

Spotify Is the Coolest Music Service You Can't Use - abraham
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/mf_spotify/

======
petercooper
Now America gets to know how it feels to us Europeans when something cool
comes out in the US that we can't use or watch ;-)

Seriously, though, Spotify is great and I've been a subscriber for a while.
Its coverage isn't 100% but is close enough for anything within a wide gamut
of "popular." On the negative side, Spotify has caused me to hardly buy any
music in the last year and is saving me a ton of money... which isn't going to
the artists whose music I'd have bought. Could that model survive long-term?

~~~
daleharvey
'On the negative side, Spotify has caused me to hardly buy any music in the
last year and is saving me a ton of money... which isn't going to the artists
whose music I'd have bought. Could that model survive long-term?'

On the positive side, Spotify has caused me to not pirate any music in the
last year and introduced me to lot of bands who I have went on to see live.

~~~
petercooper
Interesting.. I'm hoping people like you can help balance out the effect
people like me are having (I have zero interest in seeing music live or buying
merchandise, so it's a raw deal for them from me alone).

------
samstokes
Spotify is great, but the article paints it as the utopian fulfilment of the
evolution of the music industry. While it would be wonderful (as a Brit) to
think the European music industry has finally reached enlightenment, that's
not the case.

* it's not "any song by any artist" (although it does pretty well). Recent releases are generally missing; certain artists (like Bob Dylan) and labels have opted out entirely.

* Spotify has negotiated a deal with the collection agencies to get its music catalog. If the agencies decide to renegotiate, they could essentially kill Spotify at will (like what nearly happened to Pandora, and forced them to block non-US listeners).

* the service doesn't "support itself" - last year it lost £16 million [1]. While I'm sure they have plans to reach breakeven, until they do they're dependent in principle on their ability to raise new capital.

* the "big four" major European record labels are investors and shareholders in Spotify, between them holding nearly 20% of the company according to some sources [2]. They probably (speculation) have board seats. In other words, the labels have significant control over Spotify's direction and decisions.

* the popularity of Spotify is a highly visible PR win for the music industry's political campaign. The EU and its member states are currently debating things like copyright reform and how to stimulate an IP-centric economy. The record labels, of course, lobby to keep the law exactly how it is, but with stronger rights enforcement measures (preferably in civil as well as criminal cases) and longer copyright terms. Entrepreneurs are calling for things like a compulsory music license for online broadcasting, meaning music startups could experiment with new business models with predictable costs, and without the massive existential risk of having to individually negotiate terms with the collection agencies. Spotify means the music industry gets to say "look, music startups are doing great!", hiding the fact that most prospective music startups won't ever have the chance to get the kind of licensing deal Spotify got by handing over equity to the labels.

I'm not meaning to bash on Spotify as a service - it's brilliant. But it's not
an indicator that the music industry "finally gets it". The music industry is
just as screwed and stupid as it's always been, and their backing of Spotify
is so politicised it's hard to see it as a good sign.

[1] [http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/spotify-
had-a-16-66m-los...](http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/spotify-
had-a-16-66m-loss-in-2009-a-rumoured-us-launch-is-now-imperative/)

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/this-is-quite-possibly-
the-...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/this-is-quite-possibly-the-spotify-
cap-table/)

------
jbail
I wonder why Spotify gets the press for not being able to negotiate the deals
required to bring their service to the States when companies like MOG are
already offering pretty much the same thing?

I understand MOG doesn't have a free version and that's the utopian dream of
Spotify (so says Wired) --- but Spotify bled money out their noses last year.
They were hundreds of millions of dollars in the red. I can't speak to MOG's
profitability (I don't have info for them), but I guess as someone who lives
in the States where people get sued over music, I look at Spotify and then at
competing services like MOG and just sort of shrug my shoulders over $5/mo to
get unlimited music onto all of my devices.

~~~
CoryMathews
I always wondered the same. Especially when grooveshark (an amazing app by the
way) essentially offers the same thing. Free streaming, huge library, etc.
With the exception of the excellent free word of mouth advertising spotify has
been getting.

~~~
citricsquid
grooveshark stream their music unlicensed (except for a small amount they have
licensed, but it's a relatively small amount) and make money from it.
Grooveshark is _wrong_ and I'd personally love to see them shut down. As much
as the music industry is fucked up, unless you have permission to profit from
someones content you _shouldn't_ but grooveshark do and abuse the DMCA safe
harbors.

Sure if grooveshark wasn't for profit then _maybe_ it'd be justifiable, but
they profit off a product they don't own or have the permission to, it's lame
and entirely immoral. It's limewire but with the content stored in one
place... they must have some damn good lawyers.

~~~
kin
Though it may seem that way Grooveshark actually has a system compensating
labels per time song is played. The unethical part is that its an opt-in
system. In other words, they steal first and pay back later if asked nicely.
On a plus, they do promote independent bands and offer compensation for such.
So, I wouldn't go as far as saying they're like Limewire.

------
JonnieCache
It is as amazing a UX as people describe it to be. Believe the hype. I have
never once had more than 100-200ms lag when playing/seeking a track. And we
use it a lot.

And it has almost everything I've ever searched for on it. These days it is
starting to become more likely for obscure, independently-distributed music to
be there than not to be there.

The data structure it puts your local music metadata index into is performant
enough to search terabytes of mp3s without getting bogged down. No other music
software I've tried can do this.

And it streams in ogg. What more do you want.

~~~
Waywocket
>These days it is starting to become more likely for obscure, independently-
distributed music to be there than not to be there.

YMMV. I use Spotify a fair bit, despite having a fairly crappy UI (not that
it's too bad, just annoying in places), but there's no way in hell I'd pay for
it unless at least one of the following things were true:

1) The premium version cost just £5 a month - The £10 it actually costs would
cover a new album each month, which is a permanent asset worth more to me than
being able to listen to their selection for a limited period. There is a £5 a
month subscription, but it doesn't have mobile or offline mode, so it's near
useless. Ironically, I might not feel that way if the premium option simply
_didn't exist_ , but putting them side-by-side looks like naked profiteering.

2) I could search for something and expect _at least_ an 85% chance of finding
it. The current 50%-ish is nowhere near good enough to pay that much for. I
listen to a fair bit of European techno/rock/metal/industrial and those seem
to be particularly weak areas. If you can have a conversation with a random
person in a pub about a band, there's a good chance they have it I guess, but
even then there are a lot of surprising gaps. For a random example, my last
search was for something (anything) by Arcade Fire, but no joy.

As you say, it is technically very well designed - very responsive, and even
without offline mode it buffers well enough that the frequent dropouts in my
crappy ADSL connection haven't caused any problems I can recall. I just feel
that it's overpriced for such a limited selection.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> current 50%-ish_

I think the rave/electronica scene must be hotter than average on uploading
their stuff to aggregators. It is starting to become standard for the artist-
owned labels to be on there. I even see a good number of 'bedroom' producers
without any record deal turning up now.

~~~
Waywocket
Could be - it would make sense for them as it's a good way to increase their
exposure. I wonder if there might also be some correlation with whether or not
Spotify is available in the artist's country.

------
bdb
Except, um, you can use it in the States. Spin up a cheap VPS in one of their
licensed countries, <http://www.lowendbox.com/tag/uk/> share it with some
friends, ssh -D, point Spotify at your proxy... not hard.

~~~
jmtulloss
The article isn't written for people that know how to do that.

~~~
bdb
Of course. But it was posted here, and most of the people here know how to do
that.

My real message, which was obfuscated by the snark in my original post, was
that it's worth checking out for the user experience alone -- in an age where
we're all out building web apps, it's pretty cool to see a new thick desktop
client that is just so good.

------
cannedprimates
There's a paper about Spotify's internals which is quite interesting:
[http://www.nada.kth.se/~gkreitz/spotify-p2p10/spotify-p2p10....](http://www.nada.kth.se/~gkreitz/spotify-p2p10/spotify-p2p10.pdf)
(another happy user here)

------
Locke1689
Thus far my alternative to Spotify in the US has been Grooveshark. Since I've
never used Spotify I don't know if it's as good but it seems close (feature-
parity-wise).

