Time to leave iTunes & iPod for Spotify?

Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by lordcradden, Jun 3, 2015.

  1. lordcradden macrumors newbie


    Jun 3, 2015
    So mini back-story. Past decade always had a windows desktop with a classic iPod and used iTunes with a combination of old CD rips and downloads.

    Within the past month i'd decided to get rid of my desktop and purchase a Macbook Pro.

    My original idea was to purchase the 256GB model, but within the past week my trusty iPod classic finally gave out.

    So now im in the position where i can either spent an extra £200 from the base £999 MBP aswell as £190 for a referb 64GB iPod Touch and carry on as normal, or I save just shy of £400 and get the base 128GB MBP and sign up to Spotify Premium?

    I've used Spotify on and off on the free subscription and I like it, and im able to stream to my phone when im out and about. Just wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation and if the recommend moving on from iTunes/iPod or not?
  2. shinji macrumors 65816


    Mar 18, 2007
    I was in a similar position and switched to Spotify about a year and a half ago. You might want to wait until June 30th for Apple Music to come out to see how you like it, but I don't regret the move to streaming at all.
  3. Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Jun 1, 2011
    I suppose you would have to decide if the cost is worth it as well as relying on an internet connection. To me, having to have an active connection in order to be able to simply listen to music isn't very appealing, but I have used Spotify and I am aware of why it is popular.
  4. Scepticalscribe macrumors Westmere


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Very good and fair-minded answer.

    While I am one of those who prefers to have my entire musical library in one neat, elegant, portable device, I have also worked in countries and places where a fast, secure, and reliable internet connection - which is a prerequisite for Spotify - is not readily available.
  5. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    I think it's kind of a bad time to make the commitment to Spotify with Apple's streaming service coming out in a few weeks and not exactly knowing what kind of experience it will offer. I would suggest that you not buy a 128GB MBP regardless of what you decide to do regarding the music - it's an expensive, powerful computer that will have a long life ahead of it. 128GB is on the extremely small side today, not to mention several years from now.

    Our family currently subscribes to both Spotify (my wife) and Beats (me) as we both prefer the different services. Unless you never ever have the desire to have a huge collection offline, I find that the streaming services play a better role as an addition to a permanent music collection, rather than an outright replacement. I love that I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, but I find the offline abilities and more specifically, the ability to manage large collections of music to be somewhat lacking in both services.
  6. Creibold macrumors regular


    Feb 27, 2006
    Here's my problem:

    Each one of those, unfortunately, is lower quality than any song you can buy on iTunes today. AAC, as a compression ratio, is roughly two times the quality of a similarly compressed MP3 file, like the ones spotify uses. Therefore a 160 kbps AAC is equal to a 320 kbps MP3. Currently iTunes uses 256 kbps AAC.

    You are not only forsaking having any music local, but actually losing quality at the same time. To me this is a lose-lose situation. Sadly, not unlike the privacy rights issues today, it's a matter of convenience over principal. People do not seem to care so much about the quality of what they are hearing, but that they are simply hearing it, so more people are streaming music rather than buying music.

    To make matters worse, Apple has not released any details as the quality of music on their streaming service, which is disconcerting to me. The ALAC format, which I use for all my music, is an absolutely fine format to sell music - there have been rumors for years that Apple would use it within it's store. The proliferation of cheap storage, fast internet, and always-on connections would, one one think, usher in an age of superior-quality recordings. Instead, we are actually stepping back, instead choosing quantity of quality.

    I see no reason why we cannot have both.
  7. Uofmtiger macrumors 68020


    Dec 11, 2010
    Tidal had lossless audio for ~$20 a month if you need the best quality and don't mind the lack of features. Rdio use 320k AAC, which is what I currently use.

    Personally, I am will to give Apple Music a try even though I am pretty happy with Rdio. The main upside is the Siri integration and the song matching from your own library ( which means you can stream all your music for the cloud alongside their music). As with the other services, you should be able to download files to hold you over while you are off of wifi.

    I still have 160gb iPod, but only use it when I am at the beach. I prefer streaming.
  8. malnar macrumors 6502a


    Aug 20, 2008
    You don't have to have an internet connection to listen, though. Download songs or an album to your device when you have wifi available, then listen off-line, say, on your commute. I don't understand why this confuses so many people.
  9. Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Jun 1, 2011
    I'm not confused. The initial topic is a matter of minimal storage space. This is precisely what the OP is potentially coming from and is seeking advice and opinions.

    It's a topic of downloaded/ripped media vs actively streaming because storage is the primary concern.
  10. nnoble macrumors 6502

    Jun 19, 2011
    The advice above is very well worth considering - at length. I've only know one person opt for 128GB and it didn't take long for them to regret the decision. I've only ever used Spotify so can't compare. When Internet connection is low or I'm about to travel I download multiple playlists for offline listening.

Share This Page

9 June 3, 2015