5 ms·
I'm sympathetic to this (well, if I trusted access to continue uninterrupted and offline), but for me we're nowhere near there yet. Anyone with sufficiently un
by Bartweiss 11y ago
I'm sympathetic to this (well, if I trusted access to continue uninterrupted and offline), but for me we're nowhere near there yet.
Anyone with sufficiently unusual music tastes can't possibly get their content via 'access'. And that's not a high bar - even tame interests like EDM, jam, or jazz are completely unsolved via access in my experience.
- ThomPete 11y agoActually Spotify's numbers show that people listen to much more off-chart music when they only pay for access instead. So there are many ways to look at this.
- krisdol 11y agoSure, but the point is there are many off chart artists and tracks that I'm aware of, or own, that Spotify provides no access to. I've also found great underground albums by artists that one day went dark on Spotify. That happens all the time on all streaming services, especially YouTube. For obscure selection, the competitors to Spotify are even worse. Overall access is still a ways out. Access is taken away as easily at it is given. Without ownership you lose the ability to ever share that experience you once had access to.
- ThomPete 11y agoSure but this IMO is greatly countered by the fact that because you don't have to buy the music you get to listen to way more music. There are a lot of music that you would love but you aren't listening to because you don't know it exist. The chances of you experiencing that is bigger if you have access to more music without having to buy it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]