No post body was provided.
Spotifyd
171–180 of 242 posts
Re: Spotifyd
#172Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…
Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…
> that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays.
To be entirely fair at least for me in lot of cases I end up adding maybe 2 songs of an artist total to my playlist. Assuming random passerby is going to like rest of your stuff just because they liked one song is a stretch.
Re: Spotifyd
#173Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…
Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…
> they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays.
I understand the criticism that it's hard for you to get an audience to notice you. But once somebody has listened to a tune of yours and then doesn't actively seek out more of it ... could it be that they just prefer to listen to something else instead? Competition is toughand it may feel easy to blame it on big tech, but sometimes peoples taste is just not something you can legislate..
Re: Spotifyd
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a problem inherent with walled garden social media. Their garden, their rules. Instead of trying to police behavior we don't like in those walled gardens (which is mostly like trying to walk in quicksand) we should be supporting open protocols and systems that don't require a walled garden at all, like the internet used to be.
How would you make any money as an artist with open protocols?
Open protocols don't make for open platforms. Mastodon is "open" yet big server admins are free to block anyone else they don't want, going back to the closed garden model. It is for good reason of course, there always be bad actors, but open or not it's all to easy for organization to use same tools to further their own goals
Re: Spotifyd
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…
> even if the link goes to Spotify, they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that. You can't pick what a radio station plays next after starting one of your s…
I think what people want and what Spotify wants is probably not the same.
I don't have specific knowledge but they probably try to optimize for retention. As such if they concluded that for example discovery is an important part of retention then switching artists might bring less listening time (which is not issue as long as you don't cancel) but more attachment to the platform.
Additionally the way they distribute royalties (as I understand it it's tied to the total of stream not your usage) might have some strange optimization. Like maybe they need to guarantee a minimum for the big player otherwise they might leave or in the opposite maybe they try to drive content away to pay them less and lower their influence.
Note: all of this is random speculation, I have no idea what happens just tried to think of possible use case where what user and Spotify want is not aligned.
Re: Spotifyd
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. You can always host your own music on your own site. Of course then you need to deal with monetisation and how you actually get paid. But you have control! Sincerely, as Spotify (and the rest of the streaming services) are forced to make more and more user-hostile decisions to keep their revenue growth curve going up and to the right, it might make sense to jump ship early.
One of the best entrepreneurial decisions to make in early start ups is to take control of your customers. This is regardless of the business, if someone is selling their products on Etsy or Amazon, part of the money goes to the company Etsy or Amazon. While, on the other hand the business could sell their products on their website and therefore get 100% of the money on their website. Many companies sell on their web…
> While, on the other hand the business could sell their products on their website and therefore get 100% of the money on their website
And then they also need to deal with all the crap that this entails.
Re: Spotifyd
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…
> they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays. I understand the criticism that it's hard for you to get an audience to notice you. But once somebody has listened to a tune of yours and then doesn't actively seek out more of it ... could it be that they just prefer to listen to something else in…
I think listening to an entire song of some unknown artist is a great sign that more tracks should be queued up.
Essentially, that artist generated traffic for Spotify, and Spotify channels that traffic to more known tracks that are more likely to generate conversions to paying customers.
Re: Spotifyd
#178Re: Spotifyd
#179Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…
> However Spotify doesn't agree. My naive assumption is that Spotify would love to, but the record labels don't agree.
I guarantee you any company doing what Spotify does would love to cut out the middleman.
The problem is that middleman owns near-everything your users want.
They hold all the cards, they can just say "hey, either you do X or you don't get our music library" and now your customers don't have ~95% music library they wanted.
I'd wager Spotify's reluctance to "just let you listen to fucking music" might be related to that, if it was just API you could integrate with any player you could make indie-only Spotify equivalent that just... uses Spotify API to play whatever is not on it.
Re: Spotifyd
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a better way to do this? Rate limiting, splicing ads into the audio signal for non-paying users, providing a stable API for paying users only, etc. Beats siccing your lawyers on hapless geeks.
People following instructions to dodge paying by commenting out the payment check code are hardly “hapless geeks”. Nobody does this by accident.
applying a patch to make something work - that seems super normal to me but I guess I'm a geek. Applying patch to a thing to use a service that advertises it supports free accounts? Why wouldn't it support a different client? Thatt seems kind of weird. Is it actually intentional or did they just screw up the library so you've got to work around the breakage like literally everythig in software?
So if you listen to a spotify free account that's fine unless you do it the wrong way and then it isn't. But nobody could ever make a mistake there. They're dodging paying by flagrantly using the wrong client?
I see that pretty differently but I haven't ever used a free spotify account and don't care to use spotify beyond supporting it on our hifi for others in my family so my view on it is far from complete and infallible.