Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Killed Spotify?

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the video-turns-out-to-be-a-serial-killer dept.

Advertising 257

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that ad-supported music service Spotify is bringing strict limits to its service, allowing users ten hours listening time per month and a lifetime total of five plays per track. Rory Cellan-Jones discusses how much their hand was forced by the labels, and how much it was down to their own desire to move more than the current 15% of users to their paid subscriptions. The overwhelming reaction from users seems to be straightforward disappointment at the loss of a service which managed to bridge the commercial radio business model and modern listening habits. As the first response to the announcement said: 'So long Spotify. It was nice knowing you. Guess I'll go back to pirating music again then.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829184)

The Jews in the RIAA are killing online music just like they killed Jesus.

troll (0)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829334)

yes.. its all the evol joooos /s

Re:The Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829406)

It's funny to say the Jews killed Jesus. It's like saying that Iraqis killed Saddam Hussein.

Re:The Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829540)

The Romans killed Jesus, but the Jews condemned him.

Re:The Jews (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829692)

It's a fucking faery tale for goodness sakes. Can you imagine abusing and murdering an entire group of people because of some alleged set of events in Roman Palestine?

Re:The Jews (4, Informative)

Omestes (471991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829726)

The Romans killed Jesus...

Somewhat true, but it would be more accurate to say that the Roman Empire killed Jesus. (For bonus points, the government of one outpost of the Roman Empure killed Jesus)

...but the Jews condemned him.

Wrong. A few Jews in small region condemned him, perhaps even limited to one very small sect of them. All Jews didn't condemn Jesus (he was Jewish, as were many of his followers, he was basically advocating Judaism 2.0 at the time, this was changed after his death to a "revolution" by catering to the Greeks), probably most Jews of the time never even heard of him, or didn't really care one bit what he was saying since he was just one "messiah" among many at the time.

Only to free (4, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829188)

Limits to its free service, not to Spotify in general. I've been a paying subscriber for a while and it's fine.

Must admit though that I cancelled my subscription last week. Wasn't anything wrong with the service, which is a good one, was simply that I found I wasn't using it nearly as much as I thought I might.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Only to free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829338)

See that's the thing though. Radio is free, so the idea of paying for radio-like services like Spotify and Pandora go against a lot of people's ways. Some people will see the benefit in pay services, but the vast majority won't. It's like the free TV vs. paid cable argument in the...what, 80's?

Re:Only to free (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829580)

Spotify is less radio-like than Pandora.

Spotify allows you to pick a song and play it -- something which Pandora (last time I tried it) does not. Indeed, I think Pandora's weighted-random personal radio station is a legal hack, so that they're classed as a radio station rather than something else.

Spotify really is like having an iTunes with a vast library.

Re:Only to free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829702)

Exactly, I've been pretty much using Spotify as my only music player for 2-3 years and so have many of my friends and europeans in general. It really did kill piracy for me, it's just so convenient and I'm happy to pay for the subscription.

And I could start ranting about the summary and title again, but.. fuck it, this is what slashdot has become.

Re:Only to free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829686)

Maybe for older people who remember when radio actually had cutting edge stuff. Now if most [1] radio stations out there were replaced with a small PC that primarily streamed ads, randomly played a track out of 100 stored on a SD card, with station identification every so often, and a recorded news blurb once in a while, nobody would know the difference.

People tend to do one of three things:

1: Let the media decide what they listen to, thus the Justin Bieber CDs and American Idol comps.

2: Use friends and DJs to find new stuff.

3: Find new stuff on Pandora/last.fm/other service.

In reality, there is no "free" way to find new bands these days. Radio is useless unless you are one of those people who wants to listen to the same exact playlist the station was doing 15-20 years ago.

[1]: There are still a few independent ones which actually play something made this millennium, but they are few and far between compared to the cookie cutter ones locked in a time loop.

Re:Only to free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829796)

Radio is free

Radio plays crap.

Re:Only to free (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829354)

I've heard that spotify is a great service, but they still haven't managed to launch in the US, I can only wonder if this has something to do with them trying to broaden their availability in regions not yet supported.

Re:Only to free (0)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830200)

Paid radio hasn't succeeded it has just survived. Paid Spotify won't pay the bills. This is a death knell for Spotify--they don't know it, but it is.

Go Premium (1)

larppaxyz (1333319) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829208)

I never even tried free version of Spotify. I don't like commercials, but biggest reason was that with premium account (10€/month) i have better bitrate, great mobile client and offline listening.

After just few weeks of using Sporify, i deleted my MP3 collection. This is first time i ever pay for music.

Re:Go Premium (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829248)

Daniel Ek, is that you?

Re:Go Premium (1)

larppaxyz (1333319) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829280)

Sorry, after re-reading my post, it really does look like a commercial. But it's all true, trust me... TRUE!

Re:Go Premium (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829518)

I think the same thing about DI.fm. I listen to the free one, but they often have commercials for the high-quality streams. If I listened at home, I'd be more tempted to pay for it, but for now the cheap stream is nice.

Re:Go Premium (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829694)

I agree with you, except that I don't need the high bitrate and mobile support, and get away with half the price. :)

It's not that bad IMHO to pay $8/month for unlimited access to that music library. At least not enough to speak of Spotify being "killed". It's far better than anything you could get in the nineties, or even early 2000's, so I still think that this is definitely progress in the right direction. Yes, you don't get to "own" your music, but I consider it like I do with movie visits or (back in the bad old days) visits to music stores to buy CD's more or less regularly.

Similar yearly cost, but much more convenient.

Re:Go Premium (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829888)

Remember, this is not just Slashdot, but the internet itself. Simply liking something non-ironically is tantamount to being a corporate shill. You have to specify all your preferences in levels of nerd rage hatred, else nobody will ever believe you.

Re:Go Premium (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829258)

Ditto. In addition I can have my wifes mobile phone on my subscription as well without extra cost.

Re:Go Premium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829688)

You must like crappy music then. I treasure my collection.

Re:Go Premium (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829750)

10 euro per month is an awful lot of money to pay for music! It just doesn't seem quite right.

Re:Go Premium (1)

KillAllNazis (1904010) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830044)

Especially if you listen to the same album multiple times.

Who Killed Spotify...? (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829210)

...When after all, it was you and me.

Re:Who Killed Spotify...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829802)

It was Jonathan with a monotonic voice.

Labels ask for money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829214)

Film at 11.

Totally worth it (1)

Zoolander (590897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829242)

I can't see how people can be upset about this. The Spotify social feature is awesome, and if you skip one lunch out per month, you've paid for the subscription.

Re:Totally worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829312)

Of course, not there will be less people to be social with.

What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829250)

Guess I'll go back to pirating music again

Wow, The arrogance and callousness of this statement is shocking. Just because a service doesn't completely offer terms to your full and complete satisfaction does not justify criminal copyright infringement and breaking of the law. You can just choose not to use it.

If you try to apply to logic to anything else in the real world, you would get your ass tossed in jail pretty quickly.

In short, copyright infringement is illegal and wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829394)

As a Canadian I can understand this argument.

I try very hard to pay for all my media.... but man is it hard. Thanks to some very broken laws and the CBC/CRTC, most content can't be offered in Canada for online download. So you find something you want... money sitting in your pocket (figuratively), theirs for the taking... but nope, they can't take it... but they can sell you something made in the 80's with a 1 star rating! Oh but please stop pirating because it's costing us revenue!

So your choice is basically:
- go to the store.. buy the DVD (assuming they even have it in stock and not in blueray).. go home.. rip it onto your computer (which is where you wanted it to begin with)
- download it and be watching in ~half hour

Relying on people to choose the morally correct option over the sane and easier one is a really bad business model!

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829578)

You can rip blueray just as well, drives are not that expensive these days.

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829612)

It may be a bad business model, but that doesn't make you any less of an asshole for choosing option 2. Also, there is an option 3: watch or buy something else. You have no entitlement to receive a given piece of entertainment exactly how you want it when you want it.

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829752)

You have no entitlement to receive a given piece of entertainment exactly how you want it when you want it.

Agreed, which is why as said in my post.. I pay for my media (except in a select few circumstances). The people who make the media do have the right to sell it in whatever messed up way they want... and people don't have some entitlement to it. That said, considering how blatenly simple it is to pirate media... and how painful it is to actually pay for it... it boggles my mind why anyone things this is a good idea. Big media should stop whining about Canadians pirating and go after the CBC/CRTC who won't let them sell to a large audience who is willing to spend the money!

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829956)

You have no entitlement to receive a given piece of entertainment exactly how you want it when you want it.

Hey, the local music and film industry around here thinks they have the entitlement to demand money for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return.

Levies on empty media, storage devices, computers, TVs, Internet and so on and so forth. On top of that they want me to pay out of my ass for bad services and products.

Sorry if I have ABOSULTELY NO moral qualms whatsoever to pirate music and movies. The day I get treated fairly as a customer I will pay. However as long as I'm forced to pay at gunpoint for things I do not want or use, I take whatever I damn well please because they do the same with my money.

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829524)

In short, copyright infringement is illegal and wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

You're half right, at least. I would argue that the baby-dancing-to-music videos are not wrong, despite being (arguably) copyright infringement. I would also argue that ripping my DVDs, which I've legally purchased, to my computer is not wrong. Illegal and immoral do not go hand-in-hand.

Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829530)

The morality of copyright infringement is not a simple subject. It's idiotic to just say that it's always wrong, and expect the argument to stop there.

What if none of the money ever goes back to the original artist? What if the money never can, because the artist is long dead? What if the license for the media is held by an organisation that has no purpose other than to make money and prevent media from ever entering the public domain?

Sure, you could just avoid all contact with whatever the media in question is, but in such a circumstance, where's the harm in piracy? Who is hurt by it?

It's not simple. Don't pretend it is.

Yup (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829252)

Guess I'll go back to pirating music again then

I know this attitude well. Being Canadian, it's even worse here.

I try to buy media, and would love to be able to legitimately buy various movies and TV shows online, but thanks to the CBC/CRTC, they can't be made available here thanks to some very backwards and broken laws.

So you browse say, netflix or itunes (ugh.. but meh). Find something you want. Money (figuratively) sitting in my pocket, theirs for the taking .. NOPE! DON'T WANT IT! But please stop pirating because it's costing us money! Oh, here is a show made in the 80's with a 1 and a half star rating who's title contains one word from your query.. THAT we can give you! *froths at mouth*

Then pay with your ballot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829430)

but thanks to the CBC/CRTC, they can't be made available here thanks to some very backwards and broken laws.

The movie studios will be happy to take your money once you vote in a Parliament that will repeal "some very backwards and broken laws." It's like voting with your wallet, only the other way around.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (2)

HelioWalton (1821492) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829488)

It's like wallet with your voting?

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

crazypip666 (930562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829566)

Maybe a free wallet when you cast your vote would improve voter turnout?

Re:Then pay with your ballot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829546)

It's like voting with your wallet, only the other way around.

Walleting with your vote? I'm pretty sure selling votes is illegal in most countries.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829894)

Walleting with your vote? I'm pretty sure selling votes is illegal in most countries.

Dont let that stop you.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829984)

It's like voting with your wallet, only the other way around.

Walleting with your vote? I'm pretty sure selling votes is illegal in most countries.

We call them 'campaign donations' and that makes it legal. Didn't you know?

Re:Then pay with your ballot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829618)

A political ad doesn't do much good if you don't mention the party!

Either way, Stephen Harper won my vote when he shot down usage based billing! I don't like all of his policies .. but then again I like the policies of the other parties even less (especially since both parties seek to curtail spending in my chosen industry and would probably put me out of work).

Regardless, nothing is gonna change unless _someone_ gets a majority. Most likely we'll get a slightly different minority government... with the same political antics and weekly shutdowns and nothing will really change.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829656)

A political ad doesn't do much good if you don't mention the party!

That depends on how quickly Canadians can get Pirate [pirateparty.ca] candidates onto ballots.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829782)

BECAUSE THAT WILL WORK.
Sorry, but a few people complaining on the internets isn't going to do shit, nor are they in the real world going to do anything about it by voting someone else.

The average person doesn't have a clue about this media vs copyright war that has been happening since before the internet even existed.
THEIR votes are the ones that matter. They are the ones the companies have influenced and manipulated.
We are in the ones in the minority. Our votes mean shit in the big picture. They know this and have known this for decades.
Unless you manage to educate all the ignorant, and all the morons, NOTHING. WILL. GET. DONE.

Re:Then pay with your ballot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829932)

Unless you manage to educate all the ignorant, and all the morons, NOTHING. WILL. GET. DONE.

Then what's the best way to promote knowledge of copyright and privacy issues among the constituency?

Re:Yup (1)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829526)

I know this is off topic but I agree with you 100%. I live in the States but travel to Canada frequently enough that I have both a US and a Canadian Netflix account. I'm appalled by how smaller the Netflix selection is in Canada compared to what I can watch in the US.

Re:Yup (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829922)

This has nothing to do with laws but only to do with studios licensing their stuff. I've been with them since the first month they came out. Have to say, that the Canadian selection while still not great, is quite a bit better than it used to be, and getting better every week. I'm sure in a year or two they'll be up to just as much stuff as the US. Until that time, i'm still happy to support a business model that I really like, even if I only watch 4 movies a month for my $8. Still cheaper and more convenient than renting.

Re:Yup (1)

Retardical_Sam (1002763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830090)

While I'm glad they are expanding the Canadian library, I think back to when Netflix first launched in Canada, and the line they gave to the news outlets was "We know the library isn't as big as in the states, but it's a licensing issue. As we get more customers, we'll add more content. So pay us now, even if our service isn't great, and we'll improve it!".

Now I'm not as big on the free market as a lot of people, but telling people to pay for a sub-par service so you can afford to improve it is a laughable argument to me. If you want to support their business model, go ahead, but I need more content before I'll pay for it.

Re:Yup (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829814)

Same thing happens to me, only for Hulu or Jinni... Quite often after looking for something to see I find myself in a webpage that says "sorry but this service is only available in the USA"... I have my credit card in my wallet and I am happy to pay but a lot of times paying is actually *NOT* an option so I usually look for the movie on filestube... which is a shame.

Re:Yup (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830026)

It is not the CRTC or Canadian Law that stops shows from being available in Canada. It's the regional licensing systems the entertainment industry has that that require negotiating separately for each region that sites like Netflix want to make the content available in.

Often you can't even go to a single source either because often the same content has different corporations to manage it depending on country or continent. Scrabble is a fantastic example of that: British scrabble players can't play North American players when using the official Facebook Scrabble apps because the two corporations that hold the rights couldn't even get together and agree on a single app.

Re:Yup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830178)

That's okay. The Brits would just dominate with all those extra "e"'s and "u"'s.

Free service only (1)

jcinnamond (463196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829278)

Spotify is bringing strict limits to its service

It only costs £4.99 a month for the Unlimited subscription and this comes with the added bonus of no adverts. The kind of people who say 'So long Spotify. It was nice knowing you' are the kind of people who don't want to pay for music. That's their choice of course, but what did they expect? Spotify's price is pretty low and their product is pretty good. The 'free' side of their business doesn't seem sustainable in the long term and I'd rather they focussed on maintaining a sustainable service. And, you know, if you really don't want to pay for music you still don't have to but your free lunch just got smaller. Bummer.

Re:Free service only (2)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829392)

It was never really free, insofar as it was supported by ads. I'd be interested to know what it is that makes ad-supported Spotify unsustainable, while ad-supported commercial radio continues to be profitable.

If feels to me (I say "feels" because I have no figures) as if the licensing terms for Internet streaming must be unreasonably high in comparison to radio broadcasting.

Or, Spotify hasn't convinced enough advertisers that it's a worthwhile channel.

Re:Free service only (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829512)

Two words: Phone-ins.
Also, afaik commercial radio can charge more for their ads because it's a safe medium in the eyes of the advertisers. I can only assume this is true, considering the variety of the adverts I hear on spotify compared to those I hear on the radio. Listening to spotify, I get 1 or two ads every 15-20 minutes (I listen to alot of prog rock, so that's 1 after every track) and there's usually only three or four adverts that aren't spotify information spiels. They do change quite often, but it's mostly Health care ads and GO COMPAAAAARE.

Re:Free service only (2)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829664)

Basically that - various sources say that the royalties charged to Spotify per play are on the order of 1p [which.co.uk] , which very rapidly becomes the dominant cost. If you have a million listeners online, it's about a hundred grand an hour in royalties. That adds up quickly. Other sources (radio, both classic and internet-based) which don't offer on-demand music don't have to pay on a per-listener basis, and so can actually benefit from economies of scale.

That said, based on Spotify's revenues which they have publicly stated along with subscriber numbers [bbc.co.uk] , it looks like they made about 50p in advertising per "free" user over the whole of 2009. While some argue they're paying for their experience with ads, 50p per annum for unlimited streaming music cannot look like a good business proposition to the music industry, and it's hard to say they're being unreasonably greedy by refusing to drop their royalty demands down to that level.

Re:Free service only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830074)

50p per year for unlimited streaming is about the maximum that I'd be willing to pay.

Grooveshark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829294)

Oh no, we'll have to use Grooveshark to steal music now!

petty people (4, Interesting)

arabagast (462679) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829296)

That is just ridicilous. In Norwegian money, one month of spotify membership costs less than a beer bought at a pub*: and the amount of music you have available is excellent. If they really want the radio model with advertisements and a fixed playlist - listen to a goddamn radio station. Spotify is something completely different - you have full controll over what you are listening to.

*That is for the least expensive option, where you do not have the option to use it on mobile devices. For double this, or about one and a half beer you get the added possibility of installing the spotify application on mobile devices; including offline storage to not tax your wireless data plan.

Re:petty people (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829374)

spotify is refusing to compete with no draconian limits and play as much as you want. If they want to do well they will have to, that is the reality of the market.

Re:petty people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829822)

Eeehh... They don't have any draconian limits and you CAN play as much as you want. Only free Spotify is limited.

Re:petty people (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829428)

That is just ridicilous. In Norwegian money, one month of spotify membership costs less than a beer bought at a pub*:

In fairness, the price of beer in Norwegian money is fucking ridiculous. The only thing that’s stopped me going for a pay version of spotify is the fact I don’t use it all that much and the catalogue has a number of holes. I can let the holes go, but I can (and do) get better value buying albums with the money I could spend on spotify.

If it ever gets near £5pm with support for mobiles I’d subscribe without thinking about it.

Re:petty people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829768)

I agree 100%. I subscribed for a few months to try out the mobile offering and see what my usage would be. The end result was that most of my listening time was still music I already owned and my Spotify usage on the go was predominantly one or two albums a month. Which, for the same price, I could just buy and listen to forever.

£5 (with mobile access) would be the sweet spot. It might sound like it's being cheap, but the point is that I'm going to spend the money on music either way: the question is simply which is better value. As soon as Spotify can show it's better value for my usage, I'm happy to pay.

Re:petty people (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829906)

I had a similar experience with Last.FM... I subscribed for some time, but after a while I realized the music collection they had was not very varied for the genres I like (speed metal, symphonic metal, heavy metal) and the "recommendations" just where not what I liked, so even though I can use the free version, the service is just not worth the money for me.

Re:petty people (1)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830030)

Spotify has a better catalogue than my local stores and the pirate bay. I have been able to listen to albums I was never able to find before(and that I wanted to listen to). And for this reason, I really do not mind not being able to listen to the Pink Floyd.

Re:petty people (1)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830054)

If it ever gets near £5pm with support for mobiles I’d subscribe without thinking about it.

Would you also like a pony with that? Seriously. 10€ per month is nothing. I spend way more on beer each month (here in .fi 10€ would be 2-4 pints, depending on the pub - although the places where that is 4 are not the ones you want to visit). I understand that some people find the omissions in the catalogue a letdown (the only hole I encounter is King Crimson - seriously Fripp, be reasonable - but I have already ripped the albums from them I want to listen), and some people simply don't listen to music that much, but to say the price is too high (including mobile access and offline) is just absurd.

Re:petty people (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829794)

But beer is very expensive in Scandinavian countries! The price of beer is not a valid unit of measurement.

Re:petty people (1)

indeterminator (1829904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829988)

Still, even the most unfortunate people can afford beer. So why not a Spotify subscription?

Re:petty people (2)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830260)

Not available in the US!

Re:petty people (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829828)

Which says more about the beer prices in Norway...

Pardon me for saying so, but the biggest fans I've seen of the service are those who are total music fans, own plenty CDs, listens to plenty music, used to pay plenty for it. No doubt it's a great offer for everyone who listens to music all day long, it's a very vocal and happy minority. For a lot of people - like me - music isn't all that important. It's nice to have from time to time during exercise and travel and during parties, but I rarely if ever sit and simply listen to music. I didn't spend 1200 NOK/year on music before - that's 150 tracks at iTunes and you get to keep them forever so I'd actually have more like 1500-2000 by now. And I compare to the premium version because I can put those bought songs on my mobile. Particularly the 5 times/song means I can't listen to a few favorites I like, it's either buy, go premium or get out. I'll get out, thank you very much. Perhaps when you manage to look beyond your own situation you will see that Spotify for many people no longer makes sense.

Re:petty people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829838)

People follow the path of least resistance. Handing out hard earned cash feels a lot different than doing "work" by listening to commercials.

The advertising supported model offers less resistance and is why people listen to traditional radio with adverts and are happy they don't have to pay any cash (you are in fact paying by doing the work to listen to the commercials but it's so easy to do that most people don't care).

The subscription should actually be much cheaper than it currently is. Right now a lot of these subscription services are ridiculously overpriced compared to what you pay by listening to commercials. They are in fact making a lot more money with the subscription model.

Re:petty people (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829944)

I am sorry that not all of us are paid in Norwegian Money like you... I guess we are not that lucky.

If I payed for each of these little monthly "chip ins" required by some sites I use *sometimes* it would really eat a lot of my monthly paycheck. (Think about it... Pay for NewYork Times, pay for Allrecipes, pay for Spotify, Pay for grooveshark, pay for last.fm pay for slashdot, pay for reddit, pay for lovefilm, payfor... sheesh)

Re:petty people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829976)

That is just ridicilous. In Norwegian money, one month of spotify membership costs less than a beer bought at a pub*: and the amount of music you have available is excellent. If they really want the radio model with advertisements and a fixed playlist - listen to a goddamn radio station.

Two points.
  i. Here in the UK, radio is monotonous dirge. Loads of stations all playing the same 12 tracks over and over like the good little music industry puppets they are.
  I use(d) sites like Spotify and Last.fm to find new music that I want to buy, sometimes thru browsing recommendations, or by listening to their radio streams of similar artists etc.

Would you go to a store that charged you an entry fee, or limited the amount of time you could shop there (remember that both last.fm and spotify get commissions from the 'purchase this track/album' option) ?
Of course not, you'd tell them to fuck off and go find another store. And by the looks of it, plenty of people have already told Spotify that.

ii. The range isn't all that great, lots of big name artists are missing because of various rights issues, and those that are on there seem to have additional regional restrictions (several times I've sent a recommendation to a friend, only to have them tell me they couldn't play it because they lived in a different country!)

    In this day and age it's simply moronic not to be on them, after all it's free advertising for them. If some record label doesn't want to license some music to Spotify or Last.fm then I guess I won't get to hear it. And if I don't hear it there's fuck all chance of me purchasing the CD.

Stupid music industry keep bleating on about piracy, yet they seem insistant on doing everything within their power to drive people to it.

Re:petty people (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830062)

Damn beer in Norway must be expensive Spotify is about $15 a month.

Worth the money (1)

ippa (242316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829318)

A monthly $7 (translated from the swedish montly of 49 kronor, not sure what they charge in other countries) isn't that much for the kickass musicservice that is Spotify. What didn't the storage cost ppl when they had their mp3 collections? And the time spent searching and downloading?

Spotify is fast, has a silly amount of music, has good song/playlist sharing functions and new songs start instantly. I wish they had increased the commercials instead of limiting the time for the free accounts.. but still, it doesn't cost that much compared to what you get.

Tried some Grooveshark yesterday when I got this news.. it's not close to as polished as Spotify. Missing songs, you wait for them to start etc.

Re:Worth the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829596)

They're already playing three commercials for every song on the free service. It's pretty obvious they want to shut it down.

Re:Worth the money (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830280)

This is not my experience at all. I get about 1 ad per album.

Steam shows a successful model (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829348)

Have huge sales all the time at rock bottom prices and you will see a increase in sales even when prices return to list price. Everyone knows they can make as many copies of the mp3 files as they want for no cost so music companies are practicing bad business.

Re:Steam shows a successful model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829950)

This has essentially been 7digital's model since they launched as (if memory serves) the first DRM-free mp3 store in the UK with a catalogue from the major labels. Much of it is a little pricey and sometimes more than CD versions of the same albums, but there's a permanently cycling selection of reduced albums at £5 and £3, often including recent releases.

Same thing happned to the Last fm (1)

nicx (2015580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829384)

Up until April 12 2010 Last fm also used to provide free music radios but then they also limited number of free tracks. I hate this, when I get used to one service and then I have to discontinue using that service simply because there would be some other music service out there on the internet which is free. e.g. grooveshark

Spotify vs. Free (1)

popo (107611) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829482)

In most businesses, there is a tipping point at which consumers will slow their buying habits. What recording execs consistently fail to understand is that in the music business there is a tipping point at which consumers go away forever and don't come back.

The record labels need to remember that the option confronting users is on the one hand a model like Spotify -- and on the other hand, free (as in, I'll just bring a 2TB drive over to my friends house and get a lifetime worth of free music).

The belief that this can, or will ever be stopped is what consistently drives them to idiotic regulations which destroy their own business.

2 observations: (1)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829604)

1) The existing distribution system failed, and ceded electronic sales to 1 party: Apple.
Once all the other minor players are killed off Apple will eat the RIAA.

2) The paid distribution model is doomed in any case.
Drive away enough customers and they will find other things to do, other places to get music, and, most importantly,
they will ignore your promotions.
Once the consumers dictate the fashion, the distributors become irrelevant.

Not all is well for paying subsribers (2)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829616)

I really love Spotify, especially the social aspects. Playlists URIs, collaborative playlists etc. are really great.

But as a paying subscriber I really hate it everytime a song gets disabled from my playlists because of the label's greed. I've been paying more to the music industry the past year compared to the last ten years, but it's still not enough.

Re:Not all is well for paying subsribers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829690)

Here Here. I totally agree. Nothing worse that losing the songs you love. It's happend far to often for my liking... :-/

Memo to the music industry: (3, Informative)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829628)

Give us a product we're willing to pay for, and package it in forms that we want, and we'll probably pay for it.
Otherwise: Fuck you. You can't stop the signal, no matter how hard you try. We'll all go back to sharing mix tapes if that's what it takes, or recording off the radio. You will NEVER be able to close the analog gap. You will NEVER be able to create any form of DRM that can't be cracked in a matter of hours or days. You will NEVER be able to stop the sale of used media. You will NEVER be able to prevent people from loaning and borrowing CDs from friends. Give it up. Change, or die.

Re:Memo to the music industry: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829948)

Give us a product we're willing to pay for, and package it in forms that we want, and we'll probably pay for it.

Right. People always claim they'll stop pirating music when there's a cheap and convenient way of legally buying the music. So far there really haven't been such ways. Spotify is pretty cheap and convenient, but you'll always find reasons why sticking to piracy is better. Just say it, you don't want to pay a dime. It's more honest.

Bad Pricing Model (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829674)

Like Spotify, Rdio has a pricing model where they charge more if the endpoint is a phone. This makes no sense to me whatsoever and reminds me of the bad old days when cable tv companies wanted you to buy a separate subscription for each television set.

For Rdio, I can tether my laptop to my phone and listen for $5 / month. Great! If, however, I wanted the phone to be the endpoint, they double the price. I can understand there are costs associated with producing a mobile app, but I would rather they just charge for the app rather than double the monthly fee. Bastards.

I do subscribe to Pandora though. $36 / year is about the right price for me, plus their client is built into my television and my receiver.

It's not dead! (free have limits) (1)

boldie (1016145) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829716)

Spotify is the best service I ever used. I got it on my android phone, can sync 3000+ songs for offline use. I can use the native linux-client, I got it at work on my windows box. The only thing I miss is an ARM version for my Sheeva-plug. It can import my local music library. All this for 10€ a month. What else could I want?

I'm looking for the same service for video but can't find it.

Since when was it ever free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829742)

What they are really saying is that the advertising funded model has failed, the service was NEVER free.

How do they think commercial broadcast radio works?

This just shows... (1)

GWRedDragon (1340961) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829756)

The best way to get music is still to buy used CDs, rip them, and stick the CD in a closet. Typical used prices are ~$3 per album, which is way cheaper than buying individual songs online as long as you aren't just interested in a single one on the disc. Plus, there is no DRM so you can easily move the stuff you purchased to wherever is most convenient for you. Plus, it is higher quality than almost everything you can buy online. Plus, if you decide you don't like the album anymore you can just delete the files and resell it to get your money back.

Yes, the CD is still king.

WiMP killed spotify (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829762)

It's a far better service!

Re:WiMP killed spotify (1)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830176)

Derision spotted.

Re:WiMP killed spotify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830234)

Oh sarcasm, thou are my bane. Mod as troll!

For reference WiMP is a norwegian Spotify rip-off. Yes, it does have more norwegian musicians, but honestly; who'd want to listen to that?
Also it requires a monthly payment after the first 30 days of free usage AND it requires you to install adobe air.

WiMP.. Meh.

As a side note I bought Spotify premium the day it came out. After this I have not pirated a single song, and with a music library with a couple of years worth of listening, you can be sure I did and I can happily say I've stopped pirating... Music anyway.

The butler... (1)

rolyboly (2015364) | more than 3 years ago | (#35829780)

did it!

This doesn't kill Spotify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35829898)

Spotify hardly made any money from advertisements. If you listened to it for an hour maybe you heard three ads; most of the time it was also the same one. Sometimes they weren't even real ads but ads for Spotify Premium. Simply put it; Spotify gets most of its revenue from paying subscribers, and €9/month is almost nothing if you have a job. Besides when you are home you can share your account with other family members (just not use it at the same time).

Who killed it? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830184)

Uh... Kristin Shepard?

Oh my more panic driven slobber.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830210)

Yes Slashdot article that in the face of it panics paid customer into believing an excellent paid service is no longer what it was!

Look I pay no more than what it costs for lunch and snacks during a boring day at work. For that money I can stick in my ear phones and chose any music (within reason) to make the days better. With the free side being more restrictive, I would hope some artists return or add their music.

Piracy? Why? If you take your music seriously either pay your money on Spotify or any other service like Itunes. People not willing to pay around £10 per month are going to pirate music anyway!

Ridiculous article!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?