Spotify is being hypocritical af :(.
Our users experience degradated a lot and every few weeks our hacks stop working and we need to update user agents we use to simulate browser. Spotify is actively trying to bring us down.
We're all hypocrites, and we're all looking after our own interests...
How am I hypocritical? I am just in favour of not locking in users, and we do not lock in users.
Spotify wants Apple to not change TOS to their favour while doing exactly the same.
So why the surprise that Spotify is doing the same? Yes, it's hypocritical for them to say "Apple locking in users is unfair" then do the same in a situation that benefits them. But to your point, it is human to look out for one's own interests and Spotify is a group of humans doing just that. That doesn't make it right, but would you behave differently in their situation?
Oh, that wasn't about you specifically, just humans in general. We aren't internally consistent, we are all hypocrites.
It isn't a criticism :)
And we're all in favor of no lock-in until it conflicts with our own interests.
For that reason, I've never bothered to make Spotify playlists, because I realized I might be locking myself in to begin with. The current generation of streaming users are now discovering something similar to what I did back then.
I do have some playlists on Youtube (whose selection is far bigger when you consider bootlegs, B-sides, unreleased tracks, demos etc), but I take a screenshot of it every now and then so I'll have a copy.
I nearly always own a digital copy of what I listen to, so there's really no reason to store your playlists on Spotify at all.
https://github.com/bitsofpancake/spotify-backup (Python, JSON backup)
YouTube-dl can dump public playlists for YouTube (you might need jq to pretty it up), Google Takeout should export your private playlists.
It would be awesome if music licenses were portable. Holding collections hostage reminds me of how carriers made it difficult or impossible to keep your phone number when moving between them.
While brand new exclusive content is hard to imagine being portable (since it is often locked to a particular service) it seems to me that generic user music collections should be made portable.
It doesn't 'move' your playlists to other services but it gives you a record of all of your playlists that you can control and store locally.
Unfortunately it's not as good as Calcy IV. There are also iOS apps, but they require manual screenshotting.
So ... It's forbidden to use Spotify's API?
I currently stay with Spotify because of its decently good UX (despite constant, nonsensical A/B testing) and because I had the impression they were behaving well. This perception is fragile.
I'm not sure making your service less attractive to users will increase your stock price either.
We make money from user playlists data (which we believe should belong to user) and I don't treat our usecase as integrating with others, as we do it in 3 steps: download from Spotify, then import to somewhere else.
It was all fine for 2 year, but after IPO they changed their TOS for Developers.
There was either making our service less attractive or removing Spotify all together, so we had no choice. Don't really care about stock price ;), just want to keep the project going and allow others to be able to migrate between different services.
I like that with email on your own domain you can easily switch providers (which I recently did with google to protonmail). But there are many other solutions which are not so easy to switch which halts competition.
The second-worst aspect of this post is that it proves Spotify's point. Not only does the author attack and threaten Spotify from start to finish, but they reinforce that the primary use case is to leave Spotify for competitive services.
I do not have time and resources to set up new website like Spotify did.
Today when I saw Spotify asking Apple about being fair, I immediatelly though about our case from few months ago.
It's not like they did not implement something, they deliberatelly changed TOS for Developers and send email to us that we have to stop using their SDK which was ok to use just before IPO...
So they did exactly what they accuse Apple of doing: bending TOS to company's benefit.
tell application "iTunes"
repeat with p in playlists
log name of p as string
Bit of a history now, but it was just an applescript that used CSV to click through iTunes.
Apple Music has official SDK for both web and mobile. (even on Android)
Google Play Music is same case now as Spotify. We mimic their web API, but it's far from perfect as you need to use "app password" for login.
> The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the personal data have been provided
> In exercising his or her right to data portability pursuant to paragraph 1, the data subject shall have the right to have the personal data transmitted directly from one controller to another, where technically feasible.
Whether that will be enforced in any meaningfully useful way is debatable, but the format changing every day would seem to break the spirit at least.
Once we would need to use GDPR law to be able to export the data, then we would rather find a hacky way and pretent do be a user browsing their webpage. Just to offer best user experience for our customers.
> drag into textedit or equivalent
Not very useful for portability unless you plan on scraping the metadata from each URL.
For European residents, if you request a copy of your data (GDPR), you get your playlists as JSON. Granted, the data is not very elaborated, but it's a start:
"name": "Spotify Playlist Export Test",
"artistName": "Beastie Boys",
"trackName": "Unknown Track",
"artistName": "Unknown Artist",
"note": "LOCAL FILE"
Many people spend lots of time carefully creating playlists, consider them theirs, and would like to bring them with if and when they switch vendors.
> Why should Spotify go out of their way to make it easier for me to switch off of their platform.
The problem is that (allegedly) Spotify was fine with this, and then they weren't. Yes, everyone should know that everyone dependent on a platform is subject to their whims. However, it's still possible to find empathy with the author.
They've also recently started showing promoted tracks in "Release Radar" & "Discovery Weekly" which cannot be disliked. Just another reason to keep your mind open to other services.
I assume OP found spotify's actions hypocritical, which is why they posted this.
Then the question is whether we should see spotify's 'time to play fair' website as a true statement of principle, or a cynical attempt to sway public opinion against actions that harm it as a business, but that it would be more than happy to engage in itself if it were in apple's position.
Spotify's complaint against Apple is that they're abusing the App Store platform to an anticompetitive end because non-Apple apps have disadvantages on the platform that Apple's competing apps don't.
I think this owning-the-platform-while-also-selling-on-it situation we see Apple, Amazon, and others in is something that we will see formal regulations appear on in the coming decade.
For example if it just bought two podcast companies?
That situation would be more comparable to Netflix since you're just paying a bundled subscription and you're getting 3rd-party work as well as Netflix originals. While openness would be awesome to have, they don't really have any obligation to provide it.
Of course it's not exactly like Netflix since you can self-publish onto Spotify so there's wrinkles. But my point is that it's a lot different than operating a buying/selling marketplace.
But they are doing some things the same as netflix, in that they are also creating exclusive podcasts to drive traffic to their platform.
It is. They do a lot of product placement (https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/is-product-placement-g...).
They also don't have to pay others for views, though I expect that to be less of a motivation.