Why should anyone pay for this when Youtube provides all music you could ever need for free?

[dukeofjipjip]

Here's what youtube has over spotify:

1. A functional music player you can modify however you want: https://github.com/mps-youtube/mps-youtube

2. Free of charge, free of rent-seeking behaviour

3. All music you could ever want, without being at the mercy of Spotify suits securing licenses with record companies

4. User-driven model

5. Playlists you can export that do not serve you to trap you int spotify's system

So why would anyone pay for Spotify?

PS. Previous thread was censored by Spotify goons

[aizikson]

Spotify Premium is superior to Youtube in the following ways:

1. An easily accesible and much wider range of user playlists

2. The ability to download and save whole playlists offline without any hassle or shady methods.

3. A smooth and instant activity feed in which users can check out what their friends are listening to.

4. Guaranteed high sound quality.

Youtube is lacking in the following ways:

1. Videos with stretched audio or no audio at all due to copyright infringment.

2. Music that is at the hands of uploaders (which can be deleted at any time).

3. Constant advertisments.

4. Need of an internet connection.

[Rck1]

I can keep using your phone whithout leaving the app open.

[dukeofjipjip]

---

@aizikson wrote:

Spotify Premium is superior to Youtube in the following ways:

1. An easily accesible and much wider range of user playlists

2. The ability to download and save whole playlists offline without any hassle or shady methods.

3. A smooth and instant activity feed in which users can check out what their friends are listening to.

4. Guaranteed high sound quality.

Youtube is lacking in the following ways:

1. Videos with stretched audio or no audio at all due to copyright infringment.

2. Music that is at the hands of uploaders (which can be deleted at any time).

3. Constant advertisments.

4. Need of an internet connection.

---

A slave justifying its master's abuse, how cute.

1. Nope. Youtube has more playlists because it has more users. It also has much wider library of music, which is also free.

2. You can download and save playlists in mps-youtube with a single command. You can't download music in Spotify - you can only download encrypted files that only Spotify can play, but if you download music from Youtube, you get actual music that you can copy wherever you want and play with any kind of music player.

3. Useless because then you have to drag your friends into an abusive "service" to have that. It's just another mechanism that encourages you to enslave your friends for Spotify.

4. Spotify has laughably spotty sound quality which the client can lower for any reason without telling you. Youtube has almost all new videos in at least 720p or higher.

Second set:

1. Doesn't matter because it still has more music than Spotify and it's much easier to find. You're not at the mercy of Spotify lawyers who may or may not secure licenses, any user can upload music.

2. Which is also mirrored a hundred times. Almost nobody deletes anything uploaded earlier, because there is no reason to. In Spotify, the license can be retracted for any reason, and the music subsequently silently deleted, with no notifications, 1984-style (vide Radiohead).

3. Not using an ad blocker in the 21st century is a sign of severe brain damage. Also mps-youtube connects directly to the uploaded music, so there's no need for it to even be exposed to advertisement in any way, it doesn't download ads to your computer either.

4. No, you can download music with a single command. It's spotify that requires constant internet connection, because it's a proprietary program that treats its user like a cheater that is not to be trusted, that is why it can stop playing "music" downloaded for offline use for any reason, without telling the user the reason. If it refuses to do so you're stuck, because you don't have music, but encrypted files only Spotify can play.

[KatesHere]

---

2. You can download and save playlists in mps-youtube with a single command. You can't download music in Spotify - you can only download encrypted files that only Spotify can play, but if you download music from Youtube, you get actual music that you can copy wherever you want and play with any kind of music player.

---

@dukeofjipjip Downloading actual music from Youtube sounds kind of illegal 😛

I would disagree with you in general. Every service has its own positives and negatives. It all depends on the user's needs most of the time.

For me, for example, I used to use Youtube all the time even on mobile. But then I moved abroad for several months and had no data to use Youtube or the internet while out of a wifi connection, so Spotify saved the day with offline listening. When I got back I would have expected to use Youtube again, but the fact that I'd have to have the advertisements and an open playing video all the time proved to be more of a hassle. Whichever way you see it, YouTube is a video player service. Don't forget that most people illegally upload "music" they have no rights to and thus cheat the creator from a revenue.

Plus, Spotify has unbeatable curated playlists. Discover Weekly, Release Radar, Top Hits, charts for every country, radio lists based on the content you want, diversity in genres... However good a random youtube user creating a playlist may be, a professional doing that for the needs of every or the average user, is not a comparable value.

It's all a huge argument back and forth, I get it, so in trying to avoid it, I'll just stop here. Spotify works for my needs.

K

[dukeofjipjip]

---

@KatesHere wrote:

@dukeofjipjip Downloading actual music from Youtube sounds kind of illegal 😛

Why would it be illegal, if youtube exists for you to download that data? It would require using youtube at all to be illegal.

[dukeofjipjip]

---

@KatesHere wrote:

 Whichever way you see it, YouTube is a video player service. Don't forget that most people illegally upload "music" they have no rights to and thus cheat the creator from a revenue.

---

Please do not call authors "creators", they are not gods.

And the actual authors are not the ones who get paid, record companies are. Any form of noncommercial file sharing should not be seen as copyright infringement.