Latest: Spotify Ditches Its 5 Play Limit For Spotify Free Users In The UK

[Prince Myshkin]

Spotify still seems as full to me as it was when I got it.

[Violet]

10 hours a month? PSH. Pandora gives me 40. This is worthless.

[busybeeburns]

 

Spotify aims to take market share from iTunes

 

Online music service Spotify is turning up the heat on Apple as it aims to create an alternative to iTunes.

 

The company is extending many of its premium services, including an iPhone and iPod app, to non-paying members.

 

It is also encouraging customers to import their music collection into Spotify, rather than Apple's system. However, analysts have questioned how much impact the service can have, given iTunes' dominance and its close integration with Apple devices.

 

At the heart of the update is an attempt to make Spotify a mobile platform for its 10m members. 9m of those use the free version of the service and until now did not have access to their music libraries via mobile devices such as iPods and mobile phones.

 

The update will allow them to synch all of their MP3 collection, including songs purchased from iTunes, from the desktop to a range of iPods, iPhones and mobiles using the Android operating system.

 

But streaming music, which is at the heart of what Spotify does, will still only be available to those who pay a monthly fee of between £5 and £9.99.

 

The move will be widely seen as an attempt to placate fans who were angered by restrictions recently imposed on the service. The limits saw the amount of music that free users can listen to halved. It also reduced the number of times an individual track can be played to to five.

 

Gustav Soderstrom, chief product officer at Spotify, denied that there was any link between the new service and recent restrictions.

 

He said that it was a response to customer demand for a greater tie-up between the music they owned the service they used to create playlists. "Users are juggling two products at the same time and they said they really wanted to synch their playlists with their iPods and iPhones," he said. Ultimately, he agreed, the aim was to make iTunes redundant as a music player. "We think this is a better experience. If it is not, people will go back to iTunes," he added.

 

For this ambitious plan to work Spotify will need to encourage users to download songs from Spotify rather than from iTunes. Spotify has hammered out a deal with record labels which centres around the creation of bespoke playlists.

 

It will now offer bundles of tracks, with prices falling as more are bought. Ten tracks will cost £7.99, 15 tracks £9.99, 40 tracks £25 and 100 tracks £50.

 

Spotify hopes the innovation will breathe new life into its download service, which it admits has "been a bad experience" for users. However, Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Forrester Research, was underwhelmed by the changes.

 

"They don't sound like great discounts to me. All it is doing is applying album pricing to playlists. You might even be able to do that on iTunes already," he said. "I can see what Spotify is trying to do, it wants to acquire the clothes of the more robust music services by offering ways of buying as well as listening to music and creating an alternative music management platform."

 

He suggested that Spotify would always lack the clout of Apple. "iTunes is a very bloated music management service but people use it because it is tied to their devices. Apple offers access to the cloud, it has a billing relationship with users. Managing music from Spotify doesn't really do much. People will still have to go back to iTunes to buy new tracks. It is hard to see significant numbers of people using it," he said.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13273135

[Prince Myshkin]

Does this mean future Apple products are going to be even more restrictive when it comes to storing songs, etc?

[Prospekt.]

Anything apple forever.

[deaths_friend]

Does this mean future Apple products are going to be even more restrictive when it comes to storing songs, etc?

 

Apple would only be hurting themselves by doing so. people will always find their way around those sorts of hurdles, fortunately thats just the way the internet is.

 

did anyone read Robin Pecknold's recent comment about file sharing and illegal downloading? i thought he was completely right. very refreshing to see a prominent artist speak out about the issue and be honest.

[Cobalt]

Interesting that they've attempting to cover both iOS and Android devices, but I don't think those bundle prices will be encouraging anyone too much to switch from the iTunes Store...

[busybeeburns]

 

Spotify adds 500,000 paying subscribers after throttling free tunes

 

Music streaming front-runner Spotify saw a massive increase in the number of people who actually pay for the service after it seriously restricted the amount of music users get when using the free version, according to leaked reports Music Ally claims to have received.

 

In April, Spotify strangled its free service, limiting you to just 10 hours of music playback per month, and only letting you play individual tracks five times ever.

 

The idea was to push those users who enjoy the service into forking out for the paid version, which also lets you access Spotify's music databank from your phone using iOS and Android apps, and it looks as though the gamble paid off.

 

Between March and June this year, Spotify grabbed 520,000 paying subscribers, taking it up to a grand total of 1.54 million users who were willing to splash out actual cash-money to use the service -- a 50 per cent increase -- and 4.67 million users in total.

 

Interestingly, Spotify actually lost users overall since making the changes. In March it had 5.75 million users in total, which maths fans will identify is more than the 4.67 million users it had as of June.

 

But half a million customers paying for the service is a lot more valuable than a million freeloaders.

 

We reckon the initial changes were due to pressure from the music labels that lend their tunes to Spotify in the first place. A jump in paying users could appease entertainment industry honchos, and demonstrate that a trade built around inexpensive, accessible music is the future. Y'know, as opposed to knee-jerk, clumsy attempts to clamp down on piracy and keep things the way there are forever thank you very much.

 

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/spotify-adds-500000-paying-subscribers-after-throttling-free-tunes-50004801/

[Black Rose]

That be good.

[Darlene_Ihnfsa]

hard measure they took, but i finally fall for it... :( even when i had to install their experimental software on linux via command instructions/terminal thing -which i've never done before so i was all n00b doing so...- but i finally have it again. :dance: and without it be linked to my fb. :mellow: just my blog lastfm.

i wish it were free though, advantage is i'll be able to listen new music days before the albums are released and still will be cheaper than if i'd had to pay for the big amount of music i used to listen through spotify months ago. :wacko:

[Italian Plastic]

hmmm

[Tnspieler1012]

hmmm

 

:\

[Black Rose]

But what Mr Hopkins fails to take into account how much he would have got paid if those 90,000 plays were done using free downloads.

[para-para-parrotdies]

But what Mr Hopkins fails to take into account how much he would have got paid if those 90,000 plays were done using free downloads.

 

Exactly - if Mr. Hopkins pulls his entire discography from Spotify, then people are more likely to resort to illegal downloading his songs. Then he doesn't get paid at all. For some bizarre reason, the music industry refuses to acknowledge that technology has changed things and that music is now accessible to all with an internet connection.

 

Plus, the 90,000 plays that Mr. Hopkins points to paints an incomplete picture. How many people already owned his albums and just decided to stream on Spotify because it was easier. Nor does it account for repeat plays - many of my friends who use Spotify just listen to a couple of songs over and over. 90,000 plays doesn't mean 90,000 independent users and Mr. Hopkins would be extremely naive to think that.

 

Finally, citing the number of plays doesn't account for exposure - how many people just decided to stream his music on Spotify that went on to become fans and actually buy more of his stuff? Spotify does a decent job of separating people who listen to music between the casual listeners and hardcore fans. Loyal fans are more likely to buy records to support the artists while casual listeners are more likely to download songs for free. With music on Spotify, the latter group might listen to a recommended song on before deciding to purchase it.

 

But if Mr. Hopkins' songs were pulled off Spotify, then these casual listeners have no other option but to illegally download the songs. It would prevent potential fans from getting exposure to Mr. Hopkins' songs. Right now, the only thing Mr. Hopkins really has going for him is that he worked on Coldplay's albums - he's not widely regarded in the electronic music scene because his music often sounds like a poor man's Boards of Canada. Spotify provides a venue for people who heard about his production on Coldplay's albums and want to check out his music.

 

Don't get me wrong - I do think Mr. Hopkins should get higher compensation for his works. But calling out Spotify (on Twitter of all places) is not the right call.

[busybeeburns]

 

Spotify Not Throttling Americans, Subs Hit Three Million

 

Early last week, a six-month promotion period, during which U.S. users were exempted from Spotify’s five-plays-per-song, 10-hours-per-month limits, was due to end for the first of the service’s American adopters, if reports were to be believed. But that apparently hasn’t yet happened.

 

U.S. users are apparently still enjoying desktop streaming with no such limits, if the absence of gripes in social media is anything to go by.

 

Reasons are not clear, but Spotify is a firm believer in using limited desktop free to drive premium subscriptions. It has been also been experimenting with 48-hour free trials and with free retention periods for cancelling subscribers, as it figures out the most attractive freemium levers to push.

 

Conversion and adoption

 

It appears to be working. Speaking during an event at Universal Music Group in London on Thursday, Spotify chief content officer Ken Parks revealed Spotify has now hit three million paying subscribers. That’s up from 2.5 million in November, when Spotify said it had 10 million active users and a 15 percent premium conversion ratio. Now Spotify says it is converting 20 percent to paid; it did not update the active-users count, though mathematics suggests it is 15 million.

 

This success, as was already known, is driven by ringfencing mobile for premium-only. “This is the one thing people are willing to pay for,” Parks said. “We don’t think there’s a big willingness for people to pay for streaming to the PC.”

 

Sitting alongside Parks, Universal’s global digital chief Francis Keeling said: “The one thing Spotify has taught us is the necessity to have a free trial period to get consumers to see how good these services are.” Spotify’s Parks added: “Users who are exposing their listening on Facebook are three times as likely to become paid subscribers.

 

“The vast majority of customers are paying 120 dollars, pounds or euros every year, which is around twice the amount the average user purchases on a download service every year.”

 

More revenue streams

 

Where next? Free is not just a premium conversion tool; advertising to free users makes up a sizeable minority of Spotify’s revenue. But Parks said: “We’ve got at least a couple of different revenue streams. Those won’t be the only ones over time.” He told paidContent e-commerce may become Spotify’s third revenue plank.

 

Now that Spotify has an in-app platform for third-party services like gig ticket seller Songkick, Spotify could take a cut from transactions third parties process inside Spotify, Parks suggested, albeit only speculatively.

 

Absentees punishing

 

Separately, Parks made a pitch to the small number of artists and labels withholding their music from streaming services like his over payouts.

“Withholding a record from Spotify doesn’t mean that it’s not available for streaming,” he argued. “All of this stuff is available on YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG). You’re just pushing them to somewhere it’s not monetisable.

 

“There’s illogic behind withholding a record. What you really want to do is reward the people who are spending $120 a year, rather than punish them by not making the records available on the platform.”

Most Spotify refuseniks have been cottage-industry, artist-owned labels or artists themselves, citing low payouts from label royalties. But EMI’s Coldplay also withheld its latest album from streaming services for the time being.

Sitting alongside Parks, Universal’s global digital chief Francis Keeling, whose own label - the world’s largest - includes some artists holding out from Spotify, echoed Parks’ comments: “The only thing those artists are doing are alienating their fanbase.

 

“Our agreements with artists are on a case-by-case basis. Over time, we’re trying to convince our artists that streaming services are the right thing to do and these services should be supported.”

Refuseniks make up just a tiny fraction of Spotify’s total addressable label partner base. Spotify explains that it mostly pays labels, not artists.

 

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-spotify-not-throttling-americans-fancies-e-commerce-coldplay-illogical/

[Italian Plastic]

spotify is finally available in NZ. woooooooooooooooooooooo

[busybeeburns]

Spotify Ditches Its 5 Play Limit For Spotify Free Users In The UK

 

 

Spotify Ditches Its 5 Play Limit For Spotify Free Users In The UK

 

Freetards rejoice. Spotify has ditched the 5 play limit imposed on UK users of the free version of its music streaming service, Spotify Free, which until today kicked in after six months usage and meant that no one track could be streamed more than 5 times — it would become greyed out after the limit had been reached.

 

Removing the cap, which was introduced in April 2011 (along with a number of other changes to its free offering), brings it in line with other European markets where Spotify began ditching the 5 play limit in March, notes Music Ally.

 

The U.S., Australia, and New Zealand have never had a cap, while in Europe, France seems to be the hold out. What hasn’t changed, however, is the 10 hours of streaming per month limit associated with the Spotify Free tariff, as the company continues to nudge users towards becoming paying customers.

 

Here’s what Spotify has to say on its blog:

We’ve got some mighty fine news for all Spotify Free users. From today, there’s no more 5 play-per-song limit. You can listen to your favourite songs as many times as you like.

 

That’s right, no more greyed-out songs. The tracks that you couldn’t listen to before will once again be available for your listening pleasure.

 

Give it a try.

When Spotify first introduced the 5 play limit, along with a cap on the number of listening hours overall for its non-paying customers, the idea of drawing a line in the sand between paying users and non-paying users made sense within the context of Spotify’s freemium model. And for many, the inconvenience of ads, however repetitive they are, wasn’t enough of a reason to upgrade to a paid account. Introducing false scarcity was always going to be more effective. In that context, capping free usage to ten hours per-month was an easy message to convey, while the 5 play limit seems idiosyncratic to say the least and, as I speculated at the time, probably came at the request of the major record labels who Spotify remains entirely reliant upon.

Perhaps the oddest thing about Spotify’s new terms for non-paying users, however, is that after 6 months they’ll only be able to play each track up to a total of 5 times. This, of course, produces artificial scarcity and therefore it could be argued that it will push more users to pay for a subscription. But it also feels arbitrary. Why five plays? Is the sixth play more expensive to serve than the previous five?

 

More broadly, however, despite today’s small change to Spotify Free, it appears to remain the case that a free, ad-supported music streaming service without any limits remains nonviable. The economics simply don’t work, however hard you try to crowbar in a freemium model.

 

Meanwhile, despite reports of its imminent world-wide launch, no word yet on when Spotify plans to bring its U.S.-only free mobile Internet radio feature to its mobile apps in the UK (or elsewhere outside the U.S.). Rightly or wrongly, the Internet radio model, which imposes arcane rules such as how many tracks by the same artist can be played sequentially etc., has a different royalty rate to a pure “on-demand” offering.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/19/spotify-freetards/

[James.]

Thank god for that. Now to go and listen to all the songs that I've listened to 5 times already! :escaping:

[Coldplay]

Still only 10 hours of music per month? I could finish that in 2-3 days.

 

sux 2 b british

[James.]

Inorite. :( Sometimes it just plain lies, and I get to listen to like 2 albums and then it says I'm out of time :angry:

[Cyan Kat]

Glad that's gone, the 5 play limit was so annoying.

[busybeeburns]

Spotify rushes to fix free download vulnerability

 

Many sites are susceptible to "ripping" of their content

 

Spotify rushes to fix free download vulnerability

 

Music streaming site Spotify has rushed to fix a security hole that allowed users free song downloads.

 

Downloadify, an extension to Google's Chrome browser, enabled users to download MP3 files by exploiting a vulnerability in Spotify's web player. Google removed the extension, but Downloadify was still available via other websites. Spotify has confirmed to the BBC that the issue has now been fixed.

 

Downloadify was created by Dutch developer Robin Aldenhoven. On Twitter, he noted that music stored online by Spotify was not encrypted. "I could not believe it myself that they did so little to protect their library," he wrote, later adding: "Spotify = awesome... so I don't want to damage them."

 

Other web streaming services are susceptible to similar exploits. Various services allow for the downloading, knowing as "ripping", of content from sites such as YouTube.

 

Such actions are illegal and against the sites' terms of service. Sheena Sheikh, a solicitor from intellectual property specialists Briffa, told the BBC that the law is straightforward on such downloading activity. "You are committing an infringement," she said. "You're not authorised to download the songs. You don't have permission."

 

Spotify is the world's most popular music streaming service. Recent figures from the company said the service has 24 million active users, of whom six million pay a monthly fee for added features.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22452614

[Prince Myshkin]

Spotify has gone really really shit recently, to the point where I don't bother using it. I used to use it all the time, even with the adverts, just because of the wide variety. Now, however, it can take like a minute to buffer a track. My internet isn't great but that's ridiculous. Glad I'm not paying subscription, as I've heard some people do and suffer same thing.