4 ms·

I get your perspective, but music streaming is preferable for the majority of consumers. Most people are using mobile devices as their primary device, especiall

I get your perspective, but music streaming is preferable for the majority of consumers. Most people are using mobile devices as their primary device, especially for music, and not having to download songs is a cheaper and more memory efficient alternative. I knew kids in middle school who would spend hundreds of dollars a month buying iTunes songs with their parents credit cards. Now kids just need a $10 subscription. That's a solution for consumers.

Ntrails 9y ago
> Now kids just need a $10 subscription. For life. If the track they want is on that service, otherwise they need 2 $10 subscriptions. Or 3. Now tell me - do you think that helps the small artists who get a tiny % of listens and thus practically no revenue at all from sales? I bought hundreds of pounds worth of music, and now I listen to it. Sometimes I buy some more stuff. I'll never have to pay to listen to Dark Side of the Moon again though - and I'm happier that way.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Sometimes I feel like conveniences will ruin our lives.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I think the major market revelation is that entertainment can sometimes be fungible. You don't need lots of subscriptions because one is enough; if they don't have content you're looking for then no big deal, you'll find something else. I'm a person for whom a subscription makes perfect sense, for the most part I don't have a list of artists I'm a fan of, I just want decent quality and variety.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Music is not fungible, and definitely genre is not fine enough on some services. If I want the Goldberg Variations from Gould, Wendy Carlos won't cut it. Nor do I want some sopophoric Chopin piece afterwards. Kenny G doesn't belong on the same service as Jphn Coltrane. As bad as iTunes was for this, Spotify is worse.
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    I think there's also a second slightly terrifying question. What happens when you can no longer afford $10 a month? This may not be a boat we see ourselves being in, but the subscription services (once dominant) are free to raise prices. Maybe it hits $25 a month and suddenly what was convenient and cheap is just more than you can justify because you've lost your job and are living off savings. Suddenly you no longer have access to your music. The playlists you love, the one that gets you through a shitty day etc.
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      Gotta make sacrifices, though. If you don't own a collection of music, then you're just working to support the stream of music in your life. If you truly value specific music which can't be had in other free means, then it's worth your time and effort to own what gets you through your day. Music has really taken a turn since the age of the television though (I get it). It's just too unimportant to so many people, though. I'm sure these same people bought their TV outright, and aren't renting that either. I could rant on this forever. Nice infographic here (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-...).
EADGBE 9y ago
... And a really shitty solution for musicians. But honestly, I see the appeal; I really do.

Ntrails 9y ago

> Now kids just need a $10 subscription. For life. If the track they want is on that service, otherwise they need 2 $10 subscriptions. Or 3. Now tell me - do you think that helps the small artists who get a tiny % of listens and thus practically no revenue at all from sales? I bought hundreds of pounds worth of music, and now I listen to it. Sometimes I buy some more stuff. I'll never have to pay to listen to Dark Side of the Moon again though - and I'm happier that way.

EADGBE 9y ago
Sometimes I feel like conveniences will ruin our lives.
Spivak 9y ago
I think the major market revelation is that entertainment can sometimes be fungible. You don't need lots of subscriptions because one is enough; if they don't have content you're looking for then no big deal, you'll find something else. I'm a person for whom a subscription makes perfect sense, for the most part I don't have a list of artists I'm a fan of, I just want decent quality and variety.
- wbl 9y ago
  Music is not fungible, and definitely genre is not fine enough on some services. If I want the Goldberg Variations from Gould, Wendy Carlos won't cut it. Nor do I want some sopophoric Chopin piece afterwards. Kenny G doesn't belong on the same service as Jphn Coltrane. As bad as iTunes was for this, Spotify is worse.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  I think there's also a second slightly terrifying question. What happens when you can no longer afford $10 a month? This may not be a boat we see ourselves being in, but the subscription services (once dominant) are free to raise prices. Maybe it hits $25 a month and suddenly what was convenient and cheap is just more than you can justify because you've lost your job and are living off savings. Suddenly you no longer have access to your music. The playlists you love, the one that gets you through a shitty day etc.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    Gotta make sacrifices, though. If you don't own a collection of music, then you're just working to support the stream of music in your life. If you truly value specific music which can't be had in other free means, then it's worth your time and effort to own what gets you through your day. Music has really taken a turn since the age of the television though (I get it). It's just too unimportant to so many people, though. I'm sure these same people bought their TV outright, and aren't renting that either. I could rant on this forever. Nice infographic here (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-...).

EADGBE 9y ago

... And a really shitty solution for musicians. But honestly, I see the appeal; I really do.