Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers, So It Has Launched a New App To Give Away More Music For Free (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Spotify on Tuesday announced a new redesigned app for free customers, its first major change to the free tier in four years, as it attempts to lure more customers into buying its subscription service. Free listeners will now get on-demand access to 15 playlists; they can play any song they want in those playlists and are no longer stuck in a world of shuffled playback. From a report: The idea: If people get more stuff without paying, they are more likely to end up paying in the long run. The new mobile app gives free users the ability to play more songs on demand, from 15 pre-populated playlists -- some of which are personalized for individual users, like its popular "Discover Weekly" feature. Spotify has always let users listen to on-demand music for free via an ad-supported option -- it's the main thing that set the company apart from other streaming services in the past. But it has limited full, free access to its library of songs to desktop users, and limited what free users could get to on its mobile app. Today's move doesn't remove those limits entirely, but gives users more opportunity to sample. Paid users get full access to Spotify's entire catalog, on-demand, without ads. The new app also offers users the ability to stream songs with lower data usage. The company says users can save up to 75% of mobile data with data saver mode while streaming on 3G.

66 comments

  1. Rolling one's own by kalpol · · Score: 1

    I wonder how this is affecting demand for open-source streaming software like Ampache - or the support other Internet radio stations e.g. SomaFM or Radio Paradise. Spotify seems really popular, from what I hear. Not being willing to pay to stream music, I'd like to hope that the other music sources remain very available.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:Rolling one's own by kalpol · · Score: 1

      I should clarify, I meant I support SomaFM/RP with donations but not with a subscription fee.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    2. Re:Rolling one's own by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I wonder how this is affecting demand for open-source streaming software like Ampache - or the support other Internet radio stations e.g. SomaFM or Radio Paradise. Spotify seems really popular, from what I hear. Not being willing to pay to stream music, I'd like to hope that the other music sources remain very available.

      I'll bet you're not willing to pay for software, or movies, or anything else you can leech or steal, right? Afterall, it's all just "Imaginary Property"...

    3. Re:Rolling one's own by kalpol · · Score: 1

      You missed my reply to myself, in which I stated I am perfectly willing to donate where I feel it's suited, just not subscribe to a service. But my real question was whether something like Ampache's user base is dropping because of Spotify.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    4. Re: Rolling one's own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stfu and get off of that high horse.

      Go shill for apple some more you fucking faggot.

    5. Re:Rolling one's own by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You missed my reply to myself, in which I stated I am perfectly willing to donate where I feel it's suited, just not subscribe to a service. But my real question was whether something like Ampache's user base is dropping because of Spotify.

      Actually, I DID see that Post, AFTER I clicked SUBMIT, of course!!!

      I duly apologize. Mea Culpa!!! Arguing with a bunch of Hater ACs (or just reading their tripe) gets me in a hair-trigger mood, SORRY!!!

      As to your REAL question: I'm sorry; but I don't know the answer to that. BUT, I STILL Contend that there is a next-to-zero chance that this has the potential to exert any "Undue Influence" on the Shazam-Using Public, anyway. If they don't know by now who Apple is, and whether they like their stuff, I HONESTLY don't think that THIS is going to make up their (lack of) mind FOR them!!!

  2. I knew something was up yesterday by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    when I upended Xubuntu 18.4 Software and there was a huge banner for Spotify http://i68.tinypic.com/mbn3pk....

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  3. And so it happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With $5B revenue and a loss of $1.5B, and now an IPO, they're desperate to monetize their users. But they only get more users by giving stuff away for "free", which means they sooner or later will be constrained to pull a Facebook.

    Lather, rinse...

    Desperate capitalism has discovered "intellectual property", which can be "manufactured" at zero marginal cost, which is great. But in its infinite greed it is just churning out as much of this crap as it can, just to realize that their customers can pretty well live without that (even more: have to, since jobs pay worse and worse, and well, who's gonna watch/listen to all of this, anyway?).

    When this bubble bursts, it won't be pretty.

    1. Re:And so it happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fees demanded by the copyright holders are unreasonably high.

      That's pretty much the size of things.

    2. Re:And so it happens. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      The fees demanded by the copyright holders are unreasonably high.

      That's pretty much the size of things.

      So don't watch or listen to it.

      That's pretty much the size of things.

    3. Re: And so it happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We got ourselves a Dudley do-right boys.

      Why don't you just fucking leave. Your smug attitude makes you look and sound like a prick. You are not better than any of us just because you shill for Apple and tell people what to do.

      Again, you are a smug, condescending prick. Fuck off you faggot.

    4. Re: And so it happens. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      We got ourselves a Dudley do-right boys.

      Why don't you just fucking leave. Your smug attitude makes you look and sound like a prick. You are not better than any of us just because you shill for Apple and tell people what to do.

      Again, you are a smug, condescending prick. Fuck off you faggot.

      This has NOTHING to do with APPLE: It's about government overreach, and UNNECESSARY interference in free-market business decisions that in no real way, materially limit the bottom-line choices of the general public, you fucking moron.

      Think about it, COWARD.

  4. Need a pay as you go option by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    During the week, I rarely use spotify. On the weekends, though, when I'm out driving, I use it a lot. How about a pay-as-you-go option, along with a monthly option or something.

    1. Re:Need a pay as you go option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used to do a 24 hour one. Not sure when they stopped.

  5. They need an API, not an app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An app? Spotify, make this one change if you ever want me to take you seriously and throw you some bucks: Launch a new API. I'm not going to run your software, ever, period. (Same goes you you, Netflix.) If you don't care about people like me, that's fine. Don't take my money, if it's so important to you to avoid doing so. But for fuck's sake, don't pretend that you are desperate for more customers.

    A sensible person will never get hardware, software, or services from the same place. If you have a good service, don't expect me to use your software. If you have good software, don't expect me to use it with your service. Modern users are accustomed to better functionality than any conflict-of-interest-crippled bundle has ever been able to offer. Yours isn't going to be the first exception to this well-known, highest-performing strategy of avoiding suckage.

    1. Re:They need an API, not an app by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is feasible to demand an api for media data which the copyright holders will demand DRM, but spotify already has an API for everything else- I get the impression you can do *everything* with the api- skip tracks, get information, tell it to play certain tracks, but have the music actually play through their DRM software. So, 90% of what you want.

      Official Spotify API
      Of course there is a python library for it too

    2. Re:They need an API, not an app by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I don't know if it is feasible to demand an api for media data which the copyright holders will demand DRM, but spotify already has an API for everything else- I get the impression you can do *everything* with the api- skip tracks, get information, tell it to play certain tracks, but have the music actually play through their DRM software. So, 90% of what you want.

      Not hard, you require the developer to register for API access and you give them the DRM key. As part of the sign on API, they ahve to return you an application ID (which you use to identify which key to encrypt the stream with).

      Developer is responsible for keeping they key protected (in the software). and for obeying the rules. If the developer fails, the key is cancelled (so all apps using that key are blocked) and you can choose to pursue legal action.

      Would make open-source software somewhat tricky to develop with, but that'a a different problem.

    3. Re:They need an API, not an app by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a good arrangement so why had no one implemented it yet?

    4. Re:They need an API, not an app by dbrueck · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to work in the streaming video space, and if the streaming music space is anything like it is with streaming movies and TV shows, then the hurdles to this sort of thing aren't technical. It's all about contracts and rights negotiations - usually the streaming provider has to jump through all sorts of hoops to convince the rights holder to license them the content and that they (the provider) will keep it "safe".

      In some cases, the rights holders have already bought in to the sales story of various DRM providers, such that their licensing terms require that you use a specific DRM. In other cases, there's a lot of CYA going on (similar to the old adage of "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), so even if they don't dictate a specific DRM, it's hard to get them to go along with some new DRM scheme unless lots of others are already using it. So to introduce a new DRM scheme you have to get some outside security experts to audit it, get a few key rights holders and providers to buy into it, and then finally be in a position to get others to adopt it too. This takes a lot of time and money and the difficulty is compounded significantly by the fact that rights holders of high-value content will demand that some aspects of the DRM be implemented in hardware, so any new scheme has to either leverage that or work with hardware vendors to introduce new stuff, which takes even longer.

      Also, this specific example (developer-specific DRM key) could work on a technical level, but even assuming you overcame the above issues, it doesn't really mitigate the risk to Spotify or the actual content owners. To them, the content is worth billions of dollars, so they'd look at it as giving Joe Random Developer a DRM key with the possibility of a sliver of more revenue vs the risk of lawsuits and lost contracts and probably say, "not a chance!".

    5. Re:They need an API, not an app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's a key that has to be kept secret, then the software will necessarily be unmaintainable.

      Unmaintainable means crap, and crap means no sale.

      As long as they demand DRM, they're demanding a non-profit type of situation. It's a lot easier to just pirate the music rather than try to use some crappy player.

  6. "Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 1

    Then they need to cut their subscription cost by half.

    There's no way I'll EVER subscribe at their current price point.

    I know they are trapped in licensing fees, but the value proposition simply isn't well balanced yet. If it were, they could have as many subscribers as they want.

    They seem to think they everyone would be happy to pay their fees if the free version caused more people to try it out. Good luck with that.

    The market is speaking, it's too expensive. Listen or not.

    --
    Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    1. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What would be your proper price point for a subscription that gives you unlimited access to music?

      Would that change if the current Spotify price happened to be $30 instead of $10?

      So often, people's desires happen to be "whatever the current thing is, only half". I definitely had this opinion before I took a step back, calculated what I would be have been spending otherwise on music (my substitute would be about an album a month), and decided that the $15 spotify family plan was actually a pretty good deal for me. Maybe you and other people have already done this analysis.

    2. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a subscription that gives you unlimited access to music

      Come on, that BS yet again? As much as I like the service, the truth is Spotify doesn't give you unlimited access to music. There's a LOT of music missing on their library.

      If you think it is unlimited is probably because your music preferences is limited, or you're a lucky bastard. It's simple as that.

    3. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 2

      let's see...

      Pandora subscription is $36 per year for the phone app.
      Pandora One Subscription is $48 per year.
      Spotify annual is $99 per year.

      Yes, I know that they offer different types of service, primarily in specific list building, but 9.99 a month or 99 for yearly is over the price point I'll pay to stream music.

      So the most I could see paying would be around $48 per year.

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    4. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      What? You get unlimited access to the biggest library of music in the world, with generated playlists and recommendations based on your own taste, and you think $10/month is too high?

      Jayzus fuck, talk about being a skinflint.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by porges · · Score: 1

      This is so true. I've been online since the early 1980s and "it should cost half, that would be fair and I'd pay it" has always, always been the cry.

    6. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 2

      Pandora One is $48 per year. I have no qualms about paying that and I do. Spotify asks $99 per year and I won't pay that.
      That's pretty close to half. I can do the math and be more precise but I feel that "should cost half" is a fair enough approximation.

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    7. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 1

      What they offer is not relevant to me. What I'd use is relevant to me. They can carry 20 million songs I won't listen to, and it does not change their value proposition to me in the slightest.

      Speaking of the capacity of a product does not define it's value to a particular consumer. What portion of the service they would use, compared to other services prices, that is the relevant question.

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    8. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Cheap as fucking hell they are. I pay 15 a month for the family play. I have 5 people on my account. So basically we are paying $3 for each stream with unlimited access.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    9. Re: "Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but worlds biggest library of music...LUL.

      Pirate Bay all day everyday. Flac for lifeZ.

    10. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by Yaztromo · · Score: 2

      I have to agree with the GP that $10/mo is too high. And it has nothing to do with being cheap.

      I'm not a heavy music listener. When I leave my door, I don't generally bother taking my earphones with me. In the car I listen to news and information. I'm married with a young daughter who is still into Wheels on the Bus. I'm lucky if I have the opportunity to just sit and listen to music for an hour or two a week. Combine that with having racked up a pretty good collection of legally purchased music over the years, and $10/mo really isn't that great of a deal.

      If they had a $4/mo plan I'd pull the trigger. And $10/mo might seem like a great deal if I was spending 4 - 6 hours a day listening to music, but I don't. As it is, I have an Amazon Prime membership and can access their streaming library -- which while not as comprehensive as Spotify does give me significant value as it comes with free 2-day shipping and Prime Video, all for less per month than what Spotify charges.

      It costs too much for what it is, and for how much value I'd be able to extract for it. That may be different for you, but not everyone is you.

      Yaz

    11. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Really? $10/month is less than 35 cents/day. Compare to movie ticket prices or any subscription service and it's hilariously cheap.

      Sure, if access to music has no value to you, then it's obviously not worth it for you personally. But the simple fact is that it is by far the cheapest and easiest way to (legally) access music, in the entire history of mankind.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    12. Re:"Spotify Wants More Paid Subscribers" by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      Fair enough; Spotify does not give you access to all music, but for the music it does have your access is unlimited.

  7. Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    Shelving, for the moment, the concept that I'm not going to pay forever to listen to music (because I grew up in a world where music was always entirely free to listen, and paying for it meant owning it forever), offering free music won't get more people to pay for it.

    What it will do is get more companies to compete by offering their own free music. Leaving us with a system whereby ten companies each offer 15 playlists for free -- leaving me with 150 playlists for free -- which is plenty to never think about paying for more.

    Add that I'm going to record those free playlists for later listening forever for free, and that they'll change the 15 from time to time, and I'll just say thanks for the free music again, sorry no one's paying your for something that really has zero value to 90% of your "customers".

    I happily pay for live performances -- I pay people to work for me. I'm not going to pay for delivery of a digital product. And I'm not going to pay for you to use my purchased speakers to play your music. We're in a world with millions of songs, if I don't get your new song today, I'll survive until it's free five years from now.

    Except you'll put it onto youtube for free almost immediately, where, once again, it's recordable forever.

    I'm glad you're happy with your business model. Like my mother always said, and her mother before her, "if they have to wait for me to pay them, they'll starve to death first".

    1. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Add that I'm going to record those free playlists for later listening forever for free....

      I happily pay for live performances -- I pay people to work for me. I'm not going to pay for delivery of a digital product.

      Do you pirate software, too? You sound like a complete asshole to anyone who makes their living writing software or creating entertainment that can be distributed digitally.

    2. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Software has value to me -- it's a tool by which I profit.

      Music is pure entertainment, and has zero monetary value. Zero monetary value usually means zero money paid.

      I grew up in a world with free wireless radio, and free wireless television, everywhere. I've never paid to listen to music, and I've never paid to listen to news. I ain't starting now.

      If you want to grow up in a world where everything costs money, then you are welcome to spend your own. You won't be spending mine.

    3. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay people to work for me. I'm not going to pay for delivery of a digital product

      Just so you know, the digital delivery involves people working for you. I know that IT guys are a miserable bunch that don't deserve what they are paid, but still... what they do IS considered work (I know, shocking isn't it!)

      Of course that most of the money paid to Spotify won't go to the IT guys but to support the lavish lifestyles of a minority in the music industry... anyway that's another discussion.

    4. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      If you enjoy the crap that your "free" services tell you to listen too, along with the other crap they stick in, them more power to you.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      They aren't working for me. They are working for the sender.

      As has always been the case, delivery, rent, income tax, packaging, sorting, are all part of fulfillment. I'm not paying fedex, and I'm not paying those IT guys. Therefore, they aren't working for me.

      I'm paying, in this case, spotify. Except I won't. Because I'm not interested in paying for delivery.

      I buy lots and lots of music. I buy CDs or such from musicians directly, in support of their live performance in my local theatre -- for which I purchased one or more admission tickets.

    6. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Actually, I enjoy the crap that I pay to see performed live, and I also enjoy the crap that I've purchased and own.

      You see, these are songs that I've selected out of reality.

      You're not listening to crap that free services tell you to listen to. You're, instead, listening to the crap that paid services show to you. Congrats. Of the millions of songs in their catalog, you restrict yourself to, wait for it, the ones that they promote.

      Doesn't sound too different to me.

      But again, to be clear, music has zero monetary value. Typically, it's a nice background thang. It doesn't matter which crap it is. In an elevator, it'll be musac. I'm not interested in selecting my free or paid crap. I'm interested in just having some crap around.

    7. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      You think because we prefer streaming that we don't go to live performances or have large collections of CD and purchased mp3s? So wrong on so many levels. Actually, since I found Spoitfy I've bought more music in that time that I bought in the last 10 years.

      Spotify has over 30 million songs, and that is not just the crap the RIAA says is "music." That is thousands of independent labels at artists too, thousands. Without Spotify most of these artists would remain unknown or only to niche regions. Thanks to Spotify these artists can have air play all over the world.

      Yes, Spotify does have computer generated playlist of music that it recommends but instead of being forced on me industry heads that wouldn't know good music if it bit them in the ass, these playlists are generated based on what I like. Mostly smooth jazz and blues. An again thanks to that 30 million track database the play lists will include artist that I wouldn't normally every hear. Did you know the Netherlands has some damn good blues artists? I actually heard some at Fogbound one night and explored the offerings they had on streaming.

      An then there is the social media aspect of Spotify. As a memeber I can publish my playlists for other members to listen too. There is one member with a smooth jazz playlist with 1200+ tracks and 63,000 followers. There is also a big honking Frank Sinatra playlist too but that isn't a big deal since I have almost all of Frank on CD anyway. I have a lot of Frank on vinyl but those are collectors items now. But I also have a friends list that and these "friends" like the same tastes in music that I do so I can see what they are listening too and get recommendations from them. So you see, its not just what Spotify recommends its also music lovers recommending music to other music lovers.

      I do live performances too. Actually, since I joined Spotify I've went to 3 times as many live concerts as I normally would have last year. Under the artist profile if they are playing near me there will be a icon that has show dates and I can get tickets through them. Spotify makes it so easy.

      To bad you view music as crap and has zero monetary value. Maybe since you view it as crap that probably means you have crap tastes in music. You should broaden your horizons. Grab a icecast streaming app, they are free, and explore.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I think you like to pay for stuff -- because you've been told to pay for stuff. There's no end of amazing stuff in this world if you want to pay more. The trick is to work less. That means paying for less.

      Like I said, if you want to pay for stuff that generations have had for free, you can be the pioneers. I'm not going to start paying for what was always free.

    9. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Your still paying for it. I just know the cost of what I'm paying.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You know, you're absolutely right.

    11. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Music is pure entertainment, and has zero monetary value. Zero monetary value usually means zero money paid.

      I grew up in a world with free wireless radio, and free wireless television, everywhere. I've never paid to listen to music, and I've never paid to listen to news. I ain't starting now.

      You position yourself as a rebel here, but you're not. You are describing the status quo of decades past when music listening options were limited to whatever music [and commercials] the industry choose to feed people. The industry fought tooth and nail against digital music [and consumer freedom] to maintain that old stranglehold on the market and your rebellion or value judgment would hand the reins back to them. You may not have paid money for that "free" radio, but you paid by having your options limited by the record industry; you paid by rolling the dice at the record store hoping the single track you heard on the radio was worth buying a full album; you paid multiple times for the same songs as the mediums went from record to tape to CD [and maybe to digital]. I know this because I lived during those times too, but I don't want to go back. There is undeniably far more choice in music for consumers now. Niche genres can find audiences in ways they never could before. Artists have alternatives to circumvent the recording industry machine. Sometimes, but not always, the extra music choice and freedom has a cost, but music was never really free before either.

    12. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I actually didn't buy music multiple times. I missed vinyl, starting out with cassette tapes (metal cassettes are still the best sound). When CDs came about, I had boomboxes with both cassette decks and a CD player. With digital, I simply ripped CDs and cassettes overnight, for $0.

      I'm not a rebel, you're right. But I've never been slave to a music industry only because I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.

      I would hate to spend my time learning which niche I like. Sure these days it would be easier to purchase, but I'm no where near the purchasing stage. I simply don't care.

      But this all started as a very different commentary. I don't think spotify will get more paid subscribers by offering more free music. I never bought a shareware game either -- there was always another shareware title to enjoy.

      Free content and previews have never convinced me to buy a product or service. My initial need does. If I don't have the need, then no amount of free will pull out my wallet. It's just that simple.

      That's why I've never spent a dollar re-buying music. The cassette still plays. It still sounds the same. I don't need the same thing on CD.

    13. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      ...I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.

      I get it, and arguably I am similar now. Music is background, not my focus. I go to a few concerts each year. I'm happy enough with free streaming music options and the CDs/MP3s I have that I probably would not pay for a service. Your theater subscription aside, we're probably not that different in regards to our music habits.... I just get riled up when hear what sounds like pining for the days when "free" radio ruled, because radio didn't serve me well in my youth. Even though music is not as important to me now I appreciate that digital platforms, both free and paid, provide so many more options now.

    14. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.

      I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.

      So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.

      Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.

      On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.

      It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.

      In my opinion.

    15. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.

      You didn't ask a question... but I think I see your point anyway.... that having more options today isn't necessarily making our lives better. That it creates distractions many people would be better off without.

      I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.

      So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.

      Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.

      On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.

      It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.

      In my opinion.

      37 here, married, house, 2 dogs, my wife and I have no desire for kids... we tend to favor cooking up big batches of soups for the freezer, or one or two large meals early in the week we can work on from the fridge. Music [or NPR] is often on when cooking. My wife usually chooses the music (more on this below) and neither of us fiddles with it or waste time other than changing a CD when it ends or skipping an unwanted track/stream. So, today's selection options aren't a distraction for us when we're together.

      If left to my own devices I prefer heavy metal and have since I was ~13 years old. Could have I made "better" music choices, sure, but try telling that to a teenager and I am who am now. But, I learned long ago not to subject people around me to my music. That's why I'm happy to let my wife choose the music. I know my preferred music is polarizing and it's not important enough to me to be a barrier in my relationships with others. With rare exceptions I can usually find something to appreciate in most music.* So, like you I can just let it be the background and not my focus - not a distraction. However, there are times I am alone and want MY music and I would never willingly give up the choice digital platforms offer, the choice I wished for as a teenager. There's nothing inherently distracting in having choices either. Choice in music [and many other things] is only distracting when you let be distracting. I also suspect people easily distracted by music, like possibly your partner, would likely find something else to distract themselves with if music wasn't available.

      * - I was lead trombone in my high school orchestra, and in college a DJ and manager of the college radio station, so I have a decent ear for sound and can appreciate a variety of music, despite the stereotypes about metal fans.

    16. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      F**k. 1 dog, 1 cat, not married, but she moved in a few years ago; $100K of renovations later, and there's plenty more to go. Also no desire for kids.

      Hi from the other side of the mirror.

      My polarizing music is jazz. It's not heavy metal, but it polarizes my beloved just the same.

    17. Re:Umm, free doesn't lead to money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      *waves*
      Oh yeah... I forgot to say we have cat too (black)... and we've put spent more on home renovations than I care to state publicly. :-)

  8. Too few features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't even shuffle my collection of music in Spotify as a paying customer. A linux app doesn't make up for that.

    1. Re:Too few features by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      I can't even shuffle my collection of music in Spotify as a paying customer. A linux app doesn't make up for that.

      On desktop you definitely can (both free and paid). Next to the play button there is a set of crossing-over arrows that toggles shuffle (and a set of circular arrows that toggles repeat). Not sure about mobile because it's been a little while since I had the paid app.

    2. Re:Too few features by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      You can do the same thing in the paid mobile app as well. I've never used the free mobile app.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  9. Suckerrrrrrrrsss!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have allowed yourself to get hooked on so-called 'streaming' music services then you are a SUCKER and will get what you deserve: PAY, PAY, PAY, forever, when you could have purchased music and listened to it for free thereafter.

    Don't even BOTHER to give me all your dumb arguments about how it's so much better, knows what you like, blah blah blah it's just Broadcast Radio 2.0 but you're PAYING for it one way or the other, either with ads you're subjected to or a perpetual subscription fee. Wouldn't you be better off at least buying physical copies of things you know you like? Or have you drunk so much of the streaming-service Kool-Aid that it doesn't even occur to you anymore? Think about it.

  10. Select sound card in Spotify for Windows. by pmsr · · Score: 1

    So, can we change the output audio device in Spotify for Windows, now? Understand that the masses don't care if the music playing is wrecked by alerts of different sorts, from e-mail arriving to end of page hit on their favourite word processor. But true music lovers care, that's why they have, for example, an extra usb DAC and an above average set of speakers, or want music coming out of a preamp for their high impedance headphones. Can't be that hard to have an option to change the sound card, can it?

    1. Re:Select sound card in Spotify for Windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol.

      They are not going to spend the development time and money to implement that for you and the 5 others like you.

    2. Re:Select sound card in Spotify for Windows. by c120plus · · Score: 1

      On windows you can get software like voicemeeter banana (https://www.vb-audio.com/Voicemeeter/banana.htm) which despite it's funny name, is very good at re-routing windows audio to whereever you want. It even features a cute litte tape recorder thingy which works nicely with Spotify. ## Disclosure: I do not work for the company or know anyone there. I have used the product for years and made the suggested paypal donation. ##

    3. Re:Select sound card in Spotify for Windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go out more often and meet real people. You'd be surprised.

  11. Nice try, NSA... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    ...but you will not monitor what I listen to! Call me old fashioned (and it wouldn't be the first time), but I stay with my vinyl LPs, thank you!

  12. Does Spotify lack search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get unlimited access to the biggest library of music in the world

    So.. I am not a Spotify user (never even tried it), and this comment caught my eye.

    I went to their website to see if I could search their collection to see what they have, and I'm striking out. Google can't find it, either! (Though Google does seem to have somehow indexed their collection, since I'm able to cumbersomely use google to search for things with site:spotify.com.)

    Am I right that spotify's site doesn't have search? Or did I stupidly/incompetently overlook it like a blind-and-also-stupid person? (I would totally believe that second answer!)

    (Lots of pages have login boxes. Could it be that they limit searches to customers only? If that's the case, then I have an idea for how spotify could get more customers: let prospective customers see what they have!)

    But seriously, if anyone can find spotify's search page...

    1. Re:Does Spotify lack search? by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 1

      They client has a search function by song, artist, etc. It's not as intuiative as one might hope but it's there.

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
  13. Cool, but still no IPv6 support on Windows by Varcain · · Score: 1

    Yay, new app! And on Windows the Spotify app still doesn't work on IPv6 network...

  14. Spotify, want more subscribers? I have an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix the 10K collection limit. Your BS answer is awful, and your competition allows at least 5x the collection size of what you allow in "Your Library".

    https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Increase-maximum-songs-allowed-in-quot-Your-Music-quot/idi-p/733759#comments