Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spotify Defends Facebook Sign-Up Requirement

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:24PM (#37527664)

    But might it have something to do with the fact that Sean Parker [wikipedia.org] and Peter Thiel [wikipedia.org], the guys who funded Spotify's recent move to the U.S., also still happen to own a significant percentage of Facebook?

    Nah, that's just cynical crazy-talk. It's just to make the sign-up easier for us consumers.

    • Out! Out! Damned spot!

      Facebook: New 'mark of the beast?'

      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        Well, guess I won't be trying Spotify out then....

        Facebook acct: Never had it....Never will....

        • by eepok (545733)

          I have a Facebook account... but only to keep in contact with a couple student organizations that don't understand the value of actual forums for discussion.

          • by Dog-Cow (21281)

            FB is an actual forum. Just because you're privacy-conscious and/or anti-social does not make FB a bad thing.

            (I don't have an FB account, but my wife does.)

      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        You are welcome to go here [facebook.com] .

        • Yeah. I believe they delete the only dollar generating asset that they have.

          Facebook and Google and all these crap 'services' are like a "welcome to the Hotel California".

          Tracked by "+1" and "Like" buttons, forever.

    • If it would be just to create a seamless user experience, they would do the standard "here are the 6 most common platform sign-ins, go pick your favorite". The fact that they require FB points to either your guess, or to FB directly paying Spotify for this move. Either which way, go suck it, Spotify. I'll stick to Pandora and, for as long as Pandora isn't on Xbox, Last.fm.

      • Yeah, because asking people to choose from six options (of which at least two or three probably apply to them -- most people who have a Facebook account probably also have a Google account, a Yahoo account, etc.) is super seamless. Like the man said, the key to usability is "don't make me think." [amazon.com]

        Not that I'm a fan of Spotify going Facebook-only -- I think it's a terrible move from a business perspective, because it means they now have a middleman standing between them and their customers, which means they

        • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @01:00PM (#37528146)

          "Don't make me think" is fine if there's indeed only one plausible action. But FB is not the passport for the Internet, no matter how many people keep saying that. As a result, putting in one action that doesn't apply to a significant chunk of people is worse than giving them options they don't need.

          Not to mention: do you REALLY want FB to be the defacto passport for the Internet? Especially as a company whose only ability to hold on to people is their user preferences, which are now shared with FB?

    • Dunno how much good that will do... hordes of fake facebook accounts (or even real ones that are never seen by the users who created them) will only dilute its value to advertisers.

    • I hope you're right, and this isn't a new trend that other online services will follow...

    • Ya think? :)

      I think I'll decline (on both memberships).

  • "...the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier." ...for Spotify.

    • by omnichad (1198475)

      Hey, at least Spotify won't leak user data...to anyone but Facebook.

  • Facebook karma (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SoupGuru (723634) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:32PM (#37527778)
    Facebook has been doing some questionable things lately, which is interesting considering they have an up-and-coming contender in Google+ to compete against.

    There have been murmurings about the privacy stuff and general griping going on for a while now but there was no "real" alternative. Then G+ goes live and Facebook makes some pretty big interface changes. I figure a lot of people just Facebook because it's comfortable and cozy... but when you introduce a crapload of new things and push people out of their comfort zone that just makes checking out G+ that much easier.

    Now they just keep doing things to dare people to leave
    • by cavtroop (859432)

      Except people won't leave Facebook. With the new changes (I call it the 'stalking update 1.0'), I've been preaching to everyone on FB to move over to Google+.

      Not a single person has moved. They're too comfortable on Facebook, even with the recent UI changes. They're happy to make post after post bitching about FB, the new UI, the privacy problems, but they're too lazy to DO ANYTHING about it.

      Until Google+ gets a significantly larger userbase, it's not particularly useful. *sigh*

      • by Announcer (816755)

        Why are so many people so reluctant to leave FB? That answer is simple: A VAST MAJORITY of their family and friends (real friends) are on it. If they leave, they won't find those people on G+... so why leave? Tolerate the changes, but stay in touch with your 'peeps. Seems to be working.

      • by xaxa (988988)

        About 5 people I know have signed up to Google+ since the recent Facebook updates. However, none of them seem to be using it. I think the main problem is there's no events functionality, which is the most important feature of Facebook.

      • Google+ should allow me to have completely non-public profile etc. Until then, Facebook is better than Google+ in terms of privacy.

      • by vlm (69642)

        You can only use one or the other? I only use G+ so I donno. I suppose its technically possible for each side to intentionally screw up the other guys cookies and whatever else (keyloggers?)

        Sounds like an artificial problem where you "must" only have landline or cell phone, or you "must" only use one of windoze mac or linux.

    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      People go to facebook because that's where their friends are. What good does a social network do if your friends aren't there?

      • Wait, wait, what? You mean, people have real friends on Facebook, too?

        I dunno, I may be old fashioned, but ... if I need something from my friends, I call them. If they need something from me, they call me. If there's anything they need to know about me, I tell them. If they want to know something about me, they ask me. I kinda fail to see the advantage Facebook would offer.

        • I guess it might be non-obvious to people who never use it, but the vast majority of the value I get from Facebook is the things that my friends post that I may not otherwise hear about. I'm talking about things like concert announcements, parties, etc that I see posted there that someone may not have remembered to call me about. The rest of the value is from family updates. My sister isn't going to personally email me every picture or video she takes of her son, and I wouldn't necessarily want her to.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        On the other hand, Facebook is where all of your worthless Farmville friends are.

        A new service could sell itself for being a tool to actually connect with your own social circle rather than random strangers in Thailand who's "friendship" is merely useful for playing inane Zynga games.

        The S/N ratio on Facebook (driven by it's design and business model) tends to make it less and less useful. Constant mindless spamming from the likes of Spotify might be just what the 'danes need in order to start fleeing to an

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Anyone murmuring about privacy stuff won't be using a Google product as an alternative.

      • Anyone murmuring about privacy stuff won't be using a Google product as an alternative.

        Exactly

      • My first thought as well. And central database of single sign on is a bad idea if you value security or privacy. I mean, FaceBook accounts never get hacked, do they?
    • I agree... Facebook with the whole "follow your life" path that they seem to be taking are alarming many users who already have some concern about privacy but are on Facebook because everyone else is. I've switched to Google+ because of the way Facebook, and now its partners, are pushing people around.
    • Facebook has been doing some questionable things lately, which is interesting considering they have an up-and-coming contender in Google+ to compete against.

      It is not intentional. But a while ago, they switched over to Google Docs, and sense then, memos and directives have changed occasionally. ;)

  • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:33PM (#37527784)
    which is close to what they're saying I guess.
  • I guess they didn't want my business.
  • How embarrassing to spend all that time building up a company only to effectively "resign" from the internet and cede your entire company to become just a feature of another company. Facebook is the king of getting people to work for them gratis. Spotify did the heavy lifting with the labels and Facebook eats their lunch.

    • by jalefkowit (101585) <jason@nOSPam.jasonlefkowitz.net> on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:53PM (#37528036) Homepage

      Indeed. If Facebook wanted Spotify to become Facebook Music, you would have thought that they could have at least had the class to buy Spotify and give the owners a payout. I suppose there's a reason why "Facebook" and "class" aren't words you think of together too often, though.

      Part of me wonders if Facebook didn't give them the old Offer You Can't Refuse, the way Microsoft used to do in the old days. Back when Windows was the monoculture, Microsoft could extract enormous concessions from potential partners simply by threatening to dump a competing product into Windows and give it away for free if they didn't play ball. One could certainly see Facebook having similar leverage over any social service; so many people are on Facebook now that if FB picked up a Spotify competitor (say, rdio [rdio.com]), rebranded it as Facebook Music, and gave it away 100% free, Spotify's business model would be in serious jeopardy. That gives Facebook a pretty big hammer to wield over Spotify at the negotiating table.

    • by vlm (69642)

      How embarrassing to spend all that time building up a company only to effectively "resign" from the internet and cede your entire company to become just a feature of another company. Facebook is the king of getting people to work for them gratis. Spotify did the heavy lifting with the labels and Facebook eats their lunch.

      Maybe its a very public display of affection for FB... they really wanna get purchased...

      Either FB is going to purchase spotify or spotify is going to be really embarrassed when FB rejects their advances.

  • by basilisk12 (622742) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:44PM (#37527926)
    I would love to see a Venn Diagram of "People who object to using Facebook for privacy reasons" and "People who would actually pay for Spotify accounts"
    • Re:Venn Diagram (Score:5, Insightful)

      by houstonbofh (602064) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @01:06PM (#37528214)
      Not applicable. How about people who would not like the link FaceBook to a service with access to bank or credit card information? Even if you have FaceBook, that does not mean you want them to have more information about you.
  • If you want a good relationship with your customers you force them to do something against their will.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:46PM (#37527946)

    "...The company has now defended the policy, stating, oddly, that the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier."

    I guess the questions are:

    1: Why not let me the user determine that?"

    2: Why not pitch the idea that I might find Facebook signing easier?

    The end result will be easier and better for Spotify but guess what, I am gone!

  • because I'll be damned if I'll ever join one of those brainless twit websites that completely invade your privacy. Hell if it ever gets to a point where i'm somehow legally or financially required to surrender my privacy to facebook my page is going to be a big white banner that says "FUCK YOU FOR BOTHERING TO LOOK HERE!". I've seen presumably 'personal' sites like this used all the time to discriminate against job applicants. Several times they got teachers fired because someone ELSE posted a picture of a

  • Sad. :( (Score:5, Informative)

    by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:47PM (#37527960) Homepage

    I really used to Love Spotify.

    I'm a premium subscriber and still like it, but this trend is depressing... I noticed a few days ago that I can't play Spotify links off Facebook. "Your platform is not supported." even though I run the native Linux client, and now this?

    Gotta hate it when mainstream corporate pressure slowly eats away what once was a Good Thing. :/

  • No more privacy... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @12:52PM (#37528026)

    The funny thing is how Spotify spams Facebook's life stream with what you're listening to. I'm sure the music industry loves that, constant free advertising. And most people will just go along with that because it's a fun new feature. Privacy doesn't even enter into the equation.

    Unfortunately, there's no viable competitor to Facebook out there. Facebook has stolen a lot of Google+'s thunder. They've introduced a bunch of new features, including matching a lot of what Google+ offered. Google could prove me wrong but I think Google+ is another one of these things that will linger for a few years before they finally kill it like so many other things they've done. And it's not like Google is a paragon of privacy.

    And whatever happened to Diaspora?

  • My big gripe with Spotify is that you can subscribe for $5 / month and listen all you want on your desktop machine. If, however, your end point is your phone, they charge $10 / month. I really don't understand what difference it makes to them if the stream end point is my phone or a computer.

    • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @01:07PM (#37528216)

      I really don't understand what difference it makes to them if the stream end point is my phone or a computer.

      They know that people who'll spend $600 on an iPhone won't notice that they're also spending twice as much for their music as someone with a computer.

    • by Jay L (74152)

      Isn't Spotify P2P-based on desktops? It probably can't do that (or can't do it as well) on mobile, so you pay to leech.

      • I tether my laptop to my phone all the time and use Spotify that way with absolutely no problems. I really am not sure though if the mobile version uses P2P in the same way as their desktop program does.

    • My big gripe with Spotify is that you can subscribe for $5 / month and listen all you want on your desktop machine. If, however, your end point is your phone, they charge $10 / month. I really don't understand what difference it makes to them if the stream end point is my phone or a computer.

      That is easy. Those who get Spotify accounts for streaming to thier phone are willing to pay more than those who get it to thier desktop machine. To phrase that slightly differently, the number of people who will not get a Spotify account to stream to thier phone at $10, but would at $5 is less than the number to make up for the decreased revenue per customer from that price reduction. On the other hand, the number of additional subscribers for desktop machines who will pay $5 a month but not $10 a month mo

  • 1) Spotify is not going to get my business.
    2) Facebook is going to get a bogus account against their terms-of-service with a fake name.

    Multiply this by every other person who wanted to try Spotify but refuses to sign up for Facebook.

    For me- I'm leaning towards #1. I've got Sirius, MP3s, CDs, Cassettes, Pandora, and FM. If I have to live without Spotify because of their rediculous sign-up requirements... so be it.

  • Make fake facebook user with 0 friends, 0 info, 0 statuses, and 0 pictures. Use a fake name too if it suits you. John Bimblethorpenheimer. Problem solved. They can't invade your privacy if they don't know anything about you.
  • Do you have to pay in Facebook Credits, where Facebook takes a 30% cut? If Spotify works through a "Facebook app", the App terms require that.
  • The real reason to tie into Facebook is that FB is the leader in DEMANDING that you put in your REAL information. They delete your accounts if they catch you doing otherwise. Only Paypal is worse. FB gets away with it - for now - in ways Spotify could never manage on their own. This tie-in makes identifying you for every possible making money opportunity is as high is it is possible to be on the Internet.

    Have you ever noticed that when a business says that "We're doing this in order to make it easier for
  • by alispguru (72689) <bane AT gst DOT com> on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @01:33PM (#37528618) Journal

    By requiring a Facebook account for registration, Spotify ensures their future customer base is already on board with having their demographic information sold in return for "free" services.

  • Spotify sucks (Score:2, Informative)

    by Charliemopps (1157495)
    Spotify is terrible.. even without the Facebook garbage it's the worst music service I've used. Just use another service, all 3 of these are superior:
    http://www.slacker.com/
    http://grooveshark.com/
    http://www.pandora.com/
  • Almost every time I go to read an article on Yahoo, I get pestered to add my Facebook account. An iFrame pops up in the middle of my screen, and there's no way for me to tell it to stop pestering me. All it does is make me want to not use Yahoo anymore.
  • "Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier."

    To market you. And to you.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...