For the ones that think $9.99 a month is too much for Spotify

This is an extract of one of the replies I wrote on a Techcrunch post.

I do not think $9.99 a month is ridiculous for unlimited streaming and caching of content @ 320 kbps OGG Vorbis compression. It is a heck of a deal for the quality offered and the quantity of music, including some rarities and remixes that are sold at over $1.29 per track on Amazon.

I undestand some people like to own and Spotify will not satisfy that requirement. However, it allows you to listen to all types of music, including new content that is published almost on a daily basis in high quality (that last is very important for me), and then you can decide if purchasing it for life is a good option (Amazon, GMusic, iTunes, whatever).

This is my take about purchasing music. First. Very limited content is available in loss-less format. If I am going to pay, might as well be for the best quality available. Second. You cannot resell digital content legally. You take the music with you until your next life.

I have playlists totaling over 5,000 songs in Spotify. I listen to them randomly anytime, anywhere. And continuously add new content. I would be out of my mind if I were to spend $5K in music. $9.99 a month sounds good enough. Good for 41 years worth of music service, and that is if I do not add more songs to Spotify. Unbeatable.

Convenience wins. iCloud you might say? Wrong. You can’t stream with iCloud. You need to have a local copy of the track on the device you will play back.

Comments?

Share
  • I agree with your thoughts. The selection and quality are great and the price is a solid value. Why is paying a music subscription so difficult? 
    We pay for cable TV, right. Last I appreciate your comments on the digital quality. I wish Sirus/XM would raise their quality to match Spotify.   

    • Exactly. Quality is a a problem lately, and I believe that 320 kbps is good enough for the naked ear. No one else offers that kind of quality. I am still waiting for radio features for mobile though; that will definitely replace Slacker radio and Pandora on smartphones.

      Some time ago I twitted about the terrible quality offered by Sirius XM for most of their channels. They implement the Enhanced Advanced Audio Coding v2 codec (eAAC+) that reduces bitrate by implementing Spectral Band Replication and Parametric Stereo techniques. The problem is that bitrates do not go over 32 kbps and the quality can be compared to a souped up 96 kbps MP3.
      I dont mind eAAC+, but at least 64 kbps should be offered. Heck, there are online broadcasters implementing eAAC+ at 128 kpbs.