Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Defends Facebook Sign-Up Requirement
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."
But might it have something to do with the fact that Sean Parker and Peter Thiel, the guys who funded Spotify's recent move to the U.S., also still happen to own a significant percentage of Facebook?
Nah, that's just cynical crazy-talk. It's just to make the sign-up easier for us consumers.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Facebook has been doing some questionable things lately, which is interesting considering they have an up-and-coming contender in Google+ to compete against.
There have been murmurings about the privacy stuff and general griping going on for a while now but there was no "real" alternative. Then G+ goes live and Facebook makes some pretty big interface changes. I figure a lot of people just Facebook because it's comfortable and cozy... but when you introduce a crapload of new things and push people out of their comfort zone that just makes checking out G+ that much easier.
Now they just keep doing things to dare people to leave
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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?"
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.
Pandora springs to mind....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How embarrassing to spend all that time building up a company only to effectively "resign" from the internet and cede your entire company to become just a feature of another company. Facebook is the king of getting people to work for them gratis. Spotify did the heavy lifting with the labels and Facebook eats their lunch.
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)
rdio.com
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.
I would love to see a Venn Diagram of "People who object to using Facebook for privacy reasons" and "People who would actually pay for Spotify accounts"
"...The company has now defended the policy, stating, oddly, that the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier."
I guess the questions are:
1: Why not let me the user determine that?"
2: Why not pitch the idea that I might find Facebook signing easier?
The end result will be easier and better for Spotify but guess what, I am gone!
because I'll be damned if I'll ever join one of those brainless twit websites that completely invade your privacy. Hell if it ever gets to a point where i'm somehow legally or financially required to surrender my privacy to facebook my page is going to be a big white banner that says "FUCK YOU FOR BOTHERING TO LOOK HERE!". I've seen presumably 'personal' sites like this used all the time to discriminate against job applicants. Several times they got teachers fired because someone ELSE posted a picture of a teacher with a glass of wine (no big deal right?); yet because of their districts strict policy, not about drinking but about advertising drinking, they were fired. They can all go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned. and to Spotify, here is hoping you lose your ass on your decision to sell your soul to facebook.
I really used to Love Spotify.
I'm a premium subscriber and still like it, but this trend is depressing... I noticed a few days ago that I can't play Spotify links off Facebook. "Your platform is not supported." even though I run the native Linux client, and now this?
Gotta hate it when mainstream corporate pressure slowly eats away what once was a Good Thing. :/
.: Max Romantschuk
The funny thing is how Spotify spams Facebook's life stream with what you're listening to. I'm sure the music industry loves that, constant free advertising. And most people will just go along with that because it's a fun new feature. Privacy doesn't even enter into the equation.
Unfortunately, there's no viable competitor to Facebook out there. Facebook has stolen a lot of Google+'s thunder. They've introduced a bunch of new features, including matching a lot of what Google+ offered. Google could prove me wrong but I think Google+ is another one of these things that will linger for a few years before they finally kill it like so many other things they've done. And it's not like Google is a paragon of privacy.
And whatever happened to Diaspora?
I jumped on the Spotify bandwagon and got an account as soon as they became available in the US. Since then, I've barely used it but I continue to listen to Pandora almost daily. A lot of times I don't know exactly what it is that I want to listen to and in these cases, Pandora is far, far more useful to me.
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...
1) Spotify is not going to get my business.
2) Facebook is going to get a bogus account against their terms-of-service with a fake name.
Multiply this by every other person who wanted to try Spotify but refuses to sign up for Facebook.
For me- I'm leaning towards #1. I've got Sirius, MP3s, CDs, Cassettes, Pandora, and FM. If I have to live without Spotify because of their rediculous sign-up requirements... so be it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
Isn't Spotify P2P-based on desktops? It probably can't do that (or can't do it as well) on mobile, so you pay to leech.
Don't like it? Use another service.
I'd like to take you up on your offer. Which alternative to Spotify do you recommend for listeners in the United States?
Don't like it? Don't use the service.
Well, that takes us full circle.
I am not a crackpot.
The problem is, sometimes there is no alternative. A distressing number of news sites are now switching to Facebook for their user talkback logins. My reaction is to go away. I do use Facebook, but I might say something on some random talkback that I don't necessarily want my Facebook friends and associates to see. Then don't say it, they respond. Well, ok, if they let me log in with my Google account, which allows me to designate who gets to see what, then I suppose that's somewhat better.
But even then, I'm suspicious that they'll "captcha" my Google credentials. They can't really do that, can they? They transfer you to a Google/Facebook login web service, the web service sends them back some sort of verification packet and you are good for this session.
With all the bits of my life that I'm putting onto the cloud, especially Google services, I'm a bit nervous about signing in everywhere. I'd rather use throw-away accounts for these one-off news sites and music sites. What the hell does Spotify need to have my Facebook identity cached for, anyway? Glad I don't use them, I guess.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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.
Good point, I just cancelled my subscription to Spotify.
By requiring a Facebook account for registration, Spotify ensures their future customer base is already on board with having their demographic information sold in return for "free" services.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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."