That said, I do miss Songwhip. It was a website where you could search for a release, and then generate all links for it, including streaming services and bandcamp.
> The good thing about Tidal
Can’t confirm, it’s worse than spotify for me, as I get an unclosable modal that asks me to sign up or login.
Try this link https://tidal.com/browse/track/18835695/u, for me it shows a list of links to other services: https://imgur.com/a/MEsaIZw
I always thought giving a straight link to the thing was better for all. If they had Spotify it would open there and without ads if they had the subscription and if they had neither it would still open the web app and let them listen to it with ads and stuff.
I've had to get friends to share the titles manually, before I found Odesli to be able to convert them.
It's why I often share a youtube link instead, it plays inline a lot of the time and when it plays inline it often doesn't have ads. But that may also be because I have an effective ad blocker (for now).
The page won't even load if you don't have the DRM plug-in installed.
I don't think you can _listen_ to the song without an account anyway.
From what I could tell when choosing AM over Spotify, the latter has a lot of playlists for discovery and I would never use my streaming service for discovery as it encourages the service to promote music it is paid to promote.
Of course AM is annoying too because 3 out of 5 navigation icons along the bottom of the UI are for discovery. But AM has Siri integration, which works some of the time… :-/
Of course, Apple still pushes its overpriced Macs, but the focus there seems to be on developers (for the more expensive stuff--big monitors, workstations, etc.) or people (probably corporate workers, developers, etc.) using MacBooks. In both cases, the focus seems to be on machines used for doing work. I'm just guessing, but I would guess that most MacOS users who want to listen to (Apple) music would do so on their personal device, i.e. their iPhone, rather than their MacOS device which is probably owned and managed by their employer.
This is crazy. Not sure how they expect anyone to keep using their service with such attitude.
Perhaps it is a lock-in strategy: don’t leave or you lose months or even years of your music habits.
At the same time, both Spotify and YouTube Music keep all the data to this day.
One might argue that they free plans, so they have to keep it. And I would say “I don’t care”. If I can’t rely on your service to keep a list of songs - I am not using it.
Damn, they could utilize my iCloud account. Or allow me to export a text file with that data, so I could import it back later. But no. No money - you are screwed.
My annual Apple Music subscription lapsed for one day, and my entire library was gone the next day when I resubscribed for another year.
Apple are allowed to make whatever customer hostile choices they want. As a former Apple Music customer, I’m not making that mistake again.
Playlists are basically zero cost to store. You would spend more $ on delete processing than keeping them around for eternity. So it's just not well thought use-case, implemented without attempt to view the whole picture.
My account is still there. I can still use it. I am pretty sure it has some historic data there as well. Probably my old lambdas are still laying around.
Erasing a music app data after just a couple of months is idiotic, even more for a company with such deep pockets like Apple.
I use Cider on my desktop but mobile is still a challenge.
Some items now stay greyed out because they don’t have a license. And some versions got replaced (eg, to the remastered ones).
Perhaps things have changed, but 10 or so years ago I "uploaded" my music to Spotify and it didn't actually upload anything, nor did it play my local music.
Rather, spotify used whatever it had in its database with the same name/artist, which wasn't always the same recording or even the same song.
And then there were the ads. No thanks.
I have my own library of more than 22,000 tracks and use Winamp, Jellyfin and VLC to play them wherever I happen to be. No muss, no fuss, and most importantly, no ads.
That said once you have heard it on Spotify, yeah you might want it on your service provider of choice so as to add it to whatever equivalent of playlists there are.
You'd think my comment assuming you didn't need an account was already absurdly wrong but with your response the cake was taken, because I'm not from America either.
I just don’t listen to music, full stop. Never used Spotify in my life, or any other streaming music service. Was really confused about all of this.
That's quite the extrapolation from your anecdotal experience. Technically, it would be more accurate to say, "for those few users using Spotify."
What you've noticed is that Spotify has the biggest market share, but that doesn't mean that the number of users not using it are "few". According to https://explodingtopics.com/blog/music-streaming-stats, Spotify has a 30% market share. That implies that up to 70% of streaming music users aren't regular Spotify users.
If you're in a DM or a group chat, you may not hear "You should listen to X by Y" but rather "Check this out: https://open.spotify.com/blah"
At my current workplace and a previous one, both had Slack channels for sharing music and they were 99% Spotify links.
Partly because of genuine Spotify usage but even not using Spotify at the time, I would find the Spotify equivalent for my own recommendations (to reduce friction for the majority so they'd be more likely to actually listen to the recommendation)
Presumably for those few users not using Spotify, rather than having to find the equivalent song via text search, which may or may not contain a result for Provider Z, this service straight up just converts the Spotify link you've been given into all of the other provider equivalents.