3 ms·
Although this will likely cause outrage from the entitlement brigade, I think it's pretty reasonable. If you feel the need to listen to a track more than five
by JonnieCache 16y ago
Although this will likely cause outrage from the entitlement brigade, I think it's pretty reasonable.
If you feel the need to listen to a track more than five times a month then that's surely an indication that it's worth chucking the artist/label ~£1 to get the MP3/FLAC. Once you you've done that you can move on to finding another new track to obsess over on spotify, with no opportunity cost.
In short, this emphasises spotify's suitability as a discovery service for new music, rather than as a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. This was always it's strength anyway.
The problem is that spotify is probably banking on the latter use case to support their business.
- chris_j 16y agoYou raise a good point about the distinction between a music discovery service and a way to avoid having to curate your own music collection. My personal use of music streaming services (we7 in my case) is built around the latter. If I have a party at my house, it's pretty useful to plug the laptop into the stereo and let people choose music from we7 rather than me having to specifically go out and buy any song that gets played. It sounds like Spotify are probably shooting themselves in the foot by destroying a good part of their value for a lot of their customers.
- semanticist 16y agoIf their users aren't paying them money, then they're not Spotify's customers, they're the product Spotify is selling to advertisers. Spotify's audio adverts can be really intrusive - it's definitely not something you'd want to cut in during a party.
- asb 16y agoAs I understand the wording on the blog post, it's 5 plays ever and not 5 plays per month.