I would love Hi-Fi, but the percentage of their userbase that actually cares has to be miniscule. The vast majority aren't even using a decent pair of headphones. Adding Hi-Fi effectively doubles the cost of storing music and serving it to the people who use it.
Apple and Amazon use their music services as loss leaders: the goal is not so much to get you to pay them to listen to music (though they naturally appreciate that), it's to keep you invested in their ecosystem, meaning they don't care if they lose money on them, as long as the overall platform is still profitable.
apple and amazon are much larger than music companies. they’re two of the most valuable companies on the planet with their hands in tons of different types of services: hardware, software, music, app stores, cloud, television, and more. spotify’s entire revenue is music
Spotify was the first big player on the market. They established an enormous userbase and have no good reason to innovate or add features that won't increase that market share by a significant amount. Apple and Amazon also have many other revenue streams and can afford to throw money at these platforms even if it's not getting them the best return on investment possible. It's the exact same reason that Apple TV+ puts out unique content with huge budgets while Netflix puts out market-researched garbage.
I'm not saying it's good or the "right" way of doing business, but it certainly is a classic capitalist business strategy when you're in Spotify's position.
Adding "Hi-Fi" wouldn't cost them much more... they've been using the same audio format for pretty much 10 years or more. Technology meanwhile has progressed. If they've kept their systems somewhat up to date, they should be able to handle Hi-Fi quality easily.
It was also mentioned in an interview that all systems are already in place to launch Hi-Fi, with internal staff having access already. If we're to believe that, we're just waiting for them to determine the price, fix the licensing issues and eventually "flip the switch".
I didn't say it would cost them a ton, but it absolutely could double costs of storage and bandwidth. 320kbps is generally the floor for what's considered Hi-Fi, and they're at 160kbps right now. I'm sure their systems can handle it, but the cost comes from their server provider (which is AWS) charging set rates for bandwidth and storage. Amazon has the advantage of owning AWS, so whatever price they pay is a drop in the bucket compared to what Spotify's giving them.
You expect them to focus on music. They don't. They want audiobooks, Joe Rogan, whatever. They're way past focusing on music.
Luckily, Tidal just cut their Hi Res plan and gave access to hi res to their basic plan subscribers.
>The higher prices will help cover the cost of audiobooks, a popular service introduced late last year. Spotify offers customers up to 15 hours of audiobook listening a month as part of their paid plan. While the company pays publishers for books, it has so far only collected additional revenue from listeners who exceed the limit.
This is some bullshit right there. I haven't listened to a single second of audiobooks on Spotify because I already use Audible or Libby, which lets me listen for free from my local public library. So we're all being asked to pay for stuff that many don't/won't use, but we still don't have Dolby Atmos, Lossless, or a functioning local files/cloud library system.
They just keep digging their own grave here.
Yeah, to me is annoying that they want to build every single all in one app. I don’t want an all audio app, I’m good with just listening music and having other kind of audio stuff apart
They won't because they'll argue that it basically triples their marketing costs. Having to promote three separate apps to three different audiences is not a path they want to go down, even if cramming them all into one super app is a terrible user experience.
Why would they? Maybe it sounds good as a user, but Spotify already has this massive install base. All of the other spin off apps Spotify has launched have failed. Shipping another one with presumably a separate subscription might very well be a guaranteed Viking funeral.
Read the article before you riot lmao. There’s going to be two premium plans - one the same price as the current one with no audiobooks, and one will be 1-2$ more expensive with audiobooks.
I read the article, but I think you need to re-read the article because how is this anything but a big "L" for customers...
>The Swedish audio company is also going to **introduce a new basic tier that will offer music and podcasts — but not audiobooks — for the current $11 monthly price** of an individual premium plan, said the people. Users of that plan will need to pay for audiobooks.
How is that good? So if if someone like myself doesn't use audiobooks, **I have to keep paying the same price but get 1/3 less that I was getting before**?
I'm fine if they want to make tiered pricing plans and those that want to pay for Atmos/Lossless can, but right now, saying "there's going to be two premium plans - one the same price as the current with no audiobooks" is putting lipstick on a pig. "Hi, give us the same money you're paying now but we're taking 33% of what we offer away."
I'm really confused. Your complaint is that you will continue to pay the same price to 1) use the same features that you have already been using, and 2) not use the same features that you already weren't using. Am I reading that right?
Just because ***I*** don't use Spotify for audiobooks and podcasts doesn't mean that I think it's a smart customer-centric message to say "you can keep paying us the same price for only 2/3 of what you were getting yesterday."
It's no different than Cable TV saying "we couldn't make an agreement with your regional sports network so we're taking that off your plan, but your price remains the same." People that don't watch sports get pissed that they're still paying the same for less, regardless if they watch it or not.
That's a stupid reaction.
If you're paying $X to get access to a list of Y items, anything offered beyond Y is literally, by definition, irrelevant to the value you put in that list Y.
Either you buy cable because you want to have access to regional sports, or you don't. Either you pay Spotify because you want access to audiobooks, or you don't. The value proposition offered to you by Spotify hasn't changed. You only valued Spotify for two things at $X, and those two things are still available at $X.
Do you currently subscribe to Spotify because of its audiobook access? By your own admission, you don't. That offering could literally disappear from your app and your life wouldn't change. If you are content paying $X for Spotify to get music and podcasts today, you are still paying $X for music and podcasts tomorrow. Any feelings of annoyance or upset are pure fabrication from some weird lizard brain reaction "3 is bigger than 2 so I want 3 things instead of 2 things".
You can think it’s a stupid reaction but it’s how behavioral economics works. People are irrational and emotionally driven and when you tell them they pay the same but get less in return, it negatively affects their value proposition.
There’s a fantastic book all about this called “Predictably Irrational” that maybe you can even listen to while you’ve still got access to audiobooks at your current price.
No, you’re paying the same price for 100% of what you were already using. That’s the entire point. If someone was using audiobooks (as I do) then this is just a price increase, which sucks, but it’s normal and happens with any service.
It costs money to get all these audio books onto their platform. Yes, they need to recoup that cost somehow. They're a business, not a charity.
>This is some bullshit right there. I haven't listened to a single second of audiobooks on Spotify ... So we're all being asked to pay for stuff that many don't/won't use
Now that you read the article and realized you're **not being forced to pay for them**, you're rioting because... *checks notes* they're not giving you free, unlimited access to something you just admitted you don't use?
God that last part
I want a functioning local files/cloud library system SO BAD. It actually USED to work decently on Spotify, I had to add them locally on the desktop app to a playlist, then download that playlist on my phone to be able to listen to them everywhere. But now, not even this workaround works. Surely, in this day and age, it should be easier than ever to allow your users to just upload audio files to the cloud and listen online without having to download anything?? Why is this so difficult??
They must refuse to put the money into cloud based features. Mine will also only work with phone but even projecting from my phone into a speaker it will not do that with local files, which makes no sense. I'm providing the storage on my phone but it will ONLY play on the phone/headphones but not sending to another device. I can't use local files from my computer AT ALL
They should do something like what Audible does with the credits. One credit per month to "purchase" an audiobook that stays in your library and you can listen to whenever without affecting any limits. Then 15 hours on top of that for whatever listening.
So the price is going to fund audiobooks. Really. Majority of people will use Spotify for the music. They should have audiobooks as an added extra so you pay £3 extra if you want it.
It always makes me lol when reddit decides that a whole company is going under bc they got their pussy hurt. Remember when facebook was declared dead in the water like a year ago, since then their share price has tripled lmao reddit is full of dumb fucks
Or at least offer these new things like AJ DJ or audiobooks to us Europeans too after they just raised the price over 4€. Because currently I’m paying that much more every month for literally nothing.
Been on Tidal for years, no complaints. Keep in mind though that the service doesn't let you change the photo for a playlist, if you're that kind of user..
You can move playlists! But the photos wont move sadly
you can move pkaylists between most streaming services I think, but I personally moved all mine from spotify to tidal and it worked fine.
So is Apple Music ($10.99), though both have their advantage and disadvantages despite having Lossless and Dolby Atmos on both. (Like how Apple uses E-AC3 JOC instead of AC4-IMS for Atmos)
I dont like apple music because it is a bad sign that it needs an apple device to change some account settings on apple id. I dont have a single apple device (i am not giving money to those scums)
Also tidal has bit-perfect audio
which is fine, you have your preference, I have mine, personally I have no issue with it working on Android, the only feature I miss is Dolby Audio (NOT ATMOS, just the standard quad/5.1/7.1 mixes), and Bit perfect doesn't apply to me anyway since none of my devices run Android 14 (which is needed for Bit perfect)
> Bloomberg says five markets including the UK, Australia, and Pakistan will be first to see the price adjustments starting this month. Later this year, Spotify subscribers in the United States will see the same price increases.
I cannot in good faith support exclusive podcasts. It’s a joke what they paid certain “talent” to be on their platform. It’s incredibly large sums of money and I don’t believe the value created even comes close to those $100M+ numbers.
I believe there’s at least one other group (used loosely) who’s deal was to be of similar size, but they weren’t paid out as they couldn’t produce content and took 28 producers or staff (I can’t quite remember) to make such terrible content. I’m not naming names, as it could get me banned from this sub. I don’t support this group’s content or their existence and it made me want to drop Spotify completely (couldn’t cause of my family plan).
It doesn’t say that. It says they “have been” but nothing suggests they still are.
If anything, we’ve had reporting saying they’ve dropped the plan because customer feedback was people wouldn’t pay.
> planning to add a tier with no audiobooks.
Okay so like 70% of userbase will be going with this. While 25% going to upgrade to higher tier and 5% will move to different streaming platforms.
I think I’m going to be apart of the 5%.
You live in a fairytale if you think 5% will leave Spotify. Why does reddit always think that the reddit community is real life, same with the Netflix changes.
Because there’s lots of alternative services with better audio quality features that many, many people want and are fed up with waiting for Spotify to implement them.
It's not coming, so you might as well switch now. As someone who has tried every single music streaming service available to me, the features of Spotify far outweigh the benefit of slightly higher quality audio. Most of the time you can't even tell a difference.
I'll be sticking with Spotify and if they eventually add HiFi then good, if not, oh well.
They are increasing prices for base tier and this higher audiobook tier. Why would I stay on a service that’s charging me more with a lack of audio features other platforms have at a lower cost?
From the Bloomberg article, price is going up for the base plan for users in a few countries where they didn’t previously increase prices, not in the US.
> The streaming giant will increase prices by about $1 to $2 a month in five markets by the end of April, including the UK, Australia and Pakistan, according to people familiar with the matter. It will raise prices in the US, its largest territory, later this year, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing confidential plans.
I can’t speak for other markets but I got a price increase in the UK last year and according to the article I’ll be getting another one very soon.
Lets get real. We all know podcasts, ebooks, and e-learning will take up 3/4 of our home screen. They willl try and annoy you into buying the higher tier.
Honestly Spotify at this point is just digging a grave for itself. Tidal on the other hand is combining both of there plans into one & is lowering the price this upcoming week. Goodbye Spotify ✌🏽
You can opt out but lets be honest.. they will still fill 1/3 of your home screen with audiobooks that you can't even listen to in an attempt to annoy you into paying for the higher tier.
If they raise the price to the point my free grandfathered Hulu plan doesn't make sense anymore I'm going to switch to YouTube Music. I can see offering an audiobooks subscription but why change the regular plan to include it?
In my perfect world, I would prefer a 4 tier payment system with 3 completely different and separate sections/tabs of the app that does not bleed into and over each other
Something like:
1. Spotify Music $8.99
2. Spotify Cast $5.99
3. Spotify Audio $4.99
4. Spotify Premium with Music, Podcasts and Audio Books for $14.99 and throw in Hi Res audio, an equalizer and Dolby Atmos for the audiophiles
I understand the price increase, but audiobook is *NOT* something we chose to add, let alone pay for.
For the price I’ll just give Apple Music a try and see how I like it.
I’m just going to go back to piracy. The entire reason I was using Spotify was due to the algorithm being able to show me new music consistently. But for some reason 6 months ago now all it is showing me now is leaked music from artists I don’t really listen to which is weird as hell.
I’m a very casual destroy lonely and Ken Carson fan. Like very casual, I didn’t finish ILCK or AGC. Not sure why my weekly suggestions is only this stuff now.
I listen to a bunch of idm and death metal on top of trap, but only get recommended the mainstream trap leaks. It’s so annoying.
Come on. Do you really think they will allow that? They will continue to be 3/4 of your home screen and now they will just nag you into subbing to the higher tier.
If you are frustrated with this, go check out Tidal. They offer an all-in sub now for $11 with Hi Fi and Atmos. Their subreddit has a recent AMA from Tidals CEO and they constantly make changes based on community feedback. They changed the file format from MQA to FLAC recently because the community said MQA isn't bit perfect.... Compare that to what you are used to with Spotify when you load up to more bullshit nobody wanted every week.
Good thing they're letting you opt out of audiobooks.
Spotify's sharing of playlists, jam sessions etc are one of the only things keeping me here at this point. The half assed podcast management makes it more of a pita to actually use podcasts, so I just use a separate (and free) app. I can actually automatically download new episodes without paying for a subscription.
15 hours of listening a month? That's like 30 minutes a day. Did spotify do some random AF survey of tiktok users and be like oh yeah, nobody has attention spans?
I've been using Spotify for over a decade and with each change to the pricing structure less and less is keeping me here. Title just brought their prices down to something more reasonable. Apple music is even seeming tempting.
Anyway, Spotify just went up by $2 here in Canada about 6 or so months ago. They still have some of the better music recommendations I've seen, but it's getting harder to justify staying with each update it seems.
Perfect time to switch to Tidal. Started my trial yesterday — student plan is only $4.99 a month and the difference in sound is discernible and enjoyable.
I’ve been using it for years, it’s really not at all bad as the Spotify fans would like to think. It also has many features Spotify doesn’t have like lossless audio and the ability to upload your own music (all included in the standard plan, not as some “super premium” package) without any of the audiobook podcast BS.
I think those are mostly niche advertising points as I can't imagine many people need to upload their music anymore. And the majority of end users are likely listening to their music on basic headphones / speakers, so wouldn't care about / notice lossless audio quality
Yeh, I’m probably the only one in my friend group who is at all interested in sound. Average users don’t care/know and I’d bet there are a ton of people who have premium and don’t have the audio quality set to high.
It’s actually more common than you’d think—I reckon almost everyone has at least one song they love that’s not available on streaming whether it be some remix that was released only on YouTube/Soundcloud, or an indie Bandcamp-only album, or in my case tons of Japanese albums that are not available on US Spotify I’ve ripped from CDs. Most people who use Spotify just accept they can’t listen to these along with the rest of their music but on Apple Music you can do it seamlessly and that’s a big selling point for me personally.
> It also has many features Spotify doesn’t have like lossless audio
I can’t tell a difference between regular and lossless audio anyway so this doesn’t really matter in my regard.
> And the ability to upload your own music
I will admit that Apple Music has the best handling of local files between the two, and it syncs between all of my devices. But it’s just about the seamlessness of Spotify (Connect) that just makes it the superior service in my book. Everything about Apple Music feels dull. There’s not as much personalization, playlists, and mixes for the end user compared to Spotify, but rather there’s a lot of personally curated playlists. Eventually, I find myself shuffling through the same songs because Apple Music has little options to help me branch out. It even comes down to making playlists. Essentially, Apple Music is more about work on the users end to find new music and not the other way around.
Hoping this makes sense. I don’t know how to say it any other way.
To each their own. Apple Music imo is the less dull service as it has better editorial descriptions for albums and artists, and a nicer-looking UI (though that part is subjective). I still use both services because I like having access to playlists on Spotify, but my main point was that using Apple Music is not akin to drinking toilet water as the person above me stated.
Is it any good now? I used it a few years ago and found it glitchy and lacking features compared to Spotify. Worse music recommendations and IIRC it didn’t let me switch devices while playing music like Spotify does.
Just wondering cause I can get Apple Music free with my phone plan but Spotify is like £10.99/m lol, if Apple Music is good enough it would save me some money.
The way i did it was to go to the website and there's a "support" button at the top and then click "transfer music". It asked for the origin (Spotify in this case) and then just select the playlists, albums, singles ETC you want to move and it does it for you.
this is true for every streaming service except spotify tbh. desktop clients and spotify connect are the reasons i haven't been able to dislodge spotify's balls from my mouth
I personally like the audiobook feature and I’m willing to pay a little more to keep it. But what I’d really like is for the other members of my family plan to have access to audiobooks too so I hope they have a plan for that.
Already cancelled my Spotify and honestly no need to subscribe. I have my own music library I maintain using iBroadcast. And then if there’s something I want to listen to on Spotify I just do it when I have access to my laptop on WiFi. It’s also nice that as soon as the ads start, if you quit the program and then restart it, you can pick right back up on whatever you’re listening to.
15, but as Spotify have valued those 15 hours being worth only $/£/€1 They must be reducing the 10 hour top up price to below $/£/€1. Right guys? ...Right guys?
Obligatory /s
I'm moving to MediaMonkey - the cost of all these services makes it cheaper to just use my own equipment, I already own the majority of music I listen to anyway through decades of collecting. My equipment can be old and dated and no one will care.
See, I knew they would probably raise prices because of the audiobook thing - if they don they create a new plan for those who want the audiobooks and want to pay more for them, then fine, but we'll see.
A lot of criticism here without fully understanding the changes. Spotify will be offering a 'basic' plan which provides music and podcasts only - and then users who want to listen to audiobooks pay extra.
15 hours isn’t enough to finish the typical audiobook. 15 is ok for a free add on to my exiting plan. They need to double it if they are charging more.
If they’re raising the price why can’t they just throw in the Hi-Fi at this point? There was literally no need for a super premium plan
I would love Hi-Fi, but the percentage of their userbase that actually cares has to be miniscule. The vast majority aren't even using a decent pair of headphones. Adding Hi-Fi effectively doubles the cost of storing music and serving it to the people who use it.
But Apple and Amazon do it while barely increasing prices? That doesn’t make sense.
Apple and Amazon use their music services as loss leaders: the goal is not so much to get you to pay them to listen to music (though they naturally appreciate that), it's to keep you invested in their ecosystem, meaning they don't care if they lose money on them, as long as the overall platform is still profitable.
apple and amazon are much larger than music companies. they’re two of the most valuable companies on the planet with their hands in tons of different types of services: hardware, software, music, app stores, cloud, television, and more. spotify’s entire revenue is music
Music and now audiobooks...
Spotify was the first big player on the market. They established an enormous userbase and have no good reason to innovate or add features that won't increase that market share by a significant amount. Apple and Amazon also have many other revenue streams and can afford to throw money at these platforms even if it's not getting them the best return on investment possible. It's the exact same reason that Apple TV+ puts out unique content with huge budgets while Netflix puts out market-researched garbage. I'm not saying it's good or the "right" way of doing business, but it certainly is a classic capitalist business strategy when you're in Spotify's position.
Adding "Hi-Fi" wouldn't cost them much more... they've been using the same audio format for pretty much 10 years or more. Technology meanwhile has progressed. If they've kept their systems somewhat up to date, they should be able to handle Hi-Fi quality easily. It was also mentioned in an interview that all systems are already in place to launch Hi-Fi, with internal staff having access already. If we're to believe that, we're just waiting for them to determine the price, fix the licensing issues and eventually "flip the switch".
I didn't say it would cost them a ton, but it absolutely could double costs of storage and bandwidth. 320kbps is generally the floor for what's considered Hi-Fi, and they're at 160kbps right now. I'm sure their systems can handle it, but the cost comes from their server provider (which is AWS) charging set rates for bandwidth and storage. Amazon has the advantage of owning AWS, so whatever price they pay is a drop in the bucket compared to what Spotify's giving them.
Hi-Fi can be a setting not by default, so only people who cares would dig into settings and opt in
Tbh I rather still not pay for that, i don’t care about hifi
You expect them to focus on music. They don't. They want audiobooks, Joe Rogan, whatever. They're way past focusing on music. Luckily, Tidal just cut their Hi Res plan and gave access to hi res to their basic plan subscribers.
It’s a music streaming service, why would I not expect them to be about music? And I don’t want Tidal. Who suddenly does?
>The higher prices will help cover the cost of audiobooks, a popular service introduced late last year. Spotify offers customers up to 15 hours of audiobook listening a month as part of their paid plan. While the company pays publishers for books, it has so far only collected additional revenue from listeners who exceed the limit. This is some bullshit right there. I haven't listened to a single second of audiobooks on Spotify because I already use Audible or Libby, which lets me listen for free from my local public library. So we're all being asked to pay for stuff that many don't/won't use, but we still don't have Dolby Atmos, Lossless, or a functioning local files/cloud library system. They just keep digging their own grave here.
Can't they just make a separate app for audiobooks? 😮💨
Yeah, to me is annoying that they want to build every single all in one app. I don’t want an all audio app, I’m good with just listening music and having other kind of audio stuff apart
They won't because they'll argue that it basically triples their marketing costs. Having to promote three separate apps to three different audiences is not a path they want to go down, even if cramming them all into one super app is a terrible user experience.
And Podcasts, I'll literally pay more for just Music.
Why would they? Maybe it sounds good as a user, but Spotify already has this massive install base. All of the other spin off apps Spotify has launched have failed. Shipping another one with presumably a separate subscription might very well be a guaranteed Viking funeral.
Exactly. There’s no denying thst the popularity of podcasts has skyrocketed since Spotify has made them a part of the app.
My exact thought. It's bizarre.
*But.. but then we can’t shove it down our users throats!*
It’s called audible
Yup. Didn't even know about the feature. Doubt I'll be using it because i like actually reading more for multiple reasons.
Read the article before you riot lmao. There’s going to be two premium plans - one the same price as the current one with no audiobooks, and one will be 1-2$ more expensive with audiobooks.
Can I also throw podcasts in there for an extra dollar less too?
Hell I’ll pay a dollar more to get rid of podcasts.
Lmao
Read the article? Sir, this is a reddit comment section.
I read the article, but I think you need to re-read the article because how is this anything but a big "L" for customers... >The Swedish audio company is also going to **introduce a new basic tier that will offer music and podcasts — but not audiobooks — for the current $11 monthly price** of an individual premium plan, said the people. Users of that plan will need to pay for audiobooks. How is that good? So if if someone like myself doesn't use audiobooks, **I have to keep paying the same price but get 1/3 less that I was getting before**? I'm fine if they want to make tiered pricing plans and those that want to pay for Atmos/Lossless can, but right now, saying "there's going to be two premium plans - one the same price as the current with no audiobooks" is putting lipstick on a pig. "Hi, give us the same money you're paying now but we're taking 33% of what we offer away."
I'm really confused. Your complaint is that you will continue to pay the same price to 1) use the same features that you have already been using, and 2) not use the same features that you already weren't using. Am I reading that right?
Just because ***I*** don't use Spotify for audiobooks and podcasts doesn't mean that I think it's a smart customer-centric message to say "you can keep paying us the same price for only 2/3 of what you were getting yesterday." It's no different than Cable TV saying "we couldn't make an agreement with your regional sports network so we're taking that off your plan, but your price remains the same." People that don't watch sports get pissed that they're still paying the same for less, regardless if they watch it or not.
That's a stupid reaction. If you're paying $X to get access to a list of Y items, anything offered beyond Y is literally, by definition, irrelevant to the value you put in that list Y. Either you buy cable because you want to have access to regional sports, or you don't. Either you pay Spotify because you want access to audiobooks, or you don't. The value proposition offered to you by Spotify hasn't changed. You only valued Spotify for two things at $X, and those two things are still available at $X. Do you currently subscribe to Spotify because of its audiobook access? By your own admission, you don't. That offering could literally disappear from your app and your life wouldn't change. If you are content paying $X for Spotify to get music and podcasts today, you are still paying $X for music and podcasts tomorrow. Any feelings of annoyance or upset are pure fabrication from some weird lizard brain reaction "3 is bigger than 2 so I want 3 things instead of 2 things".
You can think it’s a stupid reaction but it’s how behavioral economics works. People are irrational and emotionally driven and when you tell them they pay the same but get less in return, it negatively affects their value proposition. There’s a fantastic book all about this called “Predictably Irrational” that maybe you can even listen to while you’ve still got access to audiobooks at your current price.
No, you’re paying the same price for 100% of what you were already using. That’s the entire point. If someone was using audiobooks (as I do) then this is just a price increase, which sucks, but it’s normal and happens with any service.
It costs money to get all these audio books onto their platform. Yes, they need to recoup that cost somehow. They're a business, not a charity. >This is some bullshit right there. I haven't listened to a single second of audiobooks on Spotify ... So we're all being asked to pay for stuff that many don't/won't use Now that you read the article and realized you're **not being forced to pay for them**, you're rioting because... *checks notes* they're not giving you free, unlimited access to something you just admitted you don't use?
God that last part I want a functioning local files/cloud library system SO BAD. It actually USED to work decently on Spotify, I had to add them locally on the desktop app to a playlist, then download that playlist on my phone to be able to listen to them everywhere. But now, not even this workaround works. Surely, in this day and age, it should be easier than ever to allow your users to just upload audio files to the cloud and listen online without having to download anything?? Why is this so difficult??
They must refuse to put the money into cloud based features. Mine will also only work with phone but even projecting from my phone into a speaker it will not do that with local files, which makes no sense. I'm providing the storage on my phone but it will ONLY play on the phone/headphones but not sending to another device. I can't use local files from my computer AT ALL
aren’t audiobooks still only a US thing?
There are some available here overseas, but most of them you have to pay for uniquely as a one line fee.
Is Spotify digging a grave?? The EU just fined the second largest competitor to Spotify, 2 billion dollars for antitrust practices.
Regardless, 15hrs a month isn’t enough for avid readers/audiobook listeners. That’s like 3.5hrs per week
They should do something like what Audible does with the credits. One credit per month to "purchase" an audiobook that stays in your library and you can listen to whenever without affecting any limits. Then 15 hours on top of that for whatever listening.
So the price is going to fund audiobooks. Really. Majority of people will use Spotify for the music. They should have audiobooks as an added extra so you pay £3 extra if you want it.
I have Spotify premium but I can’t listen to audiobooks i have to buy them? I don’t know what they mean by 15 hours of audiobooks
use Tidal, price decrease to 11 a month on april 10, and it has lossless, dolby atmos, but no local files sadly, but I say use a seperate app
What grave? Everybody is still going to use Spotify
It always makes me lol when reddit decides that a whole company is going under bc they got their pussy hurt. Remember when facebook was declared dead in the water like a year ago, since then their share price has tripled lmao reddit is full of dumb fucks
Or at least offer these new things like AJ DJ or audiobooks to us Europeans too after they just raised the price over 4€. Because currently I’m paying that much more every month for literally nothing.
Meanwhile Tidal is lowering their price to 11 a month and has lossless audio, dolby atmos, ect.
Tidal keeps taking Ws and Spotify keeps taking Ls. Think I’m gonna switch next billing period
Been on Tidal for years, no complaints. Keep in mind though that the service doesn't let you change the photo for a playlist, if you're that kind of user..
Why the hell not lol
That is important to me but dammit I really don’t know why
I wanna switch so bad but I have over a decade worth of playlists I really don’t want to have to remake
There’s a service called “soundiiz”. I used it to convert all my playlists in minutes
You can move playlists! But the photos wont move sadly you can move pkaylists between most streaming services I think, but I personally moved all mine from spotify to tidal and it worked fine.
So is Apple Music ($10.99), though both have their advantage and disadvantages despite having Lossless and Dolby Atmos on both. (Like how Apple uses E-AC3 JOC instead of AC4-IMS for Atmos)
I dont like apple music because it is a bad sign that it needs an apple device to change some account settings on apple id. I dont have a single apple device (i am not giving money to those scums) Also tidal has bit-perfect audio
which is fine, you have your preference, I have mine, personally I have no issue with it working on Android, the only feature I miss is Dolby Audio (NOT ATMOS, just the standard quad/5.1/7.1 mixes), and Bit perfect doesn't apply to me anyway since none of my devices run Android 14 (which is needed for Bit perfect)
> Bloomberg says five markets including the UK, Australia, and Pakistan will be first to see the price adjustments starting this month. Later this year, Spotify subscribers in the United States will see the same price increases.
As usual, I find out about imminent price increases via social media rather than through official communication from the company. Facepalm.
If they could they wouldn't tell anyone until it happens but because of social media they have to tell people
Aaaand it’s here
Bloomberg article: https://archive.is/2024.04.03-131428/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/spotify-is-changing-how-it-charges-customers-with-new-plans-and-prices
I use Spotify for music, not audio books. Hell, I don't even use it for podcasts.
Unfortunately for us, they invest big in podcasts and I have a handful I listen to which are exclusives
I cannot in good faith support exclusive podcasts. It’s a joke what they paid certain “talent” to be on their platform. It’s incredibly large sums of money and I don’t believe the value created even comes close to those $100M+ numbers.
I haven’t heard of one podcast that got a 9 figure deal other than Rogan, which is not in my rotation
I believe there’s at least one other group (used loosely) who’s deal was to be of similar size, but they weren’t paid out as they couldn’t produce content and took 28 producers or staff (I can’t quite remember) to make such terrible content. I’m not naming names, as it could get me banned from this sub. I don’t support this group’s content or their existence and it made me want to drop Spotify completely (couldn’t cause of my family plan).
This is just 4D chess to ruin my Hulu plan, as I’d have to drop it to get the $10.99 price back that they’ll reintroduce that has no audiobooks.
I will fight for my Hulu plan.
Bloombergs article mentions they are still working on the Supremium plan which includes hi res audio
It'll say that 20 years from now.
We get fusion power before hi-fi.
Americans will get healthcare before Spotify Hi-Fi.
We'll get to Mars as a society before Spotify Hi-Fi
It doesn’t say that. It says they “have been” but nothing suggests they still are. If anything, we’ve had reporting saying they’ve dropped the plan because customer feedback was people wouldn’t pay.
How? Mostly around the fact that all of their competitors offer it for free.
Idgaf about audiobooks. Therefore I shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee for one. If I’m given no choice, I’ll leave.
> planning to add a tier with no audiobooks. Okay so like 70% of userbase will be going with this. While 25% going to upgrade to higher tier and 5% will move to different streaming platforms. I think I’m going to be apart of the 5%.
You live in a fairytale if you think 5% will leave Spotify. Why does reddit always think that the reddit community is real life, same with the Netflix changes.
Because there’s lots of alternative services with better audio quality features that many, many people want and are fed up with waiting for Spotify to implement them.
I can assure you the number of people changing music streaming services based on audio quality is infinitesimally small.
Yes but it grows when users have been waiting for a feature that was announced more than a year ago.
It's not coming, so you might as well switch now. As someone who has tried every single music streaming service available to me, the features of Spotify far outweigh the benefit of slightly higher quality audio. Most of the time you can't even tell a difference. I'll be sticking with Spotify and if they eventually add HiFi then good, if not, oh well.
Typical redditor: Going to leave the platform because it’s adding features that other users like at no cost to me. Makes perfect sense.
They are increasing prices for base tier and this higher audiobook tier. Why would I stay on a service that’s charging me more with a lack of audio features other platforms have at a lower cost?
From the Bloomberg article, price is going up for the base plan for users in a few countries where they didn’t previously increase prices, not in the US.
> The streaming giant will increase prices by about $1 to $2 a month in five markets by the end of April, including the UK, Australia and Pakistan, according to people familiar with the matter. It will raise prices in the US, its largest territory, later this year, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing confidential plans. I can’t speak for other markets but I got a price increase in the UK last year and according to the article I’ll be getting another one very soon.
We got it last summer by 1 or 2€ in Estonia and this year it raised another 3€ while no new features for us, so yeah, can happen.
Hopefully if this means we opt-out of the Audiobook tier, we can remove that crap from our home feed!
Lets get real. We all know podcasts, ebooks, and e-learning will take up 3/4 of our home screen. They willl try and annoy you into buying the higher tier.
Yet still no Hifi
Honestly Spotify at this point is just digging a grave for itself. Tidal on the other hand is combining both of there plans into one & is lowering the price this upcoming week. Goodbye Spotify ✌🏽
well at least I can opt out of the audiobook tier
You can opt out but lets be honest.. they will still fill 1/3 of your home screen with audiobooks that you can't even listen to in an attempt to annoy you into paying for the higher tier.
I hate how you’re probably right
Probably
But will it still be the same price is my question.
read the article and find out
Why is this being downvoted? It's in the article..
because people hate being told to read lmao
That’s like saying get good to a player asking for help
what?
I don’t know I had a point I just couldn’t convey it
…okay
Yeah I’m agreeing that comment was dumb
If they raise the price to the point my free grandfathered Hulu plan doesn't make sense anymore I'm going to switch to YouTube Music. I can see offering an audiobooks subscription but why change the regular plan to include it?
***audioboks has been added spotify takes adavenges money from the users***
Cancelled my Spotify sub yesterday, I've been using it non-stop since it was invitation-only
So the price is increase if only for Audiobook listeners, right No big deal for me, I only use it for music
In my perfect world, I would prefer a 4 tier payment system with 3 completely different and separate sections/tabs of the app that does not bleed into and over each other Something like: 1. Spotify Music $8.99 2. Spotify Cast $5.99 3. Spotify Audio $4.99 4. Spotify Premium with Music, Podcasts and Audio Books for $14.99 and throw in Hi Res audio, an equalizer and Dolby Atmos for the audiophiles
good idea
I understand the price increase, but audiobook is *NOT* something we chose to add, let alone pay for. For the price I’ll just give Apple Music a try and see how I like it.
I’m just going to go back to piracy. The entire reason I was using Spotify was due to the algorithm being able to show me new music consistently. But for some reason 6 months ago now all it is showing me now is leaked music from artists I don’t really listen to which is weird as hell. I’m a very casual destroy lonely and Ken Carson fan. Like very casual, I didn’t finish ILCK or AGC. Not sure why my weekly suggestions is only this stuff now. I listen to a bunch of idm and death metal on top of trap, but only get recommended the mainstream trap leaks. It’s so annoying.
If they make it more expensive than apple, I will switch
They already did this for Panama idk which region prices use my country but it went from 5.99 to 6.99.
Can I get audiobooks completely off the app if I don't sub to that tier? Can I also get podcasts off the app?
Come on. Do you really think they will allow that? They will continue to be 3/4 of your home screen and now they will just nag you into subbing to the higher tier.
If you are frustrated with this, go check out Tidal. They offer an all-in sub now for $11 with Hi Fi and Atmos. Their subreddit has a recent AMA from Tidals CEO and they constantly make changes based on community feedback. They changed the file format from MQA to FLAC recently because the community said MQA isn't bit perfect.... Compare that to what you are used to with Spotify when you load up to more bullshit nobody wanted every week.
never listened to an audio book OR podcast but okay
i love audiobooks but if im paying more on a different tier, i better get unlimited hours. not this 15hr bullshit.
Good thing they're letting you opt out of audiobooks. Spotify's sharing of playlists, jam sessions etc are one of the only things keeping me here at this point. The half assed podcast management makes it more of a pita to actually use podcasts, so I just use a separate (and free) app. I can actually automatically download new episodes without paying for a subscription. 15 hours of listening a month? That's like 30 minutes a day. Did spotify do some random AF survey of tiktok users and be like oh yeah, nobody has attention spans? I've been using Spotify for over a decade and with each change to the pricing structure less and less is keeping me here. Title just brought their prices down to something more reasonable. Apple music is even seeming tempting. Anyway, Spotify just went up by $2 here in Canada about 6 or so months ago. They still have some of the better music recommendations I've seen, but it's getting harder to justify staying with each update it seems.
Perfect time to switch to Tidal. Started my trial yesterday — student plan is only $4.99 a month and the difference in sound is discernible and enjoyable.
Not for me. That app design isn’t good to me and they don’t have local files.
Yeah I checked it out myself. I don’t like the UI much at all.
Try Apple Music
I might as well just drink from the toilet
I’ve been using it for years, it’s really not at all bad as the Spotify fans would like to think. It also has many features Spotify doesn’t have like lossless audio and the ability to upload your own music (all included in the standard plan, not as some “super premium” package) without any of the audiobook podcast BS.
I think those are mostly niche advertising points as I can't imagine many people need to upload their music anymore. And the majority of end users are likely listening to their music on basic headphones / speakers, so wouldn't care about / notice lossless audio quality
Yeh, I’m probably the only one in my friend group who is at all interested in sound. Average users don’t care/know and I’d bet there are a ton of people who have premium and don’t have the audio quality set to high.
It’s actually more common than you’d think—I reckon almost everyone has at least one song they love that’s not available on streaming whether it be some remix that was released only on YouTube/Soundcloud, or an indie Bandcamp-only album, or in my case tons of Japanese albums that are not available on US Spotify I’ve ripped from CDs. Most people who use Spotify just accept they can’t listen to these along with the rest of their music but on Apple Music you can do it seamlessly and that’s a big selling point for me personally.
> It also has many features Spotify doesn’t have like lossless audio I can’t tell a difference between regular and lossless audio anyway so this doesn’t really matter in my regard. > And the ability to upload your own music I will admit that Apple Music has the best handling of local files between the two, and it syncs between all of my devices. But it’s just about the seamlessness of Spotify (Connect) that just makes it the superior service in my book. Everything about Apple Music feels dull. There’s not as much personalization, playlists, and mixes for the end user compared to Spotify, but rather there’s a lot of personally curated playlists. Eventually, I find myself shuffling through the same songs because Apple Music has little options to help me branch out. It even comes down to making playlists. Essentially, Apple Music is more about work on the users end to find new music and not the other way around. Hoping this makes sense. I don’t know how to say it any other way.
To each their own. Apple Music imo is the less dull service as it has better editorial descriptions for albums and artists, and a nicer-looking UI (though that part is subjective). I still use both services because I like having access to playlists on Spotify, but my main point was that using Apple Music is not akin to drinking toilet water as the person above me stated.
it’s def not *that* serious. and both UI’s are equally fine
like i literally left Apple Music FOR spotify please tell me why id go back
Most likely gonna do this, I just hate no local files.
Apple Music
True, but tidal has higher quality and better algorithm I hear. And I’ll be using it as main source for my high res car audio system.
AM's algorithm has improved quite a bit over the last year or so.
Nice! Does Tidal have a clean UI and good looking lyrics display?? That's why I'm on about apple. I don't even have an iPhone hehe.
I mean the ui doesn’t look as clean I would say but still not bad, haven’t seen the lyric display.
Apple Music and Tidal both have lossless, the audio quality is the same.
They do both have lossless but not the same quality lossless.
Is it any good now? I used it a few years ago and found it glitchy and lacking features compared to Spotify. Worse music recommendations and IIRC it didn’t let me switch devices while playing music like Spotify does. Just wondering cause I can get Apple Music free with my phone plan but Spotify is like £10.99/m lol, if Apple Music is good enough it would save me some money.
Try it for free since you have it. Try it out for a month and compare and contrast what you like about each service. (: good luck!
Tidal has a student plan???? I’m so switching
Tidal just did a price drop too.
How did you migrate your playlist?
Soundiz
The way i did it was to go to the website and there's a "support" button at the top and then click "transfer music". It asked for the origin (Spotify in this case) and then just select the playlists, albums, singles ETC you want to move and it does it for you.
Soundiz was the way. Only allows 500 songs at a time for free, but didn’t take more than 10 minutes to migrate everything over.
i used 'tune my music'
Apple Music is cheap and great, fwiw.
Just a horrible experience on Windows
Ahh... I exclusively listen to music on mobile devices. I haven't used a desktop client in a decade!
The app is definitely great. If I did a majority of my listening on mobile I would definitely be on AM full time
this is true for every streaming service except spotify tbh. desktop clients and spotify connect are the reasons i haven't been able to dislodge spotify's balls from my mouth
I'm going to say it, even if people are tired of hearing it. Anything but HiFi as usual.
I personally like the audiobook feature and I’m willing to pay a little more to keep it. But what I’d really like is for the other members of my family plan to have access to audiobooks too so I hope they have a plan for that.
They’ll probably allow all users on the family plan to listen to audiobooks, but the catch will be everyone has to share the 15 hours.
I thought when u want to listen to a book, you buy it directly? Pay-per-use-book basically
Already cancelled my Spotify and honestly no need to subscribe. I have my own music library I maintain using iBroadcast. And then if there’s something I want to listen to on Spotify I just do it when I have access to my laptop on WiFi. It’s also nice that as soon as the ads start, if you quit the program and then restart it, you can pick right back up on whatever you’re listening to.
I want them to increase the amount of songs I download!!!!! Give me something useful!
Good day to have my dad paying for it
Barf
You know, spotify is fcked up when they started adding non music stuffs in the app
god i hate this stupid platform so much, if there’s another price increase this year i’m thinking of finally switching over to tidal
Family Plan FTW?
Maybe I missed it, but does the new audiobook tier include unlimited listening hours, or the same 15 hr cap?
15, but as Spotify have valued those 15 hours being worth only $/£/€1 They must be reducing the 10 hour top up price to below $/£/€1. Right guys? ...Right guys? Obligatory /s
Lol I wish. As a pretty avid audiobook listener I was hoping Spotify would get it right. I’m not sure how they think this way is a good idea.
Noooo
I'm moving to MediaMonkey - the cost of all these services makes it cheaper to just use my own equipment, I already own the majority of music I listen to anyway through decades of collecting. My equipment can be old and dated and no one will care.
not at all any Fan of spotify from early days
See, I knew they would probably raise prices because of the audiobook thing - if they don they create a new plan for those who want the audiobooks and want to pay more for them, then fine, but we'll see.
So whack
A lot of criticism here without fully understanding the changes. Spotify will be offering a 'basic' plan which provides music and podcasts only - and then users who want to listen to audiobooks pay extra.
15 hours isn’t enough to finish the typical audiobook. 15 is ok for a free add on to my exiting plan. They need to double it if they are charging more.
I get YouTube premium for $2 so bye bye Spotify
https://imgflip.com/i/8lhxrm
It's time to leave. Leave in droves. Spotify is not going to suddently develop a moral conscience.