Voice of Objectivity: Who Needs Spotify?

Voice of Objectivity is an ongoing column meant to temper the tendency of the Techcited to run away with the most exciting or controversial ideas in technology’s near future. The opinions presented here do not necessarily represent the views of Techcitement or this writer. Someone’s got to keep a cool head around here. I guess I’ll just have to pretend it’s me.

Last week saw the US launch of the highly anticipated music streaming service, Spotify. The response was huge. Coverage in every major media outlet. Endorsements by famous artists. Major companies using free invites as promotions. You don’t see companies enter the music business to this much fanfare very often. I have to admit, I was as excited as anyone.

After a few days with the service though, I have to ask, what was the big deal? Is Spotify really bringing anything to the table that we didn’t already have here in the US? It’s gotten a lot better media coverage than some of its competitors, but let’s see how it really matches up.

As one of our readers pointed out, Spotify is a very close parallel to Grooveshark, a service that’s been available in the US for roughly four years. Both are unlimited free streaming services supported by ads. Both have tiers of paid option that let you remove ads and stream music to mobile devices, with similar prices. Both start with your own collection and let you add anything you want from their online library. Both let you share what you’ve liked with other listeners.

But Spotify seems to be missing a few features. While the desktop player is great (I have to admit, it’s like iTunes, but not slow), there’s no web app. It syncs your playlists and starred music to anywhere you log in, but if your friend doesn’t use Spotify, you need to install the app if you want to play something for them. In an era where Google has manufacturers selling laptops with essentially nothing but web browsers on them, this is a glaring omission, especially when Grooveshark has had it from day one.

You don’t need to spend time uploading music to Spotify, true, but there’s a downside to that: you can’t upload music to Spotify! If the song you want to listen to isn’t in Spotify’s online library, you can only listen to it if you have a copy of the file on the machine you’re using. Once again, a problem at a friend’s house.

And you will find songs missing from that online library, because Spotify’s agreements with the major labels don’t guarantee them access to everything. That means they’re missing little, obscure groups like The Beatles (still an iTunes exclusive) and even artists that are present don’t necessarily have their complete works available (Adele’s 19 is there, but 21 is conspicuously absent). Grooveshark may rely on some shaky legal ground compared to Spotify, but there’s no faulting their selection. Any music you own, you can upload, and any music any user has uploaded is available to all users.

Grooveshark also has a Pandora-like radio function, to help with discovering new music. Spotify tries to make do with lists of new and hot music, but nothing that caters to your tastes.

Spotify is a great service, no question. But I have to ask, for a streaming service that gives you no guarantees of keeping your music if the service ever closes, is there any real advantage as a user to listen on a service with better licensing deals, but worse selection and missing features?

For a look at where my personal views lie, take a look at my companion column, Voice of Subjectivity.