But they aren’t, according to that article. There isn’t any p2p music transfer.
Any proxying that’s taking place is for the social media sharing element. Unless they did a u-turn on that decision from 3 years ago.
Ok, i’m not up to speed in that regard.
That article, or at least the one it links to states their intention to phase out the use of their p2p distribution network. It gives no time scales other than use of the word gradual and I am not seeing any indication official or otherwise that this process is now complete. Moreover anyone still running old clients will still be working like this as it is software dependant. It is quite possible that where fixed and mobile networks offer good bandwidth p2p is no longer required but I would argue that it is still important in places where broadband is not as far advanced as Europe or North America.
During the months to come Spotify will effectively shut down its P2P servers.
I’d be very surprised if months to come meant 36. I can’t find anything subsequent on the net to suggest they made a u-turn.
Similarly, I don’t think you can even connect with an old client for security reasons. Aren’t they all on some sort of forced automatic update cycle? If anyone is bypassing this, isn’t isn’t going to be en masse.
They never used p2p on mobile networks, ever. And p2p doesn’t lower the overall bandwidth burden to get your song, it just distributes it amongst peers (lowering Spotify’s server bandwidth overhead). The client in your example with low bandwidth, still has the same bandwidth requirement to stream whether it’s from a central or distributed repository.
Look at the referenced torrent freak article Mark, it says gradual. That is the referenced article, the source of the information and not some bloggers reinterpretation and comes from a named Spotify representative.
I stand corrected with regards to the statement about mobile networks.
That’s the article I just quoted.
I just did some more Googling. Spotify are on record as saying that p2p was disabled since v0.9.12 of the desktop client.
Simple and rhetorical question that each user needs to satisfy themselves on
Exactly how does Spotify provide its current service when only 15% of traffic hit its Servers??
Because there are apps on other devices supplied as free accounts for users of specific premium services. This is probably done with the knowledge and approval of the provider so is a win win. Look at who provides free Spotify accounts with their services.
@anon55914447, I stand corrected on both counts although in the quoted text from Bonny she only says gradual.
A Spotify account is a Spotify account…it doesn’t matter if they are provided by a Mobile Operator, ISP or MVNO, the Account will have a Spotify Log-In and will / should be routed thru Spotify’s servers, irrespective of whether the routing is initially thru the Mobile operator, ISP or MVNO, the traffic has to be authorized and passed thru Spotify…and yet they manage to hold the traffic to 15% of what it should be
IMHO, it should also be remembered that Spotify has a track record in this kind of “dubious” activity…such as the poorly documented and deceitful P2P approach above…which was only rectified after many user complaints
For example, see below the 2011 issues regarding their 320kbps content
Sure, that seems to have been eventually rectified, but only after their activity was exposed did they deem it necessary to rectify it
Like I say, rhetorical questions that each user should satisfy themselves on
interested to know this as well
I’ve listened to a fair whack of content through my Tidal HiFi sub that’s encoded at 16/22.05 AAC (for some reason).
Spotify aren’t unique in having a library which isn’t 100% what it’s advertised as.[quote=“Ronnie, post:110, topic:10562”]
Exactly how does Spotify provide its current service when only 15% of traffic hit its Servers??
[/quote]
Local caching.
Someone on CA did an analysis recently that showed that 91% of Tidal’s content was FLAC…while 8% was AAC…numbers that I think will reflect the listening experience of most users here
That 91% for Tidal comes a lot closer to matching their lossless claim than the 30% that being achieved by Spotify above
And FWIW, in 2013 Spotify’s own numbers showed that almost 50% of traffic was supplied by cacheing…with 40% coming from P2P traffic…I wonder how that 40% has been replaced??
Especially when those figures come from an era where Mobile use was far less than what it is today…and the use of the desktop player was far higher as well
Anyway, if you are happy with your answers for you…that’s fine…others can arrive at their own
6 years ago.[quote=“Ronnie, post:116, topic:10562”]
And FWIW, in 2013 Spotify’s own numbers showed that almost 50% of traffic was supplied by cacheing
[/quote]
Before they turned off p2p and made the local cache a lot bigger. As you would if you were turning off p2p and wanted to reduce your server bandwidth overhead.
Increase in mobile would effectively decrease server overhead since the usual pattern for mobile use goes like this: Download to offline content on home network > Play from offline content.
Anything else is pure conspiracy theories. There will be plenty of individuals and company networks doing outbound packet inspection. If they had reason to believe Spotify was still doing p2p it would be all over the net, given that SPotify publically announced its removal 3 years ago.
[Moderated]
People can assess the data and the company’s track record for themselves
Spotify partners with Sonos. I don’t think this is the issue.
You mean how would you use Spotify? I think the poster means that, if you have a PC/mac as your streamer - and your DAC is either directly connected to that computer or to an airplay device you can stream to - then you can run the Spotify app in that PC/mac and play music. There’s no role for Roon in this setup. Spotify Connect simply becomes a remote you run in your iOS/Android device to control the desktop app (which works very well).
1 Like
That is a good point. I wonder what makes Spotify happy with this arrangement, but not with Roon. On the face of it, the most obvious difference is that Sonos is a hardware manufacturer. But then I do wonder if Spotify’s representatives are missing what Roon is really about.
Perhaps because Roon is software only, they see a threat that isn’t there. After all, I’m sure Roon would brand up Spotify’s content to the same extent that the Sonos app does.
My guess is that at the time Spotify wanted/needed to become more mainstream and Sonos was relatively widespread. And I think it’s probably correct to say that this integration did drive more users.
At this point in time, I would speculate that these are the reasons for no Roon collaboration:
1- Roon is seen as a much more niche product - not something that would truly drive sales;
2- Roon’s interface is much richer making it much harder to control the experience and features - Sonos’ interface is pretty barebones frankly so it is not really ongoing integration for Spotify;
3- It is possible that Spotify does a lot more to track users’ habits than just serve them files, and this tracking is useful to them.
Their active blocking of people figuring out how to use their APIs seems to be focused on keeping people on their apps, possibly for tracking or just to control user experience. Maybe at this point they regret the Sonos move, but that’s water under the bridge.
Like I said just my (mostly uninformed) speculation.
1 Like
Hi, I did mention it makes more sense for Spotify to partner with hardware companies. Same thing that Apple Music has done.
As mentioned I hope I’m wrong and that we do get what we all want ! More streaming options integrated within Roon.