You seem to not have the slightest understanding of what I was referring to. I’ll try to break it down into something easier to understand.
Imagine that Spotify is a stream (a real stream of water, not an internet stream). To get to the ocean it has to pass through a concrete tunnel. There are millions of little fish that pass through that tunnel all the time. Suddenly several crocodiles decide that they want to pass through at the same time. The tunnel wasn’t designed for crocodiles. Sure, they can get through, but they fill the tunnel and the little fish get bunched up, slow down, and take longer to get to the other side. If you just gave the crocodiles a road to walk down that was over the tunnel, then they could get to the ocean without slowing down the little fish.
For this analogy, the little fish are songs, the crocodiles are white noise, the tunnel is the internet stream, the road is an FTP server, and the slowing down of the stream is buffering and increased cost.
You say you’re paying for bandwidth. You’re paying for access. Spotify is paying for the bandwidth, and it increases in cost the more it has to be increased in size to accommodate the service. If the company can reduce the demand on the bandwidth, then they can continue to offer the service without having to increase what you pay, while also using that savings to better their services.
The biggest issue with streaming services right now is that they are realizing that what they are charging is not covering the expensive cost of the bandwidth they are using. That’s why most of them are increasing what they charge. If Spotify can find a away to eleviate that issue, then that’s a good business practice.
No I quite understand how bandwidth works, you are paying for it because you’re paying Spotify lol, if Spotify get no monies from ads/subs they have no internet, they have no audio library, they have no technicians, they have no developers, your sub PAYS FOR ALL OF THAT. What even is this word salad of corporate boot licking nonsense? Especially in an age where fiber optics bandwidth is more than enough to push those itty bitty 1s and 0s through their lines to their customers.
You’re literally trying to argue the same as when Comcast and Time Warner intentionally slowed Netflix and other video games because “bandwidth”. Here’s again the issue, you pay for your internet, you pay for Spotify, which pays for access AND their internet. If Spotify can’t survive then they should raise their prices not try to hide behind “bandwidth” when we ve been streaming god damn audio since the 90s on copper dial up.
You’ve obviously never tried to stream multiple things from your own server. It’s not as simple as you make it sound. Why do you think nobody can compete with YouTube? It’s because the cost is so expensive to stream. You can post the same videos to an FTP server with no huge bandwidth issue, but streaming takes a lot more.
Only people with a T1 line could stream in the 90s. Either you’re too young or you’ve forgotten that it wasn’t possible for 99% of people to stream until cable internet started being introduced in the early 2000s.
Lolololololol I’ve had 23 files playing from a Plex server before on my home network. YouTube level? Nope, but what the hell are you talking about? Dailymotion has existed for forever, twitch is a YouTube competitor and has existed forever. you also clearly have forgotten about midi files, those annoying instrumental songs that played on people’s websites? All the rage in the mid 90s. Before you try to condescend you should maybe actually know what you’re talking about.
You seem to not have the slightest understanding of what I was referring to. I’ll try to break it down into something easier to understand.
Imagine that Spotify is a stream (a real stream of water, not an internet stream). To get to the ocean it has to pass through a concrete tunnel. There are millions of little fish that pass through that tunnel all the time. Suddenly several crocodiles decide that they want to pass through at the same time. The tunnel wasn’t designed for crocodiles. Sure, they can get through, but they fill the tunnel and the little fish get bunched up, slow down, and take longer to get to the other side. If you just gave the crocodiles a road to walk down that was over the tunnel, then they could get to the ocean without slowing down the little fish.
For this analogy, the little fish are songs, the crocodiles are white noise, the tunnel is the internet stream, the road is an FTP server, and the slowing down of the stream is buffering and increased cost.
You say you’re paying for bandwidth. You’re paying for access. Spotify is paying for the bandwidth, and it increases in cost the more it has to be increased in size to accommodate the service. If the company can reduce the demand on the bandwidth, then they can continue to offer the service without having to increase what you pay, while also using that savings to better their services.
The biggest issue with streaming services right now is that they are realizing that what they are charging is not covering the expensive cost of the bandwidth they are using. That’s why most of them are increasing what they charge. If Spotify can find a away to eleviate that issue, then that’s a good business practice.
No I quite understand how bandwidth works, you are paying for it because you’re paying Spotify lol, if Spotify get no monies from ads/subs they have no internet, they have no audio library, they have no technicians, they have no developers, your sub PAYS FOR ALL OF THAT. What even is this word salad of corporate boot licking nonsense? Especially in an age where fiber optics bandwidth is more than enough to push those itty bitty 1s and 0s through their lines to their customers.
You’re literally trying to argue the same as when Comcast and Time Warner intentionally slowed Netflix and other video games because “bandwidth”. Here’s again the issue, you pay for your internet, you pay for Spotify, which pays for access AND their internet. If Spotify can’t survive then they should raise their prices not try to hide behind “bandwidth” when we ve been streaming god damn audio since the 90s on copper dial up.
You’ve obviously never tried to stream multiple things from your own server. It’s not as simple as you make it sound. Why do you think nobody can compete with YouTube? It’s because the cost is so expensive to stream. You can post the same videos to an FTP server with no huge bandwidth issue, but streaming takes a lot more.
Only people with a T1 line could stream in the 90s. Either you’re too young or you’ve forgotten that it wasn’t possible for 99% of people to stream until cable internet started being introduced in the early 2000s.
Lolololololol I’ve had 23 files playing from a Plex server before on my home network. YouTube level? Nope, but what the hell are you talking about? Dailymotion has existed for forever, twitch is a YouTube competitor and has existed forever. you also clearly have forgotten about midi files, those annoying instrumental songs that played on people’s websites? All the rage in the mid 90s. Before you try to condescend you should maybe actually know what you’re talking about.
https://youtu.be/I0118mIUwkQ