Spotify U.S. Launch Imminent, Raises $100m Round

[BitterMelon]

I Love Spotify, been using the free version for a couple of years now. The big problem I have with Spotify is it's too expensive. It's £120 a year for subscription, While that sounds cheap for the wealth of songs at your fingertips It's expensive in terms of how much I would normally spend on music over the year and there is no way I have ever spent £120 on music over the cause of a year accept for maybe when i was in my teens

I think £4.99 for unlimited access would be more reasonable

It's worth it because it's way more than running to a store and buying CDs. Pretty much any music there is, at any time you like, pretty much wherever you are and on pretty much any device.

And what's £/€/$10/month? Seriously? I pay way more just for the broadband connection to play it through, and the phone to play it on.

 

[BLACKFRIDAY]

Is the music quality in Spotify Unlimited (£4.99) good?

 

[paarsec]

Is the music quality in Spotify Unlimited (£4.99) good?

Same as premium, 320kbps. The only difference is that you can't use it on portable devices.

 

[BitterMelon]

Same as premium, 320kbps. The only difference is that you can't use it on portable devices.

No, according to the Spotify site it's not ("Enhanced sound quality" is not checked in the list). So that would mean 160k, no mobile streaming and no offline mode for Unlimited.

(Swedish site)

 

[petrucci666]

What I don't understand is - why is everyone just waiting for Spotify to arrive in the US when there is Rdio?

It's the same damn thing and cheaper! $10/month compared to almost $20 a month in Europe!

I really don't get it. Rdio has all the songs, you can make playlists, match your iPod collection, offline mode, playlists created by others, top charts, the 'What's Hot' section. And not to mention that the app is x100 nicer than Spotify.


RDIO!!!!!

 

[LoganT]

Is thats true wouldn't that make spotify illegal as well? They offer free music with ads as well.

Yes, with the blessing of the record labels.

 

[Killyp]

What do you mean gapless playback? I've never had any issues with buffering or time between tracks.

As in I get gaps between tracks. Pretty simple really?

Give me a break. It's 320kbps. You can't hear a difference.

There is definitely a difference, especially when it comes to listening for extended periods. OGG is just plain fatiguing...

Again, give me a break.

Except to anything with Airplay, or a Sonos. What else are you looking for?

I can't get AirPlay to stream Spotify except through my iPhone, which sounds dreadful (160kbps).

Are you really saying that an app doesn't compare to a record store? Really? Wow.

False.

Give me one shred of evidence of how musicians can earn more money through recorded music on Spotify than they can through iTunes.

I'm an artist, and I know that if you have stuff that people actually listen to, you get a decent supplemental income from Spotify. Artists don't make money from recordings these days, regardless of the medium. You used to tour in order to sell more albums. Now you record albums to enable touring.

I completely disagree on so many levels but there we go, I've learned in the past what happens if you get into discussions about the music industry on this forum...

 

[LoganT]

You know, MOG streams at 320 Kbps on the iPhone. It's stupid that Spotify doesn't so the same.

 

[chaosconan]

After looking at all the options I think the best thing would be to use Spotify (free with ads) or Grooveshark (free with ads) to listen to unlimited music and try them out.
If I find ones that I really like and enjoy use iTunes to buy the songs and make it available in my iCloud so that it can be downloaded to my Macbook, iPod, iPad and also my work PC with iTunes .

 

[bpaluzzi]

As in I get gaps between tracks. Pretty simple really?

You're the only person with this issue then. Must be your golden ears.

There is definitely a difference, especially when it comes to listening for extended periods. OGG is just plain fatiguing...

Ahh yup, those golden ears again.

I can't get AirPlay to stream Spotify except through my iPhone, which sounds dreadful (160kbps).

Golden ears are a curse, I suppose.

Give me one shred of evidence of how musicians can earn more money through recorded music on Spotify than they can through iTunes.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. You (like the record labels that don't "get it") assume that if someone didn't have access to the songs on Spotify that they'd buy them on iTunes (or some other method). That couldn't be farther from the truth.

I completely disagree on so many levels but there we go, I've learned in the past what happens if you get into discussions about the music industry on this forum...

There's nothing to disagree about -- those are the facts. Touring is where the income is. Not sure how you can possibly disagree with that.

 

[Arne Hippler]

Give me one shred of evidence of how musicians can earn more money through recorded music on Spotify than they can through iTunes.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009...arns-more-from-spotify-than-itunes-in-sweden/

That's obviously from Sweden, but that's where Spotify has been around for the longest. So if the labels share their money (yeah, right there is your "shred of evidence". I also know that I read somewhere about an indie electronica musician blogging about now earning more from Spotify than iTunes.

 

[paarsec]

No, according to the Spotify site it's not ("Enhanced sound quality" is not checked in the list). So that would mean 160k, no mobile streaming and no offline mode for Unlimited.

(Swedish site)

I stand corrected. Oh well, I can't hear a difference anyway. Most people care even less about sound quality than me, this is only an issue for very few customers.

 

[BitterMelon]

I stand corrected. Oh well, I can't hear a difference anyway. Most people care even less about sound quality than me, this is only an issue for very few customers.

And it's not really likely that people will try to play the off their phones through a good enough sound system to make a difference. Better then to get less bandwidth usage and (likely) less CPU usage/battery drain while decoding.

 

[Azathoth]

I stand corrected. Oh well, I can't hear a difference anyway. Most people care even less about sound quality than me, this is only an issue for very few customers.

I can hear the difference between Spotify low bit rate from my MBP and a CD, when both are played through my hifi. With Spotify high bitrate I can't detect a difference (non-blind AB testing).

FWIW speakers are a pair of B&W 805, CD: Rebecca Karijord.

For my musical tastes, listening environment and ears Spotify is good enough.

The main advantage of Spotify is that it's totally cross platform (even running on my old Nokia!), and has enough variety of music to make discovery interesting. Lack of Metallica & PF is a non-issue - I have those (legally) already - so I can add them to the Spotify app.

Moreover I really prefer the Spotify application on the Mac - the colour scheme and usability are miles better than iTunes. Apple could learn a lot from Spotify in that regard.

 

[ruvil]

I am not really sure that the spotify release in the US might be any good for the rest of us. There has been som crazy changes in their policy lately which is really un-spotify.

Their free service is really disgusting nowadays, too much ads and weird limits on how much you're allowed to listen to the music etc.

When they first started it was free to listen how much you ever wanted with a slight 1 minute interruption for ads every now and then - which was fine. But now it's just all pure madness.

Obviously im not sure it's the case, but i think that it is because the record companies have pressured them for these changes in order for a US release to go through.

What will happen next? Same thing like iTunes store? Only some things avaliable for people outside the us?

 

[chaosconan]

I am not really sure that the spotify release in the US might be any good for the rest of us. There has been som crazy changes in their policy lately which is really un-spotify.

Their free service is really disgusting nowadays, too much ads and weird limits on how much you're allowed to listen to the music etc.

When they first started it was free to listen how much you ever wanted with a slight 1 minute interruption for ads every now and then - which was fine. But now it's just all pure madness.

Obviously im not sure it's the case, but i think that it is because the record companies have pressured them for these changes in order for a US release to go through.

What will happen next? Same thing like iTunes store? Only some things avaliable for people outside the us?

Well, if this is true then I'm going to stay with Grooveshark. I've been trying it out and they don't have weird ads poping up or disrupting my music selection playback.

 

[Tyre]

I don't know that this is going to catch on in the US. I think we are too attached to owning our music for now, but who knows.

 

[Tyre]

Well, people who are planning to use iTunes Match to match their pirated songs (and I'm still not sure that will actually work as people think it will), then paying the $25 would be better. Even better would be not paying Apple at all, since you already have all the music, and would only be paying to have it easily downloadable to all your iDevices.
And considering that the songs ripped from my own CDs is at a higher quality than what Apple offers, I would be downgrading and giving away money to Apple doing it...

Apple would never be able to offer the same service as Spotify and others do for just $25/year.

Apple still wants you to buy music through iTunes Store, so when it comes to consuming music, they are the past. But who can blame them, they have made billions thanks to their 30% cut.

Right but the pirated music that you do get matched is upgraded automatically to much higher quality. So it makes a lot of sense

 

[deftdrummer]

A day late and $1M short, I'm afraid. Spotify was dead when Rdio launched and the nail in the coffin in the US domestic market will be iCloud / iTunes in the cloud.

Just my two cents, so don't flame, but there's no denying that the music streaming market was prime for Spotify in the US about 6 months ago. Not so much anymore.

 

[Killyp]

You're the only person with this issue then. Must be your golden ears.

What are you on about?! There is a VERY audible gap between tracks. Pretty much every other bit of kit I own to play music on will play gaplessly. Even my 20 year old CD player can play without gaps.

Ahh yup, those golden ears again.

I really don't know what you're on about. 320kbps OGG is definitely a step back from 44.1k PCM. IMO Spotify is a step back from CD in most ways, except of course it's much quicker to get hold of (for the impatient listener), it's free, and it doesn't take up any physical space.

Golden ears are a curse, I suppose.

Seems like you're on bit of a personal mission. It'd be nice if we could keep this conversation mature (famous last words).

You're pushing a false dichotomy. You (like the record labels that don't "get it") assume that if someone didn't have access to the songs on Spotify that they'd buy them on iTunes (or some other method). That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Well your 'truth' is quite different to my 'truth'. Several of the artists I have worked with have earned significantly less when adding their music to Spotify...

There's nothing to disagree about -- those are the facts. Touring is where the income is. Not sure how you can possibly disagree with that.

Touring really doesn't bring in enough money to earn even a vaguely significant amount of money. Several musicians I have recorded gave up day jobs to go on tour, and have really, really struggled for money since. Unless you're a high-flying touring artists with a large public profile, you'd need to be touring 6 days a week throughout the entire year without a break to even earn minimum wage in the UK.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009...arns-more-from-spotify-than-itunes-in-sweden/

That's obviously from Sweden, but that's where Spotify has been around for the longest. So if the labels share their money (yeah, right there is your "shred of evidence". I also know that I read somewhere about an indie electronica musician blogging about now earning more from Spotify than iTunes.

That's not really evidence, this article contains no statistics, or information about how much money was pumped into marketing for those artists. For the indie guys who have a small fan-base in their local city, it's much more difficult.

Lady Ga Ga Earns £108 from Spotify

 

[bpaluzzi]

What are you on about?! There is a VERY audible gap between tracks. Pretty much every other bit of kit I own to play music on will play gaplessly. Even my 20 year old CD player can play without gaps.

I see what you mean -- taking the gap that was recorded on the album and removing it. If that's important to you, then no, Spotify can't do that.

I really don't know what you're on about. 320kbps OGG is definitely a step back from 44.1k PCM. IMO Spotify is a step back from CD in most ways, except of course it's much quicker to get hold of (for the impatient listener), it's free, and it doesn't take up any physical space.

Seems like you're on bit of a personal mission. It'd be nice if we could keep this conversation mature (famous last words).

I am on a personal mission of sorts. Physics and double-blind tests show that there's absolutely no difference between 160kbps and CD-quality. To be arguing this about 320kbps is absolutely ridiculous.

Well your 'truth' is quite different to my 'truth'. Several of the artists I have worked with have earned significantly less when adding their music to Spotify...

False dichotomy, backed up by false correlation.

Touring really doesn't bring in enough money to earn even a vaguely significant amount of money. Several musicians I have recorded gave up day jobs to go on tour, and have really, really struggled for money since. Unless you're a high-flying touring artists with a large public profile, you'd need to be touring 6 days a week throughout the entire year without a break to even earn minimum wage in the UK.

Yup. Being a musician is hard work. If you think it's tough to make a livable wage touring, try doing it selling CDs.

Lady Ga Ga Earns £108 from Spotify

Yeah, except that it's not true. That's been disproven for over a year now. If she was really making what that report says, would she debut her new album exclusively on Spotify?
http://www.spotify.com/se/blog/arch...orn-this-way-to-debut-exclusively-on-spotify/

 

[Killyp]

I see what you mean -- taking the gap that was recorded on the album and removing it. If that's important to you, then no, Spotify can't do that.

I really have no idea what you're missing. Every Mac I use Spotify on (Mac Pro in the studio right through to the MacBook Pros I use for location recording) all give me gaps between songs. Even on my iPhone. The same album on CD (heck even vinyl or cassette) however, does not.

I am on a personal mission of sorts. Physics and double-blind tests show that there's absolutely no difference between 160kbps and CD-quality. To be arguing this about 320kbps is absolutely ridiculous.

You couldn't be more wrong, but there we go. I could quite easily tell you the difference between 160kbps and PCM audio, but if you want to go on believing that 160kbps OGG Vorbis is great, then go ahead.

Yup. Being a musician is hard work. If you think it's tough to make a livable wage touring, try doing it selling CDs.

It used to be possible, heck I used to do it. Spotify and online music in general has made it a lot more difficult.

And yes, of course being a musician is hard work. Being a full-time musician earning money off your own music has in fact become a lot more difficult in recent years, which is why so many more artists have to hold down jobs in education. It's worrying how many music colleges/conservatoires around the world are now training their pupils primarily to become teachers, because that's where the most money is in the music world at the moment...

Yeah, except that it's not true. That's been disproven for over a year now. If she was really making what that report says, would she debut her new album exclusively on Spotify?
http://www.spotify.com/se/blog/arch...orn-this-way-to-debut-exclusively-on-spotify/

I don't know why she released her new album exclusively on Spotify, but that's besides the point, and completely irrelevant. Maybe because most people over in the UK now don't bother with iTunes, or buying music in favour of Spotify...

 

[bpaluzzi]

You couldn't be more wrong, but there we go. I could quite easily tell you the difference between 160kbps and PCM audio, but if you want to go on believing that 160kbps OGG Vorbis is great, then go ahead.

Please do. Enlighten all of us. Seriously.

It used to be possible, heck I used to do it. Spotify and online music in general has made it a lot more difficult.

Agreed. But that genie is out of the lamp now. And now, the facts remain that CDs are sold to promote tours (and to increase exposure for sync licensing, but that's a whole other kettle of fish). There's a reason artists are giving away CDs for free, and it's certainly not out of the goodness of their heart.

And yes, of course being a musician is hard work. Being a full-time musician earning money off your own music has in fact become a lot more difficult in recent years, which is why so many more artists have to hold down jobs in education. It's worrying how many music colleges/conservatoires around the world are now training their pupils primarily to become teachers, because that's where the most money is in the music world at the moment...

Most of the state schools are in this position, but they've been that way for a long time. There have always been orders of magnitude more music teaching jobs than music performance jobs. Many of the conservatories don't even have music education as a major -- they're still focused on performance (often to the detriment of students -- many of the conservatories still frown upon instrument doubling, which is absolutely essential for a modern musician)

I don't know why she released her new album exclusively on Spotify, but that's besides the point, and completely irrelevant. Maybe because most people over in the UK now don't bother with iTunes, or buying music in favour of Spotify...

It's tangential to the argument, but I'm just using it as proof that she couldn't have been wronged as much as those initial reports said she was.

Look. We're both passionate about music. We'd probably get along quite well in the real world. Friendly argument at the pub kind of thing. I apologize for maybe setting the wrong tone off the bat. We obviously have different opinions on things, but I (honestly) don't mean any of it personally. My most spirited and chair-throwing arguments are with my best friends

 

[stevensr123]

don't know why people are comparing it to icloud or what ever its called.

for one, you can't stream music from icloud, 2. you actually have to buy all that music to have it in the cloud. if you don't have much music but want to listen to millions of tracks, then spotify will save you hundreds, even thousands in the long run.

either way, i reckon it will be massive in the US if they market it correctly. im suprised a huge company has not bought it yet considering how popular it is in Europe. almost everyone i know has it.

 

[stevensr123]

Right but the pirated music that you do get matched is upgraded automatically to much higher quality. So it makes a lot of sense

but then again, if people are doing this regularly, most likely the music industry will try to crack it down even harder and force apples hand.

we also still know how this match works, can they tell if something is pirated or not? or is it impossible?