3 ms·
It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.
by kjakm 6y ago
It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.
- falcolas 6y agoNit: It's nowhere close to all the music ever recorded. It's barely most of the mainstream artists.
- 3saryHg6LP2e 6y agoWill consumers pay that price is the question?
- Macha 6y agoThat ship sailed in the 90s with widespread music piracy. The market simply doesn't value digital copies of recorded music that much anymore. Spotify was an increase in artist revenues as prior to that most people were paying nothing for their music, be it bittorrent in the 00s, cd copying in the 90s, or recording radio to tape in the 80s.
- iterati 6y agoI'd just go back to torrenting at that price.
- Hamuko 6y agoThe problem is that people don't care about "all the music ever recorded". They mostly care about a very limited selection of music. And if Spotify starts costing like $45 a month, how many people still think it's worth it? You can buy like four albums off of iTunes for that and then listen to them as much as you want.
- mschuetz 6y agoFor all music ever recorded, maybe. But Spotify doesn't even have half of what I'm regularly listening to - a regular annoyance - let alone half of all music ever recorded.