• stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This guy asking the real questions. They’re already fucking over their artists, please give me a reason to start pirating music again.

      Please.

      • GONADS125@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been using a cracked spotify android APK with no ads and unlimited skips for years now.

      • slavojrizzek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They have an estimated 212 million premium users. That’s an additional 2.5 Billion dollars they’re looking at per year.

        • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          How else will they grow insatiably like the rest of these capitalist pigs??? They have to predict everything, do everything, be in everything, become your fucking God

          Shit ain’t cheap

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Theyre also in the hole and interest rates went up again to nobody’s surprise. This price hike is not out of the blue and imo pretty reasonable.

      • generalEdo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The quality is pretty good and dl speeds are superb if you get it from spotify. Only need a free account and plenty of good apps to assist in getting playlists, podcasts and full discographies.

      • arglebargle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never paid for Spotify and only rarely used it on the desktop if I was interested in hearing something someone mentioned or to look up something.

        But I also gave up the buying music thing too, expect for very rarely. There is so much freely traded music, and tons of live music, and icecast and other radio stations are still a thing. There is more than I could listen to already.

        Podcasts have replaced the vast majority listening time in the car.

        Then at home while working it is SOMA FM radio. I do give them money I guess, but its all donation.

        • surrendertogravity@wayfarershaven.eu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m curious, how are you discovering new music this way? my understanding of soulseek and nicotine+ is that they’re great for finding music by artists you already know, but idk how they would work for discovery…?

          • metaStatic@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You look for stuff you already know and then browse the users library, if they have stuff you already like then anything you don’t recognize is probably also to your taste, especially if they’re sharing a smaller collection.

            Perhaps I’m lucky that there’s not much I don’t like because it’s a similar strategy I used to use for traditional media, buy something I like and get something out of the bargain bin I’ve never heard of and 9/10 it was pure gold.

    • galaxy@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      $10 in 2011 would be $13.56 today.

      Source: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2011?amount=10

      Per the article, the service hasn’t changed in price in 12 years, while the platform has certainly received a decent number of updates, new features, new artists, etc.

      If it isn’t worth $11/month to you, don’t pay it? But it doesn’t seem right to insinuate that they’re doing something outrageous by raising prices once in 12 years?

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the same group of people who will rampantly upvote graphs showing how wages haven’t followed inflation, but when it’s the other side of the coin can’t seem to grasp it.

        • galaxy@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep, there’s a large contingent who simultaneously believe that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to exist and also that they should be provided everything in life for free, as compensation for existing.

          I’m not saying that nothing should be done to rein in corporate profits, as those are also out of control, but economic forces cut both ways and it feels disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I honestly can’t be mad about it. I know quite a few corporations likely used the guise of inflation to profiteer, but significant inflation did still happen. A $1 increase in this economic situation, with having never raised the price before, is reasonable. The inflation comment suggests $12 or even $13 could be reasonable. The gains made over the years in workers pay is really small compared to inflation, but I think it’s actually on par with this.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Probably the same assholes that think Netflix no longer allowing password sharing is an overreach.

      • wagoner@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many more years could they have held back on the price hike if they hadn’t blown hundreds of millions on a failed attempt to lock up the podcast industry inside their walled garden.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That really seems like a stretch. More likely is they don’t, and instead we’re talking about them being bankrupt and people will say they should’ve seen the signs and sprung on exclusivity before Apple (or any other corp of your choice) bought out everyone and killed them.

          Bad take.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Streaming services have an enormous amount of fixed costs. It might cost them several billion dollars/year to operate the necessary infrastructure even with zero customers, but the marginal cost to serve a customer might be on the order of $2/month on that $10/month subscription.

        It’s why streaming and digital storefronts are such a sink/swim industry. Either a company gets over user number+sales threshold to override their fixed costs, upon which they become profitable and all further growth makes them exceedingly profitable. Or the company fails to do so or barely does so, and makes somewhere between giant losses to minimal profits.

        From a quick search, Spotify’s user count should have grown somewhere in the neighborhood of ten times over since 2015.

        This is not a cost increase that is mandated or justified by inflation. It never is. It’s a cost increase from a very, very, very simple fact: companies want profit, and Spotify’s leadership has concluded that they will gain more profit by increasing prices than they will by not doing so.

        • EddieTee77@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To quote my insurance company when I asked why my rates went up, “well, everything is costs more. Other places are charging more too.”

          This seems like a similar situation.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Enormous fixed cost, yes. Billion not so much. The size of their entire catalog isn’t even going to be that significant. Music is tiny even the flac stuff just isn’t that big. The streams are so small they probably don’t even need peering agreements with most services. I’d be surprised if they’re burning more than 10 million a month in infrastructure. Now Netflix, YouTube, live video streaming services, totally different story. Those poor bastards end up maintaining servers inside other people’s networks.

          • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fixed costs isn’t the cost of having a single server with the storage. I’m thinking everything they need to have built up with the intent of having between N1 and N2 MAU, in order to make that viable.

            It’s the cost of developing the software stack, of hiring the lawyers and accountants that (1) acquire the music rights and (2) handle the music payouts, it’s the lawyers that handle the different legal requirements across every major global economy, it’s the servers located in all of those countries with as many sub-national locations as necessary, it’s the IT staff that manage that server uptime, it’s the software developers that maintain that system and improve upon it so rivals don’t jump too far ahead… Etc.

            Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).

              • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Interesting. That’s dated October of 2009 and says Spotify had 5m users. Looks like they have ~200m users today. At a linear scaling it’d be twenty times larger, or £120m=$154m per month. That’s $1.85b/year.

                In reality it wouldn’t scale linearly, but it also accounts for zero salaries, which was the major component of my comment.

                • linearchaos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Look I appreciate the downvotes and all, but didn’t you just say that fixed costs don’t go up and down with users?

      • slavojrizzek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re so enthusiastic about paying a corporation making 25 billion a year even more owing to inflation why aren’t you asking about the corresponding minimum wage hike for the people they get that 25 billion from?

        • sirmanleypower@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because that’s not what the article is about? Why is this hard for people to grasp? Not every comment is about everything in the world.

    • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ll find another means to serve ads to Premium customers. I pay for it because it’s very convenient access to lots of music, and the rights holders are compensated (albeit not as much as I’d like).

      I’m already pissed off that they blatantly insert ads in the middle of sentences in podcasts (if you check the premium wording, it says “ad free music”). Might consider cancelling if they hike the price.

    • Spazsquatch@lemmy.studio
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At the current rate it’s not cost effective to fly the helicopter between the yacht and the mainland more than twice daily. This is only the first step, but the goal is non-stop service by 2027.

  • ZeroDrek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was worried for a second until I read the article. $1 more/ is not a huge price increase and I’m ok with it considering they haven’t increased the price as long as I’ve been subscribed and I’ve been subscribed for at least a decade. Also, I use Spotify daily…for hours at a time.

  • soulifix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone’s ‘okay’ with it until it’s $5 more. Then another $5. Then another $5.

    This is what’s happening with all of these streaming services. They’re all doing the gradual boiling water trick. They know if they turned the dial all the way to hot to make the water boiling, metaphorically speaking, that nobody in their right mind would want to jump in. But if they just turn the dial slowly, let the temperature build up by hiking these prices bit by bit, it wouldn’t cause that much of a stir and people will be complacent with it.

      • Colitas92@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And when someone is short on money or just too tired of keeping track of which services having what media and switching chairs all the time ? remember there is always the way of Jack Sparrow, and go sailing to the 7 seas. ARRRGH!

          • ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with you, but this site is full of people who hate the idea of companies having to make money and just steal shit all the time. It’s a lame attitude to have I think, they believe they are entitled to others work because they don’t like the distribution model.

            • Acid@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s the quality of service that they offer, I don’t mind paying £60-70 a month for all my tv/movies but when the services don’t even work well, have terrible experiences and constant caveats to using them it’s just not worth it. Go spend the money on a self-hosted solution for a better experience and be done with it. It’s not exactly cheaper either it’s just less of a headache.

          • Colitas92@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If i was in a righteous mood, i would say :

            1 - Paying for consuming media older than 30 years is a perversion of the intellectual property idea, of supporting artists for a short window of time by artificial restriction of the right to culture and knowledge, and then to release the works to the public domain for the enjoyment of society. That the capitalists extended said window to be the death of the autour + 70 years, and then invented the idea of owning the art-invention-etc made by worker-artists is the real robbery of the situation. The current phase of studios trying to leverage AI tools (and AI tools that are essentially industrial scale pirates AND plagiarists) to make even more exploitation of artists is not surprising to me.
            I forgot to add: the original north american idea was 14 years + 14 years, if the artist made a request for extension to get the 2nd period. Imagine if we had 14 years copyright now, everything made 14 years ago would be released and available to watch or even to make derivative works…

            2 - I am not north american, i am third worlder (Brazil). So, since i have the money and time to spend, i prefer to spend money on domestic artists and domestic works to benefit my nation, which is a lot poorer than western artists and populations, and with much less famous cultural works. Instead of giving (more) money to Disney, i can go on music shows or theater here, or sign up one of the local streamers, and pirate the foreigner’s content i want. Brazilian artists, that really need the money and attention, i try to pay whenever possible (if it is even available). For films made by disney (and equivalents) … they will make enough money from cinema release here and from their foreign rich country, no need to give then a monthly transfer on top. The book Open Veins of Latin America is something of a reference in this type of reasoning.

          • Acid@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Some of us have very good reasons for pirating, I was paying for every service under the sun in the UK last year and I dropped them all simply because the moment I went on holiday practically none of them worked. At that point, I realised that they just weren’t worth it and I could build something out and self-host a far better service.

            So I spent something like 2 grand doing that knowing at least I’ll never have that issue again, Piracy is always a service issue first and foremost and most of these services are crap. Netflix still at least has a reasonable interface and a good experience across every device but Prime video is atrocious, P+ is likewise terrible and don’t ever get me started on NowTV.

      • Techmaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s what the software industry calls dumping. Microsoft got in trouble for doing it with IE. They give something away for free or cheaper than the competition, basically subsidizing the cost with another lucrative division of the business. We make a bunch of money selling Windows, so we can afford to give away IE for free. And eventually we’ll put the competition out of business, then we can increase the price once we no longer have any competition.

  • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spotify can increase the price to $100 and it wouldnt affect me because I download and store all my songs on my phone. Oldskool but works even when I turn off mobile data.

    • Evelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just use YouTube Music and patch it with ReVanced for no ads. I used to download all my music too but it became too much hassle and I didn’t have time for it anymore. My music taste is also quite obscure so its hard to find high quality audio files for it. I still download my favorite songs for when I lose service though.

  • Techmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh no, they’re increasing the price from free to free! How will I ever manage the price increase!?

  • JIMMERZ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    And I’m sure that’s to better compensate the artists, right?… right?

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    To the people who are talking about Spotify not offering high quality, what’s wrong with Spotify Premium’s 256kbps AAC? That’s pretty dang high quality…

    • dinckel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Artists now get even less money, ironically. They’re strongly pushing towards this system where the algos will push your songs to users, resulting in some amount of more listens, except the downside is that you cut your own pay. If you’re signed on a label, you get even less than nothing now

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    My Spotify bill literally just went through. Not sure if the family plan is going up as well, but it looks like I escaped it for a month if it does.

    • jem0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I use spotify family plan for a years and it’s been so cheap for years. I don’t get how people can get even upset outraged about it.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Honestly, it’s totally fair imo.
    People who hadn’t experience before-Spotify times can’t really appreciate the value. I’d love all information to be free and all but just the indexing and data hosting service would be worth 11$/mo. People being a bit silly here ngl. If you can’t afford 11$ for this service then honestly you either don’t need it or you need re-evaluate your budgeting.

    • Carter@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh I find music streaming services to be massively overpriced. Second hand CDs are dirt cheap and offer better quality than Spotify does.

    • Caesium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah the price increase isn’t too awful for me. I use Spotify all the time so premium is totally worth it for me. and I know rates aren’t that high but I’m happy to know I’m actually paying the people I listen to somewhat!

    • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah yes, poor people and people living on minimum wage don’t need music. And if they really needed it, they would just skip a meal.

      Indexing and data hosting is worth $11 per month? Music uses very little space and bandwidth. Listening to 3 hours every day for a month ends up being around 10gb of bandwidth. If they were using expensive on-demand AWS bandwidth, that would cost them 50 cents. They aren’t, they have edge caches all over and almost certainly pay less than 10 cents.

      • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Don’t… need… music…? There are plenty of free streaming options, or even the damn radio. Premium Spotify is far from the only option.

        Being able to listen to anything you want whenever you please is 100% a luxury – and one that wasn’t available until pretty recently.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really wonder about the age of the posters. I remember when the norm for music was $1 a song, which very quickly became $1.29. Spotify is so incredibly dirt cheap compared to that. But if people didn’t experience that heyday of $1 per song, they’re looking at this from a completely different perspective.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As if piracy, free youtube etc. doesn’t exist. If you can’t afford 11$/mo and can’t afford to invest time to get around it then you really have bigger problems to complain about like lack of social security and wealth distribution. Complaining about this just appears like a comical waste of energy tbh.

        • gengar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not everyone wants to listen to music illegally? And not everyone has unlimited data or can afford it for youtube/etc. Wealth distribution and a lack of social security are huge problems but like, bro it’s not a good look to criticize working class folks for (rightfully) complaining about yet another round of inflation.

  • Space Sloth@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they carry on through for the rest of the world I’ll likely drop my Spotify subscription.