64-bit Mac app, would use less memory

Spotify is the last 32-bit app on my Mac.


That means when it's launched (which is all the time), OS X has to load all the system frameworks into memory a second time, but now the 32-bit versions of them, next to the 64-bit versions already there. Just to accommodate Spotify. (source: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/ind...)


As such, Spotify invisibly takes up way more memory than what it actually needs to run. 


I can understand the need for Spotify to be backwards compatible with 5+ years old Mac hardware in use as media players and such, but that can be accommodated with a fat binary, including both 32-bit and 64-bit code.


In 2013, it is a bit strange that lots of Mac users of Spotify have to pay this memory burden of the past, while where is an elegant solution available in the form of fat binaries.


Another thread about this subject:

Updated: 2015-07-10

Hello everyone. Staff here. We’re happy to announce that Spotify for Mac is now available in 64-bit. While we don’t have any news about the Windows app, we’ll be sure to update the community once we do. Enjoy!

Related Ideas

Top Star
Top Star
Status changed to: New Idea
Casual Listener

PLEASE Spotify. This is embarassing.

Gig Goer

Also please fix Spotify Helper. It always get stuck on my system. It keeps searching for music from local files and won't stop searching. Sometimes takes up a lot of CPU. 

Community Manager
Community Manager
Status changed to: Not Right Now
Hello everyone. Staff here with an update. In the recent past, our desktop team has been working hard on improving our looks, as well as the new Your Music feature. You can find more information about these improvements here. http://news.spotify.com/us/2014/04/02/spotify-paints-it-black-with-new-look/ In the near future, we're going to focusing on the quality of the desktop app so we're going to have to mark this idea as "Not Right Now". We want to be sure we're continuing to offer a fast and stable desktop version of Spotify. We may come back to this in the future so please add your comments and votes. Thanks for the idea!

One year down.  That means we'll have a 64-bit bersion in... two more years?  Cutting edge in 2016!  I keep noticing minor cosmetic updates to Spotify, none of which provide significant improvements to the user experience.  However, a 64-bit app that would result in performance improvements would be welcomed.  The vast majority of users have no clue what 64-bit means and why it would provide an improvement.  As such, it's unfair to provide this feature based on votes.  Maybe the market leader in online music streaming should bring their app to 2011 for no other reason than they should be providing the best.




As I expressed myself in this thread: http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/No-64-bit-Mac-version/m-p/990951#M104194


It is ridiculous that Spotify does not have a timeline regarding a 64 bit OSX version.


I should not have to use my phone to stream music in my office, when I have a laptop perfectly capable of doing so, with a much more pleasant UI. This has already done damage to my perception of spotify as a company.




Almost 2015 and no 64-bit version available.

That's... Bad


Hi, OP here.


Focusing on the quality of the desktop app after improving the looks is a good idea, but it is a very strange argument for marking this idea as "Not Right Now", because this idea is all about the fundamental quality of the Mac desktop app.


I guess the staff monitoring here aren't really the technical folks responsible for these decisions, or they are more knowledgeable about the Windows or Linux platforms as opposed to OS X, but let me point out the relevant bits from the documentation I linked to earlier:


Similarly, in v10.6 and later, the first non-64-bit-capable application pays a performance and memory footprint penalty because OS X must bring in the entire 32-bit framework stack. Thus, if you are primarily targeting OS X v10.6 and later, you should be 64-bit if at all possible.
A 64-bit app can consume significantly more memory than a 32-bit app. For this reason, it is tempting to continue to ship 32-bit apps. However, this is usually not the right thing to do.

In OS X v10.6 and later, most built-in apps are 64-bit. The first time you run a 32-bit application, all of the 32-bit framework slices must be loaded into memory. This means that loading older, 32-bit-only applications causes significant memory pressure, particularly on computers with limited RAM. This often outweighs the additional memory impact caused by larger data structures.

This has been the case since 10.6 was released well over 5 years ago.


Now, the probable reason Spotify has been delaying this is their use of the Chromium Embedded Framework, which has been 32-bit only for a  long time. In August 2013 however they introduced 64-bit builds for Windows and Mac OS X with version 3.1547.1412.


So it seems there shouldn't be any bariers anymore for Spotify to release a 64-bit capable update for the Mac client. Please do so!


Google says this about the benefits of using 64-bits Chromium, which would also apply to Spotify:


64-bit Chrome has become faster as a result of having access to a superior instruction set, more registers, and a more efficient function calling convention. Improved opportunities for ASLR enhance this version’s security. Another major benefit of this change comes from the fact that most programs on a modern Mac are already 64-bit apps. In cases where Chrome was the last remaining 32-bit app, there were launch-time and memory-footprint penalties as 32-bit copies of all of the system libraries needed to be loaded to support Chrome. Now that Chrome’s a 64-bit app too, we expect you’ll find that it launches more quickly and that overall system memory use decreases.



Now, for everyones enjoyment and inspiration, a pretty picture of a rather large cat:




It's 2015, any updates here?

Rock Star
Rock Star

Good news!


The latest version 1.0.8 is 64-bit compatible