Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pandora Debuts Premium On-Demand Music Tier (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the more-competition dept.

Pandora will now let you listen to whatever you want, for a price. The internet radio firm today announced Pandora Premium, for which it will charge customers $9.99 a month. From a report on USA Today: The new on-demand service Pandora Premium, which costs $9.99 monthly, lets subscribers choose and play any song or album and use new playlist creation features. Currently, Pandora's Internet radio can be listened to free with advertisements, but you cannot choose a specific song, only artists or a type of music. Listeners can give songs a thumbs up to hear more songs similar to that or thumbs down to not hear that track again on that station. Pandora will send out invitations to current select users on Wednesday, with options for all users to upgrade in coming weeks. Pandora hopes this new tier of service helps strengthen its position in the competitive music streaming market. It already reigns as the top music service in terms of overall listening, earning 28% of all streaming music hours in 2016, according to research firm MusicWatch.

41 comments

  1. Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pandora is not boasting stream quality in this release, so I will assume it sucks.

  2. Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Legitimate streaming competitors let me listen to whatever I want on demand for $0. Why should I pay Pandora anything?

    1. Re:Too Expensive by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      It will also be ad-free, which you have to pay for on those other streaming sites as well.

    2. Re:Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jango. All the features of Pandora and none of the ads.

    3. Re:Too Expensive by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the pointer to Jango. One of Pandora's pluses was the ability to find new bands that were actually relevant, and not were just paid promos. For example, if I'm listening to jazz, I don't want Nickelback or Coldplay popping up next, because some promoter paid for their songs to be in every list.

    4. Re:Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jango is free because its parent company is a music promoter and most of the revenue comes from screwing over indie bands.

    5. Re:Too Expensive by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      Being ad-free is worth something. I often listen to music while doing something else and that makes the attention-grabbing nature of ads extra annoying. $10/month is comparable to what other streaming services like Spotify charge for ad-free streams.

    6. Re:Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use your elite hacker skillz to adblock pandora and then sell your app for one hundred billion dollars bro.

    7. Re:Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding the Music GENOME Program that you brought up ctilsie242, the project is what first attracted me to the service several years ago. Unfortunately, electronic music gets tough to classify appropriately when you have fun artists blending all those signature tags up. I left Pandora mostly because I was paying, and still had the Skip Restriction... and because Lindsey Stirling started creeping up on every damn station I created haha.

      Switched to Spotify Premium in 2014, and have compiled several customized playlists over the past couple years. Not a shameless plug, just an open statement. The exclusive licensing deals still get me though! Like, I cannot listen to The Pillows on Spotify, that popular J-Rock band (famous OST for FLCL) is Pandora only!

    8. Re:Too Expensive by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You should use your elite hacker skillz to adblock pandora and then sell your app for one hundred billion dollars bro.

      Saver2

      Not only does it remove ads from free-mode Pandora, it saves the mp3's for you as it plays.

      Also works with some other music streaming services.

      You are welcome, bro.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:Too Expensive by kingbilly · · Score: 1

      One of Pandora's pluses was the ability to find new bands that were actually relevant, and not were just paid promos

      When Minecraft was still in beta I used to listen to Minecraft radio on Pandora. It had mostly ambient music.

      I tried again two years ago to listen to the station, and it had everything from One Direction to Metallica. It wound up becoming music people must have enjoyed while playing Minecraft, instead of something related to the Minecraft OST albums. Pandora could use a moderation system similar to Slashdot instead of a two-option thumbs up/down. I didn't want to thumbs down Metallica songs, because the only actual cassettes I ever owned and still have to this day are Metallica. I want Metallica to still show up on rock stations.

      There isn't a way to tell Pandora "I don't like this song on this station. I cancelled Pandora One shortly after, since I already had Spotify premium. The thing you describe used to be the only thing that was a plus for me. They lack the logic to stop the hivemind from up-voting pop songs on stations that shouldn't even have words. Doesn't cost a lot for Pandora one but now there is nothing of value for me. A tiny rant, but I have no one else to discuss this with. Rarely comment on Slashdot.

    10. Re:Too Expensive by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I think you summed up well what is wrong with Pandora.

      I would say that the only music store that actually was consistently good at introducing new stuff in a genre would have been Microsoft Urge, as it was a joint effort between MTV and Microsoft, and at the time, the "M" in MTV was still relevant.

      What we need is a throwback to the original Pandora. Stay within a genre, and if it is intended to be an instrumental genre, don't toss in something completely irrelevant.

  3. Does the streaming market go there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm totally not saying this is a bad idea, but I wonder within the people who want this "feature" enough to pay for it, what fraction would bother with streaming service at all, instead of just owning the music (and playing it off their own media or server)?

    It seems to me that if you have something specific that you want to hear right now, the chances that any particular service or store even has the album or song in question, can be pretty iffy. While there are many reasons that streaming services have denied control to users, at least one of them has been to hide the general lack of selection. (FM radio being an example of the most extreme case of the phenomenon. "640 classic rock songs should enough for anyone.")

    (BTW, it occurs to me that this is basically what everyone says about Netflix, too. That service is on-demand like what Pandora is debuting, and has a decent selection, but as soon as you get really specific about what you want, it's probably not there. That service is pretty popular in spite of this, though, because even if they don't have what you want, they probably have something good enough to fill the hours.)

    1. Re:Does the streaming market go there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Netflix, but I love Fast.com. Give me ad-free junk data really fast, Netflix. That's it. Don't stop.

    2. Re:Does the streaming market go there? by Orphis · · Score: 1

      Probably a lot! Spotify 50M paying subscribers reported early this month, that's without all the ad-based users that are just potential subscribers too (over 100M total). Apple Music reported 20M subscribers too. Deezer is probably at 7M now. Tidal 3M.

      So yes, users are using those more and more as they are so convenient and the market growth isn't slowing at all. It should be good for some musicians eventually has revenue that went down year after year in most markets is finally growing too.

    3. Re:Does the streaming market go there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough.

      I worked at Rdio (whose engineering and product depts. pretty much got acqui-hired to work on this feature), and the amount of usage from downloading tracks was never enough to justify continued maintenance of:

      1. Paying for the royalties associated with this particular set of digital rights, and
      2. Cost of having to maintain the servers and code associated with this.

      Being the only game in town at the time, Apple was able to negotiate favorable terms because of that. The labels were determined to never let that happen again...

  4. I might consider looking again... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    I dumped Pandora because of the crap they made paying subscribers put up with - skip counts being a big one.

    This might get me to re-evaluate Pandora, but honestly, this is about seven years too late.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:I might consider looking again... by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      skip counts being a big one.

      I'm really curious about that use case actually. Do you pick stations just based on "bands I liked at some point in time", or do you actually try to build them around a theme?

      Mostly asking because I almost never find myself having to skip songs. The only times I ever run up against the skip limit was when I first create a new station and haven't yet dialed it in to play the kind of music I wanted it to play. If the station is playing stuff that fits within the station but isn't what I want to hear at the time, I realize that I'm on the wrong one for my current work and/or mood and just switch stations to something more appropriate.

    2. Re:I might consider looking again... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      and about $70 per year too high.

      I was fine with Pandora at $30/year, then they boosted it to $36, I think now it's closer to $48... I hope they find lots of subscribers at $120/yr, I just won't be one of them.

    3. Re:I might consider looking again... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I hope they find lots of subscribers at $120/yr, I just won't be one of them

      I listen to, on average, 2-3 hours of streaming music/day. I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not the only one. 11-15 c/hour seems like a pretty good deal, if you ask me. I currently pay Google 10$/month because they have a lot of music I like on it and they do OK at building radio stations I like. Pandora is WAY better at dialing in stations, them offering up that functionality with the ability to just pick a song I want to listen to is enough to get me to consider ditching google and spending more time on Pandora.

    4. Re:I might consider looking again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I listen to, on average, 2-3 hours of streaming music/day. I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not the only one.

      You are a lightweight, grasshopper. I listen to 24 hours of streaming music per day. I mute it while I sleep, I unmute it when I wake up, and I am pleased to hear it's still playing. The music never stops.

  5. You know what's better than streaming? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually having the files and not having to pay someone constantly for something you will never own and can be cut off at a moments notice.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ampache is the best thing ever.

    2. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually having the files and not having to pay someone constantly for something you will never own and can be cut off at a moments notice.

      Half of me agrees. The other half wants to slap you and say it's mass produced temporary entertainment, like if you go to the cinema or to the theater or to a concert does it matter that you can't put it in a box and take it home with you? I like convenience and hate DRM, but the whole "jukebox in the cloud" service can be pretty convenient too. I just get a bit tired of people that act like their copy is the last copy of the missing Doctor Who episodes and if it were lost it would be like the family album became ash. Which of course doesn't make it okay if they do bait and switch or mislead you about the terms, but it's no greater crime to rent a music collection than to lease a car. It's not like the world will run out of cars unless you buy and keep it for the rest of your life.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a novel idea:

      Use the $10/month streaming service to discover new bands, through functions such as recommendations, related artists, curated playlists. Enjoy the gigantic selection of good music that is available to you.

      If you happen to discover a band that you keep listening to, buy their albums!

      It's not an either/or situation.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Half of me agrees. The other half wants to slap you and say it's mass produced temporary entertainment, like if you go to the cinema or to the theater or to a concert does it matter that you can't put it in a box and take it home with you?

      I rarely watch a movie more than once but I listen to the same songs rather often. I don't care for concerts, so I'm afraid I cannot relate on that matter.

      I like convenience and hate DRM, but the whole "jukebox in the cloud" service can be pretty convenient too.

      It's convenient as long as you have access to it. I put my entire music collection in FLAC on a microSD card and can listen to it when I walk my dog without worrying about if my phone has enough charge, data rates, cell phone coverage or any other bullshit because I have dedicated media player.

      it's no greater crime to rent a music collection than to lease a car.

      You're right, it's not but it is equally as foolish.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by SandorZoo · · Score: 1

      It's convenient as long as you have access to it. I put my entire music collection in FLAC on a microSD card and can listen to it when I walk my dog without worrying about if my phone has enough charge, data rates, cell phone coverage or any other bullshit because I have dedicated media player.

      Google Play (another $10/month on-demand add-free music streaming service) lets you download albums via wifi for playing later, so you don't need to worry about data rates or cell phone coverage. I would assume other similar services allow the same. Admittedly you're still SOL if you can't manage to keep your cell phone charged.

    6. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Here's another novel idea:

      Use the OTA radio in your region to discover new bands, through functions such as changing the channel and friends' and neighbors' recommendations. Enjoy the gigantic selection of mediocre music that is available to you.

      If you happen to discover a band that you keep listening to, buy their albums!

      It's not an either/or situation.

    7. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      I rarely watch a movie more than once but I listen to the same songs rather often. I don't care for concerts, so I'm afraid I cannot relate on that matter.

      That's probably why we differ. For me the streaming model is perfect because while I don't necessarily object to listening to the same song multiple times, what I like and don't like will vary depending on situation, mood, and circumstances. Sometimes I just want semi-rhythmic noise to block out other sounds, sometimes I want something that I can zone out to while programming, and sometimes I want to discover new music that sounds like some other song I heard and liked. I've also found that music I liked 10 years ago I can't stand now, and I don't have any particular loyalty to any particular song or band. As such, I'm more than happy to stream music on a temporary basis (disclaimer: I haven't once paid for a streaming service and probably never will). I feel no need to archive it for later use since there's a 50-50 chance I won't enjoy it anymore anyway after a few years.

    8. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      When OTA radio only plays shitty music (not even mediocre, most of the time), that's not an option.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    9. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      You can mark albums for download in Spotify, and they'll download when you're on wifi (or on mobile data, if you allow it). I believe the limit is 3000 songs.

      With GPM, you can download albums to times AFAIK, but they'll play in any player. With Spotify, you have to use their app, but there is no limit on how many times you can download an album.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    10. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I feel the exact same way. So much great new music is coming out all the time, and I like the variety. It would be horribly expensive for me to actually buy all of those albums, so in the past I resorted to illegal downloads.

      But I did buy the albums that I ended up loving, and I still do that. The only major difference is that my biggest source of new music is now legal $10/month, instead of illegal. And Spotify has some pretty good automatic recommendations that you don't get with torrents.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    11. Re:You know what's better than streaming? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I rarely watch a movie more than once but I listen to the same songs rather often. I don't care for concerts, so I'm afraid I cannot relate on that matter.

      So you buy those albums that you love, as you have always done. But don't discount streaming services, by virtue of their huge user bases and gigantic libraries, they can generate really good recommendations for new music that may fit your taste. I haven't even used Spotify for that long, and I'm already discovering awesome new bands I'd never heard of before, and bought a couple of new albums from them.

      And honestly, you're missing out by not going to concerts, really. The music simply comes alive in a completely different way, especially classical music in a good concert hall.

      It's convenient as long as you have access to it. I put my entire music collection in FLAC on a microSD card and can listen to it when I walk my dog without worrying about if my phone has enough charge, data rates, cell phone coverage or any other bullshit because I have dedicated media player.

      That's why GPM and Spotify (and probably others) have an option to download a number of tracks, with Spotify the limit is 3000 downloaded tracks at any given time. Sure, you have to do this beforehand, but it's really no different than moving files to a microSD card.

      Of course, you still need to keep a charge on your phone, but don't act like it's some unsurmountable task.

      it's no greater crime to rent a music collection than to lease a car.

      You're right, it's not but it is equally as foolish.

      If you replace your car every ~3 years like a lot of people do, leasing actually makes sense. Personally, I don't feel a need to do it, but I can understand why some people do, fascination with something new and different is a powerful force.

      I am a large consumer of music. I love discovering new bands, hearing new songs, and sharing recommendations with my friends. Before I got Spotify, I would spend around $50-60/month on new albums and I would still torrent a lot of music on top of that. Now I spend $10/month on Spotify and buy maybe one album each month of music I really love, usually at concerts (generally 3-4 shows per month).

      Spotify is amazing for someone like me.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  6. Google Play Music Family by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    Too little too late Pandora. Google Play Music Family is $14.99 including ad-free YouTube Red.

    Up to 6 users can download music to up to 6 of thier devices. No mobile-streaming charges. No stupid skip-limit. Replay ad-nauseum.

  7. All satre, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can u say aolradio.com.
    It works fine for me and my needs.
    Pandora, are you struggling to maintain relevance?
     

  8. Spotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's two types of folks. Those who have used spotify, and those who have used it ad-free. It's worth every penny