— Ross Grady, missing the point.

This has nothing to do with Spotify and everything to do with the market for streaming services.

It takes an unbelievable amount of money to operate a service like Spotify and consumers have not yet demonstrating a willingness to pay more than $10-15/mo for pretty much any mainstream digital subscription.

That leaves a very small amount for artists. Which is wrong. But what are you going to do?

Either customers pay more, which they won't.

Or artists leave Spotify for platforms that pay them more in hope the increased cut compensates for significantly lower volume, which is unlikely.

Or someone finds a way to run a global streaming service at such a reduced cost that some savings can be passed onto the artists, which would've happened already if possible.

So, I don't really care what someone from the New Yorker has to say about Joe Rogan, as they join the cancel crusade.

If anything, I may sign up for Spotify for standing up against cancel culture, and I won't be subscribing to the New Yorker at time soon.

Tidal https://tidal.com/

Deezer https://www.deezer.com/

Bandcamp https://bandcamp.com/

Jango https://www.jango.com/

Radio Paradise https://radioparadise.com/

Qobuz https://www.qobuz.com/

Pandora https://www.pandora.com/

I dislike the possibility, however remote, of being cut off from my music at the whim of a service provider or the government. I come from India, the current government is ever so trigger happy about cutting off the internet and/or web sites because someone said something that did not show them in the best of lights.

I can just go on YouTube, turn an ad blocker on, and there we go. It's not curated, there's no playlist, there's no buffering on my phone when I go underground, the general experience is worse, etc. But that's literally free. Without the ad blocker, it's ad supported, okay, so it's like default spotify without paying.

But it's there and it has been for like, ten years now. In fact I find that YT has loads of stuff that's not on Spotify at all.

If you're disappointed that it turns out that most people ended up not paying for music once they had the choice, fine. But like, the idea that it's somehow unsustainable is obviously wrong, and calling it unethical is pretty opinionated (how is it unethical for me to click on a Beatles video when they're all either dead or fantastically wealthy?)

I've been considering cancelling Spotify for ages, I've been on and off. The only thing that keeps me using the platform is that it's more convenient - it's like buying a coffee at the motorway services instead of making one from a bag of coffee, a cafetiere, and a kettle in my car. I can do it, I just don't want to sometimes.

No need to abandon something I never bothered with in first place.

Good free-tier, amazing premium service and price, an unbelievably large collection of artists and music, strong privacy protection without the need to provide credit card details (for free tier) or mobile phone numbers, in a super-polished and easy to use package, without all the terrible data-collection.

They really have become the kings of music streaming.

Are you kidding me? If you don’t like something about Spotify, switch to Amazon or Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer, or a dozen others.

This seems like “As much as I dislike Bing, I cannot envision life without it!”

YouTube Music is great – no DRM, one subscription for music and getting rid of YouTube ads (while supporting your favorite video creators far better than ads do).

The musician can add value to the albums by making it a beautiful package with lots of extra details and behind the scenes of the music.

For example: a box set

https://us-store.deutschegrammophon.com/products/hilary-hahn...

I also don't like the amount they payout to artists. I'm no saint, I used to be on napster and limewire, but now having a decent paying job, I buy albums again from services like Bleep. As I like a lot of indie stuff, I think it's important they get a decent cut because I don't think many of them are selling in the millions.

I still don't feel much guilt pirating the odd movie, especially as it's no longer possible to sign up for a single provider, I now have to sign up for multiple services. And twenty bucks is too damn much for a single VOD

But the media I use most, mostly video games and music, I really don't mind paying.

Another way to look at Spotify is actually trying to recover some of this money for artists.

You're probably on the wrong track when your example happens to involve people whose level of success / compensation is so wildly outlier that they're not even representative of the top 10% (not to mention established under an entirely different distribution order). Of course marginal dollars don't matter as much in that case, let alone marginal pennies.

But they do matter quite a bit at the scale where people are within striking distance (above or below) of the transition point between making a living at music and not making a living at it. That's where ethics of supporting people whose work you apparently value would matter most.

There, YouTube's economics are also pretty unethical (from what I've heard their payouts are about half of Spotify and maybe adblockers make it worse). About the only saving grace is that everyone knows it's an essentially free show; no one is under the illusion they've participated in some kind of economically artist-supporting transaction when they watch a YouTube video, so those who feel some obligation on that front know they still need to do it. Spotify sometimes presents itself or is forwarded as a solution / alternative to piracy, giving it the veneer of an artist-supporting transaction when the more frequent reality is that its fractional nature pushes the point at which audience engagement can support artists economically up farther.

But how’s the audio quality? Is it as good as Spotify?