I'm probably missing something. Why self-host when for $10/mo. you can access a nearly unlimited catalog of music on Spotify with integration on phone, PC, car, Sonos, etc?
* You don't have any control, if some paperwork fucks up you can lose access (rarer with music but very common with video services)
* They don't have a lot of rare stuff, demos, EPs, singles, dubplates, etc.
* You can't choose which version of an album you want.
* If you run out of money for whatever reason you can't listen to music.
* Offline is unreliable.
* Screw having my taste and discovery defined by an algorithm
* Artists get fuck all money compared to buying stuff off of Bandcamp/buying CDs and ripping them, even if you still pirate a lot of stuff.
* They have questionable ethics as a company.
* No lossless.
* When you curate your own collection you develop in my opinion a deeper relationship with it.
I have to rent my home and most other stuff in life, music is one of the most important things in the world to me. I'm done with renting that.
Their tendency to add random music to my playlists is annoying. I think there's some control over it, but I'm too old to follow up on how it works this week.
I'm on the most expensive family plan they have, but would pay more to get those two fixed properly.
I do still buy music on albums and digitally, mostly as a backup exactly for the reasons you mention. But I can't afford to do that for everything I listen to.
For smart suggestions, I haven't seen them in a while, but there was a toggle for it.
For smart shuffle, just hit the shuffle button again to turn it off.
Dumped spotify and couldn't been happier.
-to directly support artists with buying the albums or songs at full price, rather than letting Spotify barely pay artists anything for their music (especially independent ones without industry connections)
-knowing you own your library and that once you’ve purchased media, there is nothing to take it away other than the sands of time taking back its silicate
-one does not need unlimited access to songs they will never hear, especially when natural discoverability on Spotify is so so versus trawling through sites like Bandcamp, Earmilk, RCRDLBL (I know it doesn’t exist anymore), or other places where new artists show their work in a way that Spotify doesn’t provide
You can't post an open source project on this site without half the thread speculating that you're a grifting sociopath. <1% are going to pay for music on here.
Is your point that people aren’t willing to pay for things if they have a choice not to?
Or is it that independent artists should be grateful that people see their work at all and that “most” people will just think they are a grifting sociopath?
Not sure what your issue with my comment is, but I’m interested in what you meant, as I feel I’m missing context that only you have at the moment.
The context is people on this site regularly treat open source authors with complete hostility despite what they give us (even going so far as to call them sociopaths). Sometimes this same crowd justifies this rudeness based on protecting open source "purity."
It's not uncommon for them to upvote posts like this that take a shot at Spotify or promote piracy as an easy feel good moral high, even though they themselves treat artists/authors worse. Doesn't take away from the substance of your comment.
Also, it's just nice to not be at the whims of corporations and copyright lawyers. It sucks when some song you love gets taken down, or your streaming app introduces some shitty UI changes, or you find out the company you're paying has been doing unethical shit, or the monthly fee goes up, or any number of other annoyances.
The advantages are control over data, greater privacy, etc.
I can imagine a group of friends hosting on a common VPS, like some sort of private Netflix but nearly unlimited.
For the record (heh) I also have an extensive vinyl/tape/CD collection in addition to a few TB of pirated FLACs.