401–410 of 511 posts
And Joe Rogan, which is why I cancelled my subscription and switched to Tidal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You answered your own question with a bunch of links most are not going to click on. Most people don't care, they want to pay 10/mo, have a "reasonably" good UI and play music. They don't want to keep track of 6 different URLs to find music. Note: I probably listen to Somafm through Sonos just as much as Spotify and I donate.
> Most people don't care, they want to pay 10/mo, have a "reasonably" good UI and play music. Sifting through the comment section, it doesn't seem like Spotifys UI or their competitors is "reasonably" good, but the majority of the internet users need to have banner ads, discounts and influencer-BS shoved down their throats to feel valued as a customer. All of the aforementioned radio stations offer a modern and slick…
I believe, Spotify is pretty much the best thing ever. I understand the criticism - but to me, this is just a sign of how far we've come. I was born in 1984 and, from a very early age, was really into Metal. That was a problem - since there were literally zero ways to discover new songs. The radio and MTV didn't play Metal. None of my friends shared my taste in Music. The listening stations at HMV & Co (remember thos…
In the UK my public library had CDs including metal and that was how I discovered music as a teenager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weren't we all complaining 20 y ago that music labels were giving bands pennies on the dollar and the only way they could actually live off of the music was by touring and selling merch? I think Radiohead then did the groundbreaking selling of mp3s for a pay what you want fee. Now the baddie is Spotify.
Worse than that, I remember reading articles about how some artists didn't "make" a single dollar from their first album that sold millions. It all went to the record company and paid for marketing and advances. Sometimes they didn't begin to see revenue until 2nd or 3rd albums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspected this practice and ran a very rudimentary test which concluded they were not doing such things. I made a playlist with Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Justin Bieber and then an equal amount of songs from obscure artists with fewer than 1000 followers (this was back when followers was the main popularity metric, now it's monthly streams). I then played the playlist on shuffle, expecting for the 'popular'/ expensive…
I believe statement is about the playlist Spotify makes, not those made by user. Those called "Daily Mix", generated on user listening choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could be solved by a "donate" button to reward bands you like. Edit: (such an obvious idea, they've already done it: "fan support" feature).
No thanks. E-tip jars belong on Twitch and Youtube Live. Something about that feels very "off", it feeds that parasocial interaction thing in ways that a band selling merch does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That was expensive. Really expensive. At somewhere around $15-20 dollar for an Album, buying an Album a week took up about all my allowance - and most of the measly income from side jobs I've made as an adolescent. Interestingly, Spotify you have been as streaming service and an MP3 shop where you actually pay the music like 0.5€ so you could actually do whatever you want and listen to your music the way you want.…
> The current situation is that you don't own anything and you can't just deal with raw files (which locks you into a quite shitty UI). It has never been easier to own an easily copiable and backup-able form of the music you want and use it with myriad ways to play it and listen to it. People just don’t want to pay a dollar or two for their favorite songs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does remove songs, or at the very least disables some (you can toggle a setting to see disabled songs) presumably due to copyright/licensing issues. But worse, it sometimes _replaces_ a song with a different version, with no warning and no recourse
It's impossible to listen to some albums because of song replacement. You can try to do so, but when you click play on some albums it replaces several tracks with their single versions. I noticed this last year with Dark Side of the Moon, although that's since been fixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On top of that this data can be completely anonymised without compromising the data. All you need is an entry "a user listened to a song". This probably gets more hairy when it comes to a user's listening history and things like Spotify Wrapped, discover weekly etc., but this is one of those areas that fall under expectations from a service, legitimate interest etc.
I think this discussion was about switching a pooled model to one where a user's subscription payment is directly split according to that user's listens. That requires unaggregated and unanonymized listen data.
This is solved (well, not solved, but handled) by not having a direct link between usage data and the user. So you store your data as which references which references . This way you can always easily break the connection to PII (if the user requests deletion) while keeping per user data.
But true, it's not anonymized in this case.
I believe, Spotify is pretty much the best thing ever. I understand the criticism - but to me, this is just a sign of how far we've come. I was born in 1984 and, from a very early age, was really into Metal. That was a problem - since there were literally zero ways to discover new songs. The radio and MTV didn't play Metal. None of my friends shared my taste in Music. The listening stations at HMV & Co (remember thos…
I have a similar opinion, but with one big caveat (which means I'd be happy to drop Spotify in a heartbeat): I still have access to all those old albums I bought with my wages and allowance. I've digitized them, and they have migrated from computer to computer. And a large number of those albums/songs... aren't on Spotify. And all the songs I've 'discovered' on Spotify will also be gone some day, because they're not…