Spotify screws over Premium Users and lets Free users use Spotify Connect

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

They make their money through concerts now. 

only the really big artists like taylor swift, ACDC, Metallica, etc.  Smaller artists who don't have a hope of getting that big (thanks in part to people not paying for music) will forever need to have a second job or backup plan.

 

https://tonedeaf.com.au/are-musicians-actually-making-a-living-off-touring/

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/making-money-as-a-muso/6980832

 

I assume it's not overly different in the US, but essentially you have to be a fairly popular band (not just underground but have significant radio time) before you can even make a basic wage touring.  You have too fill large venues several times a year or be a part of major festivals.  Something very few budding artists will enjoy.

[RejZoR]

That's not quite true @mr moose , I know a lot of smaller, almost indie bands in USA and Germany who only do music for a living and they are doing perfectly fine. Sure, they are not dirty rich like Taylor Swift, but they are doing very well.

 

Main reason why most smaller bands never succeed is because they are too niche to become popular enough or make bigger money. Or they become too generic when they try to adapt.

 

It's similar with local musicians who play our, how shall I put it, "our native music" on "village events", basically a grass field, a tent, band with accordions and bunch of people with beer. They may not be considered as Mozarts, but they make tons of money in a single weekend. Almost every weekend. And then we have bunch of small indie bands who are "different" and they are lucky if they break even on events with all the travel charges and stuff...

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yeah... feature filtering down adding to free users is in no way shape or form screwing over premium users. You've had it all this time. If that was the only reason you wanted premium, then now you get to drop the cost. Congratz.

 

This was something spotify really needed to do anyways with the spreading of smart speakers/chromecast/smart TVs. If people can't play music on their devices conveniently, they probably won't pay more for the service, they will just swap to some other free one that lets them.

 

Tell Spotify they need more reasons to be a premium customer, either with your words or with your wallet. They are not taking a feature away from p2p, they are merely adding it to f2p. This is very good, desired long term practice (features start on high cost products and make their way into the mainstream/freeware). Early adopter fees if you will.

[corrado33]

Seems like a weird way to look at it. Seems like the OP is a bit of an elitist and doesn't want the "free" user plebs having access to his "premium" features.

 

Most people would say "Hey cool, spotify gave free users more features."

[mr moose]

53 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

That's not quite true @mr moose , I know a lot of smaller, almost indie bands in USA and Germany who only do music for a living and they are doing perfectly fine. Sure, they are not dirty rich like Taylor Swift, but they are doing very well.

 

Main reason why most smaller bands never succeed is because they are too niche to become popular enough or make bigger money. Or they become too generic when they try to adapt.

 

It's similar with local musicians who play our, how shall I put it, "our native music" on "village events", basically a grass field, a tent, band with accordions and bunch of people with beer. They may not be considered as Mozarts, but they make tons of money in a single weekend. Almost every weekend. And then we have bunch of small indie bands who are "different" and they are lucky if they break even on events with all the travel charges and stuff...

There are also people who make minimum wage as studio musicians.  That doesn't really change the nature of the beast.