this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
1565 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
78964 readers
4428 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just because the Spotify model sucks doesn’t mean it has to.
I don’t see a reason why 85% of a monthly subscription couldn’t given directly to the artists you actually listen to, and any albums your purchase is on the platform (and you get to keep the drm-free files).
Honestly it kinda sounds like an awesome service.
Edit: I’m one of those geezers too, who prefers to own my music. I just think there’s room for both.
I agree. Probably not profitable to the company though. Gotta keep those server costs covered...
It'd be nice if people could make a living off art but capitalism is against that at every turn especially now. Art shouldn't even be related to money in some people's opinions .
The Spotify model sucks despite throwing money at it for years, so my guess is they surely can give you some reasons why 85% of your monthly subscription can't be given to the artists you listen to.
Publicly traded companies are always going to turn to shit, the "Spotify model" is just appeasing shareholders with infinite growth.