• blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Just because the Spotify model sucks doesn’t mean it has to.

    I don’t see a reason why 85% of a monthly subscription couldn’t given directly to the artists you actually listen to, and any albums your purchase is on the platform (and you get to keep the drm-free files).

    Honestly it kinda sounds like an awesome service.

    Edit: I’m one of those geezers too, who prefers to own my music. I just think there’s room for both.

    • huppakee@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The Spotify model sucks despite throwing money at it for years, so my guess is they surely can give you some reasons why 85% of your monthly subscription can’t be given to the artists you listen to.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Publicly traded companies are always going to turn to shit, the “Spotify model” is just appeasing shareholders with infinite growth.