Why YSK: Spotify forces you either to pay, listen to ads or to find unofficial, potentially dangerous versions to use it. It’s better to find a free alternative, both for your wallet and for your peace of mind.

Introducing: ViMusic

Downloads: https://github.com/vfsfitvnm/ViMusic

  • Free and open source
  • No ads/trackers
  • Song lyrics
  • Music from both YouTube Music and YouTube
  • Weights 2MB or so
  • Beautiful UI and amazing UX

Cons: no high kbps streaming support

DO NOT TRY TO DOWNLOAD THE APP FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE ONES LISTED IN THEIR GITHUB PAGE. They are malware.

  • UprisingVoltage@feddit.itOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course they don’t force you to use spotify, but it’s one of those “soft monopolies” many other companies have. It’s not the only option, but they basically are, because everyone thinks so: it’s like whatsapp, if you catch my drift (everyone use it because everyone’s on it)

    And when a company realizes they’re in that position, they will prey down on their users without fail, and I’m talking about:

    Privacy invasive app: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.spotify.music/latest/

    Investing in military AI: https://mixmag.net/read/spotify-daniel-ek-ai-defence-investment-criticism-news

    Patents for extremely invasive technologies: https://www.accessnow.org/press-release/spotify-tech-emotion-manipulation/

    Allowing disinformation during covid, not paying properly the artists and many other things I’m not going over for sake of brevity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify#Criticism

    What I don’t like about spotify and all the companies who are in a similar position in the market is that, as usual, their share of the pie it’s unfairly big, which is why I try to drive people away from them. Not saying YouTube is better, but at least with vimusic you don’t have to listen to ads (which I think heavily harm people’s mental health, among other things)

    Of course music can be bought, but people only buy what they like nowdays, and use online services to discover new music. Few have the money to buy music and listen to it for the first time afterwards. Many people don’t even have the money to meet their basic needs, let alone buy music

    • entropicshart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to argue against any of the points against Spotify, but YT Music (and it’s parent, Google) are much worse; leaving only Apple Music with a much smaller library as a realistic alternative to streaming music.

      I do miss the old days of Google Play Music though - it is a shame what Google did to a neat app with a standalone subscription.

      • RBWells@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh my God yes Google Play Music was the best. And whoever convinced them to give up that glorious branding (Play Music, Play Movies, Play Store) in favor of ‘YouTube Music’ should be drawn and quartered.

        Play Music’s uncanny ability to let me know who was actually playing near me, meaning within my usual territory, and with music I would like, was unmatched. It was par with Spotify for playlists based on the sound of a song. YouTube music doesn’t do playing near you, Spotify seems to think 1000 miles away is nearby, and neither are as good as Play Music was at finding good match for my location and time of day. It was perfect in name and function and they gave it up.

    • UlfarrOT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Spotify really isn’t a “Soft monopoly” though. There are a lot of competitors in the music streaming business. Youtube music, Apple music, and Pandora, just to name a few. Sure, Spotify is perhaps the most commonly used, but it’s also unfair to punish a company because they’re successful.