

Why I'm Not Going Near Spotify (and Why You Shouldn't Either) - gatsby
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/07/why_im_not_going_near_spotify.html?cm_sp=most_widget-_-default-_-Why%20Im%20Not%20Going%20Near%20Spotify%20(and%20Why%20You%20Shouldnt%20Either)

======
sp332
This sounds like an argument for a Zune Pass model. As long as you keep
paying, you get access to the whole library. But each month you also get to
download 10 tracks, so even when you stop paying, you can keep your favorite
tracks around. (They're DRM-free MP3s.)

~~~
jerrya
The article is premised on the assumption we typically "own" our music, but I
just don't think that's true.

We don't own what we hear on radio. Anyone old enough to have owned a vinyl
record, 8-track, or cassette knows we "owned" those until the player "pwned"
us and scratched the record, warped the record, or otherwise ate the tape.

The CDs I "own" mostly mark me as ... old with 1980s musical tastes.

I'm actually pretty happy with combination of Rhapsody and Google Music,
though there are definitely some albums I wish Rhapsody would get (The
Beatles, and, ... Soundtrack to American Werewolf in London, and, ...).

But actually Rhapsody, Google Music, and Squeezebox Server have made me
purchase a lot more music than I have for a long time.

Of course, the music I purchase tends to be used CDs from Amazon for pennies
plus shipping.

I would in fact like the Zune Pass model.

~~~
frossie
Yeah, his whole argument is based on this

 _Simply put: the way we consume music is fundamentally different to the way
we consume movies and TV._

This used to be true, but I am not sure it is any longer - at least not for
everyone. Listening to the same album obsessively over and over again is
certainly a phase I went when I was younger, but now I am perfectly happy to
listen to Pandora, especially as my tastes have broadened, and finding new
interesting stuff to listen to trumps the need to hear the same familiar stuff
over and over.

~~~
extension
Don't underestimate the average consumer's taste for repetition. In the month
I've lived next to my current neighbors, they have listened to a grand total
of _one_ song. Many times.

And the songs you listen to now may one day be "classics" that you want to
listen to again. Given the volume and diversity of present day music, that
might only be possible if you have an MP3 stashed away somewhere.

------
ThomPete
Talk about a nonsense article. I have been using spotify ever since the very
beginning in 2008 and I have yet to experience any of those issues. Besides.
Even if spotify where twice as expensive it would still be a good deal if you
listen to music a lot.

Much to do about nothing.

~~~
hype7
Wow, you haven't experienced any of those issues therefore they can't bait and
switch?

~~~
drivebyacct2
Even if Spotify were to increase prices, it's not bait and switch.

This article makes no sense. Duh, if Spotify goes away, if you leave for any
reason (rates, terms of service, whatever)... their music goes with it. That's
how subscription services work. If Netflix goes away, I lose access to the
movies that Netflix was letting me stream. The fact that someone is used to
"owning" their music or re-listening more than you usually re-watch movies
doesn't change any of the core principles of the business model.

One album costs $10. If I listen to that album once a day for 30 days (not
EVER going to happen, but I'm trying to be generous), then I'm still only
filling a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time I listen to music.

$10 with Spotify gives me effectively non-stop new music. In 6 months, I'll
have spent $60 and had the benefit of listening to hundreds of albums. Even if
something happens that I stop using Spotify... are you really implying that I
haven't extracted good value from Spotify as a service?

If Spotify's price increases that I don't think I can get the same or a good
value.... I just stop using it and go back to life as it was before. What is
the lock in? There seems to be an implication that I will have "wasted" my
money on Spotify since I have no music mp3s to show for it. Did my family
waste their money on Netflix despite the fact that I don't own any of the
hundreds of DVDs that they've watched or streamed?

I just don't understand this implied malice at work here. Besides, it (seems)
completely ignorant of Spotify's existence in the rest of the world for some
time now.

~~~
kstenerud
The article itself argues that we consume music in a way that is fundamentally
different from the way we consume television shows and movies, thus rendering
the comparison invalid.

~~~
zantzinger
And I think that that assumption/argument is invalid. I'm sure I've read
somewhere about studies of user behaviour in, say, iTunes (your personal
music) compared to on a subscription service like Spotify. The studies showed
that people who had access to a limited amount of music of owned music would
listen intensively (fewer songs, lots of times); whereas people with access to
a subs service would listen extensively (more songs, fewer times). There was
some stat about a favourite song being listened to far less frequently when
there was more to explore.

~~~
ThomPete
Spotify stats show that the majority of people using spotify listen to non-
chart music.

Humans are an explorative but economic species. When the cost of exploration
goes down guess what goes up.

------
cageface
I really don't see the issue here. I pay peanuts to rd.io each month (can't
get Spotify here in Vietnam yet) to have access to a vast catalog of music I
want to hear occasionally or just preview. The small handful of albums I
really care about I buy in FLAC format and backup in S3. I get the best of
both worlds with a minimum of fuss. Subscription-based music services have
significantly increased my enjoyment of music and freed me from the hassles of
managing a big local library.

I don't care about DRM on streaming music because I know I don't "own" it.

~~~
gregschlom
Just for your information, I've been using Spotify in Vietnam for 10 months.
You just have to sign up with an address in one of Spotify's launched
countries, and pay the monthly fee ($4.99), since it won't work as free.

------
petercooper
It's nice of this chap to tell us how we listen to music. I've been a Spotify
subscriber for almost two years and if they jacked up the price or went bust,
I wouldn't be upset or the victim of a bait and switch. He seems to think
we're all music "addicts" who will do anything to get our fix when in reality
I wouldn't care if I went a few weeks without listening to anything specific
and then I could just patch it up by buying any albums I particularly missed
over time.

------
shriphani
Once upon a time, a 24/7 persisting network was expensive / out of each for a
lot of people.

Now, I at least have been enveloped in 3G / Wifi wherever I go (maybe I should
go out a bit more ? ).

Even from an analysis perspective, buffering over networks (which I use) is
good enough for music consumption (44.1 * 4 bytes in 1 sec if we consider wav
being streamed. That's 44 KBPs needed to repro at original sampling rate. Our
networks do several multiples of that right now. I can't listen to music
faster than that.)

It is convenient, it is the future.

OP's conundrum is the same my grandfather faced a few decades ago when my
grandpa thought "Oh Shit, if the local library closes, I am owned and have to
listen to a radio or something to pass my time".

And the MAFIAA ? Well, they're setting themselves up for some severe
disruption. I-Will-Fuck-The-World is not a sustainable business model.

------
fr0sty
I've been a Napster subscriber from some time and they are actively engaged in
a version of this. They have two tiers of music: "free to stream" and
"purchase only or :30 preview": they have gotten into the habit of moving
tracks from one category to the other as they get popular or in some cases
pulling entire albums from their catalogue for unexplained reasons.

While I'm sure what they are doing is legal it still is a shady "the first hit
is free" type business model. So far the annoyance has been minimal as my
tastes are not too mainstream but it still pops up far too often.

------
kalleboo
> there's nothing to suggest that you'll be able to get the playlists on your
> computer out as easily as Spotify does from iTunes.

It is actually really easy, I think they have an API for this. Once Spotify
launched in the U.S., my friend switched from Spotify to WiMP (wimpmusic.se),
and they could easily just import his playlists and boom he had all his music
again. It's sure a heck of a lot easier than dealing with DRM - I still have a
ton of songs from iTunes Japan (which _still_ uses FairPlay DRM) I can't play
on my Android phone at all

------
irons
I never bought more music in my life than during Napster's heyday. Spotify
seems to herald much of the same. It's going to be expensive.

------
teyc
The guy who wrote the article is a "collector". I know one when I spot one. A
collector accumulates things that he might one day come round to want to use
again.

Other people who are prepared to pay know that pop music is fickle anyway. I
don't know of too many people who'd dust off their Sonny and Cher albums for
their guests (unless it is for Kitsch Nite).

~~~
philwelch
Not everyone listens to the kind of "pop music" that doesn't stand up to
repeated listening.

~~~
teyc
Spotify isn't for those people. It can't be everything to everybody,

------
kennu
My couple of years as a Spotify subscriber have radically changed my music
listening habits. I used to buy records and listen to them over and over
again. Now it's more about constantly discovering new music (eg. via Facebook
links) and having a more casual relationship to it. I only buy the _really_
important ones on physical media, usually vinyl.

------
ddw
If I buy a CD, burn it to my computer and then sell that CD, do I have to
delete the MP3 copy on my computer? The law says yes; I "owned" the music
while I possessed the CD. When I sold the CD I gave my ownership and my copies
are illegal. I'd bet that 99% of people would keep the copy on their computer
though. Until this perception is changed, the author's point doesn't really
matter. Because I'm paying so little for Spotify and because of it's very
history of struggle coming to the U.S., I know it could be temporal. As is
pretty much everything, including the physical media which can also degrade.

Maybe services like Spotify will change that perception and the consumer and
the industry will meet in the middle with a cheap subscription price. But
unless all of the methods of illegally accessing music are closed, I don't
think that'll happen.

------
tagmclaren
I agree. I think it's a good article, and it boils down to - if you're paying
a monthly fee, don't do it for DRM'd tracks

------
tagmclaren
oh... and check out the comments down the bottom of the article... fun reading
:)

