Or even my earlier blunder?
I thought about pointing that out, but I didn't want to be mean.
..I even edited out all the sarcasm from my previous post!
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.
'Spotify' App Appears in App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought about pointing that out, but I didn't want to be mean.
..I even edited out all the sarcasm from my previous post!
Beacuse 9,99/$9,99/£9,99 is really outrageously expensive to pay per month for free access to several million songs?
Snap, well, i'm gonna wait 'til that announcement... heck, what's a few hrs
when you wait forever for an 
touchpad/book
Has Apple ever undercut anyone?
In fact, if it gets as big in the US as it is here in Europe, Apple will buy Spotify up in a second and integrate it into iTunes. Apple doesn't play copycat unless it can bring something additional to the table and then charge users a premium for it. Instead, why not buy up the start-up and integrate it as if Apple had invented it anyway.
I still don't get it.
I remember when the Zune/Napster/everybody else stores opened their subscription based systems, and users here said "What? Why would I want to pay for songs that disappear when I stop paying. After one year, I will have spent 120 dollars/pounds/euros on music - and if I don't make my next payment, it is all gone. That's 120 songs that I could have owned to listen to at any time. Steve is right."
Now, I see folks clammoring for subscriptions (which could possibly make the Zune store the best option available of any music store - $15/month, keep 10 songs).
Now get off my lawn.
I remember when the Zune/Napster/everybody else stores opened their subscription based systems, and users here said "What? Why would I want to pay for songs that disappear when I stop paying. After one year, I will have spent 120 dollars/pounds/euros on music - and if I don't make my next payment, it is all gone. That's 120 songs that I could have owned to listen to at any time. Steve is right."
Now, I see folks clammoring for subscriptions (which could possibly make the Zune store the best option available of any music store - $15/month, keep 10 songs).
Now get off my lawn.
Actually, yes, considering you can get them for free with the desktop version.
No, it's not free in the desktop version. You pay by listening to ads. The free subscription also have a lower audio quality.
Even so 9,99 (or whatever) is still cheap if you consider what you get.
Not sure what the fair usage policy on the iphone contracts is because i'm on simplicity (o2), but i know my "unlimited" web coverage has a 200MB cap. Even if the app streams at 64k, that's probably only 50 odd tracks plus my regular web usage. Not a great deal for 10 quid, if u ask me.
Sticking with Grooveshark!
I'm sticking with Grooveshark. Much prefer their adfree music stream. I've been listening to Grooveshark through my Icloud acct and I read recently that they will be coming out soon with an iphone app and then Grooveshark is included for free!
I'm sticking with Grooveshark. Much prefer their adfree music stream. I've been listening to Grooveshark through my Icloud acct and I read recently that they will be coming out soon with an iphone app and then Grooveshark is included for free!
I've been using the Spotify app happily since the day it was released and being on O2 as well in the UK I've had no problems listening to as many songs as I want (as well as regular web usage). If I remember reading correctly only iPhone users on O2 get a "proper" unlimited data plan (no doubt subject to fair use of course) whereas as other phone users, such as on the Blackberry, get the 200MB limit. But besides you can download up to 3,333 songs over WiFi onto your iPhone for offline playback.
Well I'd never heard of Grooveshark until you just mentioned it so I checked out their site and found that it's the "users" who upload the songs. They don't get permission from the record labels, instead they let anyone upload anything and then wait to get sued (like Warner Bros. is currently in the process of doing) hoping to arrange a licensing deal. I believe Universal came to a licensing arrangement with them after they too tried to sue them.
Surely a legitimate company would've got the licensing deals in place BEFORE streaming artists' music? The company is in a legal grey area, at best! How else do you explain that I was just able to listen to Beatles songs through their site when even iTunes doesn't have the rights to sell them?!
Sorry but I'll stick to Spotify as it's legal (the most important point for me), convenient and fast over WiFi or 3G. It's a great service and I seriously wouldn't be able to live without it. Being able to stream more or less any song whenever you feel like and wherever you are never gets old! £10 is still a bargain for what you get if you ask me and I couldn't be happier.
Of course there's many countries that don't have Spotify yet (the US would be the big one) so I suppose these other services fill the gap ...
I agree with you 100% mate! I bought Music Controls shortly after I got the Spotify app. They've got a demo so you can see if it's any good but in my opinion it's the best $4.99 I spent on the iPhone as I use it everyday.
Spotify's still one of the best legal music programs out there especially with their recent new features.
Keep it legal kids!
Cheers.