3 ms·

I understand that subscriptions are required for the best features of these services - my point was merely that I would rather pay to have access to my own libr

I understand that subscriptions are required for the best features of these services - my point was merely that I would rather pay to have access to my own library from anywhere than a semi-complete library that I can't control. I listen to a lot of music that isn't on iTunes or Rhapsody or <insert service here>. Having the ability to access a more complete library of what I actually want to listen to presents a huge value to me. Hence my willingness to pay for a locker over a streaming service. But believe me, I know not everyone is as picky as I am.

mitjak 15y ago
Indeed. You seem to assume that the music library is somehow static which isn't the reality for a lot of users of Spotify and other streaming services. There are at least a dozen albums released and reissued every day, and some people (like me) enjoy checking out new music on a daily basis. It is simply not viable to keep buying all those albums and store them in a library, particularly if you won't listen to them ever again after the first listen. While an edge case, the shades of gray in the middle still demand a constantly changing library. Thus, Spotify and Grooveshark, whose catalogue I personally like a lot more, are much better choices than the 'online library' services.