Well, if you don't pay with money, you're paying with your attention. Do you think they create this huge service just for funsies?
Tbf, out of all media streaming services across movies, series, and music, Spotify has the highes bang-for-your-buck. It's still like Netflix at that time when there was only Netflix and you could watch almost everything on one platform. I still buy records that I like on physical media like vinyl, but Spotify is such a great deal for convenient listening to all music out there.
Man these people forget the days when a month of Spotify would afford you 1 CD. I remember cause I would spend half my paycheck on music. I'm just sitting here happy for services like Spotify and YouTube in my life. I remember a time when music and information was much harder to obtain (even illegally).
But if you bought the CD you actually owned something. Stop paying for the services and you have nothing if all you used was spotify/YouTube/pandora. I gave up on paying for streaming years ago and spend the same amount monthly on purchasing music. I get CDs, either new or used. Iโve amassed a collection and I donโt need Internet or monthly charges to play them.
But I don't want to own it. I don't want to amass a collection of CDs taking up space somewhere. Been there, done that. I have a large collection of ripped mp3s from CDs I bought in the 90s and early 2000s (I've long since disposed of the physical media). I haven't clicked on a single one of them in years, I just keep them for nostalgia sake and because they take relatively little space.
I just occasionally want to listen to music sans commercials or annoying DJs wasting my time. For the cost of 1 CD a month my entire family can listen to almost anything they desire, at any time, without hassles (on Pandora in our case but I assume the economics are similar).
Same thing with movies, honestly. I watch them once and move on. There's a small handful I like enough to rewatch and I do own those.
I get the whole, we don't own anything anymore, argument and I mostly agree with it (see my massive Steam library). I just want both options to be viable. Streaming for ephemeral entertainment and actual ownership for the things I choose to keep.
We all have our preferences and I enjoy the quantity of music I can get in a heartbeat. It really sucked when you were 16 and spent $15 on a CD that sucked because there was no way to hear it ahead of time.
My rule was always โbuy it if there are at least 3 songs I know & likeโ. Only really had a few disappoint. I used to hang out at used CD stores though. I got so many for $2.50 or $5. Even a few gems for $1.
Valid point, but commuting with my turntable to listen to my sick vinyls on the go is a pain in the ass. Also moving sucks ass when you have a metric fuckton of sensitive vinyl to move. Owning stuff also has its downsides. Also no way I'm digitizing my vinyls and cutting them and shit to listen to them on the go, ain't nobody got time fo dat.
I gave up on CDs roughly 15 years ago because I don't like the format compared to vinyl (small album art, plasticy jewelcases, ...).
You owned the music when you buy it. With multiple backups the risks of losing it it very minimal but with spotify or other streaming services, if you have to reduce your expenses you completely lose the access to the music till you pay again. Spotify always grey out songs too so even when you pay you may not have access to the some of the music you want to listen to
I feel you, the value from Spotify is enormous. I can sift through ten different bands in no time just because I decided that I want to look up a new genre that I may or may not be totally into by the end.
Kid: goes to school
Police: THAT'S ILLEGAL
I remember cause I would spend half my paycheck on music
Lmao
Hahaha seriously
I remember my 56k ass was a Napster pro
I was 16 before Napster existed. It didn't come out til I was 19. You guys are so ignorant and self centered. Claim you care about the artists but you want it all for free and when Spotify makes things difficult on you your solution is to pirate everything. We pirated when music was far more expensive than it was now. Software cost $1000s and there wasn't a $60 monthly option. People actually lived on minimum wage back then and it was $4.25/hr.
๐
Surely you have a better explanation for why Spotify isn't giving you the full service for free.
Your point?
Yeah don't use it if you don't want to, idc. But you might accept the thought that there are people that think the deal Spotify puts on the table is good.
Spotify is not profitable nor ever has been. It accrued $4B in additional debt last year. The business is subject to high royalty fees. As a competitor, I just leave free Spotify running all day on mute since they lose money from every subscriber. The royalties are the same whether they make money or not on the customer. It is wise of them to more aggressively convert people to paid plans, but Iโm sure that their margins are razor thin.
You individually are a competitor to Spotify?
I hum in the shower ๐๐๐
Spotify execs hate this one trick
Not sure why my comment was deleted, but no. I work for a corporate competitor or them. Spotify is a public company, so it is plain to see that they are not profitable and have never been.
I know not everyone will agree, but I think YouTube premium is the better bang-for-buck service. $3 more per month than Spotify and includes YouTube Music premium and YouTube Premium. So all the music and ad-free YouTube.
Except what YT Premium does is easily doable with free tools.
Only so long as Google decides to continue serving content for free to people who contribute nothing to their bottom line, which isn't guaranteed to last.
Anyone that thinks Google's WebDRM is going to stop with ads is a fool.
Ultimately, there's no real way to get around the fact that operating huge platforms like YouTube that serve hundreds of millions of people every day comes with very significant costs, and someone has to pay them. Either users pay them directly, advertisers pay them in exchange for ad space, or investors pay them in exchange for the ability to control the platform for whatever purpose they want.
Given that, I'm personally pretty happy to settle on direct subscription fees. For the sheer amount of content you get, I don't think it's really that unreasonable, though I am of course speaking as someone in a position where I can afford them.
*with free tools from thankless efforts.
You can donate to projects you like tho
Preach. Iโd rather donate to those folks than give google money lawl
Are you actually doing that though?
Yep! Recently to Yuzu and a mod creator that personally helped me get TotK running at 60FPS with no drops or stutters!
I used to. And I will do it again once I have an income where I don't have to count pennies.
Are you donating to them?
An argument could easily be made for Spotify as well. There are plenty of options for streaming music for free to your device with download support. Just about anything can be done for free if people are willing.
YT is just the more egregious example of this imo.
Sure, for now. YouTube is cracking down on ad-blockers, don't think they'll let those free tools work forever...
YouTube is basically the same price as Spotify in my country (only 12 cents more actually), so even more bang for my buck, specially for family plans.
I'm currently in a three month trial due to the value (music streaming and ad free you tube), but coming from Pandora YT Music's radio algorithm sucks sooooo bad. One of my first plays was a foo fighters album and now all the stations I create have alt/grunge in them. It's making it really hard to consider staying.
Surprising to see any suggestions on here for YouTube Premium. I have been lucky enough to be on a family plan for years and it's honestly great. Sometimes, it's just easier not to deal with having to hack around things to make them usable.
Family is one of the biggest reasons. A huge part of it for me was minimizing at least SOME of the ads my kids would be exposed to.
I did not agree when I had both premium, I did not agree when I had YT light and Spotify premium, and I do not agree today.
Context: I only use YT for its main service; streaming video. I never tried YT music because I already had music streaming set up in a way that worked for me.
I mean, if you are paying for two services but don't use one by choice, sure I can see the value not being there.
I'd rather vote for Deezer. Costs the same, but you also get lossless (16-bit 44.1kHz FLAC) audio.
By the way, free-mp3-download.net rips songs from Deezer. And if you don't like spending storage, you could self-host your own Navidrome server, though I get that may not be convenient.
I need 48-bit 96kHz raw PWM otherwise my ears can't tolerate it. I can hear the difference in the waveforms.
Careful, this same take when discussing YouTube ads will draw the ire of the internet
Well, if you don't pay with money, you're paying with your attention. Do you think they create this huge service just for funsies?
Tbf, out of all media streaming services across movies, series, and music, Spotify has the highes bang-for-your-buck. It's still like Netflix at that time when there was only Netflix and you could watch almost everything on one platform. I still buy records that I like on physical media like vinyl, but Spotify is such a great deal for convenient listening to all music out there.
Man these people forget the days when a month of Spotify would afford you 1 CD. I remember cause I would spend half my paycheck on music. I'm just sitting here happy for services like Spotify and YouTube in my life. I remember a time when music and information was much harder to obtain (even illegally).
But if you bought the CD you actually owned something. Stop paying for the services and you have nothing if all you used was spotify/YouTube/pandora. I gave up on paying for streaming years ago and spend the same amount monthly on purchasing music. I get CDs, either new or used. Iโve amassed a collection and I donโt need Internet or monthly charges to play them.
But I don't want to own it. I don't want to amass a collection of CDs taking up space somewhere. Been there, done that. I have a large collection of ripped mp3s from CDs I bought in the 90s and early 2000s (I've long since disposed of the physical media). I haven't clicked on a single one of them in years, I just keep them for nostalgia sake and because they take relatively little space.
I just occasionally want to listen to music sans commercials or annoying DJs wasting my time. For the cost of 1 CD a month my entire family can listen to almost anything they desire, at any time, without hassles (on Pandora in our case but I assume the economics are similar).
Same thing with movies, honestly. I watch them once and move on. There's a small handful I like enough to rewatch and I do own those.
I get the whole, we don't own anything anymore, argument and I mostly agree with it (see my massive Steam library). I just want both options to be viable. Streaming for ephemeral entertainment and actual ownership for the things I choose to keep.
We all have our preferences and I enjoy the quantity of music I can get in a heartbeat. It really sucked when you were 16 and spent $15 on a CD that sucked because there was no way to hear it ahead of time.
My rule was always โbuy it if there are at least 3 songs I know & likeโ. Only really had a few disappoint. I used to hang out at used CD stores though. I got so many for $2.50 or $5. Even a few gems for $1.
Valid point, but commuting with my turntable to listen to my sick vinyls on the go is a pain in the ass. Also moving sucks ass when you have a metric fuckton of sensitive vinyl to move. Owning stuff also has its downsides. Also no way I'm digitizing my vinyls and cutting them and shit to listen to them on the go, ain't nobody got time fo dat.
I gave up on CDs roughly 15 years ago because I don't like the format compared to vinyl (small album art, plasticy jewelcases, ...).
You owned the music when you buy it. With multiple backups the risks of losing it it very minimal but with spotify or other streaming services, if you have to reduce your expenses you completely lose the access to the music till you pay again. Spotify always grey out songs too so even when you pay you may not have access to the some of the music you want to listen to
I feel you, the value from Spotify is enormous. I can sift through ten different bands in no time just because I decided that I want to look up a new genre that I may or may not be totally into by the end.
Kid: goes to school
Police: THAT'S ILLEGAL
Lmao
Hahaha seriously
I remember my 56k ass was a Napster pro
I was 16 before Napster existed. It didn't come out til I was 19. You guys are so ignorant and self centered. Claim you care about the artists but you want it all for free and when Spotify makes things difficult on you your solution is to pirate everything. We pirated when music was far more expensive than it was now. Software cost $1000s and there wasn't a $60 monthly option. People actually lived on minimum wage back then and it was $4.25/hr.
๐
Surely you have a better explanation for why Spotify isn't giving you the full service for free.
Your point?
Yeah don't use it if you don't want to, idc. But you might accept the thought that there are people that think the deal Spotify puts on the table is good.
Spotify is not profitable nor ever has been. It accrued $4B in additional debt last year. The business is subject to high royalty fees. As a competitor, I just leave free Spotify running all day on mute since they lose money from every subscriber. The royalties are the same whether they make money or not on the customer. It is wise of them to more aggressively convert people to paid plans, but Iโm sure that their margins are razor thin.
You individually are a competitor to Spotify?
I hum in the shower ๐๐๐
Spotify execs hate this one trick
Not sure why my comment was deleted, but no. I work for a corporate competitor or them. Spotify is a public company, so it is plain to see that they are not profitable and have never been.
I know not everyone will agree, but I think YouTube premium is the better bang-for-buck service. $3 more per month than Spotify and includes YouTube Music premium and YouTube Premium. So all the music and ad-free YouTube.
Except what YT Premium does is easily doable with free tools.
Only so long as Google decides to continue serving content for free to people who contribute nothing to their bottom line, which isn't guaranteed to last.
Anyone that thinks Google's WebDRM is going to stop with ads is a fool.
Ultimately, there's no real way to get around the fact that operating huge platforms like YouTube that serve hundreds of millions of people every day comes with very significant costs, and someone has to pay them. Either users pay them directly, advertisers pay them in exchange for ad space, or investors pay them in exchange for the ability to control the platform for whatever purpose they want.
Given that, I'm personally pretty happy to settle on direct subscription fees. For the sheer amount of content you get, I don't think it's really that unreasonable, though I am of course speaking as someone in a position where I can afford them.
*with free tools from thankless efforts.
You can donate to projects you like tho
Preach. Iโd rather donate to those folks than give google money lawl
Are you actually doing that though?
Yep! Recently to Yuzu and a mod creator that personally helped me get TotK running at 60FPS with no drops or stutters!
I used to. And I will do it again once I have an income where I don't have to count pennies.
Are you donating to them?
An argument could easily be made for Spotify as well. There are plenty of options for streaming music for free to your device with download support. Just about anything can be done for free if people are willing.
YT is just the more egregious example of this imo.
Sure, for now. YouTube is cracking down on ad-blockers, don't think they'll let those free tools work forever...
YouTube is basically the same price as Spotify in my country (only 12 cents more actually), so even more bang for my buck, specially for family plans.
I'm currently in a three month trial due to the value (music streaming and ad free you tube), but coming from Pandora YT Music's radio algorithm sucks sooooo bad. One of my first plays was a foo fighters album and now all the stations I create have alt/grunge in them. It's making it really hard to consider staying.
Surprising to see any suggestions on here for YouTube Premium. I have been lucky enough to be on a family plan for years and it's honestly great. Sometimes, it's just easier not to deal with having to hack around things to make them usable.
Family is one of the biggest reasons. A huge part of it for me was minimizing at least SOME of the ads my kids would be exposed to.
I did not agree when I had both premium, I did not agree when I had YT light and Spotify premium, and I do not agree today.
Context: I only use YT for its main service; streaming video. I never tried YT music because I already had music streaming set up in a way that worked for me.
I mean, if you are paying for two services but don't use one by choice, sure I can see the value not being there.
I'd rather vote for Deezer. Costs the same, but you also get lossless (16-bit 44.1kHz FLAC) audio.
By the way, free-mp3-download.net rips songs from Deezer. And if you don't like spending storage, you could self-host your own Navidrome server, though I get that may not be convenient.
I need 48-bit 96kHz raw PWM otherwise my ears can't tolerate it. I can hear the difference in the waveforms.
Careful, this same take when discussing YouTube ads will draw the ire of the internet