Ive got the family subscription to Spotify. The four of us each listen to a solid 100,000 minutes of music a year for $15 a month. 400,000 minutes of entertainment for $180 is easily the best value entertainment I’ve ever seen. That’s 37 hours per dollar.

If we go with iTunes prices that’s an album and a half a month. Were you really expanding you home collection that much?

I too prefer renting this way, but I don’t think the value proposition is unbelievably good compared to owning.

I never bought music, just pirated it before switching to Spotify. But I listen to hundreds of new albums a year so yea o guess I was expanding my collection much faster than an album and a half a month.

> Were you really expanding you home collection that much?

An album and a half a month?

There are lots of people who would buy dozens of CDs a month. I know many.

> 400,000 minutes of entertainment for $180 is easily the best value entertainment I’ve ever seen

Does nobody in the group ever repeat a song?

If yes, then that 400K is double counting (or 50x counting or however many time a song is repeated).

Depending on how much replay, at some point it becomes cheaper to just buy those CDs instead of paying for them over and over every month.

So you get a vast amount more choice for the same price? That doesn’t factor into your assessment of value at all?

But you don't own the data as in you can play in different devices, the streaming service has to exist where you want the music and it has to have constant internet access. Before you could load the CD in the car and run in roads that are in no-coverage area. Also you pay for the internet access.

Not true, offline play is possible.

https://support.spotify.com/us/article/listen-offline/

For me, absolutely not. I'd rather go back to listening to the radio and not being able to decide what's playing. I currently buy two to three albums a year on Bandcamp or Amazon, the rest is YouTube.