3 ms·

It seemed to work out fine for Spotify

• striking 11y ago
  That's likely because MP3 files are smaller than Windows Service packs, and because Spotify is a thing you install yourself. Windows comes with the computer, with this turned on. Also, Spotify is no longer P2P anyway, because it only served as a temporary cost-saving measure. And now it's gone. [1] 1: https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-starts-shutting-down-its-massive-p2p-network-140416/ https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-starts-shutting-down-its-ma...
• rohansingh 11y ago
  With Spotify, the aim was low latency. If you click on a song, it should start playing immediately. There's no such requirement for software updates. Back when the only data center was in Stockholm, the only way to meet latency requirements was P2P. Now that we're a grown-up company we've disabled that and use CDN's instead.
  • RKearney 11y ago
    > With Spotify, the aim was low latency. If you click on a song, it should start playing immediately. That was not their aim at all. Their aim was lowering bandwidth costs by shifting the content delivery costs over to the end users. This was made clear by the fact that when you played a song, it started downloading the song from AWS S3 immediately to minimize latency, then once the P2P sessions fired up, shifted over to that stream instead of their costly S3 one.
  • kamekai 11y ago
    I had always assumed that the P2P was to help mitigate the cost of data so that the Spotify team could better use their limited (at the time) funds to secure more music contracts. Were operational costs not as drastic as I might be assuming?
• pbreit 11y ago
  Spotify's P2P usage enabled the amazingly fast response times which made every user's life better on an ongoing basis. That's a pretty fair tradeoff.