A week or so back I finally got around to signing up for new music service Spotify and I have to say it’s not bad. Quality is decent (level 5 quality ogg vorbis) and there is a good selection of music to look through. I’ve not been able to find everything I’ve wanted but could just be that my music tastes are a little odd at times. There are adverts but they are few and far between and it’s not worth paying the tenner a month for a premium account to avoid them.
Personally I’m a little lost with it as no sooner have I launched it than my mind goes blank about what bands I like and if I try and find a particular song, I can’t remember its name, who did it or the lyrics. But that’s just me. What it is good for in my case is having pretty much anything on hand for people to listen to when they come around to my flat. No more putting my dodgy music collection on to try and entertain them.
What I find hard to understand is why the music industry seems to be so behind Spotify however. They hate P2P but that’s pretty much all Spotify is. Both use P2P technology to deliver the music. Both provide free music to the end user. Both store the music on the machine although the Spotify cache files aren’t directly readable (easily, yet) and offline play is starting to be introduced soon with an iPhone app. If you have a permanent connection at home, you don’t need the files to be cached anyway.
The only real difference is the music industry get 0.085p per track (standard streaming music royalty fee I believe) for stuff streamed from Spotify. Compare that to the 29p cost for a (cheap) track on Amazon. Even spending several hours a day, every day on Spotify they’d be earning less than £2 a month from me. That is if Spotify can make enough money to cover those costs and not go under as few people are bothering to pay for premium accounts and advertising money just doesn’t cut it for ventures like this nowadays.
Is it so hard for the music industry to see an opportunity somewhere in the middle of 0.085p and 29p?