Spotify Defends Facebook Sign-Up Requirement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Defends Facebook Sign-Up Requirement

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:24AM from the not-yet-integrated-into-slashcode dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Music service Spotify has got music lovers' tutus in a twist by insisting that new users have a Facebook account in order to sign up. The company has now defended the policy, stating, oddly, that the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier."

13 of 286 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Whats the problem? by arcite · 2011-09-27 04:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't like it? Use another service.
1. Re:Whats the problem? by Colonel+Korn · 2011-09-27 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't like it? Use another service.
  And in that short post you claimed that all criticism is pointless.
  Why criticize a movie? Watch another movie. Why review a game? Play another game. You don't like this Beatles song? How dare you say so - go listen to something else!
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
2. Re:Whats the problem? by RazorSharp · 2011-09-27 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think you get it. Colonel Korn is saying that the criticism can be valid, whether Spotify has the right to make this decision or not. He's not suggesting that those who criticize Spotify for this decision should continue using the service begrudgingly - in fact, I'm sure many who are criticizing Spotify on this forum have never used it and don't intend to - but that doesn't invalidate their criticisms.
  To me, "Don't like it? Use another service" seems to say, "don't make an issue of that which you disagree with unless it is forced upon you." While following this maxim may result in less whiners throughout the world, it would also result in turning a blind eye to that which is deserving of criticism. To which I have to say: "Don't like trivial criticisms? Don't visit Slashdot."
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Well it makes NOT signing up easier... by Kenja · 2011-09-27 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

which is close to what they're saying I guess.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Which other service? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd like to take you up on your offer. Which alternative to Spotify do you recommend for listeners in the United States?
Pirate Bay.
Re:Facebook karma by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone murmuring about privacy stuff won't be using a Google product as an alternative.
Piracy forever by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Piracy forever man. Accept no substitute!
Always a superior product. Always in the format the market wants. Even with a negligible price point, these dumb companies are just not agile enough.
No weird-ass, windows only client to download. No signup, lock-in and DRM.
The piracy scene has all the web 2.0 social crap like the commercial sites now, so you can talk about the shit you're pirating.
Pure win.
Re:Facebook karma by geminidomino · 2011-09-27 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Before facebook was MySpace. Mass migration/hemorrhaging of users is not unprecedented in recent social networking history.
Re:Which other service? by houstonbofh · 2011-09-27 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or maybe they will feel that a pool of 800m potential subscribers is enough for them.
The pool of Internet users with FaceBook is smaller than the pool of Internet users. However you put it, by requiring FaceBook, they eliminated a lot of potential customers. And I am not sure what they got by doing this...
Re:Just a shot in the dark here by NeutronCowboy · 2011-09-27 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Don't make me think" is fine if there's indeed only one plausible action. But FB is not the passport for the Internet, no matter how many people keep saying that. As a result, putting in one action that doesn't apply to a significant chunk of people is worse than giving them options they don't need.
Not to mention: do you REALLY want FB to be the defacto passport for the Internet? Especially as a company whose only ability to hold on to people is their user preferences, which are now shared with FB?

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Venn Diagram by houstonbofh · 2011-09-27 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not applicable. How about people who would not like the link FaceBook to a service with access to bank or credit card information? Even if you have FaceBook, that does not mean you want them to have more information about you.
Re:Desktop vs Mobile Listening by 0123456 · 2011-09-27 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I really don't understand what difference it makes to them if the stream end point is my phone or a computer.
They know that people who'll spend $600 on an iPhone won't notice that they're also spending twice as much for their music as someone with a computer.
Re:Which other service? by 91degrees · 2011-09-27 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Complaining is perfectly legitimate. I might want to use the service but not associate it with facebook. If I complain they'll be aware of this, and may decide to change their policy to accommodate.

They have every right not to but it's in my interest if they change, and presumably in their interest to have me as a customer. We're asking for a solution in which we both benefit. Hardly unreasonable.