Comments on: Spotify – The future of music delivery?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:50:09 +0000

Hey – i liked your post. Would you mind sending me an invite please?

By: merk

merk — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:25:04 +0000

yes it does.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:52:12 +0000

Does Spotify use p2p to distribute the data?

By: Daniel Hoffmann-Gill

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:30:55 +0000

I’m so into this, it hurts.

By: Merk

Merk — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:48:12 +0000

Wow, quite a lot there Jon!

Firstly I’d say I’m not convinced about the pricing structure, £9.99 a month, over a hundred pound a year – I’m not sure that many people will pay out that sort of money just yet, especially given that you cannot take this music with you if you go for a run, while your on a train or driving to work. If it got to this point in the future then I can see no reason to download and store music, however I think this is a long way off.

As an employee of an ISP I can tell you that we in the industry are very much against the idea of a surcharge, not least because it risks opening the floodgates of more surcharges from anyone who feels they’re owed a living. The thought of passing on this charge to our customers who do not download music is commercial suicide. Yes, the record companies have suffered because of this but they have done little to convince the public that they deserve the help, their approach for far too long has been wrong and has won them no fans. Throwing legal threats to children and their parents, accusing people of copyright theft without any reasonable proof etc. Even people who didn’t download illegally were inspired to do so to show their frustration at the industry.

Compare this to Radiohead’s ‘pay what you think it’s worth’ download of their last album – most people who posses that album paid for it. They did this because the band didn’t treat them like criminals, and they were rewarded for it.

An opt in and out scheme is a great idea but unworkable – how can you stop those who haven’t paid the fee downloading what they want? Unless there was only one source on the whole internet to buy your music from – can’t see the anti-trust/monopolies commissions going for that.

There is much to do (portability issues, available internet access, pricing structure, global access) however I truly believe that a streaming service such as (but not limited to) Spotify could be the way we choose to listen to music in the future, only time will tell.

By: Jon Randelman

Jon Randelman — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:21:53 +0000

This an excellent post on a fantastic new music streaming site. As an American, I have not had to chance to test Spotify out, but I am interested to see how it plays out in the UK and whether or not it ends up being ported to the states. The fact that the developers are currently working on taking it to mobile devices could really make it an attractive option if it is done correctly. I was curious as to what you thought about the pricing levels for Spotify on both the single day and monthly passes. Do they seem reasonable to you and do you think the average UKer would be willing to put money down on it month after month? I am not totally sold on the concept of subscription models at this point in their product cycle for the reasons you mentioned, most importantly the fact that you cannot take them into your car and drive with them yet. As someone who listens to a majority of music while driving, it does not seem like a reasonable expenditure to me yet. Until this portability happens, do you think people will really be willing to switch over from downloading mp3s illegally, as some 95% are done today, to listening to ad based music? Without the portability it does not seem likely that the majority of the population would be willing to switch over to a service that would seem to be inferior to just downloading music and taking it with you, regardless of the legality of doing such a thing.
Along the same line of thought, I am not entirely unconvinced that an ISP surcharge is a bad idea, particularly while the technology for streaming devices is still in the beginning of its product cycle. It would appear that a surcharge would at least provide a blanket to cover all of the illegal downloading and give record labels some much needed cash inflow. It would be interesting to see how it would compete with streaming services if say there was an opt in or out clause that made downloading mp3s legal and free as long as you agreed to pay the monthly fee for that right. If they made the monthly fee’s similar to what Spotify and other streamers charge, do you think ad supported music would still exist as a truly viable option that would dominate the online market?

By: Kitch

Kitch — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:38:37 +0000

its awesome

By: rational_geekery » Blog Archive » Spotify = glorious

rational_geekery » Blog Archive » Spotify = glorious — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:39:55 +0000

[...] bigdaddymerk I have been introduced to Spotify, an industry-backed initiative to sake people’s demand for [...]

By: Austin

Austin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:48:26 +0000

Stav hooked me up with this and it is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:43:07 +0000

Sounds really good. I hadn’t heard about it.

Hook a brother up with an invite, old chap?

By: Stavros

Stavros — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:15:39 +0000

Spotify is a gift from the heavens. You forgot to mention the joys of creating playlists and sharing them with other people, or building collabrative playlists. Happy days indeed. The ads have only annoyed me once, when I was listening to The Avalanches and all the tracks seam into the next except for once when Moira Stuart interrupted to tell me about filling in tax returns. Put me right off me groove I tell yous!

By: Sim-O

Sim-O — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:09:13 +0000

Well said, that man.

I bloomin’ hate commercial radio, and even with the BBC you still get loads of crud, but because I’m listening to a radio that *only* plays what I want, i can live with the ads.

For me, so far, it’s WIN all round.