Spotify's Car Thing Accessory is Officially Dead

[Krizoitz]

I think it should be illegal to sell a device that people buy only to then be remotely bricked like that. If that's not a waste of resources and money, then I don't know what is. It really breaks trust in these companies.

Then expect to pay a lot more for such devices, if someone decides to make them at all.

How about instead you do your research and decide if the products capabilities match your needs. If they don’t, don’t buy it. Unless the company lies to you then it’s on YOU to make that decision.

Meanwhile plenty of people find connected devices useful and worth the cost even though they might not last forever. Who are you to take away that choice from them.

 

[azentropy]

My 500+ CD, plus 600+ LP collection says otherwise 😉

Your ROI break even is about 42 years. Calculating that your 1100 collection cost you $5 a piece assuming you are somewhat thrifty and say pay $10 for some but $1 for others is $5500. $5500/$11 a month gives you 41.67 years.
Of course there are other varying factors as the price of streaming will go up, however new songs also come out so you will be adding to that $5500 too...

Not saying that is good or bad, just doing some math!

 

[familychoice]

Your ROI break even is about 42 years. Calculating that your 1100 collection cost you $5 a piece assuming you are somewhat thrifty and say pay $10 for some but $1 for others is $5500. $5500/$11 a month gives you 41.67 years.
Of course there are other varying factors as the price of streaming will go up, however new songs also come out so you will be adding to that $5500 too...

Not saying that is good or bad, just doing some math!

Oh definitely, but bear in mind I can resell the whole lot if I want and get most, if not all of my money back, and in some cases make a profit.

For example I paid less than £1 for a second-hand double early Kraftwerk LP in the 1980’s, and was recently offered £400 for it from a dealer. Pretty much every LP in my collection (bearing in mind they were all bought in the 70’s and 80’s) can be sold for more than they originally cost. CD’s not so much, apart from a few rarities, but LP sales would cover the costs.

So based on collecting records, and then CD’s since 1977, I reckon I could pretty much sell the lot and get all my money back, vs Apple Music sub for that period (if it had been available) for 42 years which would have cost £5,544.

And naturally my collection has been ripped onto an SSD, so I’d still have it even if I sold the lot…

 

[npmacuser5]

Too bad, I really wish I could still use it to listen to podcasts on my way to work.

No more Talk Tuah on Spotify's Car Thang. 😓

EarPods and a phone. Hands free problem solved.

 

[Timpetus]

Apple Music is $10.99 per month. How many new songs can I purchase per month for eleven bucks?

My VPN is like $3.49 a month. I can get infinity songs for that price, as well as TV shows, movies, any other media I'd like.

 

[omihek]

Think beyond the moment/month. When you stop paying the rent, you lose access to all songs you enjoy.

Even if you buy only a few songs per month, you eventually own enough songs that you can stop buying new... and then enjoy them for free for the rest of your life, whether you ever spend another nickel on music.

In rent vs. own, very short-term lenses will always make renting look like a better deal. But then you look through a longer lens and there is always a point where owning overtakes rent. This particular rent proposition never ends. You can never convert without losing access to all... so that's a lifetime bill every month to maintain access to a rented collection. On the other hand, the owner can stop buying music at any time and possess & enjoy all of whatever they've accumulated to that point in time.

Unless Apple resets your account every few years, which they did to mine and now I don't own anything that I bought outright. Luckily it was only one album, but still, when I went back a few years later to listen again, I had to repurchase.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

CDs!

• Buying from the cloud is "lifetime lease" with others still controlling the media... even purchased* media.
• CDs mean you control the media. Rip a copy from CD and it doesn't really matter what Apple or the Studios do. And the same applies to movies & TV shows too. Buy the disc, rip your own and you control it. Buy or rent it from the cloud and leave it in cloud caretakers hands and you can only hope it will be available to you when you want it.

Don't trust anything you buy from the Cloud to be stored in the cloud. Download it to local storage so you at least possess what you have purchased. Else, trusting strangers with possession is a risky game over time. Anyone who wants to argue differently, feel free to trust me with possession of your savings accounts. What could possibly go wrong with some stranger holding your money?

 

[Think creative]

The theory of this makes a lot of sense and for many people it might even work. However, specifically with music, I don't feel your proposition is valid for a great deal of people. Music is something that is often consumed in VAST quantities. A song is a few minutes long. Most people don't just listen to music for a few minutes at a time. Many people listen to music, even if just in the background, for hours at a time. Over days, weeks, months, and years that turns out to be a LOT of minutes. If you are a type of person who can listen a very select amount of music minutes that are owned over and over again, then maybe this idea works for you. However, for MANY people, this is not a winning proposition. It is absolutely WORTH the money to have access to the variety. For many many many years this was radio. For many people this can still be radio. However, radio without ads cost money. That can come in many forms, satellite radio, Apple Music, YouTube Premium....pick your poison. But it costs something regardless.

Many things in our lives are becoming a subscription and I don't think that is good. However, paying to have access to vasts amounts of music with no ads is worth it to me and many people for whom music is a daily part of their life. I still purchase music ON TOP of paying for the subscription service. Why? To further support the artists. To make sure if I like something I will always have access to listen to it even if distribution rights change. To easily play offline or when I am traveling in other countries without fear of network IP issues. Etc.... But there is zero chance I wouldn't also pay for my ad free vast music catalog.

Many paths bring about happiness in life. Saving money can be good, but so can spending it, even if you are "renting"

I mean, I'm in the same boat. I'm paying for Spotify family because it's the nice thing to do for everyone, and it's the easiest way for me to stay up with what's popular now. That being said, anything I actually like? I'm buying and building up my personal library. The biggest cost at this point if I was to turn off Spotify for me would be lofi work music. And even then, it's easy for me to get around because I'm building a Spotify playlist of my favorite lofi, and then I'll be buying albums of that as well. Hell, the thing I like to work to the most (video game music) you often can't even buy the soundtracks properly (looking at you a lot of Nintendo). Youtube ripping exists for just that reason. And I'm the guy who literally ordered the $100 special addition of the newest Zelda soundtrack to be imported. If Spotify died tomorrow, I would find glaring spots in my personal library, and that's what I'm currently working on, filling those spots.

 

[3304614]

Exactly. Because designing it another way would have been more expensive, taken longer, or both.

There is absolutely nothing that requires a business to provide a device that will operate indefinitely. Aside from the fact that it’s impossible due to the laws of physics, at some point it becomes more difficult expensive than is worth it to try and make it that way.

Your Nintendo 64 is going to stop working someday. The disc drive will fail. The memory will fail. The power supply will fail. At some point a component will fail. And before you say “that’s different, it wasn’t designed that way”, oh yes it absolutely was. Because they could have used a more reliable disc drive. They could have added backup memory. They could have done a thousand things to make the device last longer. But they didn’t because every one of them would have added to the time or the price or both of the device. Everything in building a product is a trade off.

Again, if you want a device that will work offline then do your research and buy only such devices. As long as Spotify was upfront about the capabilities and requirements of the device then it’s on the consumer to decide whether it’s worth it or not, whether the capabilities and limitations are worth the cost.

The entitlement people have to expect companies or people to produce exactly what they want for the price they want regardless of the costs or effort involved is ridiculous.

Don’t do that. You don’t need to start insulting people. I didn't say one mean word to you. I know it’s the internet, but… you can have a conversation while still being polite and respectful.

Also: There is indeed a difference between a company deciding that a device will no longer work and a device no longer working because it’s 28 years old and a piece of hardware fails because of age and wear and tear.

It’s especially different because (in the example I gave with my Nintendo 64 that you referenced) I said that I needed to replace the AC adapter. And I did. And everything is fine now. There was a hardware problem for my discontinued hardware and I was easily able to find a solution.

(Also, also: I never bought the “Car Thing”. I am just here to have a polite conversation about the topic.)

 

[Shirasaki]

I think it should be illegal to sell a device that people buy only to then be remotely bricked like that. If that's not a waste of resources and money, then I don't know what is. It really breaks trust in these companies.

Instead they should say that you're renting the product from them, and when the lease is over, they come and get it from you or they issue a free shipping label to get it returned. But don't trick people by saying they're "bought" the product. This is 100% a service, not a product, and should be marketed and priced as such.

Meanwhile I still use the AUX port to play music in my car from my phone, and that still works. And it was free. You get rewarded for sticking with old technology.

As more and more people realise the charm and benefit of reliable old technology, we could see interesting things changing under the hood.

I too agree to not “sell customer hardware that’s always connected”, but then if devices were to be sent back, I dunno how many companies would like to go with the model of “renting devices” especially since those are likely built cheaply.

Despite some Gen Z Gen Alpha believes, old technology is not automatically “obsolete”, and still have their own use cases, sometimes “modern tech” can’t match. Also existing old devices imo tend to last longer than “new hardware”.

 

[Krizoitz]

There is indeed a difference between a company deciding that a device will no longer work and a device no longer working because it’s 28 years old and a piece of hardware fails because of age and wear and tear.

No there isn’t. Both are examples of balancing design, engineering, and cost.

Operating a connected device requires far more than the device itself. It’s an absolutely valid choice to not continue a service, especially one that’s costing you money.

Its on the company to provide accurate information about its product so the consumer to decide what to buy.

It’s on the consumer to weigh the features and cost of a product and decide whether it meets their needs.

If a device like this being shut down someday because the service ends is something you don’t want to deal with then don’t buy such a device. It’s that simple.

 

[Arsenikdote]

There is a thing called "radio". If you need "background music" (horribel term), radio is your best friend. There are hundreds of stations available over the internet that plays almost any kind of music 24/7. Just pick one and start playing, for free!

With ads, no thank you. The money I spend is worth not having ads. Also, while I have found very few streams that don't have ads, the production quality of the stations is very low and not appealing to me. Some people always look for free and are fine with the repercussions, some people spend a little money and are fine with the trade offs, some people spend a lot of money and are fine spending the money. I don't think there is any issue with any of it as long as you are aware of what is happening. Spending money on a subscription without thinking is bad. Spending money intentionally to bring joy in your life is sort of the point of earning the money to spend, right?

 

[bollman]

With ads, no thank you. The money I spend is worth not having ads. Also, while I have found very few streams that don't have ads, the production quality of the stations is very low and not appealing to me. Some people always look for free and are fine with the repercussions, some people spend a little money and are fine with the trade offs, some people spend a lot of money and are fine spending the money. I don't think there is any issue with any of it as long as you are aware of what is happening. Spending money on a subscription without thinking is bad. Spending money intentionally to bring joy in your life is sort of the point of earning the money to spend, right?

Lol, there are lots of stations without ads. You don't have to listen to commercial radio. I avoid it like the plague.

 

[SFjohn]

What does “ownership” of digital media mean to you?

I ask because the product is still downloaded from the servers, theres no physical material, and if a song becomes “unavailable in your region” post purchase (happens often on the Australian store), then you can’t access what you “own”

CDs are what I own, and I’ve ripped them into digital libraries that exist only on my computer, and my local backup drive, and a redundant cloud backup with BackBlaze. I’m not reliant on any provider of music that might withdraw a song as you’ve mentioned.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Lol, there are lots of stations without ads. You don't have to listen to commercial radio. I avoid it like the plague.

I am open to suggestions but every one I have listened to previously was not well produced. Either a lack of the type of music I am interested in or quality was low or some other trade off. They don't get to play the music for free so there is always a catch. Unless it is illegal, which I do not participate in since I prefer to support the artists by both purchasing and streaming their content and paying to do so.

 

[bollman]

I usually listen to Public Service so, no ads.
Then, I exclusively listen to classical music so there are lots of stations available from many Public Service companies that has no ads and good quality streaming (like, really good)
Swedish Radio (sr.se)
Norwegian Radio (nrk.no)
Danish Radio (dr.dk)
Finnish Radio (yle.fi)
Several German (ndr.de, mdr.de, br.de)
Many of these public service companies offer streaming channels with no talk inbetween, and most, if not all, are available worldwide without VPN. Almost all European countries have Public Service which pride themselves on high quality audio and selections.
And, it's not just classical, you can find most anything if you shop around.
For most americans, I guess BBC would be their go-to since there's no language barrier. BBC also has a lot of available high-quality podcasts. But unfortunately, they've decided to geo-lock their content since a while back. Really annoying.

 

[Razorpit]

Unless Apple resets your account every few years, which they did to mine and now I don't own anything that I bought outright. Luckily it was only one album, but still, when I went back a few years later to listen again, I had to repurchase.

What are you talking about? I've had iTunes practically going back to day one and never had to repurchase anything.

CDs are what I own, and I’ve ripped them into digital libraries that exist only on my computer, and my local backup drive, and a redundant cloud backup with BackBlaze. I’m not reliant on any provider of music that might withdraw a song as you’ve mentioned.

Same. Doing this more so now with DVD's and Blue ray's as well.

 

[omihek]

What are you talking about? I've had iTunes practically going back to day one and never had to repurchase anything.

Exactly what I said. I bought an album and then a few years later went back and it was nowhere to be found in my library so I went to iTunes and it was acting like I had to buy it again.

 

[Edd70]

My VPN is like $3.49 a month. I can get infinity songs for that price, as well as TV shows, movies, any other media I'd like.

How's that work? Is it pirating somehow? Honest question, because I'd think you'd need subscriptions, VPN or not.

 

[Hank001]

How much does your favourite artist get from streams vs a new album purchase?

 

[jlc1978]

I've seen numbers closer to $2/disk, or about 200,000 streams. That's a million $ for a CD that sells 500,000 copies, before any expenses are deducted. Either way, it's clear artists can't rely of music sales to live on.

 

[Ctrlos]

Which is why it’s always worth buying physical and owning your media instead of licensing it.

 

[Razorpit]

Exactly what I said. I bought an album and then a few years later went back and it was nowhere to be found in my library so I went to iTunes and it was acting like I had to buy it again.

Fantastic story. Thanks for sharing about the one album you purchased.

 

[omihek]

Fantastic story. Thanks for sharing about the one album you purchased.

Must have really made an impact with you since you replied twice.

 

[Razorpit]

Must have really made an impact with you since you replied twice.

Fascinated. Make it three times. Can't wait for the next installment 5-7 years from now. Will it be a game, a TV show, a movie, a song, or a whole album? Who knows for sure what it will be.