renting music is the dumbest thing i ever heard.
Agreed, 100%. However, as long as they still let us purchase individual songs, I really won't care.
renting music is the dumbest thing i ever heard.
Better work with Sonos or I'm not interested. I already do Rhapsody and love it, but they move at a snail pace for app support so I'd consider something else an option.
So many people comment on things from the US and have never used Spotify to see what sort of service is available from these services. You know I just which people would take 5 minutes and think if they actually know what they are talking about. Services like Spotify are changing things - it is not available in the US - the rest of the world is overtaking. I don't use it much but so many people I know use it and love it and I can see why in my limited use. All the people being so negative - it is a new way of looking at getting new music - I use to love napster for that now it seem Spotify is the way.
Kapangas said:So basically you can own all of the 200,000+ iTunes music that you can access anytime, anywhere. Thats around 970GBs worth of storage.
The $10-15/month pays to host and deliver from the cloud, which is much cheaper than hosting 970GBs worth of music content on a server.
200,000 songs is about 16,666 albums(12 songs per album) . Let's say an album is about $9.99, nobody is going to pay for $160000 for all the albums in the iTunes store.
Let's say you are 20 years old and you started buy an album every month until you die. For 60 years you spent only $7200-10800, but that only gives you 720 albums or 8460 songs. But for the same amount via subscription you have all the iTunes music you ever want(or don't want).
I think this is the cheapest alternative, especially to those who listen to music a lot and buys more than one album per month.
However, this is not preferable to people who listens to 2-3 new songs per month. Better to stick with $0.99 cent route.
EDIT: Actually there are over 11 million songs in iTunes
11 million songs
= 55 Terabytes
= 916,666 albums
= $9,157,493 worth of albums
And there's the little problem that you need to be connected to Internet to be able to listen to the music. No Internet connection, no music for you. I don't like that.
Does this mean they'd stop offering itunes to buy? And does it mean that you only get to listen to any song if you have the subscription (basically if you don't pay the subscription and you didn't buy the song you can't listen to it)?
Basically, I'd only be interested if it was one of those pay a subscription and download songs you want (or certain amount per month). IF you don't get to keep them, I'd totally not be interested. And on top of that, I'd be *PISSED* if they got rid of being able to buy them.
Mkz said:I feel sorry for whoever doesn\'t have Spotify.
Why wouldn't you pay additional money to get access to music? Nothing is free. It's perfectly reasonable to pay $15 to get access to all the music you want IMO.
Grooveshark..ah, yes. Problem: Most (like 70% or so) of their content isn't licensed by them so it's illegal, even though they use a loophole to put the legal responsibilities on the users. Grooveshark is pretty much like, say, The Pirate Bay and bit torrent technology. It can be used legally, but the large majority of the content is not. It needs to be shut down quickly.
I would sign up for that the very second it was available.
Yep. And in this time and age, renting movies follows on rank #2. And while we're at it, somebody should tell the industry that there is no justification for prices above 5 USD/EUR for a downloadable movie (NOT a rental!).
And, of course, NO DRM!
Agreed, 100%. However, as long as they still let us purchase individual songs, I really won't care.
renting music is the dumbest thing i ever heard.
No thanks. I want to own my music.
I feel sorry for whoever doesn't have Spotify.
Okay, how many tracks by Freak Kitchen can you "spotify"?
Only one???[if so, then i feel "sorry" for Spotify users.]
Point is: selection is not nearly complete.