PDA

View Full Version : Spotify Accepting Signups for US Launch




MacRumors
Jul 6, 2011, 12:24 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/06/spotify-accepting-signups-for-us-launch/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/spotifyus-500x181.png


Spotify is officially coming to the United States. Domestic visitors to Spotify.com are now redirected to a signup page (http://www.spotify.com/int/coming-to-the-us/) where users can enter an email address to "be one of the first to get Spotify."

Spotify (http://www.spotify.com/) is a Sweden-based streaming music service that offers music from a number of major and independent record labels. It has hitherto been available only in western Europe.

There are free subscriptions limited by hours of listening time, and then paid subscriptions that offer features such as offline mode, the ability to download songs to iPods and more. Subscription fees range from €5 to €10 per month. Spotify recently raised (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/17/spotify-u-s-launch-imminent-raises-100m-round/) a $100 million venture round at a $1 billion valuation.

Spotify can be used as a replacement for iTunes, iTunes Match and the iTunes Store. Instead of letting users listen to music they have purchased or acquired from other sources, Spotify allows listeners to stream any songs Spotify has licensed.

It is quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match will be, costing €60-€120/year in Europe, versus $25/year for iTunes Match. US pricing has not been announced yet.

Sign up on Spotify.com (http://www.spotify.com/int/coming-to-the-us/) to get an invite when the site finally opens.

Article Link: Spotify Accepting Signups for US Launch (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/06/spotify-accepting-signups-for-us-launch/)



MacBoucher
Jul 6, 2011, 12:29 PM
I just wonder how deep the catalog will be compared to iTunes... I signed up anyway.

Consultant
Jul 6, 2011, 12:32 PM
Hope it doesn't go the way of the adware pandora. :mad:

Radio has fewer ads than Pandora now.

salazr
Jul 6, 2011, 12:33 PM
I still can't figure out why this particular service gets so much launch related buzz when Rdio is already out there kicking ass.

No mention of Rdio at all? Come on.

EnderTW
Jul 6, 2011, 12:34 PM
I just wonder how deep the catalog will be compared to iTunes... I signed up anyway.

You're comparing a streaming service to a pay per song service..

griz
Jul 6, 2011, 12:34 PM
Quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match, but don't you get access to the entire catalog rather than just what you already own? Seems to me like the streaming service that everyone had expected to see from Apple.
But 60-100 euro seems a little steep. That's $86-$143/year. Could buy an album a month at that price and own it. I don't think I come across more than an album a month that I would find worthy of buying.

poseidon84
Jul 6, 2011, 12:34 PM
Hope it doesn't go the way of the adware pandora. :mad:

Radio has fewer ads than Pandora now.

If they go the same model they have now you get either free streaming and ads or pay and no ads. Also they have limitations when it comes to the amount of hours playing, unlimited when paying for it of course.

EnderTW
Jul 6, 2011, 12:35 PM
I still can't figure out why this particular service gets so much launch related buzz when Rdio is already out there kicking ass.

No mention of Rdio at all? Come on.

Spotify has over 12 million songs, Rhapsody comes close at 10 million, Radio is under 9.

It's easy to see why people are hyped about this.

kurzz
Jul 6, 2011, 12:36 PM
With this service, you're basically renting songs, just like Netflix, you don't get to keep any songs after unsubscribing.

EnderTW
Jul 6, 2011, 12:36 PM
Quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match, but don't you get access to the entire catalog rather than just what you already own? Seems to me like the streaming service that everyone had expected to see from Apple.
But 60-100 euro seems a little steep. That's $86-$143/year. Could buy an album a month at that price and own it. I don't think I come across more than an album a month that I would find worthy of buying.

True, however rhapsody and MOG are 9.99 a month, so I'm pretty sure it's going to come in at 9.99 for ipad/iphone.

EnderTW
Jul 6, 2011, 12:37 PM
With this service, you're basically renting songs, just like Netflix, you don't get to keep any songs after unsubscribing.

Uh sure, except for netflix it's not as accessible and you only get 1-4 physical versions. You're renting 12 million songs all the time.

Popeye206
Jul 6, 2011, 12:39 PM
Maybe I don't get it.... streaming music could be nice, but I can get basically free music of my choice from my direct TV, or from 1000 other internet radio stations out there.

I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What am I missing????

kurzz
Jul 6, 2011, 12:41 PM
Maybe I don't get it.... streaming music could be nice, but I can get basically free music of my choice from my direct TV, or from 1000 other internet radio stations out there.

I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What am I missing????

With these services (Spotify, Rdio, Mog etc) they let you put those songs on your music player too, e.g. play it "offline". Of course, the files are DRM.

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 12:41 PM
I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What makes you think that you need to own music to listen to it offline?

Popeye206
Jul 6, 2011, 12:41 PM
With this service, you're basically renting songs, just like Netflix, you don't get to keep any songs after unsubscribing.

But they say "Stream".... to me that means nothing is kept local.... it's given essentially on-demand and then gone after play.

Can you go pick out 500 songs and have them local on your iPhone with this? Active as long as you pay your subscription? Or is streamed 4-5 at a time in a revolving door?

leon44
Jul 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
If it wasn't for all the music Spotify hasn't got, like The Beatles and Oasis, and my terribly slow internet connection at home, and the fact that it's not quite as seamless and inbuilt in your iPhone/iPod as the iPod and iTunes (specially with iTunes match), then I'd happily let it replace iTunes for me.

Cander
Jul 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
What am I missing????

The fact that you get to CHOOSE what song you want to listen to and not just what is currently playing.

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
Can you go pick out 500 songs and have them local on your iPhone with this? Active as long as you pay your subscription?

That's exactly what you can do (any number of songs up to 3333)

haiggy
Jul 6, 2011, 12:45 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

Cander
Jul 6, 2011, 12:47 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

I do.

/deletes browsing history

Small White Car
Jul 6, 2011, 12:48 PM
You're comparing a streaming service to a pay per song service..

Well what's he supposed to compare it to? Pizza?

The question is "Should I use this and stop buying songs on iTunes?" That's a pretty normal question, I'm not sure why you think it's an unreasonable thing to ask about.

Popeye206
Jul 6, 2011, 12:49 PM
That's exactly what you can do (any number of songs up to 3333)

Cool... Now I get it... the term "stream" made it sound like a live connection was needed all the time.

Not sure it would be for me. Right now my music bill is less than $3 a month. I might add one or two songs from time to time to my collection. So, not for me.

darbus69
Jul 6, 2011, 12:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

free streaming for variety and discovery; iTunes for purchase, storage, distribution amongst devices-I cannot justify 80-150 more per year for music-starts cutting into beer money! For all you Alternative fans check out NME-on iTunes radio or on the web...

smithrh
Jul 6, 2011, 12:49 PM
....

blackpond
Jul 6, 2011, 12:50 PM
How does this compare to the torrent + iTunes Match model? :D

smithrh
Jul 6, 2011, 12:50 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

I knew.

dumoon
Jul 6, 2011, 12:50 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?


I am familiar with the aforementioned word. :p

Awjvail
Jul 6, 2011, 12:51 PM
"Hitherto"?

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll0fmvdgqb1qj0zk3o1_500.gif

nOw2
Jul 6, 2011, 12:57 PM
More foreigners should be welcomed to Spotify. It completely revolutionised my music listening habits; I even subscribed before the listening hours were cut..

Spotify: Instantaneous access to almost any music, at any time.

kurzz
Jul 6, 2011, 12:58 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

Oh come on, broaden your vocabulary just a little bit. It'll make you look heretofore like an intellectual.

skeleb
Jul 6, 2011, 01:00 PM
The free version of Spotify only allows 5 plays/one song. So if you like that one song a lot, you can only listen it to 5 times before it becomes unavailable. Otherwise it's a great service, I use it mainly to find new bands to listen to.

rwilliams
Jul 6, 2011, 01:05 PM
I'm a Rdio subscriber and absolutely love the service, but if Spotify has 3 million more songs, I may have to consider switching, if the price isn't much higher.

Clifto
Jul 6, 2011, 01:11 PM
Grooveshark should be in the mix here as well.

marksman
Jul 6, 2011, 01:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Hope it doesn't go the way of the adware pandora. :mad:

Radio has fewer ads than Pandora now.

Use jelli jelli > pandora

musio
Jul 6, 2011, 01:14 PM
The app is still stinky. Out of so many updates the app has, it STILL whilst playing music, dims the screen and locks your phone if you have a passcode (which many do as fools don't put passcodes on)

Pisses me off when driving and have spotify on as it's dangerous unlocking your phone on the road. No, i can't be bothered to turn passcode off.

when i mailed spotify about this last year i got 'yeah, thanks for the suggestion...we'll keep it in mind'

My dear American friends, bless you if you subscribe with shuch a shoddy app.

NebulaClash
Jul 6, 2011, 01:16 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

Seriously, who hasn't heard that word before, and in today's world where it is trivially easy to look up an unfamiliar word, why are you complaining about an appropriate use of a word that you happen to not know? The action to be taken here is for you to learn a new word rather than insist MR limit its vocabulary to the subset most familiar to everyone regardless of language exposure.

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 01:17 PM
The app is still stinky. Out of so many updates the app has, it STILL whilst playing music, dims the screen and locks your phone if you have a passcode (which many do as fools don't put passcodes on)

Pisses me off when driving and have spotify on as it's dangerous unlocking your phone on the road. No, i can't be bothered to turn passcode off.

when i mailed spotify about this last year i got 'yeah, thanks for the suggestion...we'll keep it in mind'

My dear American friends, bless you if you subscribe with shuch a shoddy app.

I don't see how Spotify can correct that. Apps shouldn't change basic functionality of the device like that.

rwilliams
Jul 6, 2011, 01:22 PM
I don't see how Spotify can correct that. Apps shouldn't change basic functionality of the device like that.

Rdio does this as well, and it's annoying while driving. The iPod app will dim the screen, but will not lock the phone if it's being charged while music is playing. Is that functionality a result of a private API call that other developers are not allowed to use?

JTToft
Jul 6, 2011, 01:27 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

- I do. And English is not my first language. It's really not very difficult to figure it out based on the context in which the word was used...

Seriously, who hasn't heard that word before, and in today's world where it is trivially easy to look up an unfamiliar word, why are you complaining about an appropriate use of a word that you happen to not know? The action to be taken here is for you to learn a new word rather than insist MR limit its vocabulary to the subset most familiar to everyone regardless of language exposure.

- Well said. Very well said.

writingdevil
Jul 6, 2011, 01:28 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

well it's not Russian, you know? don't use it myself but pretty obvious, even if you don't know the word, in context, what it means. like my journalism teacher said, when you write for the American public, dumb it down..and most papers do write for a junior high school spelling/vocabulary level. ahhhh..tech sites, the home of tech discussions, now branching into the dissection of language. *sigh* missing the peeps who contribute to tech knowledge....

firestarter
Jul 6, 2011, 01:31 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

Why would you write a post to complain how you're less ignorant than you were 5 minutes ago?

Thunderhawks
Jul 6, 2011, 01:32 PM
With this service, you're basically renting songs, just like Netflix, you don't get to keep any songs after unsubscribing.

Just the next step in changing consumers habits as far as music goes.

I used to collect LP albums (Remember LP albums?)
Then converted whatever was available into CD's. (Remember CD's?)
Then bought some songs on itunes (Remember itun.....wait a little early)

By now I don't need to own any songs and depending on what I want to listen to at a given moment I have plenty of services pandora, grooveshark, you tube etc. Some of these give me European or other continents music that can't be bought in the itunes store due to contractual/legal issues.

Only listening to the ipod app on my iphone when I am in a bad reception area (Hello ATT 3G everywhere please and keep it in 3G) or some news and sports on testicular radio:-)

As an old geezer I think owning stuff like movies or music is so yesterday!

Aidoneus
Jul 6, 2011, 01:37 PM
Ok, if you guys are getting Spotify, please can we have Hulu?

jabooth
Jul 6, 2011, 01:41 PM
Ok, if you guys are getting Spotify, please can we have Hulu?

I second this! :D

Nothlit
Jul 6, 2011, 01:42 PM
I don't see how Spotify can correct that. Apps shouldn't change basic functionality of the device like that.

Rdio does this as well, and it's annoying while driving. The iPod app will dim the screen, but will not lock the phone if it's being charged while music is playing. Is that functionality a result of a private API call that other developers are not allowed to use?

I'm not 100% certain of the API details, but I know that apps can individually prevent auto-lock (for example, Pandora has an option to do this). However, I don't think there is a public API that allows them to go into that "half-asleep" state where the screen dims but stays unlocked, at least as of iOS 4.3.3. I think iOS 5 adds a public API for manipulating the backlight, so maybe we will see third-party apps duplicating this functionality in the future.

transmaster
Jul 6, 2011, 01:48 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?


Now you know what hitherto means like the rest of us:D

iTune is still going to remain the 80,000 ton Godzilla of digital music delivery. With 3 Terabytes of music in my personal collection thanks to 40 years of collecting I use iTunes because most of the time they have the really obscure artists I am looking for.

d0minick
Jul 6, 2011, 01:56 PM
TBH this is what i wanted Apple to do. I am on Rdio right now, but the larger database might have me jump ship. I signed up.


I understand a lot of people wonder why people use this service. For me it is perfect. Netflix + RDIO have really simplified the digital content for me. I do not like buying dvd's/blu-rays and I really don't like buying music either, i dont really give things much replay value. The streaming/rental concept really fits for me, at a certain rate a month I am able to listen and watch basically what I want on demand.

For instance, i would never want to buy a comedy album but i wanted to hear Azizs'. he is funny as hell and I listened to his album this week, but i would not give it much replay value.

Also, wifey and I are watching weeds on netflix (amazing show) but I would never want to buy the box set, no replay value for me.

Streaming really works out, for me, not for everyone.

bladerunner88
Jul 6, 2011, 01:59 PM
Grooveshark should be in the mix here as well.

Ya I use Grooveshark and quite like, and was wondering how different Groveshark is from Spotify?

karlwig
Jul 6, 2011, 02:06 PM
Quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match, but don't you get access to the entire catalog rather than just what you already own? Seems to me like the streaming service that everyone had expected to see from Apple.
But 60-100 euro seems a little steep. That's $86-$143/year. Could buy an album a month at that price and own it. I don't think I come across more than an album a month that I would find worthy of buying.

I have an account here in Norway. Yeah, you do get access to their entire catalog. It's pretty huge, though sometimes I miss certain oddities like a Soft Machine album or other little known bands from the 60's. Though I often put the service to such tests, it still feels like the Spotify library contains 90% of all music that's ever made. Hopefully they'll sign up even more, like The Beatles (a rare exception and a huge drawback for me).

The cost for Spotify is much cheaper than a CD per month, in my experience. A CD is usually 100 or 150 kroners here, while unlimited Spotify streaming is 50 kroners (about 6 dollars).

Gonna be interessting to see the final pricing in the US, and how they differensiate the products.

Here in Norway (and Sweden I suppose) there's three offers: the free version, unlimited for about $6/month (no ads, unlimited streaming) and premium (unlimited + smartphone access + offline playlists) for about $12.

In other words, you pay more to get access to the Spotify app that allows you to stream to your smartphone, as well as get offline playlists.

I gotta say, it's a very nice service and I think they have a really good business model. You can't compare it to Pandora, it's more like if iTunes put all the songs available in the iTunes store in your library for you to consume at a montly fee instead of paying for songs. And the UI is much less bloated than iTunes, which IMO has become slow with the newest updates.

I'm excited about whether they can break into the US market.

Winni
Jul 6, 2011, 02:11 PM
Cool... Now I get it... the term "stream" made it sound like a live connection was needed all the time.

That's because that is what streaming actually means - you do NOT have a local copy when you listen to or watch a stream. Streaming technologies were not designed to provide offline content - their purpose is to PREVENT offline content.

When these services now also offer downloads that can be used offline, than this is an additional service that has nothing to do with streaming.

Vertigo50
Jul 6, 2011, 02:12 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

Um, I think you'll find that people who read books on a regular basis will probably know what that word means.

Besides, looking up new words is how you learn. Would you prefer all writers stick to a 4th grade reading level so we never have to look something up?

Reason077
Jul 6, 2011, 02:15 PM
I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What am I missing????

You're missing the fact that Spotify, in the paid version, does allow you to sync (download) your playlists and "take (music) with (you) anywhere - away from the internet".

Reason077
Jul 6, 2011, 02:19 PM
How does this compare to the torrent + iTunes Match model? :D

As far as usability goes, very well. In fact its often faster and easier to search for and play something in Spotify than it is to find something in your own iTunes library.

steadysignal
Jul 6, 2011, 02:21 PM
Hope it doesn't go the way of the adware pandora. :mad:

Radio has fewer ads than Pandora now.

+1

ads suck. :)

Portaluk
Jul 6, 2011, 02:21 PM
Ok, if you guys are getting Spotify, please can we have Hulu?


... and netflix, lovefilm is terrible when it comes to streaming.

Popeye206
Jul 6, 2011, 02:21 PM
I gotta say, it's a very nice service and I think they have a really good business model. You can't compare it to Pandora, it's more like if iTunes for streaming, and the UI is much less bloated.

I'm excited about whether they can break into the US market.

I keep hearing complaints about iTunes being bloated.

To make a side comment here... I think iTunes is gone in the fall. With wireless syncing coming to the iDevices, I think the music part of iTunes will become iMusic (or iTunes that is just music again) and there will be something separate for managing your iDevices in the iCloud.

Makes sense when you think of iPhoto, Newstand, iBooks, App Store, ect.... an app for each type of content and then something to glue it all together via iCloud.

Bloat gone.

deadkennedy
Jul 6, 2011, 02:22 PM
The service is great but the app is terribly designed. No grouping, no sorting, no filtering by anything. You think you could sort the playlists alphabetically? Forget about it.

It is really like having a great gourmet meal, but served in a mail box and you have to eat it with a shoe.

neccoloup
Jul 6, 2011, 02:26 PM
interesting announcement but this post reads too much like an advertisement, especially considering iTunes match isn't even out yet

karlwig
Jul 6, 2011, 02:26 PM
It is quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match will be, costing 60-120/year in Europe, versus $25/year for iTunes Match.

Wouldn't a more fair comparasion be the monthly price for iTunes Match plus the price you pay monthly to buy CD's / iTunes songs?

This is apples and oranges: You cannot compare a service like Spotify where you pay montly to "own" (though just stream) every song in their library, against iTunes match which is more for syncing and doesn't include any music you didn't already buy (unless you pirate of course).

winston1236
Jul 6, 2011, 02:40 PM
Maybe I don't get it.... streaming music could be nice, but I can get basically free music of my choice from my direct TV, or from 1000 other internet radio stations out there.

I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What am I missing????


well the first thing i would say you're missing is that with these services you dont have to carry around a sat dish haha

Consultant
Jul 6, 2011, 02:46 PM
With this service, you're basically renting songs, just like Netflix, you don't get to keep any songs after unsubscribing.

Exactly, especially when the service dies in a few years, all the money people paid will be gone.

Didn't this already happened about a decade ago with subscription services vs. iTunes?

rembert
Jul 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
After having used the free Spotify Open intensively for a week now (and occasionally before) I just signedup for Spotify Premium: 7 days free, and now extended to 30 days. That's a nice deal. (BTW I'm in Europe)

I had already found new bands and singer-songwriters via Spotify which I'd never found any other way. Yes, I'll use the iCloud solution and have my MP3 stuff upgraded for that $25 price. But that's my collection and doesn't really invite me to listen to new stuff.

I did like Pandora in the past and Spotify is just better. Even while driving home today, I could continue listening to my Spotify playlist while driving, just by using my iPhone and 3G. Downloading songs so I can listen to them while offline works as a charm as well. Spotify is just easy to use, at first it may look a bit like "where's the music" but as soon as you've found some, you'll keep finding huge numbers of songs you never heared of.

But, I'm not sure if it will be worth the 10 euro per month. Anyway, I have 30 days to decide.

MarkNY
Jul 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
I wonder how much of the $25 per year for iTunes Match is going to the record labels? I remember a few years ago there was a rumor of a flat fee option of a few hundred dollars being floated by Apple to the record companies that would give the user complete rights to all audio on in iTMS, and would be bundled into the price of new iPhones. That seems a better deal to the record labels than iTunes Match. Seems to me iTunes Match is going to increase piracy. Steal it first, then launder it through iTunes Match. Spotify makes more sense to me from the point of view of the labels.

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 02:49 PM
Exactly, especially when the service dies in a few years, all the money people paid will be gone.

But that should have no impact on you - you aren't investing money in something for the long term, you're only paying for a month at a time.

fabian9
Jul 6, 2011, 02:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Maybe I don't get it.... streaming music could be nice, but I can get basically free music of my choice from my direct TV, or from 1000 other internet radio stations out there.

I want to be able to own (i.e. take with me anywhere - away from the internet) music I like. So even though a streaming service may be nice for variety, I need something that allows me to step away from the internet.

What am I missing????

You're missing the fact that spotify supports offline playlists. I.e. if there is an album you like, add it to a playlist and make it available offline - it'll then download all the songs on that playlist for you to enjoy when you're away from the Internet! :)

iBookG4user
Jul 6, 2011, 02:53 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

You didn't know what it meant and couldn't figure it out from the context it was used?

Expand your vocabulary a bit! :)

In regards to the article, this is awesome news, I can't wait to start listening to songs on Spotify :D

ratzzo
Jul 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
I love Spotify. I hope this change doesn't worsen or reduce its current quality. Ads are just fine the way they are now in the European version.

Also, when I travel abroad (ie US) my account does not work claiming US is not available for Spotify use... so I wonder if I can keep using it with my current account outside Europe and not have to make another one for US use.

weckart
Jul 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
Ya I use Grooveshark and quite like, and was wondering how different Groveshark is from Spotify?

Grooveshark is slow, Spotify damn near instantaneous. Grooveshark uses flash for its interface and sets the fans on my white Macbook screeching.

MartinAW
Jul 6, 2011, 03:06 PM
The service is great but the app is terribly designed. No grouping, no sorting, no filtering by anything. You think you could sort the playlists alphabetically? Forget about it.

It is really like having a great gourmet meal, but served in a mail box and you have to eat it with a shoe.

There's definitely room for improvement, but it isn't that bad :-)

You can group playlists and sort them manually, just drag. You can sort your music and cmd+f brings up a filter option. Id like to see some extra features in there to take it to the next level, but whats there is pretty good.

Shannighan
Jul 6, 2011, 03:16 PM
How does this service compare to rhapsody? I currently subscribe to rhapsody, but if there is some significant advantage I might make the switch

BitterMelon
Jul 6, 2011, 03:26 PM
The service is great but the app is terribly designed. No grouping,
Grouping as in not playlists? Sub-playlists? What is it you want to group?
no sorting,
Right... only by title, artist, album, length of the song, when it was added to the playlist, who added it and explicit ordering. ;-)
no filtering by anything.
Cmd+f gives you a search filter within a playlist. For everything else there is the normal search box for the entire library.
You think you could sort the playlists alphabetically? Forget about it.
Tried clicking the labels above the list?

BitterMelon
Jul 6, 2011, 03:27 PM
Used the free service last year to see if it was worth the monthly fee, and deleted it within 2 days! way to many announcements most of them repetitive and annoying.
Wow, you turned down the service on the basis of an annoying "feature" that isn't even present in the paid version? Impressive...

Rantipole
Jul 6, 2011, 03:28 PM
There are free subscriptions limited by hours of listening time, and then paid subscriptions that offer features such as offline mode, the ability to download songs to iPods and more. Subscription fees range from €5 to €10 per month.
Why is Spotify news? Napster and MOG already offer this.

EDIT: BTW, MOG is better than Napster, and probably better than Spotify.

ksgant
Jul 6, 2011, 03:29 PM
Thanks to MR, I now know what hitherto means.

Seriously, wtf lol Why would you use that word how many people know what it means without looking it up?

big words make head all hurty. i am with you. after grade 4 no need to learn words. words are bad.

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 03:29 PM
Why is Spotify news? Napster and MOG already offer this.

Those services have never been as popular as Spotify.

Neither of them offers the exact same features as Spotify.

With the launch of Spotify in the US, it will also be the only service to actually be in both the US market and the European market.

zreoxx
Jul 6, 2011, 03:31 PM
How does this compare to the torrent + iTunes Match model? :D

Well if your time searching, downloading and importing doesn't costs less than $10 / month and you at the same time don't wan't to support the music industry and want to get fines for downloading you probably should stick with torrents.

For me spotify works great. If I do want to have any physical media in my hands I buy the LP version. But that's just me.

ksgant
Jul 6, 2011, 03:32 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png

Enjoy your music...

Daveoc64
Jul 6, 2011, 03:37 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya:

Image (http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png)

Enjoy your music...

While the payments for streaming services may not be great, there is no reason why:

a) You can't buy AND stream music (I have Spotify Premium yet I still buy music). The music that I stream but do not buy is stuff that I wouldn't ever have considered buying in the first place. It's much better for the artist to get a ridiculously small amount for that than it is to get nothing at all.

b) Streaming Services offer poor revenue streams for artists (this is clearly a problem with their contracts, not the services themselves).

If nobody bought music and everyone streamed it, then the distribution of money would obviously have to change.

MadIvan
Jul 6, 2011, 03:37 PM
Just the next step in changing consumers habits as far as music goes.

I used to collect LP albums (Remember LP albums?)
Then converted whatever was available into CD's. (Remember CD's?)
Then bought some songs on itunes (Remember itun.....wait a little early)

By now I don't need to own any songs and depending on what I want to listen to at a given moment I have plenty of services pandora, grooveshark, you tube etc. Some of these give me European or other continents music that can't be bought in the itunes store due to contractual/legal issues.

Only listening to the ipod app on my iphone when I am in a bad reception area (Hello ATT 3G everywhere please and keep it in 3G) or some news and sports on testicular radio:-)

As an old geezer I think owning stuff like movies or music is so yesterday!

It is a step, and the direction it is taking us in is where the labels get paid every single time a song is played. Right now it's indirect where the subscription service pays them, but I'm sure the labels would love to get paid directly by the end user every time someone plays a song anywhere. Even if it's only a penny per play, if there's a song you really like and you listen to it 1,000 times, that comes to $10.00 for that song. Granted this is only a hypothetical right now.

If this becomes the mainstream, it is likely that these services will come to be dominated by a small number of popular artists that generate the most revenue for the labels, just like most of the radio stations have been.

I still prefer to buy music, and when possible to buy CDs at shows where the entire CD price (minus the wholesale price they paid) goes directly to the band.

musio
Jul 6, 2011, 03:39 PM
There is no history in the all of your last few searches.

The service is great but the iPhone app lets it down.

redanime
Jul 6, 2011, 03:40 PM
But they say "Stream".... to me that means nothing is kept local.... it's given essentially on-demand and then gone after play.

Can you go pick out 500 songs and have them local on your iPhone with this? Active as long as you pay your subscription? Or is streamed 4-5 at a time in a revolving door?

Yes, you can pick out songs for offline play and play them on for instance your iPhone. Spotify can even sync songs to your iPod and it works great with iTunes music. You can for instance play iTunes songs in the same playlist as you have your Spotify songs.

ksgant
Jul 6, 2011, 03:42 PM
While the payments for streaming services may not be great, there is no reason why:

a) You can't buy AND stream music (I have Spotify Premium yet I still buy music). The music that I stream but do not buy is stuff that I wouldn't ever have considered buying in the first place. It's much better for the artist to get a ridiculously small amount for that than it is to get nothing at all.

b) Streaming Services offer poor revenue streams for artists (this is clearly a problem with their contracts, not the services themselves).

If nobody bought music and everyone streamed it, then the distribution of money would obviously have to change.

Points well taken.

deadkennedy
Jul 6, 2011, 03:47 PM
Grouping as in not playlists? Sub-playlists? What is it you want to group?

Right... only by title, artist, album, length of the song, when it was added to the playlist, who added it and explicit ordering. ;-)

Cmd+f gives you a search filter within a playlist. For everything else there is the normal search box for the entire library.

Tried clicking the labels above the list?

Sorry, I was talking about iPhone app. I usually listen to Spotify from iPhone, it's great becuse you can download and listen on a plane, but with that terrible design it's nearly useless. Not to mention how it looks on iPad. In fact I can't wait for Americans to see it on iPad, let's see how happy they'll be then :D

gkpm
Jul 6, 2011, 03:54 PM
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/demotivational-posters-its-a-trap.jpg

Seriously, they look great at the start but then the restrict more and more to make you pay for the premium services. But then you still don't own any music and must keep paying each month to listen.

Also pay a pittance to labels (let alone artists) eg from Wikipedia "Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet recently reported that record label Junior Racing had only earned NOK 19 ($3.00 USD) after their artists had been streamed over 55,100 times."

It's should be made almost as illegal as torrents tbh, the difference is the sharks get paid in this case so it's legal.

krzyglue
Jul 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya:

Image (http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png)

Enjoy your music...

While this may be true presently, it may change in the future. I guess what I mean is that it seems the way many consume music has changed over the past few years, to say the least. Perhaps one day these streaming-type services will be record labels' major source of income, and I suspect (or maybe more accurately, I hope...) the income distribution to the artists will reflect this.

I mean, I bet if one made a graph showing income from one retail DVD sale versus one streaming view on Netflix, you'd get roughly the same picture. Yet I don't sense the same level of hostility towards Netflix as there seems to be towards Spotify from some.


Oh and Spotify, launch in Canada please? ;)

Loge
Jul 6, 2011, 04:40 PM
If nobody bought music and everyone streamed it, then the distribution of money would obviously have to change.

Or the cost of the monthly subscriptions will rise substantially, which I expect will happen anyway.

proximity
Jul 6, 2011, 04:52 PM
I've had Spotify for a little over a year now.

After using it for 5 minutes I stopped using iTunes entirely. And have only started iTunes to update my iPhone's software since.

Spotify is fantastic. Steve Jobs said a few years ago that "people want to own Music, not rent music". I thought he was right, but he's not. I don't care at all about owning music. For a fixed price I can listen to anything as much as I want on both Mac's, PC's and iOS. When I actually pay for a song I don't feel like I own it any more than if I pay a fixed price to be able to listen to it.

The songs buffer on to the iPhone with no effort and it doesn't ever feel like streaming songs because it always starts instantly. Sharing playlists with friends via Facebook is a breeze.

There is certainly only one downside I've found with Spotify, and that's this: When Spotify started, they had rights to let me play anything I could hit it with. Any search, didn't matter. Spotify had it. But after a while I saw that some artists pulled their content away, and or their live content. But for certain songs like that, Spotify even supports integration with your own music files as well, so it's really not a problem.

I highly recommend it.

Yes and two last things: 1. they don't have an iPad app, so you have to use the iPhone app on the iPad, which sucks unnecessarily :)

2: Artist don't make money on this at all it seems. But it's so much better than all the alternatives that I can't really bother my self to not take advantage of the service.

idyll
Jul 6, 2011, 05:13 PM
I'm really excited for this news, ever since trying Spotify when it first came out but not being able to stick with it due to living in the US.

Currently I'm a subscriber of Rdio and it is fairly convenient, but I remember Spotify having slightly better quality music and a larger selection.

MartinAW
Jul 6, 2011, 05:18 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya:

Enjoy your music...

Spotify coupled with LastFM scrobbling has resulted in me listening to bands I would never have found buying chart albums from HMV. I have been to see these bands live and paid a good chunk for it, I am sure they are sleeping well at night (They do deserve it).

Exposure is great.

daxomni
Jul 6, 2011, 05:50 PM
It is quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match will be, costing 60-120/year in Europe, versus $25/year for iTunes Match. US pricing has not been announced yet.
Um, so how exactly do I get a million plus songs on iTunes or iTunes Match without paying a million dollars? Seems like the only way Spotify could be "quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match" is if you pirate most of your music. Thanks a lot for the completely bogus analysis guys.

AaronEdwards
Jul 6, 2011, 06:17 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya:

Image (http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png)

Enjoy your music...

1. Good look finding a source for the claim on what a Spotify play pays.

2. I'd love to see size of the circle for the iTunes Match "25000 songs filtered for $25 - Apple's 30% cut" service...

AaronEdwards
Jul 6, 2011, 06:22 PM
Image (http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/demotivational-posters-its-a-trap.jpg)

Seriously, they look great at the start but then the restrict more and more to make you pay for the premium services. But then you still don't own any music and must keep paying each month to listen.

Also pay a pittance to labels (let alone artists) eg from Wikipedia "Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet recently reported that record label Junior Racing had only earned NOK 19 ($3.00 USD) after their artists had been streamed over 55,100 times."

It's should be made almost as illegal as torrents tbh, the difference is the sharks get paid in this case so it's legal.

Recently reported? That would be 2009. Considering the fact that Spotify was released in 2008....

The stories about artists being paid a pittance by Spotify dried up a while ago. Wonder why.

firestarter
Jul 6, 2011, 06:33 PM
Oh, and for those who care about the musicians out there, I'll leave this little gem for ya.

Enjoy your music...

News just in... recorded music has been a dying industry for the last decade at least (not helped by the label's cynicism).

There's still good money to be made by musicians who can actually play live. I'm supporting my favourite bands by going to see them (I also buy 90% of music on CD, but the labels keep so much of that revenue it feels like the wrong thing to do).

AaronEdwards
Jul 6, 2011, 06:36 PM
Quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match, but don't you get access to the entire catalog rather than just what you already own? Seems to me like the streaming service that everyone had expected to see from Apple.
But 60-100 euro seems a little steep. That's $86-$143/year. Could buy an album a month at that price and own it. I don't think I come across more than an album a month that I would find worthy of buying.

If you only listen to 12 new albums every year, then it's obviously better to buy albums.
But then you actually don't say anything about how many new albums you're listening to every year, only how many you're willing to buy.

Ya I use Grooveshark and quite like, and was wondering how different Groveshark is from Spotify?

Groveshark is legally in limbo. But anyone, and I'm not saying you are, who would feel ok using iTunes Match to match songs they have ilegally downloaded, should be morally fine using Groveshark.

Exactly, especially when the service dies in a few years, all the money people paid will be gone.

Didn't this already happened about a decade ago with subscription services vs. iTunes?

The money a person paid for HBO last month isn't giving her something this month. If she wants to continue to watch this month too, she needs to pay for this month too.

I wonder how much of the $25 per year for iTunes Match is going to the record labels? I remember a few years ago there was a rumor of a flat fee option of a few hundred dollars being floated by Apple to the record companies that would give the user complete rights to all audio on in iTMS, and would be bundled into the price of new iPhones. That seems a better deal to the record labels than iTunes Match. Seems to me iTunes Match is going to increase piracy. Steal it first, then launder it through iTunes Match. Spotify makes more sense to me from the point of view of the labels.

Apple is reportedly taking their usual 30% cut. So that would leave $17.50 for the record labels.
Any flat fee which doesn't base the amount the artists are paid on the number of times songs are played is going to allow the record companies to screw the artists.

MadIvan
Jul 6, 2011, 06:38 PM
Um, so how exactly do I get a million plus songs on iTunes or iTunes Match without paying a million dollars? Seems like the only way Spotify could be "quite a bit more expensive than iTunes Match" is if you pirate most of your music. Thanks a lot for the completely bogus analysis guys.

Minor point really, but, assuming you listen to music 8 hours every day and never repeat a song, it will take you 20 years to listen to one million songs. So really, you need to take into account how many songs the typical user would actually own, how many they already have in their collection, and what percentage of the remaining to be purchased tracks they would aquire as downloads from iTunes, Amazon, etc., as opposed to buying the CD which many people still do, before you could actually compare relative costs. And even then, you are comparing the cost for use of a service against the cost of purchasing something which you then own. So for all those CD purschases, don't forget to subtract resale value from the total cost.

In other words, comparing costs is kind of pointless. If you like the service, don't mind the artists getting esentially nothing for their work, and the price is reasonable to you, then go ahead and sign up for Spotify. Of course, if these type of services end up killing off the LP, CD and non-DRM download distribution channels, well it probably won't be good for the consumer or the artists.

MadIvan
Jul 6, 2011, 06:40 PM
News just in... recorded music has been a dying industry for the last decade at least (not helped by the label's cynicism).

There's still good money to be made by musicians who can actually play live. I'm supporting my favourite bands by going to see them (I also buy 90% of music on CD, but the labels keep so much of that revenue it feels like the wrong thing to do).

Since you are going to the shows, buy the CDs there. The band gets more of the money. They just pay the wholesale cost for the disks and get to keep the rest. And those sales still figure into any royalty checks they might be lucky enough to get.

AaronEdwards
Jul 6, 2011, 06:50 PM
Minor point really, but, assuming you listen to music 8 hours every day and never repeat a song, it will take you 20 years to listen to one million songs. So really, you need to take into account how many songs the typical user would actually own, how many they already have in their collection, and what percentage of the remaining to be purchased tracks they would aquire as downloads from iTunes, Amazon, etc., as opposed to buying the CD which many people still do, before you could actually compare relative costs. And even then, you are comparing the cost for use of a service against the cost of purchasing something which you then own. So for all those CD purschases, don't forget to subtract resale value from the total cost.

In other words, comparing costs is kind of pointless. If you like the service, don't mind the artists getting esentially nothing for their work, and the price is reasonable to you, then go ahead and sign up for Spotify. Of course, if these type of services end up killing off the LP, CD and non-DRM download distribution channels, well it probably won't be good for the consumer or the artists.

Please provide us with a source for this.

ESPN
Jul 6, 2011, 06:54 PM
Interesting service but all I do is download music to listen too, the idea of streaming across the net while also paying a monthly fee is a turn off.

QuarterSwede
Jul 6, 2011, 06:56 PM
Since you are going to the shows, buy the CDs there. The band gets more of the money. They just pay the wholesale cost for the disks and get to keep the rest. And those sales still figure into any royalty checks they might be lucky enough to get.
I try to buy from then band's website in digital format only so they get as much as possible. The CD would sit on my shelf unused anyway.

AaronEdwards
Jul 6, 2011, 07:01 PM
Interesting service but all I do is download music to listen too, the idea of streaming across the net while also paying a monthly fee is a turn off.

You can stream when you're on WiFi. You shouldn't stream, unless you're willing to pay for it, when you're not on WiFi, then you can instead listen to the 3333 songs that you can store for offline listening.

MarximusMG
Jul 6, 2011, 09:19 PM
Really can't wait for this to launch!

IAmTheCrack
Jul 6, 2011, 10:36 PM
I still can't figure out why this particular service gets so much launch related buzz when Rdio is already out there kicking ass.

No mention of Rdio at all? Come on.

This..mostly. I've actually used both. I like RDIO's UI better. But Spotify seems

a.)to stream faster
b.)in higher quality and
c.)has a far more expansive catalog. especially when it comes to independent artists.

Just my observation. I find that MOG has a wider selection as well. But I hated the lack of a desktop app.

bpaluzzi
Jul 7, 2011, 12:52 AM
Exactly, especially when the service dies in a few years, all the money people paid will be gone.

Didn't this already happened about a decade ago with subscription services vs. iTunes?

SERIOUSLY! And if your electric company goes under, all that money you paid for electricity is GONE! Or your water company! Or your cable! Or INTERNET!

Holy crap, it's a conspiracy!

:rolleyes:

It's a service. You're paying (significantly reduced prices compared to buying the media) for the service. You use and enjoy the service. If the company goes under, your money doesn't "go away" any more than it does in the example services I gave above.

BarryChuckle
Jul 7, 2011, 12:57 AM
I've used this service for the last few years (Europe) it was a brilliant service until they changed the way adverts work a few months back.. Before it was unlimited listening with adverts every 6/7 songs. Now theres more adverts, you can only listen for 10 hours a month and a maximum of 5 times per song.

bpaluzzi
Jul 7, 2011, 01:00 AM
Since you are going to the shows, buy the CDs there. The band gets more of the money. They just pay the wholesale cost for the disks and get to keep the rest. And those sales still figure into any royalty checks they might be lucky enough to get.

While the sentiment with this is great (yay!), the unfortunate reality is that now labels are getting cuts of tour merchandise (cds, and even non-audio merch: shirts, mugs, etc.) (as well as gate receipts). Touring is the only way to make a living (for most bands), and labels have realized that, too.

MonkeySee....
Jul 7, 2011, 03:30 AM
I'm glad you guys are getting Spotify but don't get too excited.

I'd say the success rate of finding actual popular music is about 85%.

E.g Red Hot Chili Peppers are not on there, nor are the Foo Fighters to name but a few. Most of it is random obscure music or Karaoke versions.

Don't get me wrong it is good and who knows, they may have stepped up their game now they are to be open in the US.

bpaluzzi
Jul 7, 2011, 03:34 AM
I'm glad you guys are getting Spotify but don't get too excited.

I'd say the success rate of finding actual popular music is about 85%.

E.g Red Hot Chili Peppers are not on there, nor are the Foo Fighters to name but a few. Most of it is random obscure music or Karaoke versions.

Don't get me wrong it is good and who knows, they may have stepped up their game now they are to be open in the US.

Both RHCP and Foo Fighters are on the UK version.

RHCP has What Hits? and stuff up to Mother's Milk. Foos have the entire catalog.

bpaluzzi
Jul 7, 2011, 03:49 AM
Go ahead and pay your monthly fee like lemmings for music you will never own and when Spotify have a certain amount of users in the US, they will like in Europe, change their price points etc and you will have thrown 120 euros down the drain.


I don't think you understand how a service works.


But anyways moving on, it is a little bit boring reading so many posts from people who have no idea what they are talking about!

Boy howdy, I know the feeling.

MonkeySee....
Jul 7, 2011, 04:00 AM
Both RHCP and Foo Fighters are on the UK version.

RHCP has What Hits? and stuff up to Mother's Milk. Foos have the entire catalog.

Ahh ok, its been a while so its good to see more popular music is getting added

AaronEdwards
Jul 7, 2011, 04:30 AM
It is so refreshing to see soooo many people on MR who have never seen Spotify let alone used it!!! defending a service that is not all it is made out to be! (maybe Spotify have created users on MR?) :eek:

I'm a Spotify user. You know, it's available in Europe...


Go ahead and pay your monthly fee like lemmings for music you will never own and when Spotify have a certain amount of users in the US, they will like in Europe, change their price points etc and you will have thrown 120 euros down the drain.

But anyways moving on, it is a little bit boring reading so many posts from people who have no idea what they are talking about!

Will be interesting to see in one year where Spotify are!


I'm paying 10 each month. So I guess I "throw away" 10 each month, and not 120 each year. ;)

And I'm rather happy with it, I don't have to store music anymore, I'm not tied to one service and if I decide I don't like Spotify, there will be other services that I then can switch to. Spotify isn't and won't be the only streaming service.

And since Spotify allows paying on a per month basis, it means that if they would hike the price, lots of people would leave within a month. Which makes it less likely that they would do so.

AaronEdwards
Jul 7, 2011, 05:10 AM
I'm glad you guys are getting Spotify but don't get too excited.

I'd say the success rate of finding actual popular music is about 85%.

E.g Red Hot Chili Peppers are not on there, nor are the Foo Fighters to name but a few. Most of it is random obscure music or Karaoke versions.

Don't get me wrong it is good and who knows, they may have stepped up their game now they are to be open in the US.

I've got all Foo Fighter's realeases on Spotify. I can find Red Hot Chili Peppers' EMI releases, but not their releases on Warner, this more likely has to do with Warner and their dislike of Spotify's free, ad supported service. Considering that this service is being cut down severely, I would guess that their Warner releases will be added in the future.

AlexisV
Jul 7, 2011, 05:19 AM
Enjoy the novelty while it lasts!

We've had it in the UK for a few years and it used to be great. Then they strangled the free service in an attempt to make everybody pay 100 a year.

A lot of people have ditched it now. It's a pale shadow of its former self.

Davidkoh
Jul 7, 2011, 05:24 AM
Enjoy the novelty while it lasts!

We've had it in the UK for a few years and it used to be great. Then they strangled the free service in an attempt to make everybody pay 100 a year.

A lot of people have ditched it now. It's a pale shadow of its former self.

No, it's still going strong. They just stopped cheap people leeching. They did not make enough money on the free service.

And honestly, 100 is less than a days wage. So it is really cheap for having music for a year.

AAPLaday
Jul 7, 2011, 05:30 AM
No, it's still going strong. They just stopped cheap people leeching. They did not make enough money on the free service.

And honestly, 100 is less than a days wage. So it is really cheap for having music for a year.

Make it 2 days wage and you will cover the majority of the uk ;)

AaronEdwards
Jul 7, 2011, 05:33 AM
Enjoy the novelty while it lasts!

We've had it in the UK for a few years and it used to be great. Then they strangled the free service in an attempt to make everybody pay 100 a year.

A lot of people have ditched it now. It's a pale shadow of its former self.

Actually, you would be paying 60/year, not 100, the free service never included Spotify on the mobile.

The free service doesn't collect enough revenue, so it had to be cut down. If you're not ok with paying, feel free to go back to purchasing songs and cds.

Angelo95210
Jul 7, 2011, 07:13 AM
I'm glad you guys are getting Spotify but don't get too excited.

I'd say the success rate of finding actual popular music is about 85%.

E.g Red Hot Chili Peppers are not on there, nor are the Foo Fighters to name but a few. Most of it is random obscure music or Karaoke versions.

Don't get me wrong it is good and who knows, they may have stepped up their game now they are to be open in the US.

Actually these groups are both on Spotify. So let's raise this rate back to 99%.

Davidkoh
Jul 7, 2011, 07:48 AM
Make it 2 days wage and you will cover the majority of the uk ;)

Yeah I guess. Don't know what the UKs median wage is :p.

mateja
Jul 7, 2011, 09:17 AM
What makes you think that you need to own music to listen to it offline?

Someone better say: yes you need to own your music to listen to it offline! If you don't like that you can go and enjoy live music. Imagine that! A music fan actually and directly supporting music they enjoy.

Don't let Spotify or Rdio or any streaming service be "THE" way you access music. They are simply versions of a very large commercial Muzak (http://www.muzak.com/) like catalog which (for a significant investment) only lets you save a temporary playlist without ever getting into a relationship with any music. You are accessing a money stream set up by lawyers and extracted from the artists. Really, is that the way to support music?

Support the artists. Buy their music. Own it, proudly, and stream it to whatever device as many times as you wish, without any cost, because you own it.

bpaluzzi
Jul 7, 2011, 09:25 AM
Someone better say: yes you need to own your music to listen to it offline! If you don't like that you can go and enjoy live music. Imagine that! A music fan actually and directly supporting music they enjoy.

Don't let Spotify or Rdio or any streaming service be "THE" way you access music. They are simply versions of a very large commercial Muzak (http://www.muzak.com/) like catalog which (for a significant investment) only lets you save a temporary playlist without ever getting into a relationship with any music. You are accessing a money stream set up by lawyers and extracted from the artists. Really, is that the way to support music?

Support the artists. Buy their music. Own it, proudly, and stream it to whatever device as many times as you wish, without any cost, because you own it.

You're a dinosaur. And this is coming from an artist.

Daveoc64
Jul 7, 2011, 11:17 AM
Someone better say: yes you need to own your music to listen to it offline! If you don't like that you can go and enjoy live music. Imagine that! A music fan actually and directly supporting music they enjoy.

Maybe if the artists I like actually visited the UK (probably might help if they weren't dead too) then I would actually do that.

Don't let Spotify or Rdio or any streaming service be "THE" way you access music. They are simply versions of a very large commercial Muzak (http://www.muzak.com/) like catalog which (for a significant investment) only lets you save a temporary playlist without ever getting into a relationship with any music. You are accessing a money stream set up by lawyers and extracted from the artists. Really, is that the way to support music?

It's the way that lets me enjoy the music the best. It's totally legal and exceptionally convenient. It also offers the highest quality audio (other than a CD) and it's just 9.99 a month

Support the artists. Buy their music. Own it, proudly, and stream it to whatever device as many times as you wish, without any cost, because you own it.

It's simply not possible for music that I buy to be anywhere near as convenient as Spotify is.

I can't store all my iTunes music on my iPhone - but I can access millions of songs with Spotify. I cache ~50 songs that I'm currently listening to a lot, anything else I can stream when I need it.

Amazon is not offering its cloud music service in the UK.
iTunes Match is also not available and will be limited to 256kbps AAC. It's also not a streaming service.

Technically, it's also illegal to rip a CD in the UK - we don't have a fair use law and the music industry has opposed it until recently.

I have no problem supporting musicians, but they - and the rest of the industry have got to realise that they could easily make things a LOT better for their customers without having to sacrifice their revenues (which are going down the toilet with the status quo).

MonkeySee....
Jul 7, 2011, 11:28 AM
Actually these groups are both on Spotify. So let's raise this rate back to 99%.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention for the 3rd time :rolleyes:

Rantipole
Jul 7, 2011, 01:08 PM
Neither of them [MOG or Napster] offers the exact same features as Spotify.
Um, OK, but you're splitting hairs. They are all services with millions of songs you can stream from your computer or mobile phone.

If you only listen to 12 new albums every year, then it's obviously better to buy albums.
But then you actually don't say anything about how many new albums you're listening to every year, only how many you're willing to buy.

Right. While I may continue to buy the same number of albums, it is great to have a service where I can listen to new stuff, and not buy the 100 or so albums I'm "sorta interested" in each year, but really can't spend the money, or even the time, to purchase. Or even illegally download...it's a pain!

Really can't wait for this to launch!
I do wonder if all the people who echo this sentiment (and I'm not picking on you, Marximus; a lot of people have said this), even realize that Napster and MOG are HERE TODAY, already doing what they want Spotify to do.
(Unless... does anyone actually think the free service will actually be any good? Like it was when it first came out in Europe? Oh, boy, get ready to be majorly disappointed, then.)

Support the artists. Buy their music. Own it, proudly, and stream it to whatever device as many times as you wish, without any cost, because you own it.
Actually, no one really *owns* music, but that's a topic for another time.

MadIvan
Jul 7, 2011, 02:00 PM
Please provide us with a source for this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11821021

"According to the company's 2009 annual report it had advertising revenues of 4.5m and made 6.8m from subscriptions."

This is Spotify's most recent annual report. Simple deduction, even if you don't subtract the cost of development and running the company that doesn't leave much revenue to distribute among the artists and labels for 12 million songs. Less than 1 pound per song in the catalog. They have additional funds from investment, some of which may be going into payouts to the labels, but that is not sustainable.

Daveoc64
Jul 7, 2011, 02:15 PM
but that is not sustainable.

That unsustainable model is no longer being used though, so it's hard to draw a conclusion from it.

coscott
Jul 7, 2011, 02:29 PM
Signed up and downloaded Spotify a couple of weeks ago (I live in the United States).

I enjoy it so far. I only really use it when I'm sitting at work and want to listen to some music. Best part is being able to look at my friends playlists with the integration of Facebook built into the program.

Will be interesting to see everyone elses reactions when it's released widespread to the US. Sadly no one I know has it yet besides the people I work with and everyone I tell about it has no idea what it is.

AaronEdwards
Jul 7, 2011, 02:35 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11821021

"According to the company's 2009 annual report it had advertising revenues of 4.5m and made 6.8m from subscriptions."

This is Spotify's most recent annual report. Simple deduction, even if you don't subtract the cost of development and running the company that doesn't leave much revenue to distribute among the artists and labels for 12 million songs. Less than 1 pound per song in the catalog. They have additional funds from investment, some of which may be going into payouts to the labels, but that is not sustainable.

I can't find anything in that article that says that "artists getting esentially nothing for their work".

12 million songs? You do know how Spotify works? Artists get paid each time someone listens to one of their songs, they don't get paid for their songs being available in Spotify.

coscott
Jul 7, 2011, 02:38 PM
I can't find anything in that article that says that "artists getting esentially nothing for their work".

12 million songs? You do know how Spotify works? Artists get paid each time someone listens to one of their songs, they don't get paid for their songs being available in Spotify.

^^This is what I was told when I talked with the Spotify executives. You're right

daveathall
Jul 7, 2011, 03:23 PM
I have as much concern about musicians, their royalties and payments as they have about my wages, if I want to listen to some music, I couldn't care less about what they do or don't get paid for it.

Too many holier than thou people in this thread IMHO.

I subscribe and enjoy spotify, mainly listening through a sonos multi room system, not bothered where that money goes as I class it as good value.

LoganT
Jul 7, 2011, 03:29 PM
I've used Spotify Free through a proxy before. That didn't last long.

A couple things I like about Spotify vs the others.

It has a desktop application. Which means, I can play/pause the music from my keyboard.
It has 320kbps. Mog has this as well.

macsmurf
Jul 7, 2011, 04:05 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11821021

"According to the company's 2009 annual report it had advertising revenues of 4.5m and made 6.8m from subscriptions."

This is Spotify's most recent annual report. Simple deduction, even if you don't subtract the cost of development and running the company that doesn't leave much revenue to distribute among the artists and labels for 12 million songs. Less than 1 pound per song in the catalog. They have additional funds from investment, some of which may be going into payouts to the labels, but that is not sustainable.

That's a fairly old report. Spotify has grown explosively since then. Here's a more recent source: http://www.spotify.com/int/blog/archives/2011/03/08/spotify-reaches-one-million-subscribers/

If we assume they still have 1 million customers and we assume that they all pay the least amount possible (which is very unlikely) that comes in at 5 million pounds - a month.

That's excluding ads revenue of course. The actual number probably excedes 10m a month.

kurzz
Jul 7, 2011, 04:19 PM
I have as much concern about musicians, their royalties and payments as they have about my wages, if I want to listen to some music I couldn't care less about what they get, or don't get paid for it.

Too many holier than thou people in this thread IMHO.


^ couldn't have said it better. A lot of industries have been struggling over the past decade.

Bird1
Jul 7, 2011, 04:28 PM
That's a fairly old report. Spotify has grown explosively since then. Here's a more recent source: http://www.spotify.com/int/blog/archives/2011/03/08/spotify-reaches-one-million-subscribers/

If we assume they still have 1 million customers and we assume that they all pay the least amount possible (which is very unlikely) that comes in at 5 million pounds - a month.

That's excluding ads revenue of course. The actual number probably excedes 10m a month.

They actually reached 1.5 million paying customers a few weeks back, so it's growing really fast.

ExB
Jul 7, 2011, 05:46 PM
Also, when I travel abroad (ie US) my account does not work claiming US is not available for Spotify use... so I wonder if I can keep using it with my current account outside Europe and not have to make another one for US use.

My premium account worked perfectly when travelling in US in Feb & March this year, both on laptop and iPhone with US sim card.

Daveoc64
Jul 7, 2011, 06:34 PM
My premium account worked perfectly when travelling in US in Feb & March this year, both on laptop and iPhone with US sim card.

Premium and Unlimited Spotify accounts feature unlimited international use. Spotify Open and Spotify Free will only work for 14 days internationally, at which point they can't be used abroad again (unless the user pays to upgrade).

Reason077
Jul 14, 2011, 04:01 AM
Confirmed: Spotify US will launch Thursday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/idUS191470276920110714

TurnerMan
Jul 14, 2011, 07:16 AM
Woohoo...yet another music service that offers limited free-play and high subscription prices. I'm sooo excited. :rolleyes:

AAPLaday
Jul 14, 2011, 08:01 AM
Woohoo...yet another music service that offers limited free-play and high subscription prices. I'm sooo excited. :rolleyes:

You guys get it cheaper than us ;)

EDIT: unless you have to pay tax on the service?

bpaluzzi
Jul 14, 2011, 08:51 AM
Woohoo...yet another music service that offers limited free-play and high subscription prices. I'm sooo excited. :rolleyes:

Woohoo, another person that doesn't produce anything, yet thinks that people who DO produce stuff shouldn't be paid for it. I'm sooo excited. :rolleyes: