How could you possibly know this and would lead you to this conclusion? Why would they introduce a lossless tier if they don’t have the capability to stream it correctly?
5 Likes
seriously why is this so difficult to understand.
spotify has more content than tidal, qobuz or deezer or amazon hd.
getting more content at red book quality is a welcome move.
also for the economy scale spotify has, this can lead to main streaming of CD quality at similar or slightly higher prices in the long run.
in my case i listen to music from india which are not available in qobuz or tidal.
now the question is what will be the attitude of roon towards this.
whether @danny / roon team are still going to be rigid about their architecture or work with spotify and other players to bring more services to roon.
1 Like
Desktop app can’t select an output device, doesn’t have exclusive mode. Amazon didn’t fix this. Don’t expect Spotify to fix it because they are just checking a box. Look at their support forums to get a feel for their take on all this.
Ha ha, yes I am familiar with their support forum… pretty bad. While you may be right that sound quality won’t improve much on their desktop app, I don’t see a reason why it would not when using Spotify connect on a streamer or phone that can play lossless
1 Like
Spotify connect is pretty good. I still doubt that many of their users even know about it, or care.
2 Likes
Gosh, I sure hope so!
1 Like
Interesting. From that perspective, then maybe they should be very interested in Roon given that Ron subscribers are big spenders on audio gear, audio software, and music! 
Interesting article about streaming payments…
The statement describing a possible user-centric model is interesting.
“ One such suggestion is the user-centric payment system where, if you only listen to Dua Lipa, your entire subscription fee would go directly to her. ”
[Link to BBC article](Spotify: Price rise ‘could push users into piracy’ Spotify: Price rise 'could push users into piracy' - BBC News)
1 Like
And if Spotify wanted to include that in their API they probably could. If they and Roon were to come to an agreement Roon would take what ever Spotify offered or not agree.
So far, Deezer is the only streaming service on-board with a user-centric payment model. It’s interesting to hear that, when MPs put them up against the wall, Spotify execs are willing to evince an interest in exploring that possibility.
Could you please translate that into English please - I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re meaning here?
Aside from Deezer, up till now, all of the other streaming services have previously expressed opposition to UCPS.
When hauled in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee, set up to “investigate whether musicians are being paid fairly by services like Spotify, Amazon Music and Apple Music” (per the article under discussion), the Spotify exec said (in reference to UCPS) “We would definitely be open to looking for alternative models and considering them.”
Is that clearer?
In a word, no. What is UCPS?
User Centric Payment System (UCPS)
Market Centric Payment System (MCPS)
User-Centric Payment System.
Hint: the blue phrases in the posts above are hyperlinks. You might find useful information (like the definition of the above acronym) if you click on them.
[Moderated] I know how to follow hyperlinks. None of them added anything to this conversation which seems focused on some obscure UK perspective (which is where I used to live for most of my life) which will have no bearing on what happens in the rest of the world, since none of these companies are legally based there.
Deezer is based in France.
Anyway, since a big part of Spotify’s business model seems to involve tracking (and then monetizing) data on individual subscribers’ listening habits, I’ve never quite understood their objection to UCPS, namely that tracking what individual subscribers stream would be too expensive.
You raise a good point about the ad-supported free tier. However, if we are just talking about paid (“premium”) subscribers, then the calculation is relatively trivial. Since the current topic is all about the paid subscribers (to the “forthcoming” lossless service), I can imagine a very simple algorithm:
- Keep using MCPS for the free tier (taking total ad revenues and dividing them by total “free” streams).
- But use UCPS for the paid subscriptions.
1 Like
Ding, ding, ding!
As a Spotify exec, I’d want to get out ahead of the legislators and implement UCPS for the paid subscribers.
Then, in the unlikely event that the legislators still had complaints, I’d be able to say:
Look, for those of our customers who actually care enough about the artists to subscribe, we allocate their payments fairly. For those of our customers who don’t give a $%#& about the artists and won’t pay a dime to support them, well we allocate the ad revenues derived from them as best we can. But the problem there lies with the cheapskate customers, not with us.
1 Like