I pay for the Spotify family plan and it has been a great experience.
I will continue to use prime for shipping, storage, and shows. But for music, so far, Spotify is the only service that checks all the marks.
That is after we'd repeated the song title/artist to it over and over and it eventually understood us.
New albums on CD are nearly universally under $10 now, and used CDs are even cheaper, so the price of Spotify is more than an album per month. That's a very steep price, and ultimately I think I'm happier buying 15 CDs per year than paying Spotify's subscription fees.
I don't see such high royalties are sustainable if Spotify can't be profitable under them.
I think for most people this is a non-starter, maybe you convert them to MP3s and sync them to all your devices?
Right now I use Spotify and can listen to my music at work, home, or on the go using my phone. And that's fine with me. I don't pay for Spotify though which means I have to listen to ads and their mobile experience isn't as good.
In any event, DRM free MP3s are usually within about $1 of the album price, and many of the places that sell MP3s have some option to stream from their cloud storage. I go with the shiny plastic discs because a) I'm a Luddite and b) some genres of music have audible distortions in mp3 (mainly pre-echo!) that I find bothersome when listening with headphones.
Quickly browsing through the current list, about half of them are songs I've heard on the radio in the past month.
Maybe one day I'll even switch from the free plan to paying them.
They could also expand the social features.
eBooks are also mentioned there, but you don't get a huge library for being a Prime member either. Rather, it's a selection of ~1000 written things (books, comics, magazines) that is constantly rotating. Kindle Unlimited is another $9.99/month. You can do the Kindle library thing as a prime member, but that's one book a month drawing from a similar pool as Kindle Unlimited, which often doesn't have current best sellers anyways.
I guess props to Amazon for being so confusing in their myriad content subscription options that the author couldn't get it right. To get the same kind of all-you-can-consume options that spotify provides across the different media mentioned it's actually ~$30/month. Still strikes me as odd how "cheap" TV and movies seem to be in this model. I'm very curious about that now.
Thanks for the correction on this -- I'll update the article with correct info. I'm not a Prime subscriber and the information on Prime benefits are completely intransparent.
And if I can't easily figure that out, it's unlikely that average consumer Joe will. The perceived value of each offering is the point here.
They're probably opaque, as well.
Between that and https://ec2instances.info/, I can figure out the vast majority of what I need to know about costs on AWS.
What are the gaps that you see?
“You are charged for each hour or partial hour that an Application Load Balancer is running and the number of Load Balancer Capacity Units (LCU) used per hour.”
Go here and see how “LCUs” are computed: https://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/pricing/
A rather obvious gap is this one - How much will an i3.xlarge with an extra 2TiB of storage cost you per month on AWS?
Ah yes. The creed of American media: The truth doesn't matter. All that matters is what the masses can be convinced to believe.
This statement regarding "perceived value" has nothing to do with "American media", "fake news" truth distorting or even politics.
It's baffling that you have chosen to stake such claims on the author.
Perceived value pricing is actually a marketing strategy.
Its used in factoring pricing for everything from gym memberships, to luxury good and delivery services.
I'm sure they pointed that way for TV content, too, when Netflix did House of Cards.
I think people want music that's "well known", music their peers also know about, and that goal is aligned with the big four labels, because they have the clout/infrastructure to get a song played on the radio etc., but it's not a causal relationship. With streaming becoming ever more popular, the idea that Spotify could achieve something similar, especially if they can tap into data to predict who's likely to like a new album, isn't too farfetched.
Some of the most talked-about shows in the country were only on cable.
Its hard to say if the discovery products are supposed to guide users to less expensive content, but is is an interesting theory. But showing users content they might not be aware of would necessarily go beyond the big labels that are everywhere. I think it has more to do with providing value that can't escape the platform due to external factors such as a label striking a deal with a competitor.
This doesn't work for Sony BMG of course, but consider a label like Ghostly International. Come for Tycho, find Com Truise, Lord Raja, Gold Panda, Shigeto, others).
Netflix doesn't have this problem, as a load of it's producers weren't playing ball anyway.
- Lyrics, and integrating Genius for 1/100th of the tracks in the catalogue is not enough.
- Concert tickets, in a smart and transparent way. A musician I'm listening to a lot is coming in Germany? I want a notification, a way to share it with my Spotify friends, and a way to pay in one click.
- Listen to songs that are only available on Spotify. I am so pissed off by Apple doing that and I think it sucks, but Netflix did it and seeing exclusive versions/remixs/concerts via Spotify would make the platform incredibly valuable to me.
Sounds hard? Well doing an IPO and competing against Apple, Amazon, and Google is not easy. The smart playlists are great, the brand is valued, time to go further.
Being able to buy the concert tickets simply and easily would be killer though. Especially if it meant I wasn't paying $14 "convenience fees"
With 9.99 you also get YouTube Red and the selection for play music seems to be huge when compared with Amazon Prime Music (At least enough for me). If I don't have a song in play, I can use YouTube app and it plays in background. This is important for regional songs as Spotify does not have a huge library for non English songs but YouTube has almost everything. I agree that the quality is not that great with YouTube, but that's something is not of a big deal for me. Does anyone feel like this?
What's your metrics to decide between Play, Apple and Spotify?
Apple is better in that regard, but its app distribution is massively limited compared to Spotify or even Google Play.
I was a free user for a long time and got the subscription last Christmas. You can tell they really spend time on UX. Clear examples of this are the running playlists that adapt to your speed. We can't really expect Google to match that, it's Spotify's core business after all.
Apple music requires a dedicated app for desktop playback (although spotify does too, if you want to play music offline) and doesn't work on linux (it may or may not work through wine).
... Since it's built on electron, though, it's basically the same as the web player. A chrome web app would do too, really.
But I guess it's a nod of appreciation.
There are also some nice single board computer based players based on this and that's nice.
I think on pricing Spotify shines with the Family plan which reduces the cost significantly.
Plus, those $12.99 only gets you the Spotify free equivalent from Amazon. The Amazon Music Unlimited is another $7.99
What's odd is that my Amazon Prime subscription already gives me unlimited access to Prime Videos without additional charge, I'm surprised that they use a different business model here.