media and old media. >> yeah. and you never want to hear the world old. there are certain orthodoxies in the early part. for example no one would read anything of any length on the web. that was an evangelical orthodoxy. now it turns out that people want to read things on the web at terrific length.

>> rose: the newest web journalism is about drilling down. we will provide for those people who want a clearer understanding and explanation. >> precisely. and i think the new yorker is doomed to success. doomed to success in the sense that there's a lot of, a lot more of everything new. and there are sites now that are people are terribly excited about that may be here in 20 years or they may be gone in a year, i don't know. but i think if we stick to what it is we value and do which has to do with depth, talent, and really fine editing and sensibility. and all those things they found awfully general but i think you know what goes into the new yorker. and we apply that to any technology that we've become involved with, and there are many. i think that we are going to be in really fine shape. we might have bumps along the

road. >> rose: i agree. i do the same things based on the same reason. >> look, people, your viewers in their 20's don't even have a television that goes without saying. you don't even ask anymore. but it's not that they're not watching. a lot of my sons' friends the idea of getting a print of anything is just silly. i have some sense for me at least that a print magazine, the one that we put out is a pretty good technology. you could roll it up, but if you want to read it on the phone, an ipad, on your laptop, i really don't care. i want to get better and better and better at all these technologies. i want the operations of the new yorker to be integrated not only just in a technical bureaucratic sense but also in a forgive me spiritual sense that we're sharing the same values of accuracy and depth and rigor and

all the rest. you don't want your, the web to be a beat team. >> rose: i think the other thing that's come up is in the beginning we all thought what the web was about was putting, whether it was television does or whether it was what print does, we thought it was finding a place to put print on-line. >> it's not that. initially that's what our web site was and so many were, they were called companion sites. just threw up a bunch of stuff. the web also offers you creative possibilities too. and for example, the "new york times" said that piece called no fall they put a lot of resources into, probably was a terrific money loser. but as an experiment, it showed them what was possible. i don't think it was the best story they've ever done in a way. but it was a very noble experiment and showed some by the way to the rest of us what was possible, you know. i know there's been a lot of

controversy about the leadership of the times in the last week but one of the footnotes to that was this leaked report that came out of the "new york times" which was very interesting about the ways they're thinking about technology. >> rose: this is the one about the publisher's son. >> and the big committee and they interviewed a lot of people. >> rose: you brought up the "new york times." >> yes. sorry to do that. >> rose: what do you make of this. >> i think the "new york times" is a singular news gathering institution. i don't think it's one of the best, i think it's the best. and i have spent my entire career since the time i'm 21 years old until now, in a sense in opposition to it. competitive with it. i was a washington post reporter for ten years and i learned how to be a reporter by getting my butt kicked by bill keller in moscow and my wife. and others at the "new york

times" bureau. subsequent to that, if i pick up a piece in the "new york times" magazine or on the front page that you can be damned sure i feel competitive. as a news gathering organizing, i'm not the "wall street journal" or "the washington post" we're a very different animal than that. i want the "new york times" to be great because i think it's possible that it's the most important prize institution in this country. i can't have it in every language but it's certainly everything in the world that i can read. >> rose: what does that have to do with the fact, the "new york times" and your take on changing leadership. >> i think it's tough on the institution. >> rose: the institution suffers. the new the "new york times" is suffering because of this. >> it's suffering because people call into question. >> rose: what's different

about this. >> i don't think so. i think first of all a lot of people out in the world who do read the "new york times," this is fairly invisible to them. it might be something more of a subject of fascination here. >> rose: that would be one of my questions whether it's just all of us here sort of because we know the people. >> the difference between this incident and the harold reigns, there would have been no firing except for a journalism scandal, plagiarism scandal. that wouldn't have happened otherwise. here you have something much more complicated. the paper is great. i mean, we all can argue with this, that and the other thing, the coverage of this story or that story but the paper, no one is arguing that jill abramson was fired because the paper was poor. but clearly there was a, i don't want to go too deeply into this

because it's not my workplace. clearly the relationship between and among leaders of the paper were not, were so afraid that they were not able to survive the disagreements and the arguments and the fights that ended it all. that's tough on an institution. if you have a lousy marriage and there's a big blow up you end up in court the next day. if you have a solid you one and you have a blow up you go on the next day and walk it back. clearly they reached a point where they couldn't walk it back. you know, what role, so i think the salary piece of it, the which remains a bit murky but ken got a lot of numbers which are on the table and i'm not sure we know the end of that story. clearly when you bring a lawyer in and you've already got a bad relationship, it doesn't make

the publisher feel all warm and fuzzy about you. that's obvious. but i don't think that was the breaking point. the breaking point clearly was this other piece of business having to do with the hiring of the digital managing editor and that was the final explosion. >> rose: and then you had all these personalities involvement. it wasn't just one it was multiple circumstances. >> the key thing here the only thing i can bring to the table here other than you know, try to publish things that are accurate and rounded, is that it's tough on an institution that this country needs without being too mushy and romantic about it, i don't think anybody wants to see it diminish the "new york times." and i think the publisher might, you know the management of this might not have been the best but the publisher's news values through very hard time to publish a newspaper is not in question.

>> rose: would you have liked to have, maybe it's obvious, the vanity fair piece. >> i want everything. >> rose: yes, you do. >> do you mean have an interview with arthur. by the time that came out with respect to that, it was clear what the story was about him and the new yorker and politico and elsewhere. i mean i think there's a bigger thing to do and maybe that will happen but, and you know a running story more and more of what's the case emerges. but yes. any good story i see in another publication, you know, you have to respect. >> rose: yes, indeed or get a good interview. >> yes, you bet. >> rose: bob dylan, you. >> it's just stupid to say -- i used to know a guy at "the washington post" and he would get his butt kicked and he would say oh we had that. because in paragraph 26 somehow oh we had that. it's not important.

>> rose: let me tell you, somebody said that very thing. having nothing to do with this kind of story. >> it's what ben bradley -- >> rose: it was, it was. it was the ceo of comcast said to me because of the success for mergers, every time someone does one he says boy we could have done that. >> go ahead and try. >> rose: russia. >> yes. >> rose: you love russia. >> i do. >> rose: the culture of russia. >> well, i love my friends in russia, put it that way. i love reporting there. i mean, what's happening now is deeply deeply disturbing to me. which not russia but i meant ukraine. the leadership of russia is getting much more phobic, reactionary. >> rose: the leadership of

russia or just vladimir putin. >> what's the difference? what's the difference. it's a complete autocracy with semi democratic -- >> rose: so is that what you call war. >> well, we're certainly not in a restart. >> rose: here's what's interesting to me -- >> there's a question of the nature of what the confrontation was going to be and for how long. you know, we tend to, we throw around words like we forget how brutal and expensive and blood and treasure and how prolonged the cold war was. >> rose: and lost opportunity. >> oh my god. it shaped everything from 1945 to 1991. and i think it is, you know, i disagree with some friends on this in the field, but you know it was one thing to try and understand as an intellectual and strategic exercise to understand as putin sees the world. it's interesting to do that.

but i think it's also important to call things by their proper name. and what is happening is that russia has tried for strategic reasons to destabilize azw'óv9qy to itself. because in opposition to the west but also in opposition to the leadership of ukraine. and the idea hearing this rhetoric. this is a little embarrassing in the nerd direction but i have an app on my phone. i can now walk around or sit in a chair at home and watch russian tv live. i got 35 channels. i can just sort of just a flick. >> rose: what's this app called. >> russian tv. i watch the main tv news programs. >> rose: what do you see here. >> i see a level, the level in propaganda and rhetoric that i have not heard, i did not even

hear in the very late soviet period. it's very very bad. you have the russian leadership and that's as controlling as state television programs describing ukrainian fascists. you are describing aggressions against our fellow country men, meaning russians speaking ukrainian. this is false. this is false. >> rose: do you think the person you admired the president of the united states is up to the challenge. >> i think they were taken by surprise. >> rose: which is a problem. >> it is. i think they were taken by surprise by the vehemence. >> i'm trying to do something on the history of what you're describing. there were people in the situation room who many months ago said it's not entirely

unthinkable that russia will take crimea. but i don't think russia was high on the priority list of foreign subjects in the whitehouse by any stretch of the imagination. not with syria, not with getting out of, particularly getting out of iraq and afghanistan, that's what dominated things. the so-called pivot to asia. >> rose: and concerns about terrorism. >> absolutely. russia was not the top priority. but again, this is not to be protect oif of the president of the united states. there are tactical errors by the european union and the united states. but we should not, again we call things by the proper name. the primary actor in this, in

the ma levellent sense in my view is putin. he stabilize the he is to some degree. i'm hoping he backs off. i'm hoping sunday's election in ukraine goes well. it seems to me for russia to call ukraine fascist is preposterous. fascist countries don't call democratic elections, doesn't happen. and that's what's meant to happen on sunday. the likely victor is problematic. this is petro shenko. it's been terribly disturbed by the leadership since 1991. corrupt on the left, right and center. i want to say ukraine is some model. it's not the czech republic or poland. they have been very unlucky in their leaders and very unlucky in their politics now for many

generations. things are not going to be improved by the strong hand of vladimir putin from the north. >> rose: good to see you. >> great to be here. >> rose: dan ek is here. he's the responder and ceo of spotify which many vieweds the savior of the industry. recently called europe's greatest digital influence by wire magazine in uk. just 31 years old it's worth more than $300 million. he says he's unsure of the exact figures. i'm pleased to have him at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: it seems so to me, whether it's 300 million or 3 billion you strike me as somebody who is not in this for the money. >> no. >> rose: as good as it might be. >> well i mean going back, i think anyone, 2006 we started this company. and at that time i think pretty much every single person told me

that getting into the music industry was the worst possible. >> rose: thing that you could do. >> yes. this was an industry that was a $45 billion industry. and now it's probably around 15. so it's one third of the size it was just a decade ago. so if you're in it for the money it's not the right thing to be going into i for me it was all passion about music and technology and trying to marry both of them. >> rose: before we ask the question is spotify good for music let's ask the question what does spotify do. >> what spotify really really does is it takes all the world's music and makes it accessible anywhere, any place and on any device. the problem we try to solve was before spotify, it's pretty clear that piracy was one of those things that people were doing. not because they actually thought it was the right thing to do but it was what fitted their life-style.

it was the only way they could access all the music they wanted in an affordable enough way. so at spotify what we try to do is we try to created a product that was better than piracy and really get -- >> rose: so there wouldn't be any piracy. >> right. instead of try to legislate against it, it's still good today. >> rose: many people who enjoy music have access to music number one. >> right. >> rose: and two it eliminates the piracy which is not good for music. >> the way we looked at it is this is a it's two. one is the actual product itself but the second part is the actual business model. before spotify, just the concept everyone was talking about, the

concept of subscription music but no one had actually realized in a way where consumers cared bit. that was the business model side because again piracy was a very successful product but the business model for the musicians and the music industry wasn't there. so we knew that what we had to do was actually solve two problems. one is create a product that was even better than piracy but then the second part is create a business model around it that makes sense so that musicians and the music industry could benefit from them. so figuring that dynamic out was sort of the really, the difficult thing here. >> rose: how did you figure it out? >> well, you know, again with spotify, it's a premium which is controversial because we're essentially saying you can get access to all that music for free. we knew when people were listening to music and starting to listen, they would listen more. that's when they start caring about the extra benefits of having it in better quality.

not having to endure the advertising, being able to off line it and download where when you didn't have a network connection you would still be able to still have the music available. so we thought those are really really big thing that people are willing to pay for. if we can just get people to listen to even more music, we'll be in a great position. and that's what ultimately happened. >> rose: are you a musician? >> yes. bud more and the hobby bases. i got a guitar when i was four and a computer when i was five. i could never really pick and that's why in the end i started spotify. >> rose: are you an itunes killer. >> that's not the way i look at it. i want to be a piracy killer. >> rose: why would i pay 8 to $10 a month and get everything i

want instead of going song by song. >> i think it's a much better model than the itunes model. that said, you know, what i think is going to end up happening and even looking at my home country sweden, what's interesting there is spotify is now 70% of all the revenue in the entire music industry. >> rose: 70% of the music industry. >> yes. but you know what's interesting there is it's still available and a very important revenue source in addition to that. also vinyl sales weirdly enough have spiked and really grown. so i think the future of the music strip, although i think the masses will certainly opt for subscription. what we're seeing is people are also willing to fay -- pay for music on top of that. a service like spotify is you end up listening to more music because you end up list ming to

more music you will care more about music and go to more concerts and buy special edition boxes or occasionally if you really like a song you go buy it. exactly. so that's the fast thing thing for the future. >> rose: really it's an introduction and it makes you, it gives you a sense of appreciation and a sense of a broad ability to cast your net in a wide way. >> yes. and because i mean you don't have to, you know, pay a dollar for every song you want to listen to. you're going to be discovering valley even if you didn't know who that was. someone told me about it and you can dig into the entire back catalog and listen to all the great hits and realize hey this is amazing. if you are then doing a show or there's vinyls, etcetera, if you become interest and then maybe become a fan that's great. >> rose: we all know what indemnity -- netflix has done o

streaming. is it going to take over with music and books and whatever we want. >> yes, i think so. especially on media, pretty much everything right now is being streamed. it's music, it's video. arguably even news now is delivered part by video. >> rose: increasing part by video. >> yes. so for me, and i think definitely the future is streaming especially if we get better and better networks and availability of smart phones throughout the word. >> rose: so many entrepreneurs don't get is you got to have underneath whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, the right technology. mark -- said that too. >> i certainly agree with that. i mean there's a lot of engineering that goes into a product like spotify. people don't realize that we've spent thousands and thousands of hours perfecting the fact that

it takes 200 milliseconds for you to perceive a delay. so how do we deliver music to you faster than 200 milliseconds and then you won't even persave -- perceive this is coming from the cloud but is delivered instantly. when you think about music recommendations, how do we take music and personalize it to you. that's a huge problem. and just knowing your case and your case profiles and figuring out how we can introduce more interesting people and/or music that you all want to explore and try out. and that's again really really hard to technological problems to solve. >> rose: i like quotes and this is about you in the profile that informs in 2012 said in the current tech landscape where google provides a search facebook the identity and amazon the retail, they want spotify to

supply the sound track. by sound track you mean simply the music. >> i think about it as a sound track to your life. like when you have technology being more and more available in your life through smart phones, through the internet or things that people call in, everything from refrigerators to whatnot. >> rose: throughout the internet of things. >> so for us when we think about it like why shouldn't you, why shouldn't we figure out how to give you that perfect song when you start your morning. and how would your life, you know, if we played you that perfect song wouldn't your day just become 10% better by just doing that. and when you think about it, if you go to the gym, what if we know you go to the gym we could recommend you some great running tracks while you're running on the treadmill or you know, if you're having house party, knowing whose coming to that party we know they're into a bit

of jazz, a little bit into cocktail music and then figure out the perfect mix for that. i just think personal moments through our life will be even better if we can provide more music. >> rose: what's the perfect song for you in the morning? >> that's a great question. i right now listen to a lot of swedish producer called issy which is electronic and hip hop. but you know it changes all the time. >> rose: what do you want spotify to become in ten years. other than a sound track of our life? >> well, you know, i think the way i think about the internet is it starts with yeatsz. when you think about it, search is pretty utility based experience. but search is now becoming more of a personal assistant, suggesting things to you even before you thought about it. >> rose: you're exactly

right. it's the next leap which is already halfway there. >> i call it experiences. it's utilities that's becoming experiences. and i think for spotify, we started off being a utility to play music and we're now becoming experienced for every moment of your life. by going forward, what i hope is that we can take this technological shift and move it from not just being about listening to music, to being about even how we create music. because for me, music is always been constrained by the format it's been on. so we've always had, depending on if it was a cassette tape, it was 60 minutes perth of music and wean we moved to cv it became 60 again. then we got 80 minute cd's and we got 12 and 14 tracks. when you think about the internet, the internet is not just audio, it's audio, it's

visual and it's interactive. what's the future of music going to be if in that format that isn't just about the actual sound itself anymore. it is about the sound that's the visual and perhaps it might even be the interactive part. if we can contribute to providing platform for musicians to be more creative and even what actually what music means to people, that's something that for me would be the holy grail to try to figure out. that's what i would like to tackle and that's the musician in me to see how can we impact culture. >> rose: i introduced last night sir timberness lee here in new york. it's the 25th anniversary. only 25 years. >> yes. >> rose: that the internet's been in existence. >> and it keep accelerating.

>> rose: exponentially. >> yes. it's 2007 before we didn't have smart phones. >> rose: 2007 was when we had the first smart phone. >> not the smart phone but the first phone. in 2008 there was no youtube. well barely youtube. and facebook wasn't what it is today. so many things that spotify didn't exist either. >> rose: when did you create spotify. >> we created it in 2006 but it took us about two and-a-half years to actually launch spotify. so we launched at the end of 2008. >> rose: some people have talked about that the spribility -- sprint deal and is that you are thinking of maybe about an ipo. >> it's not one of those things that i'm spending any time really thinking about it. we do have investors, i do wanted to be clear. >> rose: and they have the cash. >> and that's of course clear.

so i'm not ruling it out but right now like my focus is a lot more on how do we take the position now and do something more impactful. >> rose: it's more that than it is market share. >> for me this isn't really about growing our market share it's about growing the market. i think music, if you think about that there's a billion people around the world that actually listen and consumes music and the fact that we're talking about the whole recording music industry is about $15 billion. for something that impacts a billion people. i think that's you know, that's not where it should be. i think the music should be significantly bigger. i want to grow the pie not increase our market share. >> rose: you have revenue at the same time, expenses and one of the expenses is the deals you can make with the record labels. the same way it was for netflix. first time around they made good

deals and second time around there was more competition, amazon and others and the deals were not so easy. >> that's true. i guess it's true. what i will say though in terms of us, i mean we have negotiated our deals many times now. again we launched 2008, and we launched in the u.s. in 2011. even there we added more markets. and just last year we went from 20 plus something market to 56 markets. so you know again, i think the music industry in our case is rooting for us. and certainly just again the conversation we have has shifted from is this good for us to being how can we help you grow even faster. >> rose: this is from the artist as well as the record companies? >> primarily from the record companies but even inventory i -- then i have conversations with artists how we can help them promote their records and

get the message out there about their latest songs, sort of things that they are doing as well. >> rose: and there's always this question. if somebody's bigger than you, can they get into your busines. how easy is the entrance if you're as amazon already streaming movies and video or google. >> yes. >> rose: where are you. >> i mean most of the players you're talking about are actually in music already. amazon have a music service, google has actually fixed a similar offering in terms of a subscription offering to us. but i think for us, even making the analogy of something like drop box. drop box you know, google, apple, microsoft pretty much everyone has a drop box product. but drop box is still thriving. i don't think this is as cut throat as media likes to point

it out or that necessarily means that just because some of the big companies do it. i think consumers again are drawn to companies which brands they really respect and like. and i do think that you know our benefit is that our entire focus is around music. we don't have 55 different products. so for our message to consumer is pretty clear what we do and don't do, we don't have hidden agenda. >> rose: these companies have a ton of money. apple has a lot of money. google has a lot of money. supbuy you. would you say no or would you say tell me more? or would you say what's the number? >> again, i'm not very motivated by money, so ... >> rose: would that be a natural fit, apple and spotify. >> i don't know.

i don't know the apple guys well enough to answer that question. but i can tell you -- >> rose: are you interested in beets. >> arguably. we want people to listen to our music. >> rose: is that your mission station, we want you to listen to all the world's music. >> yes, pretty much. we're thinking deeply about how we can get the entire world to listen to mean more music. that's our thing you know. again, i don't know a moment in someone's life that it couldn't be better and have a better, if we had a better sound track. so you know, what we're thinking about is just like how can we get to that level and how can we impact people even more. it's not to your earlier point,

this is not about financial gain. we're focused on the path we're on right now which is just delighting more customers by giving them more music. >> rose: you have 20 million songs. is that the number, 20 million? >> it varies market by market but in the u.s. it's a bit more than 20 million. so yes. it's a lot and it's growing by over 10,000 songs per day. >> rose: what about china? >> china's a really really interesting market. but it is really really hard in terms of copyright and figuring out the local markets. it's one of those things where we're taking a wait and see approach on it. but we'd love to eventually be in every market in the world. but it's a lot of licensing issues and copyright issues. >> rose: what's the advantage of being in sweden? >> the advantage i think is like we have for media in particular, we have one of the more

progressive landscapes in the world. so to give you some idea what i mean, in sweden, not just with music but netflix is available. hbo has a service which doesn't require you to be a cable subscribe. so you can buy hbo on a stand-alone basis. you can actually get even sports on a stand-alone basis, streaming over the internet. so for us to test new features and new functionality on it, on that audience, is remarkable. you can kind of see the future in terms of media consumption. but then i think the other benefit early on was just such a small market that being a swede like me, it forces us to think outside of our home market. it forces us from pretty much day one to think international. we've seen now in the open markets how that's benefiting

us. like for instance we open in turkey and all of a sudden in germany we started seeing spikes. and you know, for me that was just really really weird until you start thinking about it and you realize that there's i think it's about 6 million turkish folks living in germany, switzerland and austria. so when we went into turkey, we had a lot of the local repertoire and all of a send that became available even in germany. it's those kind of scale effects that's super interesting. same when we launched in hong kong we started seeing on the west coast and the u.s. a spike in usage. so we're seeing for me this cultural now exchange happening but it's happening almost in real time. >> rose: it's great to have you here. >> great. thank you for having me. >> rose: david ek is ceo and founder of spotify.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org how go you know if you or

a loved one has a.d.d.? answer these five questions. do you have a short attention span? are you easily distracted? do you struggle with organization? do you tend to procrastinate? and do you get yourself into hot water by saying or doing stupid things? if you answered yes to three or more and these symptoms interfere with your life, you may have a.d.d. (female announcer) in this program psychiatrist and nine-time "new york times" best-selling author dr. daniel amen and his wife nurse tana amen, also a "new york times" best-selling author, will give you a completely new way to look at and heal the seven types of a.d.d. thank you. today we're gonna talk about the most controversial medical issue of our time, attention deficit disorder,