To be fair they should pay per second. Here's an idea for Spotify: $0.0002/second This way you don't discriminate between songs. It would actually even out to $0.007/play as a pop song lasts 150 seconds on average.
One click (online advertising) takes a fraction of a second. One song could last for several minutes. Which brings me to the second question: Do you need to listen through the complete song or just the first thirty seconds? If you do have to listen to the complete song, then this system would discriminate between songs: Sugar coated pop songs got an advantage as they only last 150 seconds on average. Classic music or alternative music (like Pink Floyd) could last 20+...
It is ridiculous, isn't it? Before today I did not realise you could charge less than a penny? Well, apparently you can. Also, what does Apple mean by 'play'? Is this the complete song or the first thirty seconds? Just my 0.2 cents, If I were an artist I would put my songs on autoplay, 24/7.
Uh Oh, Am I getting my math wrong 2 cent = $0.02 20 cent = $0.2 = $0.20 because $1.00 = 100 cent Right? So, $0.002 is actually one fifth of a cent => $0.002 x 5 = $0.01 = $0.010 - - - - -EDIT:Okay, I got it. Apple is paying 0.2 cents, which is a fifth of one cent! I misread the title as 2 cents. You're right, Spotify is the more generous one:$0.007 (Spotify) > $0.002 (Apple)
I am not so keen of replacing a physical home button with a new pair of gestures.
I see my dad making regular use of the home button whenever he feels lost. Why change it with something more complex/obscure?