• Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well yeah, but Spotify also does more than Youtube in some ways. Like, have a minimum amount of podcasts on it (I know I know, why not use a separate podcasting app, but for the little podcasts I listen to it’s easier having it all in one app that is known to shit like Sonos and stuff), or have bands that aren’t well known in the US.

    Don’t get me wrong, I loathe Spotify, but compared to Youtube’s audio side they’re a much much better experience. Hence I would usually rate them on-par in what they should cost: With Spotify you get a better experience, with Youtube you also get ad-free videos.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree that YouTube is pretty much dead as a audio medium (Google Play Music was so much better!) but things like podcasts don’t need Spotify; they work over RSS so any app is supposed to be able to play them (though I guess most people probably don’t know what podcasts are supposed to be these days). I’ve loaded my Patreon podcasts into Podcini, for instance, proving that subscription models aren’t a problem for podcasts either.

      The hosting cost difference between videos and music is staggering, though. I’m still surprised YouTube can afford to exist on ads alone, even if they play three ads for every video. It’s unreasonable to expect YouTube to be the same price as Spotify if you watch any video content.

    • Salvo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Curated music services like Spotify and Apple Music can give some great recommendations.

      ThE aLgOrYtHm of YouTube gives terrible recommendations. It is as if it has no musical taste whatsoever.