Even if Spotify were to increase prices, it's not bait and switch.
This article makes no sense. Duh, if Spotify goes away, if you leave for any reason (rates, terms of service, whatever)... their music goes with it. That's how subscription services work. If Netflix goes away, I lose access to the movies that Netflix was letting me stream. The fact that someone is used to "owning" their music or re-listening more than you usually re-watch movies doesn't change any of the core principles of the business model.
One album costs $10. If I listen to that album once a day for 30 days (not EVER going to happen, but I'm trying to be generous), then I'm still only filling a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time I listen to music.
$10 with Spotify gives me effectively non-stop new music. In 6 months, I'll have spent $60 and had the benefit of listening to hundreds of albums. Even if something happens that I stop using Spotify... are you really implying that I haven't extracted good value from Spotify as a service?
If Spotify's price increases that I don't think I can get the same or a good value.... I just stop using it and go back to life as it was before. What is the lock in? There seems to be an implication that I will have "wasted" my money on Spotify since I have no music mp3s to show for it. Did my family waste their money on Netflix despite the fact that I don't own any of the hundreds of DVDs that they've watched or streamed?
I just don't understand this implied malice at work here. Besides, it (seems) completely ignorant of Spotify's existence in the rest of the world for some time now.
The article itself argues that we consume music in a way that is fundamentally different from the way we consume television shows and movies, thus rendering the comparison invalid.
There is no such thing as we consume music in a way that is fundamentally different. Previous behaviors does not mean natural law.
The entire argument only shows a lack of careful thinking on the matter.
We consume music many different ways.
Radio, pandora, on the tv, in the mall, in games, cd, gramophone on the disco, live music and so on.
You could as easily argue that the spotify model shows that access beats ownership. If anything the way the music industry want us to consume music is what is fundamentally different and out of date.
The article is so shallow and can only be on the front page of HN because spotify is is new in the US.
And I think that that assumption/argument is invalid. I'm sure I've read somewhere about studies of user behaviour in, say, iTunes (your personal music) compared to on a subscription service like Spotify. The studies showed that people who had access to a limited amount of music of owned music would listen intensively (fewer songs, lots of times); whereas people with access to a subs service would listen extensively (more songs, fewer times). There was some stat about a favourite song being listened to far less frequently when there was more to explore.
Right, and I think that's unfair. Even if it's true, it doesn't warrant the implication that Spotify doesn't provide a value-based service, or that it's bait-and-switch, or that they have malicious intent, or that it can't be a supplement to buying music a traditional way.
To look at it another way. I have, in my current library of music, listened to over 400 albums in the last 3 years. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've not paid for all of them. The heavily listened to favorites, I have, but not all. Even if Spotify quadrupled in cost... it would still be small compared to (400 * $5) or (400 * $10). Not to mention the value from offline playlist prefetching, sync-free mobile access, and access to the same library on all 3 computers and my mobile devices.
This article makes no sense. Duh, if Spotify goes away, if you leave for any reason (rates, terms of service, whatever)... their music goes with it. That's how subscription services work. If Netflix goes away, I lose access to the movies that Netflix was letting me stream. The fact that someone is used to "owning" their music or re-listening more than you usually re-watch movies doesn't change any of the core principles of the business model.
One album costs $10. If I listen to that album once a day for 30 days (not EVER going to happen, but I'm trying to be generous), then I'm still only filling a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time I listen to music.
$10 with Spotify gives me effectively non-stop new music. In 6 months, I'll have spent $60 and had the benefit of listening to hundreds of albums. Even if something happens that I stop using Spotify... are you really implying that I haven't extracted good value from Spotify as a service?
If Spotify's price increases that I don't think I can get the same or a good value.... I just stop using it and go back to life as it was before. What is the lock in? There seems to be an implication that I will have "wasted" my money on Spotify since I have no music mp3s to show for it. Did my family waste their money on Netflix despite the fact that I don't own any of the hundreds of DVDs that they've watched or streamed?
I just don't understand this implied malice at work here. Besides, it (seems) completely ignorant of Spotify's existence in the rest of the world for some time now.