|
|
|
Spotify, the music piracy killer, is expanding to U.S.
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 20 July, 2009
It is so rare nowadays to see any cool web-based service to be first available in Europe rather than in the U.S. that Spotify is really worth mentioning even for just that (yes, we'd really, really like to get Hulu..). However, this music streaming service that has been dubbed as the "music piracy killer" and has received almost universal praise from its users, is finally planning to expand ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
MrXenu
Newbie
|
20. July 2009 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
Personally I do not like this app for one simple reason its streaming. If you listen to music for most of the day like me, and most people its going to cause massive amounts of traffic for ISP.
Considering in the UK most ISP can't handle their amount of traffic already, main note to BT who already trottle most users. It goes to cause most ISP to ahve to trottle even more users. This would be a great idea if ISP could handle the added traffic, but tbh all this is going to do is dramatically slow down the whole internet.
If piracy is the main use of interenet bandwidth, if pirates switch from downloading music to using spotify, everytime they want to listen to a song it'll be like them downloading a song, increasing the bandwidth they use.
ISP are already under massive pressure from the TV streaming revolution in the UK, they will not be able to properly manage this new amoutn of bandwidth that will be used.
Another problem with spotify is that if you don't ahve an internet connection you can't get to your music, although other systems liek steam have had this problem they can get away with it, having an offlien DRM mode, where as spotify doesn't.
TL/DR Uses to much bandwidth, way to slow the internets down! :(
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
20. July 2009 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrXenu:
Personally I do not like this app for one simple reason its streaming. If you listen to music for most of the day like me, and most people its going to cause massive amounts of traffic for ISP.
Considering in the UK most ISP can't handle their amount of traffic already, main note to BT who already trottle most users. It goes to cause most ISP to ahve to trottle even more users. This would be a great idea if ISP could handle the added traffic, but tbh all this is going to do is dramatically slow down the whole internet.
If piracy is the main use of interenet bandwidth, if pirates switch from downloading music to using spotify, everytime they want to listen to a song it'll be like them downloading a song, increasing the bandwidth they use.
ISP are already under massive pressure from the TV streaming revolution in the UK, they will not be able to properly manage this new amoutn of bandwidth that will be used.
IMO, that just highlights the shortcomings of a particular ISP -- it is always easier to take the profits and do something nice with them, rather than invest on backbone connections ;-) When they started selling people 10/10Mbps connections, their marketing people sorta forgot to tell their network planning people about it -- if they sell 10/10, they have to have the backbone to deliver it, or not to sell new connections until the network is updated.
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
Quote:
Another problem with spotify is that if you don't ahve an internet connection you can't get to your music
Comes with the definition of a streaming service :-)
Exactly like Google isn't available offline nor Youtube. But as most of people have their PC connected to Net 24/7 -- and increasingly, their laptops and cell phones, everywhere (fixed-cost mobile broadband rocks :-) -- it wont be an issue for most people. Like it isn't a very big problem for most people to use Google Docs instead of MS Office or OpenOffice -- Net is available pretty much everywhere and all the time.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2009 @ 09:37
|
|
MrXenu
Newbie
|
20. July 2009 @ 09:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
I was mainly talking about the UK, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. But the UK has possibly the worst set of ISP, all it is goign to do is slow UK users down massively. In the UK 10/10MB isn't offered that much anyway, 8MB download is still quite rare and upload speeds are usless still. The UK has only recently just got 20Mb download introduced by virgin media.
I never said BT is good, i agree they are a pile of cr4p.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem with spotify is that if you don't ahve an internet connection you can't get to your music
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comes with the definition of a streaming service :-)
Exactly like Google isn't available offline nor Youtube. But as most of people have their PC connected to Net 24/7 -- and increasingly, their laptops and cell phones, everywhere (fixed-cost mobile broadband rocks :-) -- it wont be an issue for most people. Like it isn't a very big problem for most people to use Google Docs instead of MS Office or OpenOffice -- Net is available pretty much everywhere and all the time.
Google is somethign that searchs the interent so obviously you need to be online to use that. In the UK broadband is still a luxury good and most poeople do not have it, especially unlimited bandwidth. This will eat up people's bandwidths as they use it to stream music. In the UK wireless interent everywhere is still massively expensive and you do not get allocated much bandwidth at all, so taking your laptop on the go, would mean for most users having no music if they just use spotify.
You see to take the view that most people have the money to automatically afford unlimted bandwidth and anywhere wireless interenet connection, which still the majority of people in the UK do not have.
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
20. July 2009 @ 10:33 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
You see to take the view that most people have the money to automatically afford unlimted bandwidth and anywhere wireless interenet connection, which still the majority of people in the UK do not have.
Yup, I agree that with capped connections, such services are hard to justify. Then again, hopefully introduction of bandwidth-hungry services will eventually remove such silly schemes imposed by short-sighted ISPs across the world.
When I lived in the UK for several years, I opted for Telewest (now merged with NTL into Virgin Media) exactly for their no-caps policy. Dunno whether that has ceased to exist since the mergers, but I'm fairly certain that at least in London, you can get some smaller players to offer unlimited monthly bandwidth with reasonable pricing. For outside M25, that's obviously bit more challenging to find..
|
|
domie
Member
|
20. July 2009 @ 11:58 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I was mainly talking about the UK, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. But the UK has possibly the worst set of ISP, all it is goign to do is slow UK users down massively. In the UK 10/10MB isn't offered that much anyway, 8MB download is still quite rare and upload speeds are usless still. The UK has only recently just got 20Mb download introduced by virgin media.
Actually you are about 2 years out of date - i got my 20 mb line with Virgin Media over 2 years ago.
Their 50 mb service has been available since last christmas and is now rolled out to all territories ( if you are prepared to pay £ 51 a month for it ) :)
The upload speed on their 20 mb service is 768 kbps which probably is useless compared to other countries like Sweden which are less densely populated yet still have modern technology.
A lot of ADSL ISPs now offer 16 mb service or a minimum of 8 mb but of course we all know that the actual speed depends how close to the hub you are.
|
Moderator
|
20. July 2009 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
Virgin Media have appalling and crippling traffic shaping for all but the highest offering. Dumped Virgin as the only way to not get 'shaped' was to force the connection down to 1 meg (it was only a 2 meg anyway) via QOS settings otherwise their shaping decimated the connection if you used QOS above 1 meg.
Anyways, back to Spotify, my kids love it and use it heavily, as does G/F. I don't, so can't comment on how much bandwidth it uses. It's a great service though, a great alternative to that awful iTunes.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2009 @ 12:09
|
|
domie
Member
|
20. July 2009 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
When I lived in the UK for several years, I opted for Telewest (now merged with NTL into Virgin Media) exactly for their no-caps policy. Dunno whether that has ceased to exist since the mergers, but I'm fairly certain that at least in London, you can get some smaller players to offer unlimited monthly bandwidth with reasonable pricing. ..
http://www.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management.php
and believe me , they traffic manage a hell of a lot more than they claim to do on that page - I have frequently been throttled for downloading well outside the hours, limits and times listed on that page but tell them about it and they just shrug their shoulders at the help desk and tell you they don't have access to that information to verify how much exactly you downloaded and when. (and no - they are unable to put you through to the traffic management department )
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
20. July 2009 @ 12:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by domie:
Quote:
When I lived in the UK for several years, I opted for Telewest (now merged with NTL into Virgin Media) exactly for their no-caps policy. Dunno whether that has ceased to exist since the mergers, but I'm fairly certain that at least in London, you can get some smaller players to offer unlimited monthly bandwidth with reasonable pricing.
http://www.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management.php
and believe me , they traffic manage a hell of a lot more than they claim to do on that page - I have frequently been throttled for downloading well outside the hours, limits and times listed on that page but tell them about it and they just shrug their shoulders at the help desk and tell you they don't have access to that information to verify how much exactly you downloaded and when. (and no - they are unable to put you through to the traffic management department )
Alrighty then, they've screwed the service level since I moved back to Finland :-) They actually used to have in-house newsgroup server too, holding all those precious alt.bin. groups, so I'm guessing that's gone too :-) Anyway, maybe, just maybe, there are still some non-BT, non-Virgin, non-anyOtherMajorBrand ISPs out there in the Land of Rain that do appreciate their customers -- come it with higher monthly bill, but no limitations or something else.
Anyway, back to the topic... Spotify and other similar services are, in my mind, part of this "Net is your storage" movement. It was originally pushed forward by Oracle and Sun in last decade -- when it miserabely failed due slow connections, slow PCs and bad services -- it has been gaining quite a lot of momentum lately, Google Docs being probably the best-known such service (but followed closely by Photoshop Online, etc).
It is obvious that the "cloud" wont suit for all of us, but in this particular case, I understand it fully. If I suddenly want to hear _one song_, one particular song (that's been playing in my head for couple of days, as it usually happens), opening up Spotify and .. well, just listening it, is so damn trivial that I can't imagine anyone bothering to launch a torrent client for it and to search for a specific album or single :-)
Big nag for me, currently, with Spotify is the fact that it doesn't have S60 client yet. Once they release it, I will most likely start building my playlists through that and use fixed-cost mobile broadband to stream the music to my phone. But apparently, the S60 client is already in their plans :-)
|
|
sakjur
Newbie
|
21. July 2009 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
That's not REALLY the truth. I've got 10/10, but yes, most swedes have broadband and ADSL is already "ancient" technology. And I COULD easily add a couple of pounds/month to upgrade to 100/100
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. July 2009 @ 16:29
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
22. July 2009 @ 04:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
That's not REALLY the truth. I've got 10/10, but yes, most swedes have broadband and ADSL is already "ancient" technology. And I COULD easily add a couple of pounds/month to upgrade to 100/100
Ok, lets rephrase it a bit: "most Swedes have the relatively cheap option to get 100/100" :-) ISPs here in Finland began to roll out 100/100 or 100/10 connections to major cities about a year ago and wont expect those to be avail in any smaller towns -- ever. So, for most Finns, the ADSL with 8/1 or ADSL2+ with 24/3 is currently the fastest available option.
|
|
sakjur
Newbie
|
22. July 2009 @ 06:00 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
That's not REALLY the truth. I've got 10/10, but yes, most swedes have broadband and ADSL is already "ancient" technology. And I COULD easily add a couple of pounds/month to upgrade to 100/100
Ok, lets rephrase it a bit: "most Swedes have the relatively cheap option to get 100/100" :-) ISPs here in Finland began to roll out 100/100 or 100/10 connections to major cities about a year ago and wont expect those to be avail in any smaller towns -- ever. So, for most Finns, the ADSL with 8/1 or ADSL2+ with 24/3 is currently the fastest available option.
:) That sounds nice..
Lets hope you catch up with us soon :)
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
22. July 2009 @ 06:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most Swedes have 100/100 home connections and their network backbone doessn't have to throttle anything. It is really just about how good your ISP is -- and BT, IMO, isn't very good, I have too long history with them ;-) World's bandwidth wont run out when 200M new people start streaming music. Particular ISPs' bandwidth might, but that's survival of the fittest, really..
That's not REALLY the truth. I've got 10/10, but yes, most swedes have broadband and ADSL is already "ancient" technology. And I COULD easily add a couple of pounds/month to upgrade to 100/100
Ok, lets rephrase it a bit: "most Swedes have the relatively cheap option to get 100/100" :-) ISPs here in Finland began to roll out 100/100 or 100/10 connections to major cities about a year ago and wont expect those to be avail in any smaller towns -- ever. So, for most Finns, the ADSL with 8/1 or ADSL2+ with 24/3 is currently the fastest available option.
:) That sounds nice..
Lets hope you catch up with us soon :)
Most likely not :-( Our govt isn't subsidizing the countryside's broadband connections like your govt decided to do -- sorta makes it financially impossible to roll out proper fiber across the country.
Oh, as a sidenote for those still reading this off-topic convo, Spotify is a Swedish company :-)
|
Member
|
23. July 2009 @ 11:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
If I can't put the songs on my iPod, then Spotify might as well be Napster.
|
Senior Member
|
23. July 2009 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
If I can't put the songs on my iPod, then Spotify might as well be Napster.
Maybe you should get a better MP3 player? HeHeHe.... :) But seriously you can convert them to your iPod with out a problem so that really isn't an issue.
The 320 res is OK but I would prefer lossless if I'm going to pay $10 /mo. All this streaming is going to get people in trouble due to the now popular cap method and will drive the hi-speed rates up. We may have to look at T1's or in worst case T3's if you have kids. I just love Broadband providers 10-12G service and you're luck if you get 768K speeds, what a marketing scam!
I don't see using this service as I'm not for paying $10/mo and I definately don't want low res sound with advertising! Plus the kids are really into videos now so I don't see them getting to excited over this either.
|
|
sakjur
Newbie
|
23. July 2009 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
If I can't put the songs on my iPod, then Spotify might as well be Napster.
Maybe you should get a better MP3 player? HeHeHe.... :) But seriously you can convert them to your iPod with out a problem so that really isn't an issue.
The 320 res is OK but I would prefer lossless if I'm going to pay $10 /mo. All this streaming is going to get people in trouble due to the now popular cap method and will drive the hi-speed rates up. We may have to look at T1's or in worst case T3's if you have kids. I just love Broadband providers 10-12G service and you're luck if you get 768K speeds, what a marketing scam!
I don't see using this service as I'm not for paying $10/mo and I definately don't want low res sound with advertising! Plus the kids are really into videos now so I don't see them getting to excited over this either.
This is one of the things with Spotify, when you get it, you suddenly realizes that you're addicted to it, how scaptical you were from the beginning.
And ISPs promise you 10-12Mbit, which is ~1250KB. So if I understand you correctly, as there's a difference between Mbit and MB...
|
|
jimsocal
Newbie
|
23. July 2009 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
Pandora is a really good service here in the U.S..
It's different in that you can't choose particular songs but you CAN create your own radio stations based on genres, on songs, and on artists, and you can tweak it to your own tastes by voting yes or no on songs, etc..
Pandora is streaming at 160k for free or 198k with no ads for only $3/month, yes that's $THREE dollars per month U.S..
Pandora is great for finding new music in genres or styles that you like! And - it's FREE!
|
Senior Member
|
23. July 2009 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jimsocal:
Pandora is a really good service here in the U.S..
It's different in that you can't choose particular songs but you CAN create your own radio stations based on genres, on songs, and on artists, and you can tweak it to your own tastes by voting yes or no on songs, etc..
Pandora is streaming at 160k for free or 198k with no ads for only $3/month, yes that's $THREE dollars per month U.S..
Pandora is great for finding new music in genres or styles that you like! And - it's FREE!
Listening to it from a MP3 player with crappy headphones that might be OK but if you're running it through a decent stereo then forget it I'll take the real thing on DVD-A or CD even 192K just isn't that good. And that just seems to be the issue no matter if we are talking video or audio, poor resolution when streaming, I like quality not crap so basically I don't stream unless it is for preview purpose only.
|
|
jimsocal
Newbie
|
23. July 2009 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
I also do not like high compression but I'm listening to Pandora at 192k through Sony MDR 7506 Professional headphones and it sounds great. I'm not sure how it works exactly but I swear it sounds better than most 192k mp3's I have heard (usually I don't go for 192k mp3's unless I have to). Anyway Pandora sounds good to me, and it's great for discovering new artists in genres you like.
|
Senior Member
|
23. July 2009 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jimsocal:
I also do not like high compression but I'm listening to Pandora at 192k through Sony MDR 7506 Professional headphones and it sounds great. I'm not sure how it works exactly but I swear it sounds better than most 192k mp3's I have heard (usually I don't go for 192k mp3's unless I have to). Anyway Pandora sounds good to me, and it's great for discovering new artists in genres you like.
I've used those headphones and they are good so I could see doing that in certin circumstances, biking for instance. hey if you like it and it works well for you that is all that matters, like I said before 320K isn't too bad of quality and 192K in listenable for me my heart burn would be the $10/mo fee for that and it would make me feel like I have to spend all my time capturing streamed music to make it worth my while. For those with plenty of time and like do such things it might be worth it and fun too.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. July 2009 @ 17:46
|
|
cf1955
Newbie
|
23. July 2009 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi All
Well its not bad, not perfect but for general purpose music server it is acceptable.
There are problems like distorted sound on some tracks when you switch off the normalising and I have caught it out on one artist.
Fast Internet access is important, then its almost instantaneous and it does not seem to interfere with other internet access.
I am sure if it gets ground and new bands get a look in, then it has potential, but it would be nice to store songs on the computer and play then offline.
One thing of criticism of this thread, please concentrate on the subject not your own problems, access it and return with sensible comments.
Chris
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. July 2009 @ 07:36 |
Link to this message
|
There is a new multiplexing routine for cable that doubles band width getting it up near fiber. Apparently the Brits are too cheap to invest.
I would assume Quote:
very good quality, legal, audio streaming
means 128 BR. Pirates typically download at about 1,000 times this rate.
I am all for more choices. I do suspect that after the media mafia and suckes all the 'juice' out of internet radio they will do the same to these.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
25. July 2009 @ 02:48 |
Link to this message
|
Looks similar to itunes. Well darn it! I can't try it, I can't buy it...this sucks. Because I reside in the U.S. and they have no such licensing, the U.S. can't currently even test it!!! Ahh well. Pandora is good. I guess i'll just have to be patient. Since regular F.m. radio doesn't really have a techno station(In my area), Itunes has really only ever been my option. Or recommended by friends. Too bad, I was about to shell out 10+$ for monthly service to try it out :(
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2009 @ 02:49
|
|
AKanadian
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. July 2009 @ 01:49 |
Link to this message
|
I am going to have to agree with MrXenu, I feel that this idea is not really a bad Idea however its going to have its draw backs ISP's are going to be swamped with massive amounts of bandwidth usage from their subscribers and with today's technology I feel that the makers of our lovely PC's are going to have to upgrade the hardware a bit more not to mention the wiring that they use is going to have to use some upgrading as well, what i'm driving at is that they (Computer building Companies) are going to have to start incorperating fiber optics in to our PC's and Wiring so that Data Transfer can move at a greater rate and the traffic on the net wont be so congested as we the everday user can foresee happening... Yes Spotify is a good Idea, but Please, if your going to introduce this to program to the North American Continent, Think ahead and introduce better hardware and revamp the entire continent with fiber optics so that our Towns, Cities, Provinces, States & Countries can enjoy what you have to offer with out the headache of listening to streamed music thats constantly interupted due to traffic overload. its kinda like listening to a scratched record, which can get rather bothersome turning the daily user away from the program and driving them right back to torrenting music or downloading from their favorite sites.
MrXenu hit it on the spot when he made his comments and I can certainly see his points and its best that who ever thought up this idea, best wait until technology catches up in order to meet with your fabulous idea.
K@N@DI@N (Tony)
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. July 2009 @ 07:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
AKanadian, I have to disagree with you and MrXenu. A 3 minute file at commecial bit rate is about 2.5 megs. That is less than a meg a minute. Most web pages are several megs these days and you would go crazy if it took a minute to load a web page.
You need to think about that one. Do the math.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
jimsocal
Newbie
|
31. July 2009 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I've used those headphones and they are good so I could see doing that in certin circumstances, biking for instance. hey if you like it and it works well for you that is all that matters, like I said before 320K isn't too bad of quality and 192K in listenable for me my heart burn would be the $10/mo fee for that and it would make me feel like I have to spend all my time capturing streamed music to make it worth my while. For those with plenty of time and like do such things it might be worth it and fun too.
Just to clarify re Pandora:
First of all the service is free if you can live with the slightly lower bit rate of the signal and put up with some very short and infrequent ads.
Secondly, if you want the premium service of 192k streaming rate and no ads, it is ONLY $3/month, not $10/month!
|
|
