• threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The whole point with features being paid for is that they incentivize you to pay. There is no universal right to have a free tier or certain features for free.

    It just makes sense to lock features that users enjoy to incentives them to pay.

      • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s unfortunate and I can empathize with the user but I don’t see it as obvious that this specific need should be catered to, for free. It’s primarily a music service and lyrics is an additional service to enhance the experience, apparently at the paid-tier. It’s not so expensive that it’s inaccessible to the average user, if music with timed lyrics is an important part of their life.

        • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t know. If we were talking about Netflix making captions a premium feature that requires an extra fee, I’d think that’s pretty skeevy and ableist. I hadn’t thought about lyric sheets being an accommodation until OP brought it up, but now that they did, I’m kind of putting it in the same bucket.

          • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s a fairly good analogy, and it did made me this over a bit more. I agree that it would be weird if they put captions behind an extra fee. I suppose captions are more part of the “standard” offering historically so I would definitely just expect it to be included whereas timed lyrics is not something I’d expect by default. But I do an acknowledge that this could shift, especially as this feature enable deaf users to enjoy music. Hopefully Spotify can take the critique and find a good compromise that helps this user group. I just don’t think they thought to do this to squeeze money out of deaf users. I’m guessing it’s more of an unfortunate side effect.

            • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Oh, I’m definitely not saying that there had to be intention behind it. After all, it’s a consequence I never thought of, so I’m sure whoever made that decision at Spotify never did either. But then, they’re supposed to be paid to think of consequences like this.

              I guess the question is, if a decision screws disabled people in the pursuit of more money, does it really matter if the disabled people were deliberately targeted, or if they’re just collateral damage?

              • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Intentions matter, and to what degree you do it in pursuit of money. You do need money to have a sustainable business. But that can of course be to a point where it’s just greedy. Maybe they have gone to far in that respect, I don’t know.