LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Restrictions to how many repetitions and total time kick in after six months.
Read more.Restrictions to how many repetitions and total time kick in after six months.
In my opinion, the [2nd] commenter is spot on. It really *is* worth the small subscription fee. I've subscribed to Spotify for over a year and I'd be lost without it. It use it at work, at home, on the train, on the bus. It's just wonderful.
I guess it's about finding the tipping point where somebody would rather pay the subscription than endure the hassle of pirating tracks. I'm not too ashamed to say that I'm an ex-music-pirate, but my MP3 collection has been long deleted. I don't understand the mentality of the crowd who prefer to posses hard copies of their music, but this works out much easier for my lifestyle. To each their own, I suppose.
Couldn't agree more, we are talking about £5 to £10 a month for a fantastic service. Well worth it IMO, though i would have prob cut it down to 5 plays a month...not ever as a gd middle ground!
Sorry but I can't agree. I just don't see the need. I was never a really into music until spotify free. I'll just go back to listening to online radio. The value of music to me just isn't that high as I only really use it to pass the day in the office.
I agree that Spotify is well worth the Premium subscription cost, i too have previously obtained music without paying for it, in the past i may have tried to justify it to myself because i could not always afford to buy it.
I am now in the situation where i can, and am happy to, pay for music. Most of the music that i have 'pirated' in the past i no longer posses or have since purchased.
I until recently have preferred to buy the CD album then rip to itunes for use on my iphone. I am less inclined to increase my CD collection now which takes up a large amount of space as i can access all this from various locations digitally via spotify. Also the thought of going through hundreds of albums to rip them all to digital copies on itunes.
I value the ability to listen to a huge choice of music as and when i want and am happy to pay for the privilege, granted the radio is free but what you listen to is dictated by the playlists of each radio station. I do listen to the radio too because i enjoy some of the inane chat of the DJ inbetween records.
BTW spotify:user:gccoles
Last edited by grizzla; 14-04-2011 at 01:44 PM.
It's just typical business behaviour. Get a bunch of people hooked on the promise of free stuff then ask them to pay for it later.
What it boils down to is, you have less money and they have more.
Cant justify the cost of it really... iirc its average quality rips @ 128kbps mp3 or something, personally i cant live with that as it doesnt fit my requirements. I want the best quality possible (lossless, hence hard CD's are required until someone offers FLAC download service!), for my desktop i have loads of storage available so streaming seems a bit unnecessary, and on my phone i have a 16gb microsd for all songs etc which fits a suprising amount really, also i dont want to be hit by data charges so i wouldnt want to stream on the go especially considering t-mobile throttle their network to something like 33KB/s.
However, i understand why people do want it... it has a good library from what i remember and its so easy to just think, " I want to listen to artist X new album" or you have heard something on the radio and can easily look for it and add it to your playlist, great!.
I have some Audio technica AD700's at home and i soon will have some excellent earphones so using the low quality rips are easily noticeable, if they did FLAC i would really consider it.
Originally Posted by snootyjim
That's a good summary...if you don't care about music and can't justify the cost get it free from exisiting channels i.e. Radio...if not then pay nice and simple.
It's funny how some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
I wonder how many people who pirate music and won't pay £10/month will happily pay £2.50 for some hot water, cow juice and ground up magic beans each morning......
I would say that Spotify is actually quite expensive for the quality it provides, the user interface as well... its as if someone copied iTunes, almost as badly as the original which is just an abysmal user interface to begin with.
The main thing they offer is the free version, and ultimately if they drive people away from that, then it will be because youtube offers them better quality. Pirating an album or two is quite easy, unless your on a uni network with a DC hub or whatever it is kids today use, its quite hard to pirate a library the size of Spotify.
Myself I find the Zune thing for the £8 or whatever it is a month, its still compressed but its slightly better. However ideally I think the sweet spot would be £5. Zune is a bit better value as you effectively get an album for keeps with it each month too, you can play it in more software, but its still DRM.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Can't see myself paying to be honest.
I do most of my listening in the car, and without an unlimited mobile data plan it's just not worth it. Also although they do have a failrly decent library it's far from comprehensive.
I use the free service occasionally to listen to new stuff to see if it's worth buying, but for now at least most of my listening is from ripped CDs.
But you can cash for listening offline later.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
i am sure that spotify streams at 320 kbps if you are a premium subscriber, i think all tracks are @ 160 kbps and some are available at higher bit rate to subscribers. While i would look to have the best quality sound through listening to my cd collection it is more convenient to connect my iphone to my av receiver and listen to anything spotify has to offer.
Yeah, Premium subscribers get 320Kbps, which is plenty good enough. Free is 120-160Kbps. Not sure about the 'Unlimited' tariff or whatever it's called at £5/month, wasn't available when I used Spotify.
I jumped to Zune. Much better service, you get unlimited access to the store for £9/month, as opposed to unlimited streaming (with offline caching) for £10/month.
I'm amazed that people can't justify a fiver a month for Spotify though; That's like... less than half the price of a new release CD...
Well, if nothing else, this thread perfectly illustrates one point - different people have different uses, different preferences and different values.
For me, the Spotify announcement has zero impact, because it's not a service I've ever used, and I can't imagine I ever would. One thing is absolutely certain, though, and that's that under no circumsatances would I use the "free" service if the "price" were adverts. Either it's worth paying for and I'd pay for it, or it's not and I wouldn't.
I guess I'm old school .... or prehistoric. I listen to the radio, when the mood catches me. If there's an artist I like, I'll buy the album, and I mean on CD. I will not simply buy digital rights, period. Not now, not ever. It's CD or nothing. So, an artist I like brings out a new album, I'll probably buy iy. I hear something I don't know but like on the radio, I'll probably buy the CD.
So, given that, Spotify, free or not, is of zero interest to me, because I'm not paying a subscription, and utterly detest adverts.
That's my preference, but I don't expect it to be a common one. Others will put up with adverts to get a free service and no doubt be miffed at this change. Yet others will (or already are) paying the sub, because to them, that's value for money.
As for this announcement, one of two things (IMHO) is happening. Either they've given stuff away for long enough to build brand recognition and a user-base, and are now monetarising it, or they aren't making enough from the "free" service because it's costing too much and advertising revenue from it is not cutting it any more. Or perhaps, both.
It seems to me to be a bit surly moaning about the service change, though. Those that don't mind advertising have been getting a "free" service, which was great while it lasted. But rarely does a freebie last forever.
im a premium subscriber, love ituse it mostly in the car
think its good value for money myself, the data usage is irrelevant really... you can use offline mode and store the tracks on your device, i do miss the physical media though as i have found myself buying less cds since subscribing to the service as everything is just so easy to obtain on demand, so am happy subscribing in that sense some money is going back to the artists,
think this debate will be torn over the so called ipod generation where people think they have a right to just steal that music :S
my thoughts to combat this... sell an album for say 2.99 instead of 12.99 and sell 100x more copies and make more revenue that way.
Do you ever read a newspaper? Adverts.
With the radio is it just the bbc you listen too?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
