Why YSK: Spotify forces you either to pay, listen to ads or to find unofficial, potentially dangerous versions to use it. It's better to find a free alternative, both for your wallet and for your peace of mind.
"Spotify forces you either to pay, listen to ads or to find unofficial, potentially dangerous versions to use it."
I don't think the company forces you to do anything. It is their business model, how they can provide copyrighted music to you and have a share of the pie too.
I'd say the very idea that Spotify is forcing you to pay with time and attention or money so you can have music conveniently streamed to your devices is a testament to the company's success. It created this business model and fulfilled an apparently basic need to the point you think that charging for it is unfair.
But "forcing" is too much. You can always buy discs, digital downloads and so.
I mean the streamers have to get paid too, you might hear artists complain about how much money Spotify takes but as someone who has released lots of music on Spotify they do pay you, pretty decently too! Lots of artists are making hundreds of thousands a year from just Spotify and the business itself is profitable, which allows pretty much anyone to upload their music and try their dream.
That is valuable in it of itself, without services like Spotify many of the artists I listen too would probably have given up on music for a boring IT job, like I did.
First of all, thank you for your work to create or improve Spotify! I think that - as some others have pointed out - the word "force" here comes from Spotify's quasi-monopoly these days. It has gained such an important position of power that both musicians and listeners are almost "forced" to make use of it. As somebody who makes music, I think that Spotify urgently needs to realize the responsibility that comes with its success. Paying the people who create and offer the very content that makes their platform useful and successful in the first place laughable 0.003 - 0.005$ on average per stream is destroying any chance of realistic income for most artists. The amount of streams required for even a minimum wage can only be achieved with heavy and expensive marketing efforts, by abusing Spotify's systems and getting lucky by being placed on larger playlists. There's a lot of money made there, and only very few selectively benefit from it. We see entire phenomena due to this. For example that "songs" are getting shorter and shorter, in order to increase the amount of streams and thus compensating for that joke of payment. Creating longer, atmospheric pieces with a REAL structure and buildup worth exploring just isn't financially viable on Spotify. Any form of creative risk is also not helpful to earn money, so you get more and more super short bits of music that are very playlist-friendly and thus, samey. And this has a negative effect on music as an artform itself. And in the long run, it will make Spotify's catalogue less valuable, because it will degenerate into a grey, boring mass of meaningless low-effort content. Spotify offers a great service, but also devalues music as a medium and the carreers behind it. You may say that people are free to purchase physical media or directly purchase music on other services. But let's be realistic. Spotify offers an enormous, centralized catalogue of music for just a few bucks a month. If people can listen to your songs there for a cheap flatrate, they will simply not navigate other services and purchase a single album for the price of a month full of anything they like. So, if you have even the smallest amount of influence, please use it to improve Spotify on that field too, not only in terms of the app's code base. Make Spotify a healthier place for artists, which will help sustainability for everyone involved. And find ways to not only financially reward the shortest, most playlist-friendly pieces of music.
Of course they don't force you to use spotify, but it's one of those "soft monopolies" many other companies have. It's not the only option, but they basically are, because everyone thinks so: it's like whatsapp, if you catch my drift (everyone use it because everyone's on it)
And when a company realizes they're in that position, they will prey down on their users without fail, and I'm talking about:
What I don't like about spotify and all the companies who are in a similar position in the market is that, as usual, their share of the pie it's unfairly big, which is why I try to drive people away from them. Not saying YouTube is better, but at least with vimusic you don't have to listen to ads (which I think heavily harm people's mental health, among other things)
Of course music can be bought, but people only buy what they like nowdays, and use online services to discover new music. Few have the money to buy music and listen to it for the first time afterwards. Many people don't even have the money to meet their basic needs, let alone buy music
Not to argue against any of the points against Spotify, but YT Music (and it's parent, Google) are much worse; leaving only Apple Music with a much smaller library as a realistic alternative to streaming music.
I do miss the old days of Google Play Music though - it is a shame what Google did to a neat app with a standalone subscription.
Oh my God yes Google Play Music was the best. And whoever convinced them to give up that glorious branding (Play Music, Play Movies, Play Store) in favor of 'YouTube Music' should be drawn and quartered.
Play Music's uncanny ability to let me know who was actually playing near me, meaning within my usual territory, and with music I would like, was unmatched. It was par with Spotify for playlists based on the sound of a song. YouTube music doesn't do playing near you, Spotify seems to think 1000 miles away is nearby, and neither are as good as Play Music was at finding good match for my location and time of day. It was perfect in name and function and they gave it up.
What's the issue with YT Music again? I like it better than Spotify and AM. Also, AM has a bigger library than Spotify, so your information might be out of date.
Spotify really isn't a "Soft monopoly" though. There are a lot of competitors in the music streaming business. Youtube music, Apple music, and Pandora, just to name a few. Sure, Spotify is perhaps the most commonly used, but it's also unfair to punish a company because they're successful.
I think the important thing is to keep Spotify from being the only way you can stream music. While I agree you can buy discs or digital downloads, these are fundamentally different methods of consumption from streaming.
Stopping Spotify purchasing the exclusive rights to stream prevents a monopoly where, if you want to stream, you are 'forced' to use Spotify and pay/listen to ads there. Keeping artists' options open allows the most customer-friendly streaming service to win out as consumers choose which streaming service gives them the best product to listen to who they want
Spotify took an existing thing and made it convenient and worse at the same time. How long before we are just listening to AI music? Since their cost is the artists...it's only a matter of time.