This is a bizarrely short-sighted move.<p>I have to wonder if Spotify has fallen victim to the siren's lure of "social". Perhaps they believe their future lies in integration with the social graph and news feed. If so (IMHO), they are sorely mistaken.<p>I believe some services already have you tweet or post that you've listened to a particular song. Zuckerberg seems to believe in "sharing and more sharing" [1] and automatic sharing. What would be the end result of this? On a particularly music-filled day I might send 100+ posts about songs I've listen to? Really? People will <i>ever</i> look at that?<p>If it's part of the main news feed, it's spam. If it's not, nobody cares... except Facebook, who can mine such data.<p>And maybe Spotify except... they already have access to this data (for their subscribers). It just makes no sense.<p>Spotify is also late to the party (in the US at least). Any kind of restriction like this is incredibly risky. Other established players don't have this restriction. While you can argue that "normal people" don't care, who recommends such services to family and friends? It's us.<p>And any player in the music space would be remiss to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, being Apple's iTunes. iCloud launches soon. Honestly I think it'll kill a few of these "upstarts".<p>Also, I am less than convinced of the utility of mobile streaming. Bandwidth and connectivity are still issues. Increasing storage and all-you-can-eat subscription models seem like a far better solution (IMHO).<p>[1]: <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/zuckerbergs-unspoken-law-sharing-and-more-sharing/" rel="nofollow">http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/zuckerbergs-unspoke...</a>
This is just the beginning. Facebook and Spotify set a nice precedent there to make it en-vogue to just provide a Facebook login for services in the future.<p>For whoever builds the service, it's (marginally) easier to just use FB as an authentication provider and they even get to spin it as "with us, you don't need to store the 1000st password - you can just use Facebook".<p>For Facebook, of course, it's great too as it is one more thing to force people to stay logged in, which in turn is much better data for them.<p>The end users probably wouldn't care either as they are mostly logged into Facebook anyways and if not, it's easy for them to just log in.<p>The only losers are us professionals who know about the implications of such a move and who care about the loss of privacy.<p>And of course the people who had their facebook account suspended for either legitimate reasons or just some oversensitive SPAM protection algorithm. These people are now locked out of their, possibly even paid, account, unable to access it (and remove credit card info). Of course these will be the minority and people won't care.<p>Until it's them that are affected.<p>I can understand that in this day and age you want to provide the users with an option to authenticate with something else than yet another username and password. Google, Twitter, Yahoo or even any OpenID provider (maybe your own). Sure.<p>But just Facebook? This is trouble waiting to happen.<p>I'm saying this as somebody who can't have Spotify anyways due to the complete brokenness of the licensing market, but this still concerns me as it's just another precedent and I'm just waiting for another service I love to force me to use Facebook.
A reply from Darren, a Spotify employee:<p>"Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.<p>This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used. "<p>This is asinine.
This strikes me as an unwise move on Spotify's part. Allowing integration with Facebook as they had before was fine. But <i>forcing</i> people to sign up with a Facebook account? Not only are they eliminating a large group of people who would like to sign up and don't have a Facebook account, but they're also tying their fate as a company to a third-party.<p>I have a feeling that this was a condition that Facebook insisted on in return for Spotify being used for Facebook Music. I hope the deal turns out to be worth it.<p>I seem to recall a post where they said that people who linked their Facebook accounts bought and share more music. And as a result of the deep integration with Facebook, they'll probably have a sharp increase in their growth.<p>I just hope that this is a temporary condition and that they eventually allow other methods of signing up. Otherwise, they might as well just be acquired by Facebook.
Let this be a reminder. If you use a streaming music service, they can pull you any stupid trick. If you do not accept, well, you'd better hope there is an alternative the provides a comparable catalog.<p>Once you own non-DRMed music, they can't take it away.
From the (very pissed) comment thread on getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/can_you_sign_up_for_spotify_without_facebook?<p>"In the 90's we had to deal with Windows-only software. Now we have Facebook-only software. Great."
This is a sign of desperation from Spotify. Their product is far from unique, and only really interesting because it has better PR, more apps, a better library, and a slightly more legit licensing setup than the competition.<p>None of those are big enough barriers to entry to keep even the small players away, meanwhile the big dogs are starting to show a <i>lot</i> of interest in streaming music (admittedly for music you "own" at the moment, but it would surprise noone if this were to change overnight).<p>Apple has the marketing weight and a history of solving music licensing issues, Google has a track record of throwing money at problems to solve them, and Amazon is just about to make a major hardware play.<p>Spotify's only real hope was to latch onto the latest big thing (conveniently an infrastructure provider, so unlikely to launch a direct competitor) and hope to ride to success on someone else's coat-tails.<p>I have no idea what the contracts between the two companies look like, but I would have to imagine that they are heavily in Facebook's favour. After all, it would be a lot easier for Facebook to replace Spotify with another provider than it would be for Spotify to replace Facebook.
Spotify support staff quote from that discussion thread<p>--
Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.<p>This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used.
--<p>Couple of things to note:<p>1. If you already have a Spotify account, you don't have to connect to Facebook.<p>2. They seem to be encouraging a bogus Facebook account as a way to use Spotify "privately"?
I am sick of everything being social. I listen to and read things I enjoy and often don't want to share it with the whole world. For example battle.net in SC2 tries it's damn hardest to make me post achievements and connect with my friends online, and I just want to play a game alone when I happen to have some free time. That kind of game wasn't social for me in the first place, and I don't want it to be. Same with my spotify usage, I want to listen to the radio, I don't want the whole world to know I am listening to jazz radio at the moment.
This may make good sense from spotify's point of view without knowing all the facts but it looks like it makes very little sense.<p>Spotify and facebook are two unrelated services that users get to apply the 'binary or' truth table on. None, one or both. To force users to use both communicates that spotify sees only one possible exit strategy at this point, facebook or bust, and facebook has just strengthened their hand in the negotiations for any buyout to the point where spotify is now basically just an extension of facebook.<p>If spotify does not want to play ball on fb's terms from now on facebook has the ability to pull the rug right out from under them.<p>I wonder what the missing bits are here, there has to be a lot more than meets the eye for spotify to do this.
The million-dollar question now seems to be if existing Spotify accounts will be silently converted to Facebook accounts behind-the-scenes. Such accounts might even be created as completely locked-down private Facebook accounts available to no one else, but it opens the door for the slow erosion of the privacy of those accounts into something Facebook can monetize.<p>I'd run, not walk, away from any Spotify subscription.
In other words, to use this streaming service you have to submit your real name to a company you'd rather not want to, and stay logged in* so it can spy on your every move on the web.<p>* Not sure about this part. You probably lose your web spotify session if you log off facebook (?), but your desktop app session would probably not be affected.
I once made a site that only allowed sign in via Twitter. That was a huge mistake. Do not segment potential users by login mechanism, more often than not you will raise the barrier of entry from potential to not.
As a Facebook user, why exactly do I want to see a notification about each and every song that 100 different friends are listening to at any given point in the day? Add in the fact that Rdio does the exact same thing (spam my Facebook "ticker"), and it's even more ridiculous.
I disabled offline access and pushing content to my wall permissions for Spotify on Facebook (under Account Settings, Apps). Mainly because of complaints I was spamming walls... Still works with the most basic permissions, but sleazy it adds them by default.
In a way this could be a decision to simplify the login process for the end user. Then again, if that was the case they should have supported Google, Yahoo and all other OpenId providers. Also there seems to be no reason to completely remove the native sign up, especially since they have already made the effort to create full support for it. Guess just like the recent trend in FB, they also just want to do an experiment and see how the users will take it.
I use Spotify and had been recommending them to friends as well. I know several of my friends don't have Facebook, so this will probably stop them from signing up.<p>As far as automatic sharing goes, I've already told several of my friends that they can change their sharing to the "only me" setting so that they're not spamming what they're playing on Facebook.<p>I enjoy Spotify, but it is kind of a hassle to have to change settings to make it usable.
One of the principal investors in Spotify is... Facebook.<p>There is nothing like having free money thanks to the billions of Golman Sachs, we will see how much they recoup.
Can anyone figure out where to delete their Spotify account in the web UI? I don't even think it's possible. This move to require Facebook is ridiculous IMHO and I want no part in the company's services anymore.
Facebook is a dangerous social experiment. It's not a 'virtual passport'.
Rather, it is a 'virtual bank', except they don't store financial information about the users, but everything else. And that is an unimaginable amount of power.<p>Given that their intentions are different from their user's (they want profits, users want... to share photos), it is not hard to assume that Facebook does and will use the user data in order to maximize profits or grip on power.<p>I think that nothing good will come out of this marriage of Spotify and Facebook.<p>Facebook gains a lot of meta information about the Spotify users (and music taste tells a huge amount about a person), whereas Spotify is reduced to being a convenient and easily replace-able bit pipe.<p>Now they'll be able to run their social algorithms based on music habits and offer us the best, most relevant and unique crap for sale on the market.<p>Or one day the government decides to isolate the listeners of The Doors and deny login to every site that uses facebook as a virtual passport.
They should talk to the ton of services that built themselves around Facebook, only to see their app be killed without any given reason, killing their whole business.
I know I'm being a total pleeb, but given the remarkable access to the music I want to listen to, at a very cheap cost, I'd probably be willing to sign up for a mandatory mayonaise delivery service to get access to Spotify.
Facebook give's them an on-stage keynote plus smooth Spotify integration (just check out that gorgeous install flow) and they give Facebook mandatory FB accounts in return. Seems like a deal rather than a "move".
I've yet to see a positive comment regarding this new feature, but I'm wondering, has that anything to do with the type of site that HN is?<p>There's been a lot of anti-Facebook chatter recently, most of which I agree with mind you, but given the backlash so far regarding this new restriction, do you think there's really enough weight behind these online discussions to make them change their minds?
Particularly if there's a contract sitting in a drawer, saying they must take this course of action, regardless of user/customer sentiment.
Something else must be in play for such a great standalone service to give the keys to their front door to Facebook. I'm sure tons of time went into this decision and the result was either faster adoption or added sugar to a partnership deal. Either way, I'm interested to see how this plays out and to see what the backup plan is if it all goes to shit.
This is only going to mean 2 things.
A) Less people will sign up to Spotify
B) Facebook will gain more users<p>So, what's in it for Spotify?<p>In my opinion, this was a very bad move. Spotify is now relying on Facebook. God forbid Facebook ends up like Myspace and no one cares about them in 4 years, then I guess Spotify will just go down with the ship?
I suppose that because Spotify lives on Facebook now (regularly in my scroll), this move won't be unappealing to most people. I have the impression that HN is much more anti-FB than the population in general. Most of the people Spotify appeals to, such as the college student demographic, all have Facebook and don't really care about their information or privacy, so they won't mind using it to get free music.<p>What I'm curious about is if this was their game plan from the beginning. I wouldn't say it's an act of desperation at all, I bet they celebrated when the FB deal was finalized. They're pushing it pretty hard. I signed up for Spotify weeks before this, but as soon as f8 hit my local Spotify app bothered me about checking what my friends are listening to on Facebook even after I authorized the connection.
Interesting. Maybe Facebook is integrating a Mafia based business strategy:
Either you become an exclusive Facebook service or we just rip off your idea and offer it as our own.
Wasn't there some guy recently on HN who claimed that FB screwed him over with their music service?
I've had a spotify free account for some time. Today, the new automatic update presented me with the new default settings for my account. The default is to share publicly starred items and new lists, ie opt-out rather than opt-in.
I noticed this a day or two ago when I tried to sign up at the recommendation of a coworker. I decided against it when I realized you had to use your Facebook account to login. I'm going to check out rdio instead.
What is the real reason these companies are doing this? It's obviously not the reasons they claim. There must be some sort of incentive program where Facebook is giving them kickbacks, as well as a gag order that prevents them from stating the agreement they have. It's very close to the old practice of companies that "sponsor" popular software by paying the developers to include their third party adware toolbar installers in the package, often embedding themselves deep within the user's system on a rootkit level, just as Facebook invisibly tracks everything you do.
It's the same with turntable.fm... Talk about an unfortunate trend. I think it's great that facebook can help facilitate the authentication process, but it should definitely be a choice made by the user.
Seems like Facebook might've asked for this as part of the integration deal. Otherwise I see no obvious reason for Spotify to limit their customer base. Unless the economics of delivering music to a non-facebook user is much less attractive and have much lower conversion to paying user? I find music discovery on Spotify to be poor compared to Pandora, and without my FB connections sharing playlists, I have no incentive to pay for Spotify.
Tangentially related, but is anybody else really sick of everybody's Spotifys updating their Facebook pages with every track they're currently listening to?
I contacted support@spotify.com and asked them to delete my account. They replied:<p>"If you wish to close your Spotify account, log into your Spotify account profile (<a href="https://www.spotify.com/account/profile/" rel="nofollow">https://www.spotify.com/account/profile/</a>), and add ".del" to your email address. Your account will be closed within 48 hours."
I live in a country where most of the big music streaming services are not available, only last.fm.
With this move, may Spotify open their service to other countries? Yeah, I know music labels are strong but side by side with Facebook they have some power. And I guess, it's hard to ignore 700+ million users.
For every 1 person that doesn't sign up for Spotify because they need Facebook, there will be 2 people that sign up because they don't need to create yet another account.<p>This obviously stinks if you think Facebook is some super evil company, but if you're a regular person it probably doesn't matter.
Spotify's selection is awful and they lump tons of unrelated artists together. I've been using MOG for a month and have been 99% satisfied (their new beta doesn't work with my firewall at work for some reason).
I know it's not completely analogous, but AOL comes to mind. Facebook seems to be this subset of the internet like AOL was. You have to remind people that something bigger exists beyond the walls.
Spotify can do whatever it wants. It may seem a bit extreme to require a facebook account to use the service, but honestly - competing with a behemoth like Apple and iTunes, with it's inevitable rollout of a similar service at some point that - it's not an easy thing to do. For Spotify to succeed against its competitors, it's going to have to take drastic measures, and this is pretty drastic.
I've actually wanted more of my friends on facebook to get on the service so we could share music, but many don't even know what Spotify is.
In fact, on the flipside, there was an article on one of the Apple/Mac blogs suggesting that Apple desperately needs a social network.
Music is meant to be shared.
My prediction is that Facebook will be acquiring Spotify within 6 months. Makes sense for both parties, and last I checked, Sean Parker is a shareholder in both.
meebo.com just nagged me to link my account for the first time. It showed me a new interface in hoping it would lurk me in. It has to be a coordinated effort.
While it is annoying, this will exponentially grow the spotify user base. I am a single island of music consumption right now on spotify. IF I were to link my facebook account(which I never use) to it, my feed would be seen by all of my friends encouraging new signups for spotify.<p>Music is extremely social. Facebook is social. Annoying, yes. Smart, definitely.
This is the way everything is going, like it or not. The benefit to the publisher is too great. This seems to be one of those things that developers can't stand but normal people either don't care or actually prefer.
I got a question. Does Facebook connect give Spotify access to my email address that is linked to my Facebook account? Does it give them access to my first and last name as well? If so, I could understand their stance... it will give their service a higher viral coefficient.. at the expense of a few users..
Quote from a spotify employee on the liked page:<p>> <i>Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.
This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used.</i><p>I don't know if I find this hilarious, ironic or stupid. He turns towards [potential] costumers and says 'unfortunately' for something that was sole spotify decision.
Then suggesting creating bogus/zombie facebook accounts it's just plain pathetic.
1) facebook OWNS spotify. their testimonial, "spotify rocks" - mark zuckerberg, is proof that they bow to mz and are catering to his audience (most of the world, thx Goldman Sachs).<p>2) it's very smart for facebook to own music and therefore, emotion (Twitter hedge fund? FORGET THAT, I'm going to start a SPOTIFY hedge fund.)<p>3) the number one reason i use spotify is social: i like being able to listen to a friend's playlist (i have chosen him as an arbiter of cool music...)<p>4) i still use youtube to search out esoteric sounds that aren't available on itunes/amazon/spotify
truth is: the majority of end user don't care if they can only sign up with facebook. it's even easier for them as they have less choice to make. This is only a problem for highly privacy and technology aware folks, like tech bloggers or developers. Apparently, they are not the target audience.
<a href="http://www.spotify.com/us/get-spotify/open/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spotify.com/us/get-spotify/open/</a><p>This link is on spotify's help page and enables the open sign up without facebook, the nag screens post there-of, I do not know, I don't use paid or will-attempt-to-make-me-pay services, and to boot, Grooveshark is still free without an account