Spotify Reaches Over 40 Million Paying Subscribers, Continues to Outpace Apple Music

[DevNull0]

Truthfully did you think Apple would keep it around forever? Do you think other manufacturers will keep it forever? Have you thoroughly tried different wireless options and offerings? If so, what do you have against wireless?

Now is not time to force wireless. Maybe in 2 years the other companies will be right to switch. But in 2016, Apple is 100% wrong.

I've tried Jaybird Sport x2's ($200) and I own a set of Platronics backbeats go 2 ($130). They both sound like cheap junk compared to the Bose SoundSports I picked up for $50 last black friday. Both wireless ones are huge, bulky and uncomfortable. The SoundSports are small, lightweight, and very comfortable.

I got the backbeats to use while working around the house so I wouldn't catch the cord. I never use them because I never remember to charge them and the sound is so flat and tiny they're not worth the effort to charge.

That said, I'm always up to try new tech. But 2016 is not the year of wireless headphone, and 2017 won't be either. Beyond that, I hope the future is wireless.

 

[Bawstun]

I'm not white knuckling it. It's a 100% deal breaker for me. The iP7 is not even a consideration for me. No stress, no issue, easy decision.

Same. Immediately purchased an SE to replace my 6+. Will not even entertain ever upgrading to the 7, and possibly never owning another iPhone altogether if it doesn't make a return. The headphone jack is convenience and necessity to me. There's only so much anti-consumerism I can tolerate. Total deal breaker.

 

[admob71]

How much newer is Apple Music....? I'm willing to bet Spotify didn't have 17 million paying subscribers after 18 months.

Is this really a genuine question. Comparing a start ups figures to a firm who already had 100 million customers base. Reach a bit further sir, you've missed a bit at the bottom of the barrel.

 

[lex.raz]

Don't know how a European company can compete with Apple... it's not like Apple is paying any tax there

Spotify is currently not available in your country...
[doublepost=1473929953][/doublepost]

let me know when apple music can do this

Letting you know

 

[waitandwait]

and why would anyone expect it? They're a music service whereas Apple could throw any useless service onto millions of iOS devices and have millions of people using it within a week. They have the ability to push it to people in mass.

I'm honestly surprised how much people are defending Apple Music as the clear winner. Have any of you actually used Spotify?

I used Spotify and Apple Music.

Spotify is great with their playlists and Discover Weekly but Apple Music is catching up with its My New Music Mix and radio channels. Some Spotify playlists remain stuck for months without refresh.

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Good, because Spotify is still better...

 

[Razeus]

all i do is pick up my phone and press the back button on the unlock screen or triple click on the headphone button. couldn't be any easier.

Sure it could. I just mentioned it.

 

[dewski]

Quality, not quantity is what i'm looking for. You could also apply that logic to your posts on this board.

when it comes to music, I want to be able to search everything recorded on this planet. Its not a library i have to do upkeep on. I want it all and it would be frustrating not to find something that is available somewhere else.

 

[jdocpa]

let me know when apple music can do this

Um, Airplay has been around for years: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204289

 

[GreyOS]

Um, Airplay has been around for years: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204289

not the same thing.
spotify connect lets you control another device (PC/Mac, phone, tablet) - the other device will stream directly from the internet whilst you control playback on the one you have in your hands. you can then pass on playback to any other device you're signed into, including bringing playback to the one you have in your hand, seamlessly.
when you log into a device whilst another one is playing music, spotify will ask if you wish the play it on your current device instead, or continue on the other device and let you control it from your current device.
the streaming is not done of the device you're controlling it with, as is the case when you airplay something from your phone to an airplay speaker, for example. it is done by the device playing the music.
furthermore, unlike apple music, spotify supports chromecast, again another platform which handles the streaming itself rather than receiving it from the device you have in your hand. chromecast means you can upgrade any existing 'dumb' hifi very cheaply, rather than having to buy an airplay speaker as you would with apple's solution.

your phone, which is the most common controller, is free to play other audio, move around, turn off, whilst it continues to play on another device.

 

[peterdevries]

when it comes to music, I want to be able to search everything recorded on this planet. Its not a library i have to do upkeep on. I want it all and it would be frustrating not to find something that is available somewhere else.

Apologies, I was rude in my first response to you. Please disregard my snarky line. I will edit it out of the original post.

The thing that frustrates me about Spotify is that when I want to listen to say Taylor Swift (sorry, guilty), that I need to filter through a number of "artists" with a keyboard and a microphone that sing her songs and try to steal clicks. That is far less on Apple Music.

On the other hand. When I want to listen to Alan Parsons Project on Apple Music and press shuffle, the following happens: I get 5 times "Old and Wise" from different albums and 7 times "Eye in the Sky". And this where Apple has about 200 Alan Parsons songs on file. Doesn´t make sense.

So, summarizing. I agree with what you say above. I want to have a complete library too, but please leave out the amateur "artists" that only sing covers of currently popular albums to steal clicks. They are annoying.

 

[dewski]

Apologies, I was rude in my first response to you. Please disregard my snarky line. I will edit it out of the original post.

The thing that frustrates me about Spotify is that when I want to listen to say Taylor Swift (sorry, guilty), that I need to filter through a number of "artists" with a keyboard and a microphone that sing her songs and try to steal clicks. That is far less on Apple Music.

On the other hand. When I want to listen to Alan Parsons Project on Apple Music and press shuffle, the following happens: I get 5 times "Old and Wise" from different albums and 7 times "Eye in the Sky". And this where Apple has about 200 Alan Parsons songs on file. Doesn´t make sense.

So, summarizing. I agree with what you say above. I want to have a complete library too, but please leave out the amateur "artists" that only sing covers of currently popular albums to steal clicks. They are annoying.

gotcha. I haven't had that issue with the artists I search, but I don't listen to any mainstream bands so there are probably no copy cats.

 

[gnasher729]

Don't know how a European company can compete with Apple... it's not like Apple is paying any tax there

That's quite irrelevant since taxes are paid on profits. If you don't make profit, there's no difference.

 

[lex.raz]

not the same thing.
spotify connect lets you control another device (PC/Mac, phone, tablet) - the other device will stream directly from the internet whilst you control playback on the one you have in your hands. you can then pass on playback to any other device you're signed into, including bringing playback to the one you have in your hand, seamlessly.
when you log into a device whilst another one is playing music, spotify will ask if you wish the play it on your current device instead, or continue on the other device and let you control it from your current device.
the streaming is not done of the device you're controlling it with, as is the case when you airplay something from your phone to an airplay speaker, for example. it is done by the device playing the music.
furthermore, unlike apple music, spotify supports chromecast, again another platform which handles the streaming itself rather than receiving it from the device you have in your hand. chromecast means you can upgrade any existing 'dumb' hifi very cheaply, rather than having to buy an airplay speaker as you would with apple's solution.

your phone, which is the most common controller, is free to play other audio, move around, turn off, whilst it continues to play on another device.

Half the price of a Chromecast, about 28€. There are other solutions too, like buying an old Airport Express.
http://www.dlink.com/uk/en/home-solutions/mydlink-home/smart-plugs/dch-m225-music-everywhere

 

[GreyOS]

Half the price of a Chromecast, about 28€. There are other solutions too, like buying an old Airport Express.
http://www.dlink.com/uk/en/home-solutions/mydlink-home/smart-plugs/dch-m225-music-everywhere

it doesn't stream from the internet!

get over it, there's a feature spotify has that apple music doesn't

 

[spajky69]

let me know when apple music can do this

and love the black background,much better then white one, ios used to have one,back in days.I don't know, who's bright idea was that bright white background.

 

[lex.raz]

it doesn't stream from the internet!

get over it, there's a feature spotify has that apple music doesn't

Yep, I'm getting over it... because Spotify it's not available in my country. That's a feature that Apple Music does! Go figure!
That feature works for you, I get it. How can you stop the music playing if you don't have direct control. Let's say you have to answer the phone and the music is really loud?
I prefer using Zonga, a service similar with Apple Music primarily because it allows me to stream music on my phone in the car or elsewhere on the 4G network and the data it's free.

 

[vault]

not the same thing.
spotify connect lets you control another device (PC/Mac, phone, tablet) - the other device will stream directly from the internet whilst you control playback on the one you have in your hands. you can then pass on playback to any other device you're signed into, including bringing playback to the one you have in your hand, seamlessly.
when you log into a device whilst another one is playing music, spotify will ask if you wish the play it on your current device instead, or continue on the other device and let you control it from your current device.
the streaming is not done of the device you're controlling it with, as is the case when you airplay something from your phone to an airplay speaker, for example. it is done by the device playing the music.
furthermore, unlike apple music, spotify supports chromecast, again another platform which handles the streaming itself rather than receiving it from the device you have in your hand. chromecast means you can upgrade any existing 'dumb' hifi very cheaply, rather than having to buy an airplay speaker as you would with apple's solution.

your phone, which is the most common controller, is free to play other audio, move around, turn off, whilst it continues to play on another device.

Not to mention how much more battery friendly it is when the phone only acts as remote. With Apple Music and AirPlay you're first downloading to your phone, then recoding to Apple lossless, and then streaming that to your target device. With cluttered wifi you can get awful dropouts with AirPlay. Clearly, it was designed before "the cloud" boom.

 

[lex.raz]

[doublepost=1474218510][/doublepost]

Not to mention how much more battery friendly it is when the phone only acts as remote. With Apple Music and AirPlay you're first downloading to your phone, then recoding to Apple lossless, and then streaming that to your target device. With cluttered wifi you can get awful dropouts with AirPlay. Clearly, it was designed before "the cloud" boom.

Of course you realize that the "cluttered wi-fi" will affect also the Spotify streaming. You know, from the cloud to the Spotify device you'll use the same wi-fi connection. And I don't think that what you describe is really happening. The iPhone doesn't recode anything that is streaming from the Apple Music.
I've never dad any problems with the wi-fi signal and in my apartment's living there are between 10 to 15 wi-fi networks from the neighbors.

But of course AirPlay works with any music/radio app from the AppStore. TuneIn Radio, Radio Tunes, Deezer, Zonga and so on. You're comparing something that's built into an app with something that's built into the iOS system.

 

[Keirasplace]

when it comes to music, I want to be able to search everything recorded on this planet. Its not a library i have to do upkeep on. I want it all and it would be frustrating not to find something that is available somewhere else.

Well, spotify certainly doesn't have a comprehensive lib, frustratingly far from it (and I'm on Spotify Prem because its part of my phone plan I got as a promotion).

 

[vault]

Of course you realize that the "cluttered wi-fi" will affect also the Spotify streaming. You know, from the cloud to the Spotify device you'll use the same wi-fi connection.

Not necessarily.

a) with Spotify and AM you're simply downloading ~5MB mp3 in the background. It only takes a few seconds and is kept in cache. Adding AirPlay, you're streaming tens of megabytes with only few second buffer,

b) wifi performance obviously doesn't affect Spotify/Gcast if your listening device is wired - mine is

And I don't think that what you describe is really happening. The iPhone doesn't recode anything that is streaming from the Apple Music.

As far as I know it does. AirPlay is application agnostic, it compresses raw PCM to Apple lossless for streaming on the fly.

And yes, I've experienced bad performance with AirPlay, to a point that I manually switch to less used 5GHz network before streaming (it doesn't help that iOS doesn't have normal, priority based wifi manager).
As much as I like AirPlay, on the technical level it's a dinosaur.

 

[Abazigal]

Now is not time to force wireless. Maybe in 2 years the other companies will be right to switch. But in 2016, Apple is 100% wrong.

I've tried Jaybird Sport x2's ($200) and I own a set of Platronics backbeats go 2 ($130). They both sound like cheap junk compared to the Bose SoundSports I picked up for $50 last black friday. Both wireless ones are huge, bulky and uncomfortable. The SoundSports are small, lightweight, and very comfortable.

I got the backbeats to use while working around the house so I wouldn't catch the cord. I never use them because I never remember to charge them and the sound is so flat and tiny they're not worth the effort to charge.

That said, I'm always up to try new tech. But 2016 is not the year of wireless headphone, and 2017 won't be either. Beyond that, I hope the future is wireless.

There will never be a right time to do away with a standard. If you want something to happen, you will have to do it yourself, rather than waiting for it to fall from the sky.

Maybe Apple is wrong, and maybe they are right. But if there is one thing I have learnt, it's that people underestimate Apple to their own detriment.

 

[DevNull0]

There will never be a right time to do away with a standard. If you want something to happen, you will have to do it yourself, rather than waiting for it to fall from the sky.

Maybe Apple is wrong, and maybe they are right. But if there is one thing I have learnt, it's that people underestimate Apple to their own detriment.

This is why people make fun of koolaid drinkers.

Of course there is a right time to do away with a standard. My monitor in a few years old and has VGA, DVI, and DP inputs. When I bought it I used VGA because that was the standard my computer used. After years of computers with multiple inputs it was easy for people to migrate to newer ports. Every monitor less then about 10 years old now supports modern inputs and dropping VGA was a complete non-issue.

When the floppy drive started failing, non-Apple computers had floppy ports for many, many years. By the time that standard was finally dropped, it was a non-issue.

I had a few generations of computer that had both IDE and SATA ports. It was great, I could use my old hard drives/DVD burner in the new computer but when I bought new stuff it was SATA. So when the IDE support was dropped, it was a non-issue.

Apple OTOH makes huge issues out of everything. They screw over a massive chunk of the userbase so they can make extra profit selling adapters. Forcing everyone onto wireless headphones in 2016 is an asinine move. Even if wireless is the right choice, there is zero reason to remove a port used my a significant fraction of the users except to force people onto adapters. You can use wireless even with a headphone pin. Maybe in 2 years it will be time to do away with the pin, maybe not. Regardless of the future, Apple is 100% wrong. Just like they were with the floppy and CD.

USB-C may well be the future, but in 2016, it is nothing more than a port to plug in a variety of adapters. It is idiotic to sell a computer with only USB-C in 2016. Adding it along side other ports is what makes sense. That allows people to keep all current functionality and buy future USB-C hardware so they'll be ready if it truly does replace ports in a few years.

Apple sells computers that cannot connect to standard flash memory sticks in 2016 without an adapter. And you think that's a good thing? Wow.

 

[Abazigal]

This is why people make fun of koolaid drinkers.

Of course there is a right time to do away with a standard. My monitor in a few years old and has VGA, DVI, and DP inputs. When I bought it I used VGA because that was the standard my computer used. After years of computers with multiple inputs it was easy for people to migrate to newer ports. Every monitor less then about 10 years old now supports modern inputs and dropping VGA was a complete non-issue.

When the floppy drive started failing, non-Apple computers had floppy ports for many, many years. By the time that standard was finally dropped, it was a non-issue.

I had a few generations of computer that had both IDE and SATA ports. It was great, I could use my old hard drives/DVD burner in the new computer but when I bought new stuff it was SATA. So when the IDE support was dropped, it was a non-issue.

Apple OTOH makes huge issues out of everything. They screw over a massive chunk of the userbase so they can make extra profit selling adapters. Forcing everyone onto wireless headphones in 2016 is an asinine move. Even if wireless is the right choice, there is zero reason to remove a port used my a significant fraction of the users except to force people onto adapters. You can use wireless even with a headphone pin. Maybe in 2 years it will be time to do away with the pin, maybe not. Regardless of the future, Apple is 100% wrong. Just like they were with the floppy and CD.

USB-C may well be the future, but in 2016, it is nothing more than a port to plug in a variety of adapters. It is idiotic to sell a computer with only USB-C in 2016. Adding it along side other ports is what makes sense. That allows people to keep all current functionality and buy future USB-C hardware so they'll be ready if it truly does replace ports in a few years.

Apple sells computers that cannot connect to standard flash memory sticks in 2016 without an adapter. And you think that's a good thing? Wow.

For me, I guess I have always been a sucker for controversial tradeoffs. Have the balls to tell me that this one feature in your product is way more important than all the other features combined and I am in.

Take the MacBook for example. I don't have one, but I find the concept very seductive. Super slow processor? Only one USB-C port? All these compromises for a retina display and an ultra-thin and light form factor? Sign me right up.

Yes, it's a lot less powerful and a lot less convenient than most other laptops out there, and it's a complete dream to use in the right setting. As a teacher, the MacBook could very well meet all my needs. And if I wanted, I could probably live with the drawbacks. Simply rely on cloud services and adaptors for data transfer, Bluetooth the heck out of everything else, and bring around the appropriate adapters for whatever scenario still can't be resolved.

 

[pkissel]

There are 6 billion people on earth. Suppose 15% of them will eventually pay for streaming music. That's 900 million. If the market is split 50-50 between Apple and Spotify, it means Spotify has a potential of 450 million users. It may very well be that Spotify will not break even until they have 150 million users, but since the potential is so great, that doesn't really matter.

Tl;dr: pretty sure they can continue to remain competetive without making any money for several years.

Good point. As long as they can continue to attract new capital for investment to stay afloat they can remain competitive.
[doublepost=1475442315][/doublepost]

It takes money to make money. Spotify is still in their growth phase. They're receiving money from investors and spending it on more features, more content, and more infrastructure so that they can support more customers than they already have. This is normal behavior for any company that's growing quickly (for example, see Tesla.) Burning investor money isn't a problem unless you start plateauing and aren't growing anymore. Once you're no longer growing, you should be profitable... if you're not, you're a failed company.

Adding 3M subscribers per month means that Spotify is doubling their subscriber base annually. Hundreds of millions if not billions of people of people own phones and want to listen to music on them. So they should be able to continue doubling for another 2-5 years before they plateau and need to be profitable.

Thanks for your thoughts ArtOfWarfare!