
Last.fm Radio will soon require a subscription - arthurk
http://blog.last.fm/2009/03/24/lastfm-radio-announcement
======
ChrisXYZ
I'm from Canada and I won't be subscribing.

I use last.fm and while it has some cool features and I've discovered a lot of
new bands, it just doesn't play very good songs on the actual radio.

I've tried making stations around all kinds of different bands, genres, or set
ups, and it still seems to consistently pick mediocre tracks. My girlfriend
found the same thing. I remember Pandora being a lot better in that regard.

~~~
batasrki
I'm from Canada, too, and I've been listening for a while now. They don't
always play the best music, but the variety is nice.

Having said that, I think this is a load of horse manure. I don't think that
charging some, but not others is very fair. Also, isn't there and Internet
adage that says once you release something for free, you can't turn around and
charge for it? Or have I been reading too much SvN?

In any case, $6/month (CAD) for myself and the same amount for my wife is not
worth it.

edit: Also, this makes a good case for proxy software. If I'm able to set up a
proxy that makes it appear to Last.fm, Pandora, Spotify, etc. that my IP is
from the country they accept, I will still get free music.

Am I wrong in that conclusion?

~~~
paulgb
> If I'm able to set up a proxy that makes it appear to Last.fm, Pandora,
> Spotify, etc. that my IP is from the country they accept, I will still get
> free music.

I've considered creating EC2 instances and using ssh tunneling to get hulu and
some other US-only sites from Canada. I'm not sure if the TOS allows it (of
Amazon; I'm pretty sure the TOS of hulu doesn't allow it). I'll try it out
when I get back to Canada.

And not to get too off-topic, but since you and the above poster are Canadian
also, I feel I have to mention CBC's music podcasts which are pretty good if
you find one that fits your musical taste: <http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/>

~~~
babo
That cost way more then 3 pounds a month...

~~~
paulgb
I was suggesting this more for sites like hulu, but when I try the numbers
it's actually not unrealistic.

3 pounds is roughly $4.40 USD. The cheapest EC2 instance is $0.10/hour, which
would give you 44 hours for that price.

I don't know what bitrate last.fm streams at, but assuming it's 128 kbps, 44
hours would be about 2.5 GB transfer, or $0.25. edit: actually, $0.50 because
the data goes in and out of the servers. I'm going off the top of my head
here, but I think the rate is $0.10/GB

I figure I've listened to about 65 hours of music in the last month, so if I
replaced half of that with last.fm (For example, I can't use last.fm from the
gym), I'd come out ahead.

Of course, it wouldn't be worth the hassle for last.fm (killing and starting
instances every time you want to play music? not for me). I may try it with
hulu though, just for fun.

------
Celcius
Besides €3 probobly being enough set up a tunnel too Germany, USA or UK and
then get the free service (aswell as having a way around that problem on other
occations). I can't help but feel sorry for the poor nations where €3 is an
unreasonable amount of money. I get that it was a buisness decission but them
exempting certain countries just alienates those of us who aren't on that
list, or at least that's how I feel.

~~~
tomjen
It pisses me off when I am being treated differently on the internet based on
where I am in the real word. It is one of the reasons Hulu won't get my
patronage even if they extend to other countries outside the us.

In this case it didn't matter much, I won't sign up (or pay) just to _hear_
music that I can't even choose my self.

~~~
Goronmon
It pisses you off that your use of the service isn't being subsidized by other
parts of the world anymore? I mean, that's what seems to be the reason for
instituting the fee. They are able to use ad sales to generate revenue for the
3 countries mentioned, so the service is paid for that way. They aren't able
to generate enough ad revenue in the other countries, hence the fee.

I do find the general reactions a bit perplexing. Most range along the lines
of "Everyone should pay or no one should pay.", "Companies should charge the
people who can afford it more.", "I expect music to always be free to listen
to." and "I refuse to pay for music, so I will now go back to pirating more."

~~~
seertaak
Or: "3 euros a month is too much". 10c per day -- too much!

------
andrewl-hn
Personally I haven't used Last.fm. But until recently I was a big fan of
LaunchCast. Unfortunately Yahoo decided to shutdown it's own music
infrastructure and teamed up with CBS:
[http://ymusicblog.com/blog/2009/02/21/the-new-launchcast-
rad...](http://ymusicblog.com/blog/2009/02/21/the-new-launchcast-radio-is-
here/)

The new service is nowhere near as good as it used to be. I could rate the
artist, the album, and the track separately and I could listen to My station
based on my ratings. I used it for more than a year and really liked it. With
a new service I can rate tracks only, my old ratings are not supported by a
recommendation engine, and MyStation feature is gone.

Initially I thought it was a part of Yahoo! strategy change (they outsourced
paid music subscriptions to Rhapsody last year). But now it seems to me that
it might be a policy shift withing CBS itself. The Yahoo! partnership was
announced just a month ago, the change was abrupt and totally unexpected.

I only wonder why not just replace LaunchCast with co-branded Y!-Last.fm
altogether.

------
verdant
Does anyone know the reason behind this change? Is it a measure because of
cost of operation in certain countries or is it a legal issue?

~~~
jwilliams
It's the former, sort of... See the comment on the post titled "Joost,
HodgeStar, et al": (I can't find a permalink)

" _These are the countries in which we have the most resources to support an
ad sales organization, which is how we earn money to pay artists and labels
for their music._ "

Edit: Found the permalink: [http://blog.last.fm/2009/03/24/lastfm-radio-
announcement#c00...](http://blog.last.fm/2009/03/24/lastfm-radio-
announcement#c007521)

~~~
gaius
It's funny how people who use Last.fm's content and bandwidth for free think
Last.fm will be hurt in any way by them leaving.

~~~
batasrki
Call me naive, but were a large percentage of users to leave, they will be
hurt. Not just from the traffic and revenue perspective, but also from a
reputation one.

Take a gander at the comments. There are not just normal users, but also
independent artists and even a record executive from Brazil. This is a serious
move and potentially, a very damaging one.

~~~
mikedouglas
How about from a profitability perspective? I think we should suck it up, and
realize large companies aren't going to subsidize what we want to do on the
internet, forever.

If Last.fm isn't €3/month, don't pay it.

~~~
batasrki
I realize that, but at the same time, I realize that they've offered this
service for free for a long, long time. Also, I wouldn't mind it so much, if
they were to charge everyone.

However, charging everyone but the English, Americans and Germans is patently
unfair. Also, the people from those countries already get services and
features no one else does. So now we're talking about the rest of the world
subsidizing what users from only three countries consume from Last.fm.

You cannot tell me that that's fair or that it even makes sense.

~~~
mikedouglas
The UK, USA and Germany are large enough markets for them to sell ads in. If
anything, over the last few years, ad sales in those countries has been
subsidizing everyone else.

Hulu, Kindle, GrandCentral, etc. It's not like this is a new experience for
Canadians. It sucks, but I don't blame the companies for being forced to
realize market realities.

~~~
batasrki
If what you say is true, that was not indicated in their announcement.

As for market realities, it's a reality that they've offered this service
worldwide. Hulu, Kindle, etc. have not. It's unrealistic to not expect a huge
backlash against a service that's restricting itself to only those markets
where they think they might make money. As some commenters have rightly
indicated, losing the scrobbling ability of the whole wide world will
inevitably degrade the service of the "special" ones. And trust me, I've
already stopped feeding them information. Also, come end of March and I will
take my business elsewhere.

I don't mind paying for a service. I do mind discrimination and senseless
discrimination I mind even more.

~~~
mikedouglas
"It's unrealistic to not expect a huge backlash against a service that's
restricting itself to only those markets where they think they might make
money."

Which, in one sentence, explains the insanity of the mindset of web startups
at the moment. Fortunately, it looks like that's starting to change.

"And trust me, I've already stopped feeding them information. Also, come end
of March and I will take my business elsewhere."

Great. Especially if you think Last.fm is wrong about the value of your
market, why not start a competitor?

"I don't mind paying for a service. I do mind discrimination and senseless
discrimination I mind even more."

There shouldn't be a taboo against saying you don't think last.fm (or any web
startup) isn't worth paying for, but I hope you still don't think this is the
result of CBSs xenophobia.

~~~
batasrki
I don't follow the last sentence.

I do think last.fm is worth it, had they 1) made these rules from the get-go;
2) applied them equally and with no discrimination (I think this is where
CBS's xenophobia fits in?)

Am I on the right track? If not, please feel free to correct me. :)

~~~
aardvarkious
If they are able to offer the service for free to some, why is this a bad
thing again? I'm Canadian, so am a little bit sad that I won't be enjoying
last.fm for free (or, in my case, at all) anymore. However, I'm not mad that
others will be able to.

And why is it a bad thing if you offer your service for free at first?

~~~
batasrki
It's bad because the expectation you set with your users is that that service
is free.

With last.fm, it was free, but you could upgrade if you wanted to. Until this
point in time, it wasn't "free, but only if you're from the right country".
Had that been stated in the beginning, they wouldn't have been as successful
and probably wouldn't have been acquired by the CBS.

They basically did the worst thing possible. They've collected user data,
which they needed for their recommendation engine. They got users to fill out
information about the bands whose music was on the site. Now, they're cashing
in.

As DHH and 37signals and various other people have said: Don't be afraid to
charge for your product.

They screwed up and now they will face the wrath of the community.

~~~
mikedouglas
Wait, so you would've been willing to pay for the product originally (which,
as you mentioned, would've collected less data and therefore be less useful
than todays Last.fm), but you wouldn't be willing to pay for the more useful
version available today?

For all that information, you got personal statistics (which will still be
free) and free radio for seven years.

They're a business, it is there _responsibility_ to cash in. I'd much rather
have it available for a price, than not available because people ran it into
the ground.

~~~
batasrki
What I'm saying is that the expectation that you, as a user, will have to pay
for the service at some point in the future, but only if you don't happen to
live in their preferred countries, was not set at launch of the service. If
that expectation had been set, of course it would have amounted to a less
useful service.

This is tantamount to a bait-and-switch, only you as a user provided the bait.
All I'm arguing here for is transparency. None of this was needed had they
been transparent. It would have also helped if they asked the community for
feedback.

Now, the admins basically come off as assholes who have used the community and
their volunteer contributions to make a coin. Making money isn't the problem.
How they've gone about doing it is.

By the way, take a look at the comments again. No one from last.fm has
responded to the users in the last 5 hours and the last comment was no better
than a canned reply.

It's terrible customer service. Even if I weren't affected, I'd consider
removing my data and getting off the service. Who's to say they won't do it to
US, UK and German users next?

~~~
aardvarkious
I think it is presumptuous to assume that they new they would have to adopt
this business model 7 years ago.

~~~
batasrki
Maybe it is. Putting aside the fact that this is a major change in the
business model, the admins still have not responded to the furor.

They gave a 5 day notice, they haven't put it on Last.fm's home page and they
haven't assuaged users' fears. That is still a terrible way to treat the
community who has basically provided the information the service needed in
order to be as good as it is.

I don't think that that is presumptuous to expect of them.

------
alabut
I never really got into last.fm because Pandora is so good. I just recently
started using Pandora again after a long break and it's even better than when
I first started using it - I used to have thumbs down individual songs all the
time to teach it what songs or artists to include in a channel, I can't even
remember the last time that I've had to do that.

~~~
trezor
Notice that if you are not from the US, trying to access pandora.com will lead
you to <http://www.pandora.com/restricted>

Yeah. Pandora pretty much sucks too.

------
paul7986
Oh no Last.fm sounds like music industry is playing Dr. Kevorkian, yet again!

I hope Last.fm can survive this stupidity!

