74
Apple Music isn't the best streaming music service — it's just the least annoying
(www.androidpolice.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
74 points (68.5% liked)
Technology
59030 readers
3175 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand how it would be convenient at all to have your whole collection just online, restricted to a single proprietary site/app. I do use musical streaming, but it's for discovering new tracks. All the actual listening happens locally on my computer and player. I cannot afford to actually buy the music, but if I did, I probably would pay for the albums I listen to the most, not the whole library.
I buy around $10-$20 a month. Not much but it adds up my collection fairly quickly
I listen to music and podcasts all day, like minimum of 4-5 hours a day. No way I could afford to do that if I was paying per item and not for the service.
My podcasts are free RSS feeds. As for music - you not only pay, but are restricted in what you can do with your music, not to mention stuff from your collection can just disappear. So as I said, if I was dead set on paying, I would rather pay for one album at a time and pirate the rest, maybe pay for what I have downloaded later.
But what can you do with your music that I cant? I can listen to ten albums tomorrow but I can't buy ten.
The point is Spotify may remove your favourite album and then you can access it. It's a stupid point though because if their hard drive breaks or they otherwise lose access to the file they have to return to whoever they bought the music from and hope they can still download it.
It's like how people point out that when you buy games from steam you don't actually own the game. Well, yeah no shit, if steam shuts down I can't download the game anymore, steam is about convenience not ownership.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the benefits of possessing digital files that cannot be taken away from you, it's just completely irrelevant to a conversation about streaming services. They are two separate products with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Proper backups are your responsibility anyway.
Also I do use streaming - for discovery of new tracks. I was talking about a) paying for this service only to be restricted more than if you didn't; and b) people who have their WHOLE collection depend on a streaming service.
I can use whatever player I want, I can use whatever device I want (like an mp3 player, now I drag a smartphone around until I find a replacement one and it's super inconvenient, can't imagine doing it all the time), I can not depend on an Internet connection for any amount of time, I can not worry about the service retroactively removing features/adding ads/etc, I can still have my music if I end up unable to pay for streaming (not like I am paying right now)...
For a price of a subscription, I could buy an album a month, for example, and download the rest. And maybe pay for some of the downloaded ones later. Same money, more worth out of it.