4 ms·

if you paid for it, it didn't really change...

by arccy 2y ago

Krasnol 2y ago
Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  (not the poster, just someone earnest explicating at length) There's an odd dissonant quality to reading a broad-based lament* about "joining a service" and it "getting worse", in response to Spotify putting lyrics behind a paywall. I get it, I subscribe to the lament. It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics are paywalled. * Again, I lament this as well, but the language is sort of over-the-top and obviously unethical in a way that makes it seems more like its mocking people who lament this. "I hate" "becoming worse and worse" "How is this model still something CEOs go for?" "there are enough people stupid enough to keep on paying" "worth to lose people and keep on making more profits from quarter to quarter." "This is a pest." "I turned pirate again" "I'm teaching all my friends how to do it too."
  - Krasnol 2y ago
    The language is the result of an utter frustration and sheer anger with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore? It worked so well, but it seems like they can't squeeze enough out of us customers, and it has to be more and more every year. I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf. Now I somehow not only don't care anymore, I feel like I just want to do the opposite thing. I'm on bandcamp now for music, but I just don't care about movies/TV shows. Honestly, at this point I feel insulted by this model. I'd be ashamed to admit that I pay for x-services to watch my TV shows. > It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics aren't accessible. Don't those "free" users still have to endure advertisements? It isn't free then. It is stealing their attention as a price now they're just getting less for the "same" (is it the same? didn't the amount of ads rise?) price.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      > I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf. This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists? Rest is a bit too much for my bird brain, morning coffee is wearing off, 3 PM EST :( (ex. I can't add anything to the idea free is paid because ads, so removing lyrics for free users with ads means its making the paid service worse, so it justifies dropping the previous ethical stance of paying to get artists money, in favor of pirating)
      - Krasnol 2y ago
        > This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists? I'm sure this marketing argument works well with some of the customers as cover up for greed. Meanwhile, in reality, nobody will start paying just because there are no more lyrics. It's just another thing they hit them with to make the "free" version unattractive. Maybe it works on the bases of shame with the younger population, where your friends can see the lyrics right away, while you have to google them. Like the colors on chat bubbles thing in the US. I don't know.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore? Because to have music you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have lyrics you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have videos you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have your app working on some surfaces (think desktop vs phone vs speakers vs TVs vs cars vs...) you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because if you want to synchronize or show together some, or all, of the audio/video/lyrics/subtitles/etc. you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it. Disclaimer: I work at Spotify, and it annoys me to no end that these questions are never directed at the people who actually demand all this money: the rights holders.
- piva00 2y ago
  If you are a paid user you still have access to lyrics, if you are on the free subscription you lost access to it (lyrics also have licencing costs, it costs money to display lyrics to users). So if you were a paying customer nothing has changed.
  - Krasnol 2y ago
    Free users already have to suffer through advertisements while the artists get ridiculous amounts of money. As I wrote below: I doubt many people will start paying if they don't have access to lyrics. It is just another power move to make the "free" alternative worse for those who can't or won't afford the paid version.
    - piva00 2y ago
      Check the financial reports, Q1 2024 has just been released a week ago: ads don't pay much for Spotify, free users are mostly subsidised because it's a conversion funnel for people to try the service and become a premium subscriber. Makes sense to not pay licencing costs for lyrics as well on top of music for free users, they don't bring enough revenue. It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.
      - Krasnol 2y ago
        Ads seem to pay enough to make them squeeze more and more in it. > It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided. It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.
        piva00 2y ago
        It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. The best ads revenue would be to have as little as possible ads for the maximum amount of revenue, the opposite is counterproductive after a threshold (which is quite low). Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify, for most of the ads in podcasts Spotify is not earning anything. > It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention. Ads on Spotify are much more similar to radio ads than the stuff done by Meta, and Google. Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? Same for Spotify's free tier...

if you paid for it, it didn't really change...

by arccy 2y ago

if you paid for it, it didn't really change...

Krasnol 2y ago

Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.

refulgentis 2y ago
(not the poster, just someone earnest explicating at length) There's an odd dissonant quality to reading a broad-based lament* about "joining a service" and it "getting worse", in response to Spotify putting lyrics behind a paywall. I get it, I subscribe to the lament. It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics are paywalled. * Again, I lament this as well, but the language is sort of over-the-top and obviously unethical in a way that makes it seems more like its mocking people who lament this. "I hate" "becoming worse and worse" "How is this model still something CEOs go for?" "there are enough people stupid enough to keep on paying" "worth to lose people and keep on making more profits from quarter to quarter." "This is a pest." "I turned pirate again" "I'm teaching all my friends how to do it too."
- Krasnol 2y ago
  The language is the result of an utter frustration and sheer anger with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore? It worked so well, but it seems like they can't squeeze enough out of us customers, and it has to be more and more every year. I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf. Now I somehow not only don't care anymore, I feel like I just want to do the opposite thing. I'm on bandcamp now for music, but I just don't care about movies/TV shows. Honestly, at this point I feel insulted by this model. I'd be ashamed to admit that I pay for x-services to watch my TV shows. > It's just hard to imagine complaining about it in the context of using something in trial mode, for free, and the change being song lyrics aren't accessible. Don't those "free" users still have to endure advertisements? It isn't free then. It is stealing their attention as a price now they're just getting less for the "same" (is it the same? didn't the amount of ads rise?) price.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    > I went from pirate to paid because it was all there and I wanted to be able to give to the authors and artists without having to put discs on my shelf. This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists? Rest is a bit too much for my bird brain, morning coffee is wearing off, 3 PM EST :( (ex. I can't add anything to the idea free is paid because ads, so removing lyrics for free users with ads means its making the paid service worse, so it justifies dropping the previous ethical stance of paying to get artists money, in favor of pirating)
    - Krasnol 2y ago
      > This circles back and begs the question: you need to stop giving to artists, because free users can't see lyrics, because Spotify is trying to nudge more people to go paid & give to artists? I'm sure this marketing argument works well with some of the customers as cover up for greed. Meanwhile, in reality, nobody will start paying just because there are no more lyrics. It's just another thing they hit them with to make the "free" version unattractive. Maybe it works on the bases of shame with the younger population, where your friends can see the lyrics right away, while you have to google them. Like the colors on chat bubbles thing in the US. I don't know.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > with the whole business model. Why can't we have nice things anymore? Because to have music you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have lyrics you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have videos you have to get a license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because to have your app working on some surfaces (think desktop vs phone vs speakers vs TVs vs cars vs...) you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it. Because if you want to synchronize or show together some, or all, of the audio/video/lyrics/subtitles/etc. you have to get a different license from rights holders, and pay for it. Disclaimer: I work at Spotify, and it annoys me to no end that these questions are never directed at the people who actually demand all this money: the rights holders.
piva00 2y ago
If you are a paid user you still have access to lyrics, if you are on the free subscription you lost access to it (lyrics also have licencing costs, it costs money to display lyrics to users). So if you were a paying customer nothing has changed.
- Krasnol 2y ago
  Free users already have to suffer through advertisements while the artists get ridiculous amounts of money. As I wrote below: I doubt many people will start paying if they don't have access to lyrics. It is just another power move to make the "free" alternative worse for those who can't or won't afford the paid version.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Check the financial reports, Q1 2024 has just been released a week ago: ads don't pay much for Spotify, free users are mostly subsidised because it's a conversion funnel for people to try the service and become a premium subscriber. Makes sense to not pay licencing costs for lyrics as well on top of music for free users, they don't bring enough revenue. It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.
    - Krasnol 2y ago
      Ads seem to pay enough to make them squeeze more and more in it. > It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided. It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.
      - piva00 2y ago
        It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. The best ads revenue would be to have as little as possible ads for the maximum amount of revenue, the opposite is counterproductive after a threshold (which is quite low). Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify, for most of the ads in podcasts Spotify is not earning anything. > It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention. Ads on Spotify are much more similar to radio ads than the stuff done by Meta, and Google. Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? Same for Spotify's free tier...