this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
556 points (90.1% liked)

Technology

57432 readers
3325 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 260 points 8 months ago (32 children)

Sometimes, I see some of the takes on here, and it's hardly surprising that the fediverse isn't particularly popular.

Spotify are somewhat responsible for their current position. They hired too many people, extended into markets they didn't need to enter, and have a CEO that has blown money in places that didn't need it. Let's not forget that Spotify spent $300m on sponsoring FC Barcelona, which could have allowed Spotify to employ ALL of the employees it laid off for 1-2 years. Spotify had no need to give $200m to Joe Rogan, either! That's half a billion spunked up the wall on decisions that have done nothing for the company but cause grief. Instead, they could have focused their efforts on paying more out to smaller artists that provide the long tail for their service, while also making deals to promote merch and tour dates where possible.

With that being said, if you think that Spotify didn't play a huge part in making music streaming accessible you're just being contrarian for no reason. They provided (at the time) a solid application, good connectivity with services like last.fm, and had the social connection sorted from the start. Once phones took off, Spotify removed the need for mp3's for the majority of people, largely killing iTunes. Spotify was the winner of the music streaming wars.

Frankly, a lot of people were praising Spotify for their "good" severance package, but IMO shareholders should be livid, and should be calling for a new person at the helm.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 8 months ago (2 children)

removed the need for.mp3s

Im not sure this was a win

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It didn't buy the format and then cancelled it, it did it purely by providing a more convenient way of listening to music than downloading mp3s, so yes, it's a win

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I personally think mp3's are more convinient. I don't have to use multiple subscriptions to access to platforms exclusivities , i don't need to worry about songs becoming unavailable. I have a big playlist on spotify with a lot of grayed out songs. Also, local music players are a lot better than any streaming service player.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah, people often forget about the gray ones, even on yt music my music playlist that works fine on the video app, has some songs greyed out when I tried to listen to it inside yt music.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Also it hasn't, because having your actual collection on a streaming service is leagues less convenient than a bunch of mp3s on a hard drive.

load more comments (29 replies)