Spotify is really well done : the client is lightweight, launches fast, is responsive, when you double click a track to play it starts playing instantly (it really feels like the file stored locally), and the catalog is impressive (although about 1/3 of the stuff I listen to isn't in there yet).
Here in France they have a competitor that is already very entrenched : deezer.com. If you go a party at someones' place, you will ALWAYS see a laptop in a corner with Deezer playing stuff. People walk up, search for what they want to hear, and it plays. Simple. Of course, Spotify is miles ahead of Deezer in terms of technology and user experience. So I hope they don't get squashed by the virality of Deezer.
I don't get it. How does the music industry make money through spotify? Can spotify users copy the music to their iPod? Unless there is a good answer to those two questions, i can't imagine spotify as a wide-spread alternative to piracy.
To answer your first question, the app is either paid ($9.99/mo sub) or comes with ads.
As for the second, well... I've heard that they make iPods now that can connect directly to the internets. Syncing music across a wire is _so_ 2001.
More seriously, I imagine that the whole "copy to iPod" thing is such a minefield (especially with the music industry involved) that they have no intention of going there and are betting on a disruptive shift towards music players that are connected (almost) everywhere - with the iPod Touch and iPhone being the first examples of that. I would be deeply surprised if they didn't have an Cocoa Touch client (along the lines of Pandora and last.fm) in the works.
Granted their app might be easier to use compared to searching the piratebay, downloading and playing (disclaimer: not that I'm saying I do that.) , but you can't put the music in your ipod, you can't use it if you are offline.
I really appreciate the trouble they went through to make sure even Linux users could benefit but not only posting instructions for wine, but also how to get URI recognition just like you would on Windows or OS X.
In a year I think I installed just two desktop applications:
Spotify and DropBox. So I guess desktop is not dead yet :)
I am using Spotify for 3 months now and think it is great service and fast one. I don't remember any buffering issues and I consider myself a heavy user: using it both at work and at home (now).
Some of the artists are not available though. And at least 20% of my selected tracks disappeared after 2 weeks usage, think some licensing issues got involved.
Waiting for Windows Mobile or Symbian client and I am into the buying a new phone market :)
I was hoping this was all thru their web site and not a client install.
I no longer install apps onto my system as chat/voice available via gmail, lastfm/pandora(others) for music, hulu/joost for tv and play games various sites. This is just my personal preference and I hope this spotify offers a web based solution. Id download a FF plug-in.
Generally, i'm less weary about installing a plugin because I know there are certain limits to things that plugins can do compared to what an application can do to my System.
On windows, things you install also puts crap into your registry and many leave a lasting trace on your computers and slows it down over time. This happens to a lesser extent with browser plugins.
Generally, with a plugin, when you turn off your browser , the application cease to exist and take up system resources. Many applications however, continue to run in the background.
I use the "Generally" to describe these scenarios because there are definitely exceptions to the norms, but its how I perceive plugins vs downloaded apps.
I would pay $9.99 just to use this instead of iTunes. The interface is brilliantly well thought out and amazingly fast! Now if only I could take this to my car...
Edit: Looking at their jobs section, it appears that a Symbian version is in the works.
In the comments to the article, the outright lack of respect for property rights and the constant childlike reference to the "MAFIAA" is absolutely appalling.
Why? There position might be silly, but what's wrong with the idea of the RIAA companies dying? I hope it happens.
I don't like it when I read a billboard article that showcases an executive who is proud of the pussycat dolls, and some rappers he's backing, and an article about Kate Perry. I guess "I kissed a girl" is catchy, might fit well in a party. But damn it, why doesn't Zooey Deschanel get any airtime? She's much cuter and I like her music better.
Well, "she's not mainstream enough". Perhaps, but I hope, and don't believe, that the population is as homogeneous the industry seems to think.
If the business model of the major labels fails then perhaps the new boss will be a more decentralized organization, where music is passed around based on social networks by people instead of pushed into the network by large companies who choose what is and isn't allowed to be popular, and perhaps artists can make more, since less money is going to keep the business structure up and distribution is cheap.
This seems like a great service, I'm glad someone implemented such a great idea. But, I still hope some of the major labels die.
...I wish it was available in the US.
I can fully respect someone who simply doesn't wish to support an organization they don't like by not purchasing their items. One, however, is not morally justified in then simply taking the items they are otherwise unwilling to pay for.
The artists voluntarily agree to release their music through the RIAA. If you don't like the RIAA, but you like their music, you don't have a <i>right</i> to their music by virtue of the fact that you simply <i>want</i> it.
This my beef with the comments. Regardless of the legality of it, redistributing an artists' work without their approval.
Piracy is wrong, whether it's software or music. But a site like "TorrentFreak" is certainly going to be crawling with people who have absolutely no respect for property rights.
A service like Spotify (with agreements with the record companies) is offering the music in a free-as-in-beer streaming service, which, although they're not MP3s, they are still free music in a much more highly customized format than radio broadcast (and even web listening services like last.fm), and that's a sign that the RIAA is at least willing to support modern services.
But the pirates on TorrentFreak remain vehemently opposed to the free music on Spotify simply because they took the legal route of <i>working with the content producers</i>.
This is why I am appalled (though not terriby surprised) by the comments on the article.
Here in France they have a competitor that is already very entrenched : deezer.com. If you go a party at someones' place, you will ALWAYS see a laptop in a corner with Deezer playing stuff. People walk up, search for what they want to hear, and it plays. Simple. Of course, Spotify is miles ahead of Deezer in terms of technology and user experience. So I hope they don't get squashed by the virality of Deezer.