https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-apple-kills-itunes-20190531-story.html
Apple is apparently projecting to close the iTunes store services for good.
This marks the full end of the era of legal downloads, which were once the most popular way of buying music (digital sales peaked in 2011), but have fallen completely out of fashion in favor of streaming services in the last few years.

Rip iTunes :\'(!

That's too bad. I have so many wonderful memories of using Itunes and burning the music onto CDs, back in the late 2000s.

I have been saying it for ages around here and so have a few others. You CANNOT trust these things. One day they up and vanish. People using Spotify so happily now are in nothing but a fool's paradise. One day that will up and vanish also and you will be left high and dry, scrambling to use whatever the NEXT thing is that comes after Spotify and other streaming serivices. And OH YES my friends, there WILL be a "next thing". Streaming is not the end all, be all. As we speak, bored techie dudebros and dudebro-ettes in Silicon Valley are thinking up the next thing. It's technology for technology's sake and to MAKE MONEY. I maintain that physical ownership of media (i.e. CDs, albums, cassettes or what have you) is the ONLY security. You will always have them. And there is no "overlord" keeping track of you and feeding you (or should I say PROGRAMMING you) back what it thinks you like.

Rant over.  ;)

I have been saying it for ages around here and so have a few others. You CANNOT trust these things. One day they up and vanish. People using Spotify so happily now are in nothing but a fool's paradise. One day that will up and vanish also and you will be left high and dry, scrambling to use whatever the NEXT thing is that comes after Spotify and other streaming services. And OH YES my friends, there WILL be a "next thing". Streaming is not the end all, be all. As we speak, bored techie dudebros and dudebro-ettes in Silicon Valley are thinking up the next thing. It's technology for technology's sake and to MAKE MONEY. I maintain that physical ownership of media (i.e. CDs, albums, cassettes or what have you) is the ONLY security. You will always have them. And there is no "overlord" keeping track of you and feeding you (or should I say PROGRAMMING you) back what it thinks you like.

Rant over.  ;)


But some people need the free streaming and all that is free, Don't you agree, Voice?

But some people need the free streaming and all that is free, Don't you agree, Voice?


No, I don't necessarily agree. Who says it should be free? That's an entitled attitude. Besides, if something is free, people often treat it as disposable. Music might mean more to people if they had a little something invested in it. Music might become something  more than "wallpaper" again, which, unfortunately, it is to some people. Not to mention that if people were buying physical media again the artist would get paid a reasonable amount again instead of being ripped off by Spotify, which is what is currently happening. Back in the dark ages of the 90s or whenever it was when Napster (remember Napster?) first came along I thought "hallelujah, man, this is a whole new thing. This sets music free". But, of course, it didn't really turn out that way and I no longer feel that way.

I just with they’d bring back Napster... the free version where you could just download anything for free.

That does it. If Google Play Music, Amazon and Qobuz are next, I will stop getting into ANY music. If I do get into music, it will likely only be through piracy from now on. This is a reason I do not use Netflix (I have only used it on two occasions) - even when I get to the time I have to pay for it, I could not watch the show I wanted on it because Netflix and the people behind Teen Titans had the show taken down. In the era of DVDs, I could expect to have the shows I love for a very long time. Now, I can only expect to enjoy them for six months at most, each, under streaming services.

I just with they’d bring back Napster... the free version where you could just download anything for free.

I'd love that too, but sadly, companies (and some people too) are now subscribed to the notion that any work of art must only exist to make money. Streaming services enforce this notion technologically. Even if you pay $10/month to stream music, some songs will be rendered unplayable all of a sudden and stay that way forever.

I have been saying it for ages around here and so have a few others. You CANNOT trust these things. One day they up and vanish. People using Spotify so happily now are in nothing but a fool's paradise. One day that will up and vanish also and you will be left high and dry, scrambling to use whatever the NEXT thing is that comes after Spotify and other streaming serivices. And OH YES my friends, there WILL be a "next thing". Streaming is not the end all, be all. As we speak, bored techie dudebros and dudebro-ettes in Silicon Valley are thinking up the next thing. It's technology for technology's sake and to MAKE MONEY. I maintain that physical ownership of media (i.e. CDs, albums, cassettes or what have you) is the ONLY security. You will always have them. And there is no "overlord" keeping track of you and feeding you (or should I say PROGRAMMING you) back what it thinks you like.

Rant over.  ;)


Perhaps the least surprising thing ever, but I'm going to have to disagree. First, it's not confirmed that iTunes is going away. But even if it is, there is no reason why they can't allow you to retrieve the music you've already purchased. They are already letting users of their Apple Music streaming service download music (for streaming), there is no reason they won't allow people to download music (they purchased); it's literally the same process. So your music is safe (for now). Also, I would say Spotify's recommendation features are a huge positive and not a negative, although it's been a bit hit or miss for me lately.


That does it. If Google Play Music, Amazon and Qobuz are next, I will stop getting into ANY music. If I do get into music, it will likely only be through piracy from now on. This is a reason I do not use Netflix (I have only used it on two occasions) - even when I get to the time I have to pay for it, I could not watch the show I wanted on it because Netflix and the people behind Teen Titans had the show taken down. In the era of DVDs, I could expect to have the shows I love for a very long time. Now, I can only expect to enjoy them for six months at most, each, under streaming services.


But you were never paying for ownership in the first place. Netflix wasn't made to replace DVDs, it was made to replace rental stores. Indeed, Netflix started off as a DVD rental service long before it streamed anything online. With rentals, you don't own anything, you rent the movie, get your enjoyment out of it, and return it. Eventually, that movie costs more in the floor space it takes up than the revenue it brings, and the store would get rid of it. It's the same with Netflix, except replace floor space with licensing costs.

If you were paying $10 for the ownership of thousands of movies and TV shows that would be quite the steal ;D

But you were never paying for ownership in the first place. Netflix wasn't made to replace DVDs, it was made to replace rental stores. Indeed, Netflix started off as a DVD rental service long before it streamed anything online. With rentals, you don't own anything, you rent the movie, get your enjoyment out of it, and return it. Eventually, that movie costs more in the floor space it takes up than the revenue it brings, and the store would get rid of it. It's the same with Netflix, except replace floor space with licensing costs.

If you were paying $10 for the ownership of thousands of movies and TV shows that would be quite the steal ;D

I am annoyed that people are abandoning ownership to the point that companies are seeing rental models as the only way to distribute content. This is what I believe Apple are doing.

I am annoyed that people are abandoning ownership to the point that companies are seeing rental models as the only way to distribute content. This is what I believe Apple are doing.


Agreed. I value ownership of my property and anything that I own (At this age it's not a lot). I don't want something that is connected all the time. What if an event were to happen that would take down the internet and other forms of telecommunication. Physical hardware means that you will always have something as long as it isn't corrupted, with streaming you can't ever get it back if the connection were to be shut down.


I have been saying it for ages around here and so have a few others. You CANNOT trust these things. One day they up and vanish. People using Spotify so happily now are in nothing but a fool's paradise. One day that will up and vanish also and you will be left high and dry, scrambling to use whatever the NEXT thing is that comes after Spotify and other streaming serivices. And OH YES my friends, there WILL be a "next thing". Streaming is not the end all, be all. As we speak, bored techie dudebros and dudebro-ettes in Silicon Valley are thinking up the next thing. It's technology for technology's sake and to MAKE MONEY. I maintain that physical ownership of media (i.e. CDs, albums, cassettes or what have you) is the ONLY security. You will always have them. And there is no "overlord" keeping track of you and feeding you (or should I say PROGRAMMING you) back what it thinks you like.

Rant over.  ;)


Just letting you know, that those dudebros are getting old, and newer, younger, smarter people are going to replace them and create different versions of technology that is far different from what we have now. I also hate silicon valley, and it's software centered dudebro culture.

I'd love that too, but sadly, companies (and some people too) are now subscribed to the notion that any work of art must only exist to make money. Streaming services enforce this notion technologically. Even if you pay $10/month to stream music, some songs will be rendered unplayable all of a sudden and stay that way forever.


I'm not quite sure I've got you right with "sadly, companies (and some people too) are now subscribed to the notion that any work of art must only exist to make money",  but here goes. A work of art does not necessarily have to exist to make money, but an artist should be compensated for a work of art if someone is using it.  That is, they are providing a service to you by creating something you chose to listen to (in the case of music). Why should that be free? They shouldn't be paid for their work? They should just expect to make music and put it out there with no compensation? In previous times, an artist made a record and if it was a hit they made money from it. A LOT of money. Now, they make next to no money for the plays a song gets on Spotify. The only way musical artist make money now is by playing live. They still get paid for that.

Aside from that, I think we are on the same page. The bottom line is the ONLY way to ensure that your collection is yours and remains yours is to have it in a physical format.

I'm not quite sure I've got you right with "sadly, companies (and some people too) are now subscribed to the notion that any work of art must only exist to make money",  but here goes. A work of art does not necessarily have to exist to make money, but an artist should be compensated for a work of art if someone is using it.  That is, they are providing a service to you by creating something you chose to listen to (in the case of music). Why should that be free? They shouldn't be paid for their work? They should just expect to make music and put it out there with no compensation? In previous times, an artist made a record and if it was a hit they made money from it. A LOT of money. Now, they make next to no money for the plays a song gets on Spotify. The only way musical artist make money now is by playing live. They still get paid for that.

Aside from that, I think we are on the same page. The bottom line is the ONLY way to ensure that your collection is yours and remains yours is to have it in a physical format.

Crowdfunding should be how artists get compensated. They can make money and the content becomes available forever.

Crowdfunding should be how artists get compensated. They can make money and the content becomes available forever.


That's not the same thing. Crowdfunding only pays upfront costs. What about the back end? The royalties? This is where the artist made money. Traditionally it was paid to the artist by the record company for physical sales. Mind you, over the years record companies were absolutely notorious for ripping artists off, but still the model was there to make money if a record sold. The model is no longer there.

That's not the same thing. Crowdfunding only pays upfront costs. What about the back end? The royalties? This is where the artist made money. Traditionally it was paid to the artist by the record company for physical sales. Mind you, over the years record companies were absolutely notorious for ripping artists off, but still the model was there to make money if a record sold. The model is no longer there.

Something like Patreon.

Something like Patreon.


I don't think that would be sustainable. If the rise of streaming should have taught you anything, it's that people will pay as little as they can get away with. Relying on charity means your revenues will tend towards zero.

I know where you're coming from with regards to intellectual property rights and copyright, but if musician's weren't paid, making music would definitely become a labour of love and not a means to make a living, and consequently there would be a lot less music made.

I don't think that would be sustainable. If the rise of streaming should have taught you anything, it's that people will pay as little as they can get away with. Relying on charity means your revenues will tend towards zero.

I know where you're coming from with regards to intellectual property rights and copyright, but if musician's weren't paid, making music would definitely become a labour of love and not a means to make a living, and consequently there would be a lot less music made.



I think it's far more ethical. There are people who already willingly pay for Spotify Premium, Netflix and/or Apple Music, so the barriers for payment shouldn't be too high. Granted, with services like Patreon, it's only used to fund one group of people and not multiple ones unlike with streaming services. I can understand people who use Spotify Free though and I commend them a little more, as ad money is worth less than what subscriptions can pay.


If nothing gets solved, I'm either going to pirate music or make myself deaf, the latter at least in protest. I don't want our technology enforcing artificial restrictions on whether future generations can access the works of art we love or not.

Well I think the discussion has veered too much off the subject.

Anyone wanna thoughts and memories about iTunes specifically?

Streaming to me is completely unsustainable. You run out of data, you don't have access to internet everywhere, etc. What if you wanna listen to music on the plane or somewhere with no WiFi? I hate streaming, to me it's very senseless. Just download an MP3 and you can have it everywhere you need to. It's way more convenient. I know I sound like a Luddite or someone defending CDs when they were on the way out, but come on, no one can argue streaming is more convenient than digital downloads. At least you could argue digital downloads were way more convenient and easy to take with you anywhere you need than physical media like CDs. But with streaming you can't say the same, you always need to be connected, and data costs money. And not every single song you want will be on Spotify. It kind of feels like going backwards in terms of convenience but even worse. For this reason I think digital downloads are here to stay as an alternative option, and it's something I will definitely continue to do and keep my MP3s on my phone and on my laptop. Besides, Google Play has it where you can connect your music to the cloud so if you really need to access it on another device somewhere you can with an internet connection, now that is a good implementation. You will always have your music with you when you aren't connected to the internet.

As for ITunes, good riddance. From my past memories it was an absolute pain to use and was only useful if you had an Apple product. But that's ok because you can always download music from other sources. I will miss the impact it had in the industry, even though it was a terrible product.

What if you wanna listen to music on the plane or somewhere with no WiFi?
Well you can "download" your albums after which will be listenable internet-free, and that is a subscription-only option. Works in both Spotify and Apple Music at least (not sure about the other ones).

It's honestly much more convenient then having to shove a bunch of mp3 files in a player tbh.

Well you can "download" your albums after which will be listenable internet-free, and that is a subscription-only option. Works in both Spotify and Apple Music at least (not sure about the other ones).

It's honestly much more convenient then having to shove a bunch of mp3 files in a player tbh.

Pfft yeah right like I'm gonna pay extra to download music from a subscription service when I can already do that for free (or for $1 per song on some sites). And even of you you do that, that is not streaming anymore, that is a digital download, which brings us back to my original point how digital downloads are superior to streaming. Digital downloads are way more convenient. Streaming is like going backwards, unless internet was available in every single part of the world and was fast and free. But that's not the case, so streaming is going backwards. Even worse than cassette tapes lol.

And even of you you do that, that is not streaming anymore, that is a digital download, which brings us back to my original point how digital downloads are superior to streaming.

No because with digital downloads you permanently buy the record for a certain ammount of money, while on streaming you can "download" and "undownload" your stuff in your collection to listen to wifi-free.

Maybe inform yourself before you have an opinion on anything and go make huge rants, just a suggestion.

Well I think the discussion has veered too much off the subject.

Anyone wanna thoughts and memories about iTunes specifically?


It was trash. Good riddance

I just with they’d bring back Napster... the free version where you could just download anything for free.

That was the big one back in 2000. When it fell people ran to it's alternatives such as LimeWire, BearShare, Kazaa, and SoulSeek. Torrent was the most popular of the alternatives but the most risky. I do miss Napster though. I'd hang out on it and chat with friends and strangers like a proto social network.


That's too bad. I have so many wonderful memories of using Itunes and burning the music onto CDs, back in the late 2000s.

I never downloaded from it, but I do use it to get songs on my iPod.


I have been saying it for ages around here and so have a few others. You CANNOT trust these things. One day they up and vanish. People using Spotify so happily now are in nothing but a fool's paradise. One day that will up and vanish also and you will be left high and dry, scrambling to use whatever the NEXT thing is that comes after Spotify and other streaming serivices. And OH YES my friends, there WILL be a "next thing". Streaming is not the end all, be all. As we speak, bored techie dudebros and dudebro-ettes in Silicon Valley are thinking up the next thing. It's technology for technology's sake and to MAKE MONEY. I maintain that physical ownership of media (i.e. CDs, albums, cassettes or what have you) is the ONLY security. You will always have them. And there is no "overlord" keeping track of you and feeding you (or should I say PROGRAMMING you) back what it thinks you like.

Rant over.  ;)

If I'm buying music I better OWN it! No, you can't trust streaming services, absolutely not! Whatever comes next I'm sure we'll see soon enough. Trends in music come and go, but enjoying it needs to be timeless!

I just with they’d bring back Napster... the free version where you could just download anything for free.


That was a free way to get your music.

I enjoy free streaming services where I can watch wrestling shows instead of having to shell out 20-25 years ago about $19.99 just to watch a 2-3 hour wrestling pay per view.

I use Apple Music to stream songs. I agree it’s not as secure as actually owning something but it’s more convenient for me and that’s all I really care about - plus it means I don’t have songs clogging up space on my phone.

And ultimately you’re not paying for the songs specifically, you’re paying for the streaming service itself. It’s not like you have a library of songs you have directly bought and lost - you can simply recreate that library on another platform and for the same flat fee. If Apple Music disappeared tomorrow then I’d happily migrate to another streaming service.

Honestly I get the impression that some people on here try way too hard to appear different. Oh you prefer CDs to streaming? Congratulations for going against the grain, you’re so special.  ::)

No because with digital downloads you permanently buy the record for a certain ammount of money, while on streaming you can "download" and "undownload" your stuff in your collection to listen to wifi-free.

Maybe inform yourself before you have an opinion on anything and go make huge rants, just a suggestion.

It's not the same.

I use Apple Music to stream songs. I agree it’s not as secure as actually owning something but it’s more convenient for me and that’s all I really care about - plus it means I don’t have songs clogging up space on my phone.

And ultimately you’re not paying for the songs specifically, you’re paying for the streaming service itself. It’s not like you have a library of songs you have directly bought and lost - you can simply recreate that library on another platform and for the same flat fee. If Apple Music disappeared tomorrow then I’d happily migrate to another streaming service.

Honestly I get the impression that some people on here try way too hard to appear different. Oh you prefer CDs to streaming? Congratulations for going against the grain, you’re so special.  ::)

Digital downloads are way better.

It's not the same.


How is it not the same? You open the app and you click on the song and it plays, without needing data. It's the same as if you downloaded it.

Honestly I get the impression that some people on here try way too hard to appear different. Oh you prefer CDs to streaming? Congratulations for going against the grain, you’re so special.  ::)
https://media.giphy.com/media/oxLpLI0eNf3Wg/giphy.gif

I swear the elitism in this thread is really off the chart.

I also collect cd's of my favorite albums, but I barely get to use them so collect dust. Plus they can scratch which is something I absolutely hate with cd's, they're quite flimsy. And yeay I just spend 10$ on a singular album with which I could get a month long subscription to absolutely everything at will, where's my prize? ::)

https://media.giphy.com/media/oxLpLI0eNf3Wg/giphy.gif

I swear the elitism in this thread is really off the chart.

I also collect cd's of my favorite albums, but I barely get to use them so collect dust. Plus they can scratch which is something I absolutely hate with cd's, they're quite flimsy. And yeay I just spend 10$ on a singular album with which I could get a month long subscription to absolutely everything at will, where's my prize? ::)

It's not even about CDs. Digital downloads are the best. Even better than streaming.

How is it not the same? You open the app and you click on the song and it plays, without needing data. It's the same as if you downloaded it.

Because it is still digital downloads then, not streaming. Which proves it is better. Plus you have to have a subscription and use the service. So it isn't the same.

I am assuming that with the impending demise of iTunes I will no longer be able to use my iPod classic? Most of the stuff on there is in fact material I uploaded from CDs rather than downloaded from iTunes, although there is some downloaded material as well. I occasionally change things around and add or remove some songs. With no iTunes I guess I won't be able to do that. I am aware, of course, that iPods and the iPod classic in particular are obsolete items, but that never stopped me from using it since it suits my purposes. In fact, the current iteration of iTunes doesn't even support the iPod classic, so I have to maintain an older version of iTunes for that.

I am assuming that with the impending demise of iTunes I will no longer be able to use my iPod classic? Most of the stuff on there is in fact material I uploaded from CDs rather than downloaded from iTunes, although there is some downloaded material as well. I occasionally change things around and add or remove some songs. With no iTunes I guess I won't be able to do that. I am aware, of course, that iPods and the iPod classic in particular are obsolete items, but that never stopped me from using it since it suits my purposes. In fact, the current iteration of iTunes doesn't even support the iPod classic, so I have to maintain an older version of iTunes for that.

You can still use ITunes there just won't be anymore updates. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong though.

Honestly iTunes and other music-buying services are pretty much pointless now. Youtube now has pretty much all the recorded music in history for free.

Honestly iTunes and other music-buying services are pretty much pointless now. Youtube now has pretty much all the recorded music in history for free.


You can’t listen to YouTube music on your phone while using other apps though, otherwise I might agree.

You can still use ITunes there just won't be anymore updates. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong though.


Yes I suppose that's possible. It couldn't be used for downloading but could possibly still be used to maintain the collection on my iPod classic, which I like to use for walking around purposes, and a whole lot of which is not available on Spotify or other streaming services.  Might be dicey though, like using Vista or XP or one of those systems no longer supported by Windows. You don't know what might happen.

I am assuming that with the impending demise of iTunes I will no longer be able to use my iPod classic? Most of the stuff on there is in fact material I uploaded from CDs rather than downloaded from iTunes, although there is some downloaded material as well. I occasionally change things around and add or remove some songs. With no iTunes I guess I won't be able to do that. I am aware, of course, that iPods and the iPod classic in particular are obsolete items, but that never stopped me from using it since it suits my purposes. In fact, the current iteration of iTunes doesn't even support the iPod classic, so I have to maintain an older version of iTunes for that.


It's the iTunes store that will be closing. The application (unfortunately ;D) is still around.


Because it is still digital downloads then, not streaming. Which proves it is better. Plus you have to have a subscription and use the service. So it isn't the same.


The process by which the song gets from the server to your phone is the same whether your streaming or digitally downloading, the only difference with streaming is that it's deleted from your cache whenever that needs cleaning.

In other words, streaming IS digital download, it's just removed from memory later (that is, unless you make it available offline).

It's the iTunes store that will be closing. The application (unfortunately ;D) is still around.



I wonder if Amazon will follow suit? Keep in mind they sell digital downloads too. In fact, any time you buy a CD from Amazon (for those that still do) you also get it automatically as a download. You can also buy just the download.

It's the iTunes store that will be closing. The application (unfortunately ;D) is still around.

The process by which the song gets from the server to your phone is the same whether your streaming or digitally downloading, the only difference with streaming is that it's deleted from your cache whenever that needs cleaning.

In other words, streaming IS digital download, it's just removed from memory later (that is, unless you make it available offline).

Just more complicated and inconvenient than it needs to be. I'm sticking to not using Spotify or any streaming services.

Just more complicated and inconvenient than it needs to be. I'm sticking to not using Spotify or any streaming services.


Bruh I just told you it's the exact same thing as digital downloads.

You can stick to whatever you want, but you have obviously never used a streaming service before to be judging it so harshly


I wonder if Amazon will follow suit? Keep in mind they sell digital downloads too. In fact, any time you buy a CD from Amazon (for those that still do) you also get it automatically as a download. You can also buy just the download.


I honestly don't even think the iTunes Store will be closing, it's still a rumour at this stage, but we shall see.

Bruh I just told you it's the exact same thing as digital downloads.

You can stick to whatever you want, but you have obviously never used a streaming service before to be judging it so harshly

I honestly don't even think the iTunes Store will be closing, it's still a rumour at this stage, but we shall see.

I'm not using something that costs extra money like internet data. And it's not the same, I don't wanna subscribe or even get the free version with ads. I would rather listen to my MP3s for free with no ads or no internet connection needed.

I'm not using something that costs extra money like internet data. And it's not the same, I don't wanna subscribe or even get the free version with ads. I would rather listen to my MP3s for free with no ads or no internet connection needed.


Spotify is very data efficient actually. It carves about 10GB (or however much you want) of storage in your phone and it stores your most frequently played music there. If you haven't played a song in a long time, it will remove it and replace it with new songs that you are listening to. This all happens in the background and most users don't notice it.

But if you don't have a data plan then maybe Spotify isn't for you. But like everyone has been telling you already, there is a "make available offline" button next to every song and album and playlist that makes Spotify the exact same thing as digital downloads.

Spotify is very data efficient actually. It carves about 10GB (or however much you want) of storage in your phone and it stores your most frequently played music there. If you haven't played a song in a long time, it will remove it and replace it with new songs that you are listening to. This all happens in the background and most users don't notice it.

But if you don't have a data plan then maybe Spotify isn't for you. But like everyone has been telling you already, there is a "make available offline" button next to every song and album and playlist that makes Spotify the exact same thing as digital downloads.

Again, all the reasons I described above it is not worth it for me. Even using a little data or having a subscription to download when I can simply download MP3s without a subscription to a service from other places.

  If you haven't played a song in a long time, it will remove it and replace it with new songs that you are listening to. This all happens in the background and most users don't notice it.



Aha! This is exactly what I don't want. The "Overlord" in the background controlling things while I don't even notice. Or while I DO notice. Why are people so willing to let this happen? And even encourage it? Have it all curated for them. I mean, I know you can go back and get that song that was removed, but someone (or something) else shouldn't be making that decision for you. Besides, a music collection should be just that. A COLLECTION. It's not a "top 40" of rotating songs that should just vanish when you haven't listened in a while. That is, unless the music is just disposable to you.

Aha! This is exactly what I don't want. The "Overlord" in the background controlling things while I don't even notice. Or while I DO notice. Why are people so willing to let this happen? And even encourage it? Have it all curated for them. I mean, I know you can go back and get that song that was removed, but someone (or something) else shouldn't be making that decision for you. Besides, a music collection should be just that. A COLLECTION. It's not a "top 40" of rotating songs that should just vanish when you haven't listened in a while. That is, unless the music is just disposable to you.


The only reason you won't notice is because you won't know it was downloaded onto your device in the first place ;D That's just the techie in me trying the nitty gritty of how Spotify works in the background. 99.9% users won't know and won't care how Spotify does data management in the background. Most people are connected to the Internet most the time and so it doesn't matter what song is downloaded onto their phone and which one isn't.

It has nothing to do with lording and everything to do with saving on data. The reason the song is downloaded onto your phone in the first place is because you kept playing it, and presumably you don't want to use up data every time you hit the play button. But if you're not listening to that song anymore and are now listening to other songs, it makes sense to remove the older songs and replace it with the more frequently played songs. This saves on data.

But if you don't want Spotify to ever ever ever remove a song from your phone, you can click on the "make available offline" button and it will be treated separately from the cache.

This is how it looks like on my phone (pardon my French)

https://i.imgur.com/uuCojR0.jpg

33.7GB is being used by other apps.

With Spotify, 3.9GB of music is stored in cache (these are my most frequently played songs, to help save on data), and I have 1.8GB of music I made available offline, so if I'm ever in a cave, I still have access to that 1.8GB of downloaded music + 3.9GB of music saved in my cache. It even gives you the option to remove the music in cache if you want to save on memory.

No because with digital downloads you permanently buy the record for a certain ammount of money, while on streaming you can "download" and "undownload" your stuff in your collection to listen to wifi-free.

Maybe inform yourself before you have an opinion on anything and go make huge rants, just a suggestion.

Those downloads can still get taken off your device, should Spotify, Apple Music and/or the artists determine it. This is unlike MP3 downloads of the past and physical media when once you bought the music, you can keep it forever.

I use Apple Music to stream songs. I agree it’s not as secure as actually owning something but it’s more convenient for me and that’s all I really care about - plus it means I don’t have songs clogging up space on my phone.

And ultimately you’re not paying for the songs specifically, you’re paying for the streaming service itself. It’s not like you have a library of songs you have directly bought and lost - you can simply recreate that library on another platform and for the same flat fee. If Apple Music disappeared tomorrow then I’d happily migrate to another streaming service.

Honestly I get the impression that some people on here try way too hard to appear different. Oh you prefer CDs to streaming? Congratulations for going against the grain, you’re so special.  ::)

The problem is, with streaming services, you can only listen to the music through those services. If there were obscure songs you liked that were only on one or two services, should the service shut down (e.g. Rdio, one of the earliest competitors to Spotify) or should those songs be removed from the services (e.g. the several greyed out songs on my Spotify library),


https://imgur.com/xvONUmc.png


then you have no way of listening to them again, even if you throw the streaming services $10/month at them. The only other options would be legal digital downloads like on Google Play Music, Amazon or Qobuz, physical media, or if they're not even on there, piracy.

Fortunately, for the above listed songs, they're available on YouTube, but they depend on an internet connection and their continued availability even offline is still subject to the whims of the rightsholders even if you keep throwing money at them through merch or the subscription fee for allowing you to play content offline.

Buying songs outright is the fairest for both the creators and the consumers. Paying for streaming services is the most cost-effective, but ultimately less fair for both the creators and consumers (unauthorized redistribution can be reduced, but creators don't get compensated enough and consumers don't get to keep the content they love).

The problem is, with streaming services, you can only listen to the music through those services. If there were obscure songs you liked that were only on one or two services, should the service shut down (e.g. Rdio, one of the earliest competitors to Spotify) or should those songs be removed from the services (e.g. the several greyed out songs on my Spotify library),


https://imgur.com/xvONUmc.png


then you have no way of listening to them again, even if you throw the streaming services $10/month at them. The only other options would be legal digital downloads like on Google Play Music, Amazon or Qobuz, physical media, or if they're not even on there, piracy.

Fortunately, for the above listed songs, they're available on YouTube, but they depend on an internet connection and their continued availability even offline is still subject to the whims of the rightsholders even if you keep throwing money at them through merch or the subscription fee for allowing you to play content offline.

Buying songs outright is the fairest for both the creators and the consumers. Paying for streaming services is the most cost-effective, but ultimately less fair for both the creators and consumers (unauthorized redistribution can be reduced, but creators don't get compensated enough and consumers don't get to keep the content they love).


Not really, you can just download them from stores like iTunes while also keeping your Spotify subscription. That's what I did with Beyoncé's Lemonade album: it wasn't available on Spotify, so I bought the album instead. I was even able to upload it to Spotify, so I can still listen to the album on Spotify.

---

To stay on topic... iTunes was a garbage application that was slow, clunky and crashed a lot. That you were forced to use it with the iPods instead of a regular file management system was a total pain in the ass. iTunes was made to combat music piracy and it totally failed at that job as pirating was still superior. At least you didn't have DRM on your files and forced to use iTunes to listen to them if you pirated them.

I say good riddance to old rubbish. It was replaced by far superior technology.  8)

Not really, you can just download them from stores like iTunes while also keeping your Spotify subscription. That's what I did with Beyoncé's Lemonade album: it wasn't available on Spotify, so I bought the album instead. I was even able to upload it to Spotify, so I can still listen to the album on Spotify.

My main concern is that gradually, by the time I can afford a massive library of songs, streaming services would be the only way to listen to music, and music I'd like would fail to be available especially in the long term. I feel like the demand in digital downloads and physical media is dropping to a point of helping streaming establish its dominance. I think the only place where digital downloads and physical media still prevail are places that have awful internet. Even then those places tend to be rife with piracy.

---

To stay on topic... iTunes was a garbage application that was slow, clunky and crashed a lot. That you were forced to use it with the iPods instead of a regular file management system was a total pain in the ass. iTunes was made to combat music piracy and it totally failed at that job as pirating was still superior. At least you didn't have DRM on your files and forced to use iTunes to listen to them if you pirated them.

I say good riddance to old rubbish. It was replaced by far superior technology.  8)

I will say it's also a piece of garbage because it doesn't work with Linux. You'd have to pay for Macs or Windows licenses in order to be able to effectively run iTunes, on top of the content you'd buy through it.

Another garbage thing about iTunes was that even though you paid for the song, you would only get it in 320 kbps MP3s which is worse than CD quality. With streaming services like Tidal you can get the high fidelity loseless .FLAC quality that really makes the music come to life. It's even better than vinyl let alone CD.

If you are going to be buying albums digitally, make sure you get the highest quality sound (you will not find it on iTunes).

Another garbage thing about iTunes was that even though you paid for the song, you would only get it in 320 kbps MP3s which is worse than CD quality. With streaming services like Tidal you can get the high fidelity loseless .FLAC quality that really makes the music come to life.

If you are going to be buying albums digitally, make sure you get the highest quality sound (you will not find it on iTunes).

There's Qobuz, but I'm worried that the fall of digital download services will mean that the music I love (mostly from the 2000s and mostly obscure stuff otherwise too) will stop being available. Like when I first signed up to Netflix, I could now only get expensive DVDs to watch the show I wanted to after.

Content on streaming services is locked with DRM so even if you download it, you can't keep it even if you pay for it.

There's Qobuz, but I'm worried that the fall of digital download services will mean that the music I love (mostly from the 2000s and mostly obscure stuff otherwise too) will stop being available. Like when I first signed up to Netflix, I could now only get expensive DVDs to watch the show I wanted to after.

Content on streaming services is locked with DRM so even if you download it, you can't keep it even if you pay for it.


Qobuz isn't available here unfortunately. TIDAL or piracy is still the easiest way to get hifi music.  I'm holding on to my 6 month TIDAL free trial for dear life. ;D I am willing to pay $20/mo for hifi streaming, but TIDAL's music recommendation features pales in comparison to Spotify and that is more important to me.

There was never an assumption of ownership with streaming though, so it's different. If you unsubscribe to a streaming service, all the music you downloaded is removed. With digital downloads, when you buy a song, you would presume you own it, but if you read the fine print you would learn this is not the case.

There was never an assumption of ownership with streaming though, so it's different. If you unsubscribe to a streaming service, all the music you downloaded is removed. With digital downloads, when you buy a song, you would presume you own it, but if you read the fine print you would learn this is not the case.

As someone who hates the music of the 2010s for the most part, I'm insulted that companies are more willing to serve customers who care little about music and that consumers are more willing to kiss their music collections goodbye from not reading the fine print or accepting their songs will be greyed out than pay a little extra for downloads and storage mediums for them.

As someone who hates the music of the 2010s for the most part, I'm insulted that companies are more willing to serve customers who care little about music and that consumers are more willing to kiss their music collections goodbye from not reading the fine print or accepting their songs will be greyed out than pay a little extra for downloads and storage mediums for them.


You can care about music while also not caring about music collections. That is how it was for almost all of human history and prehistory before vinyl :P

You can care about music while also not caring about music collections. That is how it was for almost all of human history and prehistory before vinyl :P

I can but I don't want to miss out on 2000s music. Sadly there's so many good stuff from then I don't know what to look for to add to my collection. I want a 2000s music collection in case music from next decade onwards is either crap or streaming only (i.e. should I be unable to afford music streaming services and/or a good internet connection with enough data to last me a month, then I lose out from even listening to music I love regardless if I depended exclusively on streaming). Our technology should not enforce artificial limits on something that could have once been unthinkable or only dreamed of. If music couldn't last from when it was performed, it could at least last through notation and writing, which would survive as long as the writing mediums did.

music streaming services can be free but then they'd want you to shell out money for their premium version without ads and commercials. Would you rather have it free or wind up paying money once a month?

music streaming services can be free but then they'd want you to shell out money for their premium version without ads and commercials. Would you rather have it free or wind up paying money once a month?

I'd actually rather have it free if streaming were the only thing that existed. I'm more annoyed by the people paying for it and using those for their music instead of actually paying for DRM-free music like from iTunes. Sadly, people can't be asked to pay for more flash drives and other necessary storage for digital downloads and would rather let companies organize (and lose) their music for them.

I'd actually rather have it free if streaming were the only thing that existed. I'm more annoyed by the people paying for it and using those for their music instead of actually paying for DRM-free music like from iTunes. Sadly, people can't be asked to pay for more flash drives and other necessary storage for digital downloads and would rather let companies organize (and lose) their music for them.


I agree that I'd rather have it for free as well.

You can technically download songs from YouTube as MP3s for free using the YouTube to MP3 website but it is frowned upon and maybe not even legal.  :-\\

You can technically download songs from YouTube as MP3s for free using the YouTube to MP3 website but it is frowned upon and maybe not even legal.  :-\\


True. It is very difficult to download from Youtube without software (none of which is legal), and the sound quality can be pretty awful, depending on the source it was posted from in the first place. Youtube is a pretty wonderful resource, but it should not be counted on to be somebody's music collection. You could go there one day for something you love and it could be gone. Youtube is very fluid, to use a word that is all the rage these days.

Oh you prefer CDs to streaming? Congratulations for going against the grain, you’re so special.  ::)


Speaking of which...

I never had an iPod, nor did I ever use iTunes. Ever. The only times I ever interacted with it were via friends and/or family. I had never even heard of any such thing until 2004 when I moved to Oklahoma and saw the ads with U2. I was always in the "What's wrong with CDs?" crowd, even after I learned about the loudness wars (which is beyond the scope of the topic at hand).

If I want to enjoy free music, I use YouTube or listen to FM radio. Or listen to free hi-res FLAC (such as 2L classical music). (I can also listen to one free hi-res Neil Young song a day via his Archives website.)

If I want to pay for (or own) my music, I can buy either vinyl or CD. There's also Blu-ray Audio, DVD-Audio, and SACD, but I've never used those. I'll try to seek out vinyl, but I'm also perfectly fine with CD as an alternative.

You can technically download songs from YouTube as MP3s for free using the YouTube to MP3 website but it is frowned upon and maybe not even legal.  :-\\


I use it when I want to download music to my stick.

Speaking of which...

I never had an iPod, nor did I ever use iTunes. Ever. The only times I ever interacted with it were via friends and/or family. I had never even heard of any such thing until 2004 when I moved to Oklahoma and saw the ads with U2. I was always in the "What's wrong with CDs?" crowd, even after I learned about the loudness wars (which is beyond the scope of the topic at hand).

If I want to enjoy free music, I use YouTube or listen to FM radio. Or listen to free hi-res FLAC (such as 2L classical music). (I can also listen to one free hi-res Neil Young song a day via his Archives website.)

If I want to pay for (or own) my music, I can buy either vinyl or CD. There's also Blu-ray Audio, DVD-Audio, and SACD, but I've never used those. I'll try to seek out vinyl, but I'm also perfectly fine with CD as an alternative.


I use internet radio, I can listen to all the free music, anytime and anywhere I want to.

iTunes was a game changer, I really only use Spotify now.

iTunes was a game changer, I really only use Spotify now.


I hardly use Spotify, I listen to internet radio.

I just listen to FM radio.  :-[

I hardly use Spotify, I listen to internet radio.
Same here! And now never use Spotify.

I like it’s functionality.  Spotify deal was 10 bucks for 3 months. I like being able to create playlists and text them to friends. It’s all personal preference though.

Also, I’m making playlists for my daughter already. Fun stuff. The closest thing to that when I was a kid was recording from the radio to tape recorder!

Also, I’m making playlists for my daughter already. Fun stuff. The closest thing to that when I was a kid was recording from the radio to tape recorder!
Those were the days, I still have my cassettes, but no cassette player...

Those were the days, I still have my cassettes, but no cassette player...


Yeah, awhile back, I sold/gave away all my CDs and cassettes. Only have vinyl left, I used to DJ, and what’s on my phone/tablet/computer. I miss those cassettes though it reminds me of the movie Hi Fidelity.
The art of making a mix tape.

I just listen to FM radio.  :-[


You still have a clock radio?

Same here! And now never use Spotify.


Maybe I should just delete my account since I don't really need it any longer.

Those were the days, I still have my cassettes, but no cassette player...


My cassette player hardly works.

Yeah, awhile back, I sold/gave away all my CDs and cassettes. Only have vinyl left, I used to DJ, and what’s on my phone/tablet/computer. I miss those cassettes though it reminds me of the movie Hi Fidelity.
The art of making a mix tape.
I still have my vinyl, and I want to keep them.

I still have my vinyl, and I want to keep them.


My Father still has his.

My Father sill has his.
It must be a good collection?

A lot of digital HD codes that come with Blu-ray and 4K discs are iTunes only.  Yet, when I want to watch them on my Android phone, I can use iTunes on it, but it tells me I have to get a paid subscription just to watch my own iTunes content.  Fuck that noise.  Good riddance iTunes

I haven't used iTunes in YEARS and neither has the rest of my family. I've been uses Spotify consistently since 2013/2014 and haven't used any other app to stream my music.

It must be a good collection?


A vast collection of albums from most of the genres he used to listen to.