Aww man, you know how to make it rain on parade day.
LOL, sorry, but it's best that you hear it now rather than keep your hopes up for the whole year only to be disappointed. You will have to be apart of the subscription service anyway to use the iPhone app. I had your same thinking a year ago.
We can only hope that it happens but I'd recommend Rhapsody in the mean time. Chances are it will cost the same as Spotify in the US and allows local caching of songs as well. It's not as quick as Spotify on the desktop and iPhone but it offers many of the same features. Chances are also that there will be no free ad-based version of Spotify on the desktop when it comes here, if ever.
Have been using Spotify for the last 6 mths and very pleased with it. Like other posters i have never used or bought a music track from iTunes since.
You guys in the US will enjoy using it.
Apple will eventually kill it off though when they finally get around to the streaming model as it'll not just be music on offer, it'll be the whole kit and caboodle.
"But no one has figured out how to rent music at a price that satisfies consumers, the labels and the music services. At least not on a large scale."
Spotify has done it...
But he forgot one thing. The Artists! The deal has to be good for the Artists. Without them, there wouldn't be any iTunes, Spotify or whatever. So it's really not very cool of Spotify to go and make music free. It's not like the artist gets any more money when their album is interrupted by a commercial. It's just not right.
Apple is in a real special position here. They don't really have to get paid for the music... They just need to cover server and system costs as long as they sell enough iPhones and iPods. So if there is someone who could host a great low price rental service, that is reasonable for the artists - it's Apple.
I started using Spotify about a 18 months ago and haven't use iTunes since. Ok. I lie. I had a few albums that weren't available on Spotify, so I had to use iTunes for them, but with the new update to Spotify, I've been able to import all the unavailable albums into Spotify, meaning I don't think I'll ever need to use iTunes again. I upgraded to Premium about 8 months ago.
To answer a few of your questions ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Does Spotify restrict its users to one device? (or one device at any given moment in time?)
I've got Spotify Premium on my MacBook Pro, Mac mini and iPhone. The Premium service works on all three, but I can only stream music on one at a time. When I start streaming on a second client, music on the first client will stop. That said, I can download songs to any of the clients and then disconnect them from the internet, allowing me to stream music from one client and play local music on another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Does Spotify play ads when you stream your own (purchased) music to your devices?
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking here ... my sister uses Spotify on her Windows PC, but hasn't got Premium, so she has to listen to adverts every now and again. That said, she's got a load of local songs imported into the library and when she listens to them, she doesn't get any adverts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Does Spotify restrict the streaming of your own music to your devices to only those who have a paid $15 subscription?
Apple is in a real special position here. They don't really have to get paid for the music... They just need to cover server and system costs as long as they sell enough iPhones and iPods. So if there is someone who could host a great low price rental service, that is reasonable for the artists - it's Apple.
Spotify hasn't done it. It hasn't been available in the US for a reason. The reason is that the profits haven't been enough to circumvent the current system. They will not release a desktop version that is ad-based.
Apple is having trouble right now because the industry resents them for allowing the downloading of singles as opposed to whole albums. They're losing money but truthfully it's because of the quality of music they're promoting.
As to your last sentence, Google could do the same and possibly better since they have more experience in the cloud. They don't care about hardware sales as long as people can use their product and gathering as much information on them as possible.
This is good news, always nice to have more choices for music, especially if these guys are DRM free. Now we have Amazon and iTunes, if spotify is any good (and it looks like it is) we will have three good sources of music and (hopefully) a cheaper price per track.
This is good news, always nice to have more choices for music, especially if these guys are DRM free. Now we have Amazon and iTunes, if spotify is any good (and it looks like it is) we will have three good sources of music and (hopefully) a cheaper price per track.
Am sure Apple would love to buy Spotify, but as explined here the record compaies own a chunk - they would never sell. Record companies - understandably- want a world that they control not apple.
Like the others who have actually used Spotify I hardly ever turn on itunes anymore.
I talked about it to a bunch of friends, they now all use it. I've been paying a subscription fee for the past year and love it; 15? (10$) for unlimited music, that's great!
Spotify rocks. Can't wait until they get here. Not allowed to buy from them because I live in NY. The service is excellent, like Pandora yet so much more useful.
Yay!
I agree. When I saw it I was impressed. However I won't touch anything if I don't own the music. Why don't we own the music? Also can we choose 320 kbps? I don't touch anything that isn't 320 kbps. None of this godawful 192kbps crap.
But he forgot one thing. The Artists! The deal has to be good for the Artists. Without them, there wouldn't be any iTunes, Spotify or whatever. So it's really not very cool of Spotify to go and make music free. It's not like the artist gets any more money when their album is interrupted by a commercial. It's just not right.
Screw the artists again!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Artists are getting abused again.
When are they going to realize that the music industry is about lining executive pockets not creatives.
Screw the artists again!?! See these 2 great articles:
Between the hardware makers and online music services, nobody is talking about the artists, and how they are getting screwed from all sides! Without the artists there won't be any music! They can't give their work away endlessly, and, if they don't get paid somehow, how are they to produce their music?! It's a catch 22....
I agree. When I saw it I was impressed. However I won't touch anything if I don't own the music. Why don't we own the music? Also can we choose 320 kbps? I don't touch anything that isn't 320 kbps. None of this godawful 192kbps crap.
If you pay for the premium version, you get a higher bit rate.
Not sure about the subs model or even streaming (does Spotify do video?) but one thing's for sure. Apple needs to add iTunes media to the MobileMe cloud for streaming/peer-syncing pronto. The whole non-wireless iTunes sync and having to dock iPods/Phones/Pads physically with a machine is a total nonsense.
Comments
Aww man, you know how to make it rain on parade day.
LOL, sorry, but it's best that you hear it now rather than keep your hopes up for the whole year only to be disappointed. You will have to be apart of the subscription service anyway to use the iPhone app. I had your same thinking a year ago.
We can only hope that it happens but I'd recommend Rhapsody in the mean time. Chances are it will cost the same as Spotify in the US and allows local caching of songs as well. It's not as quick as Spotify on the desktop and iPhone but it offers many of the same features. Chances are also that there will be no free ad-based version of Spotify on the desktop when it comes here, if ever.
Artists hate spotify because they get paid pretty much nothing. Its like 000.1 cent per song played.
Recordlabels see it more as promotion.
But for users its pretty good.
You have to pay to be able to use it on your iPhone. Subscription.
I use it alot.
But then again i'm Swedish and Spotify is Ã* Swedish company.
....Its like 000.1 cent per song played..
least its better than 00000000.1 cent per song.
You guys in the US will enjoy using it.
Apple will eventually kill it off though when they finally get around to the streaming model as it'll not just be music on offer, it'll be the whole kit and caboodle.
"But no one has figured out how to rent music at a price that satisfies consumers, the labels and the music services. At least not on a large scale."
Spotify has done it...
But he forgot one thing. The Artists! The deal has to be good for the Artists. Without them, there wouldn't be any iTunes, Spotify or whatever. So it's really not very cool of Spotify to go and make music free. It's not like the artist gets any more money when their album is interrupted by a commercial. It's just not right.
Apple is in a real special position here. They don't really have to get paid for the music... They just need to cover server and system costs as long as they sell enough iPhones and iPods. So if there is someone who could host a great low price rental service, that is reasonable for the artists - it's Apple.
When are they going to realize that the music industry is about lining executive pockets not creatives.
To answer a few of your questions ...
Does Spotify restrict its users to one device? (or one device at any given moment in time?)
I've got Spotify Premium on my MacBook Pro, Mac mini and iPhone. The Premium service works on all three, but I can only stream music on one at a time. When I start streaming on a second client, music on the first client will stop. That said, I can download songs to any of the clients and then disconnect them from the internet, allowing me to stream music from one client and play local music on another.
Does Spotify play ads when you stream your own (purchased) music to your devices?
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking here ... my sister uses Spotify on her Windows PC, but hasn't got Premium, so she has to listen to adverts every now and again. That said, she's got a load of local songs imported into the library and when she listens to them, she doesn't get any adverts.
Does Spotify restrict the streaming of your own music to your devices to only those who have a paid $15 subscription?
Not sure what you're asking here :S
Spotify has done it...
Apple is in a real special position here. They don't really have to get paid for the music... They just need to cover server and system costs as long as they sell enough iPhones and iPods. So if there is someone who could host a great low price rental service, that is reasonable for the artists - it's Apple.
Spotify hasn't done it. It hasn't been available in the US for a reason. The reason is that the profits haven't been enough to circumvent the current system. They will not release a desktop version that is ad-based.
Apple is having trouble right now because the industry resents them for allowing the downloading of singles as opposed to whole albums. They're losing money but truthfully it's because of the quality of music they're promoting.
As to your last sentence, Google could do the same and possibly better since they have more experience in the cloud. They don't care about hardware sales as long as people can use their product and gathering as much information on them as possible.
This is good news, always nice to have more choices for music, especially if these guys are DRM free. Now we have Amazon and iTunes, if spotify is any good (and it looks like it is) we will have three good sources of music and (hopefully) a cheaper price per track.
Apple should have bought spotify.
This is good news, always nice to have more choices for music, especially if these guys are DRM free. Now we have Amazon and iTunes, if spotify is any good (and it looks like it is) we will have three good sources of music and (hopefully) a cheaper price per track.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/n...s&newsid=26830
Am sure Apple would love to buy Spotify, but as explined here the record compaies own a chunk - they would never sell. Record companies - understandably- want a world that they control not apple.
Like the others who have actually used Spotify I hardly ever turn on itunes anymore.
You don't have to believe anything. It is perfectly OK to think different.
C'mon. There are plenty of other areas. For example, Apple has no search capabilities.
Why are you so negative, so anti-Apple, in every one of your posts?
It must stink to inhabit your world.
Go on, get out, get a life. Seriously.
least its better than 00000000.1 cent per song.
Post of the day.
Spotify rocks. Can't wait until they get here. Not allowed to buy from them because I live in NY. The service is excellent, like Pandora yet so much more useful.
Yay!
I agree. When I saw it I was impressed. However I won't touch anything if I don't own the music. Why don't we own the music? Also can we choose 320 kbps? I don't touch anything that isn't 320 kbps. None of this godawful 192kbps crap.
Also can we choose 320 kbps? I don't touch anything that isn't 320 kbps. None of this godawful 192kbps crap.
Guess you wouldn't be satisfied by "CD quality" 128 kbps
Spotify has done it...
But he forgot one thing. The Artists! The deal has to be good for the Artists. Without them, there wouldn't be any iTunes, Spotify or whatever. So it's really not very cool of Spotify to go and make music free. It's not like the artist gets any more money when their album is interrupted by a commercial. It's just not right.
Screw the artists again!?!
Artists are getting abused again.
When are they going to realize that the music industry is about lining executive pockets not creatives.
Screw the artists again!?! See these 2 great articles:
http://bit.ly/aQUM6g & http://bit.ly/o0wQ5
Between the hardware makers and online music services, nobody is talking about the artists, and how they are getting screwed from all sides! Without the artists there won't be any music! They can't give their work away endlessly, and, if they don't get paid somehow, how are they to produce their music?! It's a catch 22....
I agree. When I saw it I was impressed. However I won't touch anything if I don't own the music. Why don't we own the music? Also can we choose 320 kbps? I don't touch anything that isn't 320 kbps. None of this godawful 192kbps crap.
If you pay for the premium version, you get a higher bit rate.
McD