I don't like that spotify are doing "podcasts". For me, poscasts are the last (popular) vestiges of the old web. I wish they would remain platform-free. The creators own servers and an RSS feed. Total control for the creators, noone to ask for permisson. Tell me I'm dreaming.
I don't like that Joe Rogan is on spotify. Never heard his show, I understand that he is some kind of post-radio chock-jock. However, I know that he is very popular so by bringing him on spotify is kind of cementing that spotify is how you do podcasts now.
I don't like that spotify felt the need to remove some old episodes for him. If they are really doing podcast they should buy the whole hog, including the warts.
I dont like that musicians are leaving spotify. Those that have very publicly left dont affect me much as it's not my style of music, but it's a bad trend.
As a Swede i personally know people that pays the rent with spotify money. I don't like that that might end.
Sorry for the rant
Also, now this is total speculation, I'd hazard that a large number of these "new unsubscribers" have clicked on social media links to the cancellation page without following through with the cancellation.
Let's ignore the already downward of the share and the tech market itself.
I had a friend who had always recommended me trying out Youtube Music for their recommendation and I used the opportunity to switch, not looking back.. Somehow, Youtube Premium + Music for family is cheaper than Spotify Premium for family.
I wonder if there's any studies on the stickiness of cancellations. There were reoccurring pushes to delete Uber since 2017, but not sure how often people went back anyway.
The best method though is to buy music direct through something like bandcamp. These streaming services all give tiny amounts of money to artists per play.
Personally think Google should get rid of them as they are a travesty to online privacy.
At some point I should be allowed to trade my personal information in exchange for goods or services, isn't that the whole point of me "owning" my information?
More likely that Google would buy them.
It would be interesting to know the names of these chrome extensions and whether the sign up experience clearly communicates the ways in which the users will be tracked.
nothing major though, just a mix of having podcasts shoved in my face when i don't want anything to do with them, songs disappearing (not completely spotify's problem i suppose), not having certain songs in the first place, and the effort involved in downloading songs so i can have offline access (which is a bit of a pain when you have multiple devices and change them often)
i also used to tell myself i couldn't afford all the music i wanted to listen to, but adding up the money i have given spotify over the last decade im thinking maybe i could have bought a decent chunk of it. so that's what in going to start doing.
you could probably find lots more reasons if you search online. spotify paying people peanuts etc etc
Besides that, they're known for paying comparatively little per stream to musicians.
They also engage in rent-seeking behavior. Their strategy around podcasts is to get exclusives, which they can do better than smaller players because of their market position, and it's money they're not spending on improving their platform.
They also refuse allowing users to add podcasts via RSS like pretty much all other podcast services. It's common for podcasters to provide upgraded feeds with extra episodes for people who support them on Patreon. There's no way to connect to those on Spotify. The reason they don't allow that is they're trying to push their own solution for that. Again, abusing market position instead of making a good product.
Compared to which service?
Do you have a reference for this? I've been following this very closely, and this is the first time I've heard he broke the TOS.
They're especially inaccurate for any product with mobile apps, since they have zero insight into that traffic. Nor do they properly extrapolate between the massively different traffic patterns of users with apps (which tends to be a lot stickier) vs web traffic.
Several times, people citing SimilarWeb numbers have argued with me about things where I had first-hand direct knowledge of the correct numbers (e.g., numbers involving a company I worked for). It's frustrating. These people sided with SimilarWeb because it's some source they can cite, nevermind the fact that it was complete garbage in these cases.
It can be surprisingly close
I returned for missed recommendations. But now with all these podcasts issues I am really thinking about using mp3s again.
You install Google Analytics precisely to track where users are going.
You don’t install a Google Chrome extension so a company can track every site you are visiting.
Unfortunately, it seems that I'm being karmically silenced for speaking an uncomfortable truth - that I've done my research[1] on!
[1] About 2 minutes of googling sources that tell me what I want to hear.
> Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health
His ivermectin/vaccine stuff breaks the TOS.
Obviously, it doesn't, because adjudicating this would require building a mind-reading device. Unless Spotify possesses one, clearly, the intent behind this rule is that the intent behind the deception is irrelevant. A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.
> I guess that depends on ones definition of "promotes" and even "false".
Yes, and it also depends on what their definition of "Content", "Harm", "Health", "Medical", and "Information". What's your point? Words have generally agreed upon meanings, we aren't just shouting Shannon noise into the ether.
Yet these mind reading devices do not exist. Is it because there are other ways to establish intent?
> A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.
Yet somehow those kinds of rules are enforced in a courtroom thousands of times a week.
In this context, deception would have been proven by simply proving the person knew the information was untrue. You be surprised how often people publicly admit to that in some other context. And then suddenly "intent" is proven.
>Words have generally agreed upon meanings,
Especially in a legal context. But that doesn't make the classification of "promoting false information" easier.