8 ms·

I don't get whats weird about that? You need some kind of device in order to listen to Spotify and today there is a lot of services competing with Spotify. Spo

I don't get whats weird about that? You need some kind of device in order to listen to Spotify and today there is a lot of services competing with Spotify. Spotify also have a huge number of free accounts that rely on ads which probably means less profits for Spotify. Everyone still needs to actually spend money to get the device but you don't really need to spend money to listen to music. Also, while Airpods is a "one off" purchase, a lot of people don't like having subscriptions (like me for example). I have spent hundreds of dollars the last years on headphones (not Airpods tho) but I hesitate for a long time before starting a subscription service. Not because I cannot afford to, I just do not like subscription services. Spotify, Youtube Music etc provide a free service. With adblocker, music.youtube.com is totally free without any ads so I have a really hard time to justify the cost of another paid service like Spotify. Edit: if you downvote this, please comment on why? What is incorrect about my statements?

crazygringo 7y ago
Just that it used to be the opposite for most people. When I was in my teens, I spent waaay more money on CD's than I ever did on my Discman and headphones. The fact that it's now the norm to spend more money on your audio hardware than on what you listen to is just an interesting reversal.
- moretai 7y ago
  There's just so much to listen to besides music.
  - MS90 7y ago
    That, and also the fact that services like Spotify/Netflix/Amazon/etc. allow you to access everything for a flat monthly fee. Back in the day you had to buy each album individually for $10-$15 (or more) each, same with movies. Nowadays I can go on Netflix and watch what would've been hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of DVDs for 13 bucks a month.
- ecmascript 7y ago
  Well, with the advent of internet and better computers I guess producing music and distributing it became so much cheaper and faster the price dropped. Since also many (like me) pirated their way in their teens I never purchased many cds. I got an mp3 early from japan with 512mb of disk space. This was huge, all my classmates had like 128mb or less. It was clear for me anyway that I would never pay a lot for the music because there was simply no reason to. I haven't really experienced the time where it was a norm to spend a lot of money on cds. I am 29 and this kind of experience you have seems to become more and more uncommon as time passes ;)
  - bradstewart 7y ago
    This made me remember the days of having to decide which songs to put on my little 128MB Rio MP3 player every week. Such a strange "problem" to think about now.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  are you sure it's the norm? I mean first off Spotify is a service that gets money on a subscription model, airpods are a hardware device, so the people who buy airpods this year and that have spotify will buy spotify maybe 2 or 3 years before they buy new airpods. Airpods might have captured more of the market this year for headphones than Spotify captures for its market. Finally the people who use Spotify might use multiple services etc. So even if you spend more money on your audio hardware than what you listen to I don't think we know if people actually spend more on their hardware than on what they listen to.
- gowld 7y ago
  Looking back on Discman, iPod, stereo receivers, car stereos, speaker setups, and the golden age of kazaa and torrents, I think most people spend more on audio hardware than content, but ad revenue makes it competitive.
bdcravens 7y ago
There’s more headphone options than Spotify option, and many of those options are less than AirPods or what you’d spend on Spotify in a year.
LadyCailin 7y ago
It’s free without ads, but is it ethical? That’s the larger question to be asked. Say what you will about how big a cut the corporations get vs the artists, but you’re taking the service without paying for it, directly or indirectly. I hate ads just as much as you, but I also pay for most of the media I consume regularly, be it spotify, newspapers, even youtube, I contribute to various youtuber’s patreons. All in all I probably spend no more that $30 a month on these subscriptions, all ad free, and helping to ensure that the media I love can continue to be offered at reasonable prices. If you can’t afford it, that’s one thing, but you said you can, so...

crazygringo 7y ago

Just that it used to be the opposite for most people. When I was in my teens, I spent waaay more money on CD's than I ever did on my Discman and headphones. The fact that it's now the norm to spend more money on your audio hardware than on what you listen to is just an interesting reversal.

moretai 7y ago
There's just so much to listen to besides music.
- MS90 7y ago
  That, and also the fact that services like Spotify/Netflix/Amazon/etc. allow you to access everything for a flat monthly fee. Back in the day you had to buy each album individually for $10-$15 (or more) each, same with movies. Nowadays I can go on Netflix and watch what would've been hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of DVDs for 13 bucks a month.
ecmascript 7y ago
Well, with the advent of internet and better computers I guess producing music and distributing it became so much cheaper and faster the price dropped. Since also many (like me) pirated their way in their teens I never purchased many cds. I got an mp3 early from japan with 512mb of disk space. This was huge, all my classmates had like 128mb or less. It was clear for me anyway that I would never pay a lot for the music because there was simply no reason to. I haven't really experienced the time where it was a norm to spend a lot of money on cds. I am 29 and this kind of experience you have seems to become more and more uncommon as time passes ;)
- bradstewart 7y ago
  This made me remember the days of having to decide which songs to put on my little 128MB Rio MP3 player every week. Such a strange "problem" to think about now.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
are you sure it's the norm? I mean first off Spotify is a service that gets money on a subscription model, airpods are a hardware device, so the people who buy airpods this year and that have spotify will buy spotify maybe 2 or 3 years before they buy new airpods. Airpods might have captured more of the market this year for headphones than Spotify captures for its market. Finally the people who use Spotify might use multiple services etc. So even if you spend more money on your audio hardware than what you listen to I don't think we know if people actually spend more on their hardware than on what they listen to.
gowld 7y ago
Looking back on Discman, iPod, stereo receivers, car stereos, speaker setups, and the golden age of kazaa and torrents, I think most people spend more on audio hardware than content, but ad revenue makes it competitive.

bdcravens 7y ago

There’s more headphone options than Spotify option, and many of those options are less than AirPods or what you’d spend on Spotify in a year.

LadyCailin 7y ago

It’s free without ads, but is it ethical? That’s the larger question to be asked. Say what you will about how big a cut the corporations get vs the artists, but you’re taking the service without paying for it, directly or indirectly. I hate ads just as much as you, but I also pay for most of the media I consume regularly, be it spotify, newspapers, even youtube, I contribute to various youtuber’s patreons. All in all I probably spend no more that $30 a month on these subscriptions, all ad free, and helping to ensure that the media I love can continue to be offered at reasonable prices. If you can’t afford it, that’s one thing, but you said you can, so...