5 ms·

Why I'm Not Going Near Spotify (and Why You Shouldn't Either)

23 points by gatsby 15y ago

sp332 15y ago
This sounds like an argument for a Zune Pass model. As long as you keep paying, you get access to the whole library. But each month you also get to download 10 tracks, so even when you stop paying, you can keep your favorite tracks around. (They're DRM-free MP3s.)
- jerrya 15y ago
  The article is premised on the assumption we typically "own" our music, but I just don't think that's true. We don't own what we hear on radio. Anyone old enough to have owned a vinyl record, 8-track, or cassette knows we "owned" those until the player "pwned" us and scratched the record, warped the record, or otherwise ate the tape. The CDs I "own" mostly mark me as ... old with 1980s musical tastes. I'm actually pretty happy with combination of Rhapsody and Google Music, though there are definitely some albums I wish Rhapsody would get (The Beatles, and, ... Soundtrack to American Werewolf in London, and, ...). But actually Rhapsody, Google Music, and Squeezebox Server have made me purchase a lot more music than I have for a long time. Of course, the music I purchase tends to be used CDs from Amazon for pennies plus shipping. I would in fact like the Zune Pass model.
  - frossie 15y ago
    Yeah, his whole argument is based on this Simply put: the way we consume music is fundamentally different to the way we consume movies and TV. This used to be true, but I am not sure it is any longer - at least not for everyone. Listening to the same album obsessively over and over again is certainly a phase I went when I was younger, but now I am perfectly happy to listen to Pandora, especially as my tastes have broadened, and finding new interesting stuff to listen to trumps the need to hear the same familiar stuff over and over.
    - hype7 15y ago
      I saw BigChampagne (http://bcdash.bigchampagne.com/who http://bcdash.bigchampagne.com/who) tweet about the article, and they say that even among the younger people they work with/survey say that ownership is more important than access. I don't think it's changing.
    - extension 15y ago
      Don't underestimate the average consumer's taste for repetition. In the month I've lived next to my current neighbors, they have listened to a grand total of one song. Many times. And the songs you listen to now may one day be "classics" that you want to listen to again. Given the volume and diversity of present day music, that might only be possible if you have an MP3 stashed away somewhere.
tagmclaren 15y ago
I agree. I think it's a good article, and it boils down to - if you're paying a monthly fee, don't do it for DRM'd tracks
tagmclaren 15y ago
oh... and check out the comments down the bottom of the article... fun reading :)
cageface 15y ago
I really don't see the issue here. I pay peanuts to rd.io each month (can't get Spotify here in Vietnam yet) to have access to a vast catalog of music I want to hear occasionally or just preview. The small handful of albums I really care about I buy in FLAC format and backup in S3. I get the best of both worlds with a minimum of fuss. Subscription-based music services have significantly increased my enjoyment of music and freed me from the hassles of managing a big local library. I don't care about DRM on streaming music because I know I don't "own" it.
- gregschlom 15y ago
  Just for your information, I've been using Spotify in Vietnam for 10 months. You just have to sign up with an address in one of Spotify's launched countries, and pay the monthly fee ($4.99), since it won't work as free.
irons 15y ago
I never bought more music in my life than during Napster's heyday. Spotify seems to herald much of the same. It's going to be expensive.
ddw 15y ago
If I buy a CD, burn it to my computer and then sell that CD, do I have to delete the MP3 copy on my computer? The law says yes; I "owned" the music while I possessed the CD. When I sold the CD I gave my ownership and my copies are illegal. I'd bet that 99% of people would keep the copy on their computer though. Until this perception is changed, the author's point doesn't really matter. Because I'm paying so little for Spotify and because of it's very history of struggle coming to the U.S., I know it could be temporal. As is pretty much everything, including the physical media which can also degrade. Maybe services like Spotify will change that perception and the consumer and the industry will meet in the middle with a cheap subscription price. But unless all of the methods of illegally accessing music are closed, I don't think that'll happen.
ThomPete 15y ago
Talk about a nonsense article. I have been using spotify ever since the very beginning in 2008 and I have yet to experience any of those issues. Besides. Even if spotify where twice as expensive it would still be a good deal if you listen to music a lot. Much to do about nothing.
- hype7 15y ago
  Wow, you haven't experienced any of those issues therefore they can't bait and switch?
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Even if Spotify were to increase prices, it's not bait and switch. This article makes no sense. Duh, if Spotify goes away, if you leave for any reason (rates, terms of service, whatever)... their music goes with it. That's how subscription services work. If Netflix goes away, I lose access to the movies that Netflix was letting me stream. The fact that someone is used to "owning" their music or re-listening more than you usually re-watch movies doesn't change any of the core principles of the business model. One album costs $10. If I listen to that album once a day for 30 days (not EVER going to happen, but I'm trying to be generous), then I'm still only filling a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time I listen to music. $10 with Spotify gives me effectively non-stop new music. In 6 months, I'll have spent $60 and had the benefit of listening to hundreds of albums. Even if something happens that I stop using Spotify... are you really implying that I haven't extracted good value from Spotify as a service? If Spotify's price increases that I don't think I can get the same or a good value.... I just stop using it and go back to life as it was before. What is the lock in? There seems to be an implication that I will have "wasted" my money on Spotify since I have no music mp3s to show for it. Did my family waste their money on Netflix despite the fact that I don't own any of the hundreds of DVDs that they've watched or streamed? I just don't understand this implied malice at work here. Besides, it (seems) completely ignorant of Spotify's existence in the rest of the world for some time now.
    - kstenerud 15y ago
fr0sty 15y ago
I've been a Napster subscriber from some time and they are actively engaged in a version of this. They have two tiers of music: "free to stream" and "purchase only or :30 preview": they have gotten into the habit of moving tracks from one category to the other as they get popular or in some cases pulling entire albums from their catalogue for unexplained reasons. While I'm sure what they are doing is legal it still is a shady "the first hit is free" type business model. So far the annoyance has been minimal as my tastes are not too mainstream but it still pops up far too often.
kalleboo 15y ago
> there's nothing to suggest that you'll be able to get the playlists on your computer out as easily as Spotify does from iTunes. It is actually really easy, I think they have an API for this. Once Spotify launched in the U.S., my friend switched from Spotify to WiMP (wimpmusic.se), and they could easily just import his playlists and boom he had all his music again. It's sure a heck of a lot easier than dealing with DRM - I still have a ton of songs from iTunes Japan (which still uses FairPlay DRM) I can't play on my Android phone at all
shriphani 15y ago
Once upon a time, a 24/7 persisting network was expensive / out of each for a lot of people. Now, I at least have been enveloped in 3G / Wifi wherever I go (maybe I should go out a bit more ? ). Even from an analysis perspective, buffering over networks (which I use) is good enough for music consumption (44.1 * 4 bytes in 1 sec if we consider wav being streamed. That's 44 KBPs needed to repro at original sampling rate. Our networks do several multiples of that right now. I can't listen to music faster than that.) It is convenient, it is the future. OP's conundrum is the same my grandfather faced a few decades ago when my grandpa thought "Oh Shit, if the local library closes, I am owned and have to listen to a radio or something to pass my time". And the MAFIAA ? Well, they're setting themselves up for some severe disruption. I-Will-Fuck-The-World is not a sustainable business model.
petercooper 15y ago
It's nice of this chap to tell us how we listen to music. I've been a Spotify subscriber for almost two years and if they jacked up the price or went bust, I wouldn't be upset or the victim of a bait and switch. He seems to think we're all music "addicts" who will do anything to get our fix when in reality I wouldn't care if I went a few weeks without listening to anything specific and then I could just patch it up by buying any albums I particularly missed over time.
teyc 15y ago
The guy who wrote the article is a "collector". I know one when I spot one. A collector accumulates things that he might one day come round to want to use again. Other people who are prepared to pay know that pop music is fickle anyway. I don't know of too many people who'd dust off their Sonny and Cher albums for their guests (unless it is for Kitsch Nite).
- philwelch 15y ago
  Not everyone listens to the kind of "pop music" that doesn't stand up to repeated listening.
  - teyc 15y ago
    Spotify isn't for those people. It can't be everything to everybody,
kennu 15y ago
My couple of years as a Spotify subscriber have radically changed my music listening habits. I used to buy records and listen to them over and over again. Now it's more about constantly discovering new music (eg. via Facebook links) and having a more casual relationship to it. I only buy the really important ones on physical media, usually vinyl.

23 points by gatsby 15y ago

sp332 15y ago

This sounds like an argument for a Zune Pass model. As long as you keep paying, you get access to the whole library. But each month you also get to download 10 tracks, so even when you stop paying, you can keep your favorite tracks around. (They're DRM-free MP3s.)

jerrya 15y ago
The article is premised on the assumption we typically "own" our music, but I just don't think that's true. We don't own what we hear on radio. Anyone old enough to have owned a vinyl record, 8-track, or cassette knows we "owned" those until the player "pwned" us and scratched the record, warped the record, or otherwise ate the tape. The CDs I "own" mostly mark me as ... old with 1980s musical tastes. I'm actually pretty happy with combination of Rhapsody and Google Music, though there are definitely some albums I wish Rhapsody would get (The Beatles, and, ... Soundtrack to American Werewolf in London, and, ...). But actually Rhapsody, Google Music, and Squeezebox Server have made me purchase a lot more music than I have for a long time. Of course, the music I purchase tends to be used CDs from Amazon for pennies plus shipping. I would in fact like the Zune Pass model.
- frossie 15y ago
  Yeah, his whole argument is based on this Simply put: the way we consume music is fundamentally different to the way we consume movies and TV. This used to be true, but I am not sure it is any longer - at least not for everyone. Listening to the same album obsessively over and over again is certainly a phase I went when I was younger, but now I am perfectly happy to listen to Pandora, especially as my tastes have broadened, and finding new interesting stuff to listen to trumps the need to hear the same familiar stuff over and over.
  - hype7 15y ago
    I saw BigChampagne (http://bcdash.bigchampagne.com/who http://bcdash.bigchampagne.com/who) tweet about the article, and they say that even among the younger people they work with/survey say that ownership is more important than access. I don't think it's changing.
  - extension 15y ago
    Don't underestimate the average consumer's taste for repetition. In the month I've lived next to my current neighbors, they have listened to a grand total of one song. Many times. And the songs you listen to now may one day be "classics" that you want to listen to again. Given the volume and diversity of present day music, that might only be possible if you have an MP3 stashed away somewhere.

tagmclaren 15y ago

I agree. I think it's a good article, and it boils down to - if you're paying a monthly fee, don't do it for DRM'd tracks

tagmclaren 15y ago

oh... and check out the comments down the bottom of the article... fun reading :)

cageface 15y ago

I really don't see the issue here. I pay peanuts to rd.io each month (can't get Spotify here in Vietnam yet) to have access to a vast catalog of music I want to hear occasionally or just preview. The small handful of albums I really care about I buy in FLAC format and backup in S3. I get the best of both worlds with a minimum of fuss. Subscription-based music services have significantly increased my enjoyment of music and freed me from the hassles of managing a big local library. I don't care about DRM on streaming music because I know I don't "own" it.

gregschlom 15y ago
Just for your information, I've been using Spotify in Vietnam for 10 months. You just have to sign up with an address in one of Spotify's launched countries, and pay the monthly fee ($4.99), since it won't work as free.

irons 15y ago

I never bought more music in my life than during Napster's heyday. Spotify seems to herald much of the same. It's going to be expensive.

ddw 15y ago

If I buy a CD, burn it to my computer and then sell that CD, do I have to delete the MP3 copy on my computer? The law says yes; I "owned" the music while I possessed the CD. When I sold the CD I gave my ownership and my copies are illegal. I'd bet that 99% of people would keep the copy on their computer though. Until this perception is changed, the author's point doesn't really matter. Because I'm paying so little for Spotify and because of it's very history of struggle coming to the U.S., I know it could be temporal. As is pretty much everything, including the physical media which can also degrade. Maybe services like Spotify will change that perception and the consumer and the industry will meet in the middle with a cheap subscription price. But unless all of the methods of illegally accessing music are closed, I don't think that'll happen.

ThomPete 15y ago

Talk about a nonsense article. I have been using spotify ever since the very beginning in 2008 and I have yet to experience any of those issues. Besides. Even if spotify where twice as expensive it would still be a good deal if you listen to music a lot. Much to do about nothing.

hype7 15y ago
Wow, you haven't experienced any of those issues therefore they can't bait and switch?
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Even if Spotify were to increase prices, it's not bait and switch. This article makes no sense. Duh, if Spotify goes away, if you leave for any reason (rates, terms of service, whatever)... their music goes with it. That's how subscription services work. If Netflix goes away, I lose access to the movies that Netflix was letting me stream. The fact that someone is used to "owning" their music or re-listening more than you usually re-watch movies doesn't change any of the core principles of the business model. One album costs $10. If I listen to that album once a day for 30 days (not EVER going to happen, but I'm trying to be generous), then I'm still only filling a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time I listen to music. $10 with Spotify gives me effectively non-stop new music. In 6 months, I'll have spent $60 and had the benefit of listening to hundreds of albums. Even if something happens that I stop using Spotify... are you really implying that I haven't extracted good value from Spotify as a service? If Spotify's price increases that I don't think I can get the same or a good value.... I just stop using it and go back to life as it was before. What is the lock in? There seems to be an implication that I will have "wasted" my money on Spotify since I have no music mp3s to show for it. Did my family waste their money on Netflix despite the fact that I don't own any of the hundreds of DVDs that they've watched or streamed? I just don't understand this implied malice at work here. Besides, it (seems) completely ignorant of Spotify's existence in the rest of the world for some time now.
  - kstenerud 15y ago

fr0sty 15y ago

I've been a Napster subscriber from some time and they are actively engaged in a version of this. They have two tiers of music: "free to stream" and "purchase only or :30 preview": they have gotten into the habit of moving tracks from one category to the other as they get popular or in some cases pulling entire albums from their catalogue for unexplained reasons. While I'm sure what they are doing is legal it still is a shady "the first hit is free" type business model. So far the annoyance has been minimal as my tastes are not too mainstream but it still pops up far too often.

kalleboo 15y ago

> there's nothing to suggest that you'll be able to get the playlists on your computer out as easily as Spotify does from iTunes. It is actually really easy, I think they have an API for this. Once Spotify launched in the U.S., my friend switched from Spotify to WiMP (wimpmusic.se), and they could easily just import his playlists and boom he had all his music again. It's sure a heck of a lot easier than dealing with DRM - I still have a ton of songs from iTunes Japan (which still uses FairPlay DRM) I can't play on my Android phone at all

shriphani 15y ago

Once upon a time, a 24/7 persisting network was expensive / out of each for a lot of people. Now, I at least have been enveloped in 3G / Wifi wherever I go (maybe I should go out a bit more ? ). Even from an analysis perspective, buffering over networks (which I use) is good enough for music consumption (44.1 * 4 bytes in 1 sec if we consider wav being streamed. That's 44 KBPs needed to repro at original sampling rate. Our networks do several multiples of that right now. I can't listen to music faster than that.) It is convenient, it is the future. OP's conundrum is the same my grandfather faced a few decades ago when my grandpa thought "Oh Shit, if the local library closes, I am owned and have to listen to a radio or something to pass my time". And the MAFIAA ? Well, they're setting themselves up for some severe disruption. I-Will-Fuck-The-World is not a sustainable business model.

petercooper 15y ago

It's nice of this chap to tell us how we listen to music. I've been a Spotify subscriber for almost two years and if they jacked up the price or went bust, I wouldn't be upset or the victim of a bait and switch. He seems to think we're all music "addicts" who will do anything to get our fix when in reality I wouldn't care if I went a few weeks without listening to anything specific and then I could just patch it up by buying any albums I particularly missed over time.

teyc 15y ago

The guy who wrote the article is a "collector". I know one when I spot one. A collector accumulates things that he might one day come round to want to use again. Other people who are prepared to pay know that pop music is fickle anyway. I don't know of too many people who'd dust off their Sonny and Cher albums for their guests (unless it is for Kitsch Nite).

philwelch 15y ago
Not everyone listens to the kind of "pop music" that doesn't stand up to repeated listening.
- teyc 15y ago
  Spotify isn't for those people. It can't be everything to everybody,

kennu 15y ago

My couple of years as a Spotify subscriber have radically changed my music listening habits. I used to buy records and listen to them over and over again. Now it's more about constantly discovering new music (eg. via Facebook links) and having a more casual relationship to it. I only buy the really important ones on physical media, usually vinyl.