Very often, when a song comes up, I will want to delete it from my current playlist because it no longer interests me. In many years it has been practically impossible in the UI. The only way to do it is to hunt through thousands of songs, then click on a context menu to delete it, despite this being something that would be incredibly easy to add to the current song interface and accomplish in one second (Adding the same song to a playlist is an option there).
So why is this the case?
I recently realized that preventing me from cleaning up my playlist means MORE SKIPS for Spotify. They can shove more ads in my face by forcing me to listen to more stuff I don't care about over time. It sounds silly but I would bet money that this is the reason considering how technically simple this feature is and how large the value would be.
It is a power user feature.... and most likely nobody bothered to prioritize it as it wont be changing any metrics at all.
Spotify (the desktop client), had all kinds of features (drag and drop, etc..), that were nice but were eventually dropped in the sub-sequential redesigns.
The realization was that less of 2% of the users were using any of those features, and many of those features had costs (extra code, more maintenance, etc)....
Of course, many employees are power users themselves, and some were not happy, but over and over it seems that dropping those features didn't hurt metrics, actually improved them (usually because the UI got more simplified, less cluttered).
That little feature is missing, (and annoying you so much) simply because Spotify is a large company now, and nobody (usually either a PM, or senior engineer) has thought that including it, because it doesn't have a large impact.
When the company was smaller, engineers could just jump in and implement little things that 'annoyed' them. Once the company is large, is gets harder to do that.
That just how it is in most tech companies when they reach a certain size.
The whole purpose of playlists is to organise songs, and almost the entire usecase for removing a song from a playlist is to remove the currently playing song. I almost never want to remove a song under any other circumstances.
This shouldn’t be a power feature, but Spotify makes it unnecessarily difficult to do on the fly.
Those might all be true for the majority of users, or it might be that you're an outlier. The only way to know is to actually sample real world users.
I understand not everything that can make it in and I understand not making features for power users, especially ones that clutter up the UI.
But this is a basic use case. Maybe people use Spotify differently than I do, but I would assume they add their favorite songs to a playlist, put it on shuffle, and that's basically it. Having this functionality be effectively append only doesn't make sense to me.
I don't see adding one extra option, which would logically fit next to "Add to Playlist", to this context menu with 8 options to be crazy.
Another user stepped in to let me know that playlists can be filtered with Ctrl-F. Now that's a feature for power users if I ever heard of one.
I have a paid account and have the same difficulty removing tracks from a playlist via a mobile device. There are no ads on my account, yet the UX is the same, so I'm not sure that that would be their reasoning. Your idea sounds silly because it is, IMO.
It's similar (well opposite) to Github commits view, where clicking a user avatar will send you to his profile, while clicking his nickname will show you all his commits in the current repo.
It's not a very good affordance.
And it's still too many click IMO.
To be fair, the article acknowledges songs were already getting shorter in the 90s, after getting longer with LPs and CDs.
It was a beautiful song
but it ran too long
If you're gonna have a hit
you gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05.
It's crazy how technical and deep the music production space is becoming.
A bit of a fallacy. Awards aren’t judged against music ever recorded, but against peers released in the same year. Quality could very well be going down or going up, but that would be a trend that can’t be measured across a single award season.
Yet my preferred song "service" is BGM on youtube - 10 hours of someone playing jazz. I think we shall see multiple markets developing as song type, duration and other variables are played with.
Money (and security required for the lack of it) is unfortunately a big incentive in society's producton of art, and one look at the "culture industry" tells you more than you need to know.
Who is to say shorter attention spans aren't part of the cause?
Another important missing bit of information - what percentage of the song needs to be listened to for it to count as a full play? Is it 100%? That seems to be what is implied by the article.
> Still, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how much streaming has contributed to the recent shortening of songs. The length of pop songs had already been falling through the 1990s, before accelerating in recent years. Some music industry observers blame shortening attention spans—but there isn’t much rigorous evidence that our ability to focus has changed (paywall). Others believe that shorter songs may be a result of more consumer choice—songs need to be more compact and catchy to stand out in the crowd.
Interesting that the last part of the url is "is-spotify-making-songs-shorter". Maybe that was the original title and the editor wanted more clickbait?