Spotify tried to placate its unhappy users today after they were herded into Facebook's reservation in a deal between the two companies. Users of Spotify's service suddenly started seeing their music playlists and history shared with their stalkerbase on Facebook. The onus was placed on individuals to then manually turn the …
"you can temporarily hide your guilty pleasures."
And here lies the crucial confusion that Faceborg units have between privacy, and concealment.
Wishing to not share your every movement with the internet does not mean that you are hiding something.
What an utter cock...He twatted...
""I just want to clarify: some users seem to believe we're forcing existing users to be FB. We only require FB for new users," he tweeted."
Well, that's my Spotify account neutered...
Oh, hang on..I haven't got one.Nor,now, will i ever have one.
Well done there Spotify. Alienate potential new customer who fucking detest facebook et-all....
And they want me to pay for my music...Not with that business model...
Up until now, I really didn't care much about Facebook. I didn't like it and didn't use it myself, but that was a personal choice. Now, however, they are using their market dominance in one field to gain a grossly unfair advantage in another. THAT is abusing a monopoly position. Where is the anti-trust investigation?
I'm trying to do the 'right thing' by paying money to Spotify for music I listen to. I'm getting increasingly pissed off with all this crap they keep adding. I don't want to "invite my US friends to join", I don't want to integrate with Facebook, I don't want everyone to see what I'm listening to. I just want to pay (hopefully some of that money gets back to the artists) to legally listen to any music I want whenever I want.
Same here :( I want to be able to turn off shuffle and sort by artist or album on iphone app. I could do that with desktop mp3 players in mid 90's but Spotiface hasn't got around to that yet. I feel my money is being wasted for stuff I despise, not for stuff a music app needs.
I sympathize, and applaud you for that stance. Unfortunately though, of all the ways to legally listen to music on demand, Spotify gives the worst financial return to artists (unless you happen to listen to the same song thousands of times). Physical media (vinyl, CDs) still give the best return, and, contrary to popular misinformation, returns on legal downloads are fair as well. So, in terms of supporting recording artists, the traditional purchase options are still the best. And no privacy problems, either.
Purchasing music/merchandise directly from an artist (if they've set up a way to do so) is usually the best return.
Folllowed by going to an artist's concert.
CDs/vinyl are way, way down the list. Most artist's, those outside the top 1 or 2%, never make a cent from CDs/vinyl done through a record company deal. In fact, most artists still are in debt to their record company.
You can't listen to the same song thousands of times any more
They've limited it to a maximum of five on the free/open version.
Purchasing direct obviously gives the best return, since there is no retailer taking a cut.
But going to an artist's concert doesn't pay the songwriters, producer, mix engineer, tracking engineers, mastering guy, A&R, and everyone else who contributes to a successful album, so it's irrelevant to recorded music. People who think they can compensate for stealing music by going to live gigs are sadly mistaken.
What you say about debts is true for many artists, but it's important to note that the debt you are talking about is an advance on sales - it's not a traditional debt, in that if the artist doesn't recoup through sales, they don't have to pay it back. Remember, this advance would still be recoupable via spotify plays, deezer plays, or whatever - and these pay a pittance in comparison with the returns from a physical sale.
But Ek is convinced that Spotify's userbase is "social"
Nonsense. I cancelled my premium subscription and haven't logged in to my free account at all this year, as I was fed up with their constant push towards all the web2.0 bullshit and ignoring some core music player functions.
If they were to release a streaming only client, I might reconsider, but after all this facebook nonsense, it looks like I will continue to enjoy being £10/month better off.
Memo to consumers of all kinds:
Please shut up, you know you can take much more abuse than that!
...and like always...
...they release the fucking data first THEN offer an insincere apology and the option to close the barn door when the horse is already over the fucking horizon. Fuckers.
Spotify had been getting it all so right recently and I was about to plump for a subscription.
No Spotify I dont want to post crap to facebook
No I dont want to be forced to put what music I choose to listen to on facebook especially when I am paying for the service, I would EXPECT the option........
Maybe if your free or something the catch is you have to post that shit to facebook, however otherwise they can eat one.
It IS an option - you just turn it off in "preferences" (not that I've had to yet, I've not linked Spotify to Facebook as I don't have to, being an existing Spotify user ... yet).
All Spotify are doing is utilising the Facbook login system - in the same sort of way Stack Overflow allows you to log in with your Google account (or OpenID and so on)... what creeps me out is the possibility of Facebook becoming kinda like the passport office for the web :\
Oh dear. If I'm understanding this, one needs to be on FB to use Spotify?
I guess Spotify needed to do that to ensure their survival, but I can't be the only one who would no longer consider it on the basis of FB.
They are another company that's working very hard to destroy them selves. All this social crap, while the iPhone app still has a bug where you can\t switch the shuffle off once you set it to on. You still can't sort your songs by anything on device version. You can't rearange the playlists so that downloaded ones would appear on top. Sometimes, downloaded playlists magically disappear, usually when you're travelling, so there's no way to listen to your music until next time you're on wifi. But what really kills you is when you see their iPad app, that's a David Brent of apps. You lose your breath for a moment and can't believe your eyes.
* They have a great streaming and subscription system and I'm a premium customer but I'm upset of how unsupported they're mobile apps are.
And this setting...
..is OFF (not sharing) by default is it? I doubt it.
And don't forget that not sharing with other facepalm 'users' does not mean that it is not shared with facepalm themselves.
Bad move all round - pleased I dropped spotify when they introduced the 5 play (or is it 10) thingy - roll-on grooveshark.
What a pointless feature you can already tick and untick the post to facebook button as and when. The issue I have is that the tracking effectively spams the hell out of your facebook feed, I don't mind my musical taste being shared hell my last.fm is there for everyone to see but I don't want to thrust it in other people's face. This feature crossed the line from social to anti-social just like all the junk you get from Farmville etc.
Jumped the Grooveshark
This is getting absurd
OK ... goodbye Spotify. You were fun once. Now you're just the annoying party drunk.
Cancelled. Absolutely ridiculous. It's my music and I don't want people seeing me listen to "Devil Woman" at 1 in the morning (oh, and I know I can block all this but it's the principle). I pay for it. Anybody else know a music service that went to the wall when they got too big for their boots?
Help us Help you?
And, WHY would a company FORCE new users to use facebook? Has to e kickback involved. Help us grow our userbase, Spotify, and WE'LL help YOU via ad dollar credits.. and cash... and premium pllacement on-screen for those elusive eyeballs/impressions...
Some serious backscratching and other activity going on me thinks...
What was it that Number 6 kept saying?
"I just want to clarify: some users seem to believe we're forcing existing users to be FB. **We only require FB for new users**," he [Ek] tweeted.
OK, then. Add Spotify to the list of places that will not grace my machine...nor will be graced with my money....Done.
have just put a huge emphasis on their "radio" service, and now limit the number of track plays of your own choice to 50 a month for their free service! Having said that, the radio functionality is being powered by last.fm, so the selections aren't too random.
Thankfully there's still mflow although I can't see their current model (no ads) lasting very long.
I was a Spotify free user, until they changed the free accounts to "Open" - I've hardly used it since. And certainly have no intention of ever paying for their service for various reasons - ie. record companies as shareholders making $ while the artists and songwriters hardly get a thing, and the new integration to FB. I don't intend to ever have a Facebook account either. But I still buy CDs. Could be just me being old fashioned, although I prefer to say principled.
"We call it 'private listening'"
Or "listening" as everyone else calls it. Can he rename the sharing as "public listening" to ensure we're all back in the same dictionary?
to the earlier poster asking do the artists get their dues?
we do, but its hardly worth it being almost 0.0012p per play
i also own an independant record label, so i can tell you most of the above figures (although a year n a bit old) are still pretty accurate.
At least two of their customers that I know of are already back on isoHunt and What.CD.
Personally, I never left iH/wcd. After all, how can anything compete with free FLAC? Can't. Bitches.
Gee! I wish everyone did that then there'd be no money to be made from music and we could all go back to listening to local folk groups up the pub for entertainment as that's all there'd be available outside of London (and maybe a couple of other big cities) - huzzah! Go you!
*Yawn* quick recap of the basics for you.
Is a bloke who paints your lounge an artist? No.
Purchase of material outside of the sound data which has no _material_ value. T-shirts, cool album packaging, etc. That stuff can't be sent over internets, which is the delivery format this story and my post relate to. I could've been clearer on that point, I admit.
Do only Folk groups do gigs? No.
Do I download films too? Damn right. As a carer I dont have the money to fork out for a DVD only to watch it a few times maximum. Do I buy films? Damn right, if it is a genuine work of art. http://www.doubleedgefilms.com Ink deluxe blu-ray package was my last purchase. There is also a good article about piracy on that site.
A dead business model sucks its last
For freebie users I can understand the move. But for subscribers a.k.a. your loyal paying customers? Erm, another Netflix disaster. And so soon after the last one.
Allytot plot the lost.
Up yours, Zuckerberg and, now, Spotify
I resent having to join ANYTHING in order to join another web site.
This is apart from the fact most web pages I view, are filled with gaping white spaces where FB advertising is supposed to be but is not as FB is a blocked site in my country of residence, along with China.
I was a member of an on-line interactive web site and one day I couldn't sign on. I needed an FB account.
I have already, some years ago, had my e-mail address - donated by a dumb friend - through my lawyer, removed from FB so I surely don't want them to have it again.
They still haven't got it, have they
Remember that meetings were had, brains were stormed, and policies were deliberately formulated in order to fail this way.
As long as media companies keep foisting rubbish "features" on those very people who give them money, piracy will always be the more consumer-friendly option.
I often talk to friends about music but I can't work out why I would want to share my entire music list with friends?
But I can see why marketing companies may want access to my entire music listening habits along with millions of other people.
So Spotify are arrogantly exploiting people as their product. So its easy to see what Spotify gain, by selling access to their users data and I wouldn't even mind so much if their service was free, but to do this to paying customers is sick.
Its such arrogant exploitation. Spotify are not only going to loose customers over this, they are not going to get more customers with this kind of arrogance shown to potential customers.
Why do companies insist on make the changes then telling us to opt out, it should always be a case of opt in.
1) Fake Facebook account created.
For giggles, why not create a fake gmail and fake facebook account with the name
To avoid posting to the FB timeline you have to untick "Get personal recommendations by sending music you play to Facebook Timeline". Yeah, I wouldn't mind recommendations, but how the F is that clear about what will actually happen? I actually only unticked that by accident when first faced with that choice after updating Spotify. Still, I'll keep using Spotify. How much worse are they than the other streaming services in terms of royalties? Decent selection of music (although bloody annoying how they keep losing licenses so music disappears), iPhone access. I am already on facebook anyway. Have disabled the link though. Can't new users create a fake FB account with a throwaway email address? Or is Spotify devious enough to force you to associate an FB account with the same email address as you register on Spotify?
Lots of people whining about this but without giving any genuine reasons.
You can turn it off very easily....which I did in about 10 seconds.
You lot just seem like a load of old men complaining that things "don't work like they used to in the olden days". I'm hardly a young-un myself but please, get over yourselves.
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." - Douglas Adams.
I think what you mean is...
... if something is part of your life from birth you tend not to question it. Like apartheid or marrying off your daughter to your cousin at 12. It's the people from outside your cosy world of certainties you need to listen to: their view of "the natural order of things" should be your cue to examine your fundamental assumptions.
Just because people now blindly accept that they can't buy from Tesco Direct without signing up to Clubcard tracking or sign up for Spotify without being automatically co-opted into Spookbook doesn't mean it's somehow "natural" and they won't later come to regret it.
Just say NO to facebook
And now, to spotify.
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE