Can’t even seek through songs.

  • Rayspekt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, if you don’t pay with money, you’re paying with your attention. Do you think they create this huge service just for funsies?

    Tbf, out of all media streaming services across movies, series, and music, Spotify has the highes bang-for-your-buck. It’s still like Netflix at that time when there was only Netflix and you could watch almost everything on one platform. I still buy records that I like on physical media like vinyl, but Spotify is such a great deal for convenient listening to all music out there.

    • Blackout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Man these people forget the days when a month of Spotify would afford you 1 CD. I remember cause I would spend half my paycheck on music. I’m just sitting here happy for services like Spotify and YouTube in my life. I remember a time when music and information was much harder to obtain (even illegally).

      • thejml@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        But if you bought the CD you actually owned something. Stop paying for the services and you have nothing if all you used was spotify/YouTube/pandora. I gave up on paying for streaming years ago and spend the same amount monthly on purchasing music. I get CDs, either new or used. I’ve amassed a collection and I don’t need Internet or monthly charges to play them.

        • 𝓢𝓮𝓮𝓙𝓪𝔂𝓔𝓶𝓶@lemmy.procrastinati.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          But I don’t want to own it. I don’t want to amass a collection of CDs taking up space somewhere. Been there, done that. I have a large collection of ripped mp3s from CDs I bought in the 90s and early 2000s (I’ve long since disposed of the physical media). I haven’t clicked on a single one of them in years, I just keep them for nostalgia sake and because they take relatively little space.

          I just occasionally want to listen to music sans commercials or annoying DJs wasting my time. For the cost of 1 CD a month my entire family can listen to almost anything they desire, at any time, without hassles (on Pandora in our case but I assume the economics are similar).

          Same thing with movies, honestly. I watch them once and move on. There’s a small handful I like enough to rewatch and I do own those.

          I get the whole, we don’t own anything anymore, argument and I mostly agree with it (see my massive Steam library). I just want both options to be viable. Streaming for ephemeral entertainment and actual ownership for the things I choose to keep.

        • Blackout@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          We all have our preferences and I enjoy the quantity of music I can get in a heartbeat. It really sucked when you were 16 and spent $15 on a CD that sucked because there was no way to hear it ahead of time.

          • thejml@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            My rule was always “buy it if there are at least 3 songs I know & like”. Only really had a few disappoint. I used to hang out at used CD stores though. I got so many for $2.50 or $5. Even a few gems for $1.

        • Rayspekt@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Valid point, but commuting with my turntable to listen to my sick vinyls on the go is a pain in the ass. Also moving sucks ass when you have a metric fuckton of sensitive vinyl to move. Owning stuff also has its downsides. Also no way I’m digitizing my vinyls and cutting them and shit to listen to them on the go, ain’t nobody got time fo dat.

          I gave up on CDs roughly 15 years ago because I don’t like the format compared to vinyl (small album art, plasticy jewelcases, …).

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You owned the music when you buy it. With multiple backups the risks of losing it it very minimal but with spotify or other streaming services, if you have to reduce your expenses you completely lose the access to the music till you pay again. Spotify always grey out songs too so even when you pay you may not have access to the some of the music you want to listen to

      • Rayspekt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I feel you, the value from Spotify is enormous. I can sift through ten different bands in no time just because I decided that I want to look up a new genre that I may or may not be totally into by the end.

      • Kayn@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Surely you have a better explanation for why Spotify isn’t giving you the full service for free.

      • Rayspekt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah don’t use it if you don’t want to, idc. But you might accept the thought that there are people that think the deal Spotify puts on the table is good.

      • porkins@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Spotify is not profitable nor ever has been. It accrued $4B in additional debt last year. The business is subject to high royalty fees. As a competitor, I just leave free Spotify running all day on mute since they lose money from every subscriber. The royalties are the same whether they make money or not on the customer. It is wise of them to more aggressively convert people to paid plans, but I’m sure that their margins are razor thin.

    • AcornCarnage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      I know not everyone will agree, but I think YouTube premium is the better bang-for-buck service. $3 more per month than Spotify and includes YouTube Music premium and YouTube Premium. So all the music and ad-free YouTube.

        • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          An argument could easily be made for Spotify as well. There are plenty of options for streaming music for free to your device with download support. Just about anything can be done for free if people are willing.

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Sure, for now. YouTube is cracking down on ad-blockers, don’t think they’ll let those free tools work forever…

      • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        YouTube is basically the same price as Spotify in my country (only 12 cents more actually), so even more bang for my buck, specially for family plans.

      • CO_Chewie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m currently in a three month trial due to the value (music streaming and ad free you tube), but coming from Pandora YT Music’s radio algorithm sucks sooooo bad. One of my first plays was a foo fighters album and now all the stations I create have alt/grunge in them. It’s making it really hard to consider staying.

      • shectabeni@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Surprising to see any suggestions on here for YouTube Premium. I have been lucky enough to be on a family plan for years and it’s honestly great. Sometimes, it’s just easier not to deal with having to hack around things to make them usable.

        • AcornCarnage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Family is one of the biggest reasons. A huge part of it for me was minimizing at least SOME of the ads my kids would be exposed to.

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I did not agree when I had both premium, I did not agree when I had YT light and Spotify premium, and I do not agree today.

        Context: I only use YT for its main service; streaming video. I never tried YT music because I already had music streaming set up in a way that worked for me.

        • AcornCarnage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I mean, if you are paying for two services but don’t use one by choice, sure I can see the value not being there.

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I need 48-bit 96kHz raw PWM otherwise my ears can’t tolerate it. I can hear the difference in the waveforms.

    • uberkalden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Careful, this same take when discussing YouTube ads will draw the ire of the internet

      • Havald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re not hurting the companies, you’re hurting the artists. I’m not saying don’t pirate at all, especially from artists like Taylor swift. But maybe if you’re listening to a small artist, especially if they’re independent, consider buying their cd.

        • AcornCarnage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          If the option is Spotify or pirating, you’re really not hurting indie artists. They don’t make shit from streaming.

          • mPony@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            hey now I make 10 bucks a year from streaming royalties. I can almost buy a fancy coffee with a shot of booze for that. Oh the life of an indie music artist.

          • Havald@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            There is still a difference between basically nothing and literally nothing. Spotify is better than pirating and CDs/vinyl/digital directly from them is better than Spotify.

            • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              That tracks. Every artist who spoke to me about this (I’m kind of a hobby musician) told me a) fuck labels, not worth it, b) Promotion is 95% of the game and you have to master it yourself, c) no money in Spotify except for the top .1% or so percent, the money always comes from gigs or shows so starting live early is a good idea.

            • Kayn@dormi.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Additionally, when you listen to an artist on Spotify or YT Music, it increases the chance of the app promoting that artist to other users.

                • Kayn@dormi.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Remember, we’re distinguishing between “basically nothing” and “literally nothing”.

                  Of course the best way to financially support an artist is to buy their merch or buy their music on a store like Bandcamp.

          • Blackout@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            The last album I bought was Ty Segal’s latest. I have seen him live at least a dozen times and bought roughly $600 worth of limited releases and shirts at these shows. I “discovered” him thru Spotify’s Discover Weekly playlist that automatically puts together music they think I will like.

            I think all the free users are the problem. They don’t want to pay for the service, they complain about ticket and merch prices at shows and hardly contribute anything to the artists themselves. They blame Spotify when it’s Ticketmaster and the labels they should direct their anger towards. Not paying users like me.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          According to this blogpost or whatever it is Spotify basically doesn’t pay artists, so if there’s a niche/local/whatever band you like, the best way to show support is by buying their tracks/records directly from them.

          I think for smaller artists, Spotify is less for revenue and more for exposure, hoping that your music can reach new listeners.

          • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            “I can’t pay you in cash, but I’ll get you exposure!”

            “woah” as they hold up the piece of paper that says ‘exposure’, “this is worthless!”

            (kinda meme kinda serious, as I know nobody who hears an artist on a streaming service and then does anything past listen to them on said streaming service, netting the artist effectively nothing)

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              I think my favourite retort to “we can pay you in exposure” that I’ve ever seen has been “people die from exposure.” It’s just so succinct.

            • Rayspekt@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I get your point but it really depends on the audience you’re looking at. Personally, I use Spotify a lot to listen to any new artist I can find and check their stuff out without crawling a) youtube or b) buying their records in advance. If I stumble upon some stuff that I’m really into, I look if there are any vinyls available. (Bonus step c): you’re two months late to the vinyl release and the discocks are already hoarding all copies, smh.)

              The point you’ve made kinda boils down to the question if music is a hobby or a commodity for said person. The “problem” I’m seeing is that music is more of a commodity to many people that just listen to stuff for the sake of listening to it. That’s just a product of changing times and the relation between people and music and the distributors inbetween reflects that. Of course this is frustrating for the load of talented artists that just niche audiences care about.

      • Rayspekt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah if you can’t pay for Spotify then don’t, I get you. It doesn’t make their subscription offer any worse, though, if you decide on pirating.

  • kratoz29@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    Who tf uses Spotify without a premium account?

    I’d rather pirate that shit that use it for free (I like to hit next all the way).

    IMHO Spotify is one of the few services that it is worth to pay.

  • acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    I have the family premium plan and honestly love it. I haven’t downloaded an mp3 in years because Spotify is so convenient. As far as subscription services go, this one is top tier for me.

    Now when we look at movie streaming… well that’s what the music streaming could have been like. What an absolute mess.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Now if only they’d pay the musicians worth a shit. Maybe they should strike next.

      Full disclosure I am on Spotify family plan and I love it because

      It would be nice if companies didn’t slash features and would offer music for free with features beyond that of broadcast radio.

      It would be nice if we didn’t have the mechanisms demanding infinite growth from companies because sometimes that’s just not possible or even necessary.

      Imagine if Spotify could just be like ok, yeah we’re good no need to make major changes, everyone is happy, life is good thanks. Versus: oh shit we need to boost the quarterly numbers who can we fuck over to get there? I know, customers and musicians both! Yay!

        • sliels@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          That article, while not necessarily wrong, is blatant propaganda and overlooks the most important issues until the final paragraph, and even then it only touches on it once.

          As someone with expansive knowledge and experience in the indie music industry, with a lot of experience dealing with streaming services and Spotify in particular the biggest problem is not the % of value created paid out, it’s what the actual value is. They don’t touch anywhere on how much you get paid per play, how the value is created, how the money flows once it’s in Spotify’s hands, etc.

          As said in the article, artists and indie labels/distributors have basically no ways to reach Spotify to negotiate a price, but Spotify itself paid literal millions to license a few major labels in the beginning. The ‘value’ of a play is extremely skewed, where you’d need upwards of 10.000 plays to equal a single play on a nightly radio show for a big broadcaster like the BBC or at a festival with 500 people. On top of that, if you work hard, network properly and prepare your release you can get quite good exposure through radio, dj and other live plays, whereas with Spotify you have to be lucky that they put your pitch towards the right ‘tastemakers’, they are actively working against user (influencer)-playlists, have piss poor customer service, blatantly favour major label tracks in their algorithms and don’t actual care about their listeners.

          On top of that we’ve got the obvious subscription enshittification, classic outlandish manager/director salaries and bonuses, the need to have an ever-rising share price and more.

        • CarlsIII@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s also not a new or Spotify-centric problem, either. Labels have been screwing over the artists for decades.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        In this case, it’s a good thing that Spotify is an European and not an US company. Less incentive for enshittification. At the same time, the main reason they fuck over musicians so much is not so much Spotify but because of record labels and ads themselves. The record labels are the ones with the financial power, holding the copyrights. It’s not that Spotify doesn’t pay labels, they do, then in turn the labels keep most of the money and fuck over the artists. At the same time, the record labels came last to the streaming game. Blinded on the madness that was the Napster and peak P2P era, a war they lost, they didn’t want to even sell digital copies. Many awards and labels didn’t considered digital sales, legitimate sales. An many rogue artists sold or gave their digital albums for free to protest this. So they were always behind the curve. When Apple forced the labels to sit at the table for iTunes, they had no bargain leverage and were forced to accept shit terms in exchange for the hope that streaming would stop piracy. As a result, the tech giants got to keep most of the revenue bag and that’s been the status quo ever since.

        On the other hand, adverts don’t pay. We tend to forget this because the likes of Google and Facebook are so massive. But the only reason they make any money is because of how massive they’re. Adverts are a shit form of payment. Too expensive and no one wants to advertise with you, too cheap and you can’t cover even the platform maintenance, it’s a delicate balance. The result is you need millions of eyes to make any significant amount of money from an advert. There’s a reason cable and open air TV has devolved into 15 minutes of advertisement per every 20 minutes of entertainment.

        Spotify pays a fraction of a cent for every play. It takes 150 plays of a song to make a dollar from advertisement, and most of that dollar is gonna stay with the record label. This is significantly worse for indie and small up and coming artists. They simply can’t make a living out of Spotify unless they are already big and have a massive following. This hurts the whole industry as it becomes harder and harder to nurture new talent.

        The up side is that, although they are getting shafted by Spotify and the labels, a subscription play is worth more than a free play. Up to ten times more than a free user play. So your subscription does help pay artists more. The down side is that less than 25% of Spotify users pay for a subscription.

      • cybermass@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        As someone who was once a small artist on Spotify, they do actually pay really well. Better than most places.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      because Spotify is so convenient.

      I used to think the same, but these days it seems like most songs from my favorites/liked list are no longer on Spotify, as I hear the same 10 or 20 songs over and over again when I have it on random play, and when I manually try to go through my list it’ll skip over songs and not let me select them.

      I guess the competition with the other music delivery companies is coming down to certain companies have exclusives for certain songs and artists.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve never paid for any streaming music plan and I love it. I never have to pay to listen to music because I already have MP3s of all the good music

      • acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        To each their own. For me, I really like the Discover Weekly/Daily features to discover new music and I can’t see how I would ever “already have MP3s of all the good music” since that’s an ever changing set. Heck, I still have a ton of old mp3s I used to rip and/or download, but I haven’t listened to them in a while.

        I would gladly pay for a similar AYCE movie subscription, but I refuse to sign up for a ton of different services and play the “which service is that movie on again?” game. Instead it’s a very different approach for me.

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah me and my SO have a Spotify duo account plan. It’s great. I could never use the free version even back in it’s heyday. I don’t know how people still use the free tier to be able to complain about these changes.

    • optissima@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Looking forward to when you wake up and realize that you’re just emptily shilling for a company that would happily take your money while refusing features.

        • optissima@possumpat.io
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          9 months ago

          Why would you talk about how great the features that you pay when we’re talking about how they’re slashing free features then? I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about.

          • magamus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The amount of different genres I listen to means that the cost of the subscription is nowhere near what I would have to pay if I had to buy it.

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about

            It’s also complete bollocks. Family plan is £3 a month, let’s say an album costs £10. So in a year I could listen to basically all music for £36, or buy 3.6 albums. Maybe if I live to be a billion then it’ll cost the same price to buy the music rather than renting it, but for us mortals the subscription service is the better deal. It’s fine to not like people shilling for a profit-seeking company, but don’t make up nonsense to try and prove it’s not a good deal.

            • optissima@possumpat.io
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              The Spotify Family plan is increasing by two euros, to £16.99 ($20.52).

              This is as of 2021, where are you getting that it’s £3 a month? That’s £203.88 a year.

              Where are you buying your albums? How is it that they’re all new releases, are you not recognizing that most of your music is not a release? How often do you listen to a full, new album? You likely don’t listen to more than 20 new songs a month anyways, unless you’re discovering a new genre. However, again, that’s not what this post is about, it’s about lowering the quality of the free features.

              • smeg@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                A family plan is shared between 6 accounts, I pay 1/6 of the cost. I probably listen to hundreds of new songs every month.

      • acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Not sure how this is emptily shilling though. Am I paying for a service? Yes. Will I stop paying for a service if they start “refusing features?” Also yes.

        Like I said in another comment, I was happy with Netflix back in the day, but now, nope. I have self hosted alternatives.

        If a service is not worth it for me, I stop paying. Different people have that line at different levels, and for me, today’s Spotify Premium is worth it. In the future it may not be.

        No need to be so hostile.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          We are all here on Lemmy because we see the value in self hosting and free & open source software.

          However even here, people have the need to antagonize each other and call each other corporate shills.

          Maybe a peek behind the curtain of human nature.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            call each other corporate shills.

            Well, to be fair, sometimes the “people” here are corporate shills.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Are bots actually prevalent here? I love me some Lemmy, but boy are they scraping the bottom of the barrel by targeting us and not reddit.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Are bots actually prevalent here?

                Yeah, they’re here, they’re also on Reddit.

                They go wherever the people are at, so they can train, inflate user population, and influence opinions.

                It costs them almost nothing to be at multiple places, at the end of the day it’s all text to be parsed and people to manipulate.

                Actually, usually when I see someone questioning if bots exist I think of that as an actual bot trying influence people away from thinking about bots, considering that bots are all over the place at this point, it’s weird to see someone deny/question that.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Well first off, a shill could be a person, and not a bot.

                  Ah, when you put quotation marks around “person” I’d assumed you implied they were bots.

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Generally I agree, but spotify has just recently started to reach the point of profitability. And with high interest rates and reduced venture capital, its now or never for them. I, as a paying customer, haven’t felt this enshittification. But if they make that turn, then I’ll quickly resort to self-hosting digital music purchases, Lidarr, and Plex.

      • FernandoOrlando@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Also as a service I think it’s much more polished and better working than its competitors, even if it is shiftier for free users.

    • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This is just for the free tier. The subscription is still a fair price and good service right now. They haven’t fucked it up yet, tho I don’t care for all the audiobooks and podcasts. But, there’s definitely worse things they could be doing and be getting away with.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Spotify in on itself is worth paying for BUT…

    Their app for android sucks blue donkey balls and I’d happily pay more if I’d get to use a slightly less removed cousin of this app.

    The other but:

    Spotify in on itself is not very bad right now and basically could and SHOULD continue as-is forever.

    However, the economic system as it currently is requires it to continually come up with new crap that nobody needs nor wants (see also all Microsoft software that went from absolute shit thirty years ago to absolute slimey shit with lots of useless but pretty ding dong bells attached to it with a nice camera hidden inside to spy on the insides of your butthole) and it only a matter of time before…

    Some exec gets hired there that promises to double their revenue, then implements some shit that will double their revenue once, gets this exec his bonus upon which he immediately quits to go to the next company to fuck over with a pineapple, leaving Spotify with a huge exodus of users, a dwindling service, and two years later it’s dead.

    I’ve seen this cycle with too many large companies, and it’s the same story over and over. Be it Boeing, Disney, just about all large game companies, etc etc…

  • iamgoingberserkk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve been using Spotify for almost 2-3 years. The only thing I can say is the app gets DEGRADED EVERY YEAR!!! They do their best to bring more and more bugs with each update. I’m done with Spotify shit, also they removed a lot of regional songs from my country. The only reason I pay for Spotify is because I can download/rip their music and store it on my Plex Server.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          So many services pushing price hikes, increasing ads, diminishing features and libraries. No wonder people are seeking other options.

      • Meltrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Literally the opposite. Pirating takes time, effort, resources, and I lose access to “everything” - I only get what I take the time to download and store.

        If a product I pay for provides a great service, I’ll keep using it. It’s worth the money for excellent user experience and convenience. It’s when they keep upping the price while reducing the features or content that bothers me, and that’s when I’d rather spend the time pirating than paying them for a worse product.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Pick someone who doesn’t pay for a product to unleash your own corporate bootlicking whine on, because the person you actually replied to said:

        I pay for Spotify

      • Rouxibeau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I pay for a service. They jack the price. They remove features. They add restrictions. They punish paying users.

        The result is that I stop all of the above and do what’s best for me. Fuck them. They did this to themselves.

  • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    9 months ago

    Putting all the best features behind a paywall, opening up ad space as well as sponsored song spots… Where have I seen this before?

  • ClemaX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    9 months ago

    It was already like this in Europe when I began to use Spotify in 2015. I do not hate it because the app’s free tier is already unusable to me due to the adverts.

  • small44@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The free version is completely useless on smartphone. I hope the limitations won’t come to the desktop version

  • loftkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Spotify is garbage, last time I used it it was missing basic features like sleep timer, play count, song rating, and history. I buy my music and use poweramp instead.