Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Subscription Service Spotify Submits iPhone Application to Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't they say when iPhone 3.0 was announced that "free apps remain free," meaning that you could release a free app that then required a subscription? So wouldn't that be the real reason that this app will be rejected?
Agreed
Can't blame Apple for rejecting this.....same for Att for rejecting Skype. Why should they allow their competition to exploit there infrastructure?
Can't blame Apple for rejecting this.....same for Att for rejecting Skype. Why should they allow their competition to exploit there infrastructure?
If you don't have an invite, you can try this site and just follow the guide: http://iroxe.net/spotify/
Have used this a couple of times (to friends and family) and it works great. I don't know how it will work for our US friends but I hope they can log in to their account and change country to US from France.
For us Swedes it works great. The thing with Spotify is that everything is very fast. You search for whatever you want to listen to and click it. Starts playing directly, just like all of the music was on your local disk
If you don't have an invite, you can try this site and just follow the guide: http://iroxe.net/spotify/
Have used this a couple of times (to friends and family) and it works great. I don't know how it will work for our US friends but I hope they can log in to their account and change country to US from France.
For us Swedes it works great. The thing with Spotify is that everything is very fast. You search for whatever you want to listen to and click it. Starts playing directly, just like all of the music was on your local disk
Thanks, but I'm not too interested. It's cool while it's free, but ultimately they can't keep it free and go public.
I just tried it and I think it's awesome. The interface is wonderful and easy to use (although I prefer native interfaces). It had most of the music I looked for (and it had good covers for the music it didn't have), and most importantly, it's free!!
Hmm, I dunno about that.. There have been a few localised ads here in Finland, yes, but as you probably know, usually you don't get any real adverts on Spotify at all! Most of the time it's just ads for Spotify itself - about the possibility to subscribe. (Which, for me as a listener is ok, as real ads would likely be more annoying
)So... While I like Spotify a lot, I'm also a bit sceptical about its business model. (For example, personally I've been listening to some new albums over and over on it, with excellent quality, and paying zero euro for that. (This is music I'd probably have purchased already if it wasn't for Spotify!) Yet they're paying the artist/record label something... and there are almost no real ads here (maybe it's different in the UK?)... and while I know heaps of free Spotify users, I don't know about anyone subscribing. So, it all makes me think if they're just burning through some VC money at this point, or if this can really work somehow. I hope it will work, though.)
Even with that scepticism, I must add that I would seriously consider becoming a subscriber (for 9.99 ) if/when this iPhone app is released.
These freebie music services almost never last. The massive costs associated with paying royalties to rights holders (the biggest crippler), bandwidth and support make it practically impossible to survive on an ad-supported basis.
Yeah, but that was related to in-app purchases. The Spotify subscription & payment happens at their website, and that's the way it'll stay, i.e. it won't be through the app itself.
(Not that this is anything new... the (free) Financial Times iPhone app for example requires subscription for full usage, but the subscription totally happens outside of the app or appstore. I'm not sure though if there are many apps out there that are completely useless without becoming a paid member through some other channel...)
I don't think Apple will get any money from Spotify. The app is going to be free, and as for the subscription, that has nothing to do with Apple or the iPhone app or the App Store. You subscribe via the Spotify web site; the iPhone and desktop apps just allows you to link to your account.
In any case there is just something weird about accessing your music this way. I don't mind for the occasional track but for my own music library I just want the music I want (not having to search though millions of tracks) and I want to own it.
In any case there is just something weird about accessing your music this way. I don't mind for the occasional track but for my own music library I just want the music I want (not having to search though millions of tracks) and I want to own it.
Well Spotify is a legal service and I'm sure the ability to cache music is kosher. One of the problems to far with free online music services is the need for an online connection. Well what if you're on the underground/subway, or do not have WiFi (in the case of an iPod touch).muskratboy said:and that caching of streams... RIAA gonna come down on that like a ton of bricks. remember sirius players that could "cache" music? where did THOSE go?
Lets not be pedantic... for all practical purposes I own the music I buy.str1f3 said:
It's £10 per month, making it $16 in the US.str1f3 said:
No it's not pedantic. If you buy a CD version in a store and crack the CD, you don't have the right to ask for a new CD. The option iTunes offers you is re-download is merely to keep you a loyal iTunes user. They pay that bandwidth cost out of their own pocket. You don't have the right to distribute the music you purchase. You don't even have the right to sing the song on YouTube because the music company can sue you. This is not being pendantic. This is the law.
Okay who's being pedantic? You have no idea how much it will cost in the US. Also there is a good chance that they would push a $10 price point considering that there is already other options in that range from Microsoft and Rhapsody.
I think those who are "pooh-poohing" subscription music services really aren't giving those services a fair shake. Yes, none of the major ones are doing as well as iTunes. However, most of them are still around and many of them have vibrant communities. There is *absolutely* no reason why an iTunes model & subscription model can't live side to side in this world.
Honestly, not every piece of music that I listen to I want to necessarily buy. THIS is what subscription music services are awesome for and where iTunes fails miserably in my book. I can explore new music, create playlists, listen to them on the go, share them with my friends. NONE of these things can be done on iTunes as seamlessly as through subscription services.
Not all of my friends (or myself) want to buy the music I'm exploring. When I'm done with it, I'm done with it. When I wanna listen to it later, I can always pull it up. If I *REALLY* like it, THAT's when I go to iTunes or Amazon and actually *buy* the track/album.
Again, what's the harm in subscription services to you personally? None, give it a shot. You might find that they're actually useful besides just getting word of mouth recommendations from friends and/or *shudder* listenin' to the radio.
w00master
Honestly, not every piece of music that I listen to I want to necessarily buy. THIS is what subscription music services are awesome for and where iTunes fails miserably in my book. I can explore new music, create playlists, listen to them on the go, share them with my friends. NONE of these things can be done on iTunes as seamlessly as through subscription services.
Not all of my friends (or myself) want to buy the music I'm exploring. When I'm done with it, I'm done with it. When I wanna listen to it later, I can always pull it up. If I *REALLY* like it, THAT's when I go to iTunes or Amazon and actually *buy* the track/album.
Again, what's the harm in subscription services to you personally? None, give it a shot. You might find that they're actually useful besides just getting word of mouth recommendations from friends and/or *shudder* listenin' to the radio.
w00master
I hear that the touring bands make most of the money through concerts, not their music.
I think the big corporations are exaggerating the negative effects of illegal downloading to be honest.
The levy added to broadband could be a good idea, something like a "media broadband package" and a"standard broadband package." If you download copyright content on the standard package then you get in trouble, but not with the media package...
This is happening more and more now is instead of offering a small sample for free and getting most of the users to pay, instead if the product is cheap or even practically free to produce, then you offer it free to the majority of users and while a small number will pay for a premium version, which covers the free version too. Think of apps in the App Store... I image that when there is a free and paid-for version of the same app, most people will use the free version, however the small number of people who pay for the premium version is enough to keep it running. Another example is Gmail... most will use the free version, but a few will purchase extra storage, and that subsidises the whole product, because the product doesn't really cost that much.
That is essentially Chris Anderson's thesis...
Another aspect of the "free" model is the concept of "freemium".
Chris Anderson refers to the spray of perfume given away free in the department store to encourage customers to buy a whole bottle.
One per cent of the product is given away free in order to sell 99%. In the digital world, however, the opposite applies, "you give away 99% to sell 1%," he says.
An example is the online photo storage service, Flickr.
"Flickr Basic is free. Flickr Pro is for premium subscribers who have certain needs. They want more storage or they want special features. It only takes a few per cent of people to subscribe to Flickr Pro at a cost to subsidise everybody else who gets Flickr Basic".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7811481.stm
Chris Anderson refers to the spray of perfume given away free in the department store to encourage customers to buy a whole bottle.
One per cent of the product is given away free in order to sell 99%. In the digital world, however, the opposite applies, "you give away 99% to sell 1%," he says.
An example is the online photo storage service, Flickr.
"Flickr Basic is free. Flickr Pro is for premium subscribers who have certain needs. They want more storage or they want special features. It only takes a few per cent of people to subscribe to Flickr Pro at a cost to subsidise everybody else who gets Flickr Basic".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7811481.stm
More here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5354728345442020710
The entertainment industry needs to heed this... provide music, movies and TV shows for free and generate revenue some other way. Here's an interesting idea which allows the producers to provide content for free and still earn money.
Well besides myself not wanting to rent music and be able to play it on all of my devices without an internet connection there is one major flaw I can see (I do realize this app has decent support for eliminating the internet connection in some situations).
I want to be able to play my music while doing other things on my phone, without background processing like the music app I don't ever really see myself using this.
If I want to stream music I will use pandora, if I want to listen to my own tracks I will buy them DRM free.
I want to be able to play my music while doing other things on my phone, without background processing like the music app I don't ever really see myself using this.
If I want to stream music I will use pandora, if I want to listen to my own tracks I will buy them DRM free.
I Think you are confused here, This is about an "iPhone/iPod Touch" Apps through the App Store.
There is NO app that allows Streaming with Netflix through the "iPhone/iPod touch"
We are Not Talking about Macintosh Desktop Systems.
This topic involves Application's that are offered through the iTunes store.
And yes you can stream all you want on the "Mac" as you say, But at this time there is no App that allows streaming through the "iPhone/iPod Touch" with Netflix.
Well. All I gotta say is that I had the mindset that "i don't want to rent my music" but since Spotify arrived in the UK that has changed my mind. There is more than enough music to go around. I have my playlists where I can return to my music I like. It works like a dream
Infact it will benefit iTunes as as a direct result of Spotify I have identified £41 worth of music I want to download from iTunes for my iPod.
Music that I would NEVER have found without Spotify.
One more thing...Spotify is a sort of social music network. It's like the days of taking your records round to your friends to play, except all I need to do now is to send them a link Coooool .
Infact it will benefit iTunes as as a direct result of Spotify I have identified £41 worth of music I want to download from iTunes for my iPod.
Music that I would NEVER have found without Spotify.
One more thing...Spotify is a sort of social music network. It's like the days of taking your records round to your friends to play, except all I need to do now is to send them a link
Coooool .Business name
The only thoughts I have on this are:
Spotify: What a Horrible name for a business or service. I have no idea what it means in Swedish, and could care less.
Why rent music??
On my desk is a tastefully designed can of energy drink called *'P U S S Y'! Now, I have absolutely no idea what it tastes like... but that's a great name ;_)
*PS
When I first wrote the name of the energy drink, it came out as: *****! Why? Are the language police so frightened that a WORD might OFFEND SOMEONE???
What happens if Lewis Hamilton's girlfriend, or her band: The Pussycat Dolls get mentioned in a news item, will these fools report it as: *****cat Dolls?
Whoever is responsible for this pathetic policy, for goodness sake grow up. This is contrary to every convention, including this forum's rules, as well as common sense.
The only thoughts I have on this are:
Spotify: What a Horrible name for a business or service. I have no idea what it means in Swedish, and could care less.
Why rent music??
On my desk is a tastefully designed can of energy drink called *'P U S S Y'! Now, I have absolutely no idea what it tastes like... but that's a great name ;_)
*PS
When I first wrote the name of the energy drink, it came out as: *****! Why? Are the language police so frightened that a WORD might OFFEND SOMEONE???
What happens if Lewis Hamilton's girlfriend, or her band: The Pussycat Dolls get mentioned in a news item, will these fools report it as: *****cat Dolls?
Whoever is responsible for this pathetic policy, for goodness sake grow up. This is contrary to every convention, including this forum's rules, as well as common sense.
Well if you download the version for the Mac it doesn't get taken away if you don't pay because it's free.
First, why the hell does the name matter? No offense, but what kind of name is Leopard? I mean, why not call it iOperating-System? You know what I mean? It's a pointless name. /s
Also, you are not renting. It's a free service, so I don't see how it's renting. And yes, the word may offend someone. Why don't you just go into a preschool and shout mother****er? No one will care, they're only children. /s