TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

TidBITS Articles
The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

This article was just published by TidBITS and sent to you at your request.

The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

By Adam C. Engst
http://tidbits.com/article/17430

Say what you will about the deluge of subscriptions, but I like subscribing to a streaming music service so I can explore music without the stress of having to decide if I want to buy any particular track. The first service I used was the much-missed Rdio. I stuck with Rdio because of its elegant interface even after testing out Apple Music during its free trial (see “Retuning Rdio: Why I Dropped Apple Music,” 7 October 2015). When Rdio went under, I switched to Spotify instead of Apple Music because Spotify’s interface was more focused on discovering and playing music, whereas iTunes was at a particularly low point in Apple’s interface experimentation. I also liked how Spotify could display lyrics, a feature that wasn’t available in iTunes at the time.

Spotify worked well for me for a while, but in May 2016, the lyrics feature disappeared. Spotify had been working with Musixmatch for lyrics, but said at the time:

Just a heads up that our Lyrics feature on desktop is currently unavailable as we’re making some big improvements to the feature. We’ll share more updates soon. We can also confirm our partnership with Musixmatch is ending. It was a great partnership and there is mutual respect between both companies as our business strategies move us each in different directions.

Alas, Spotify never brought back the lyrics feature. Musixmatch offers standalone Mac and iOS apps that can show lyrics for the currently playing song, but I found using them to be too much trouble most of the time.

Losing lyrics was a blow, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was when I ran headfirst into Spotify’s 10,000 track limit. You read that right — despite the fact that Spotify is a streaming service that contains over 30 million tracks, you cannot add more than 10,000 to your collection. This utterly arbitrary limit was a true deal-breaker.


The limit isn’t new, though I didn’t know about it when I signed up for Spotify. In 2014, user takingbackbenny started a Spotify Community discussion devoted to the limit that has garnered over 4500 votes and generated 300 pages of comments from Spotify users who are shocked that the service would have such a limit. Several years after it started, Spotify staff said:

At the moment we don’t have plans to extend the Your Music limit. The reason is because less than 1% of users reach it. The current limit ensures a great experience for 99% of users instead of an “OK” experience for 100%.

Spotify never explains why changing an arbitrary number in the code from 10,000 to 50,000 (Google Play Music’s limit) or 100,000 (Apple Music’s limit) would somehow hurt the experience for those who don’t want to add that many tracks. A Spotify music collection is just a list of tracks, so it’s hard to imagine how allowing that list to exceed 10,000 could cause any problems. Regardless, many people in that discussion (and the many other related threads) have said the limit is why they’re leaving Spotify, and it was the key reason for me to pay Apple instead of Spotify for music.

I enjoy following the trail of related or recommended music to find new music from previously unknown artists. When I find music I like, I add it to my library so I can find it again by scrolling through my library, and so additional algorithmic recommendations take it into account. It was all too easy to hit 10,000 tracks doing that.

I was able to export my Spotify collection to a text file (and then into a simple Panorama database), so I could be sure that I wouldn’t lose it, but I wasn’t able to find any automated way to add those tracks to my Apple Music library. I’m not too bothered by that, since it lets me work through the collection manually. I can add each album back, and if I have time, I can explore more related music. It’s not about efficiency; it’s about wandering through the world’s largest record store. I didn’t even import my collection of music ripped from CDs since I can likely find it all in Apple Music, and it had become rather random anyway.

As much as Apple Music raised Spotify’s track limit tenfold, it’s not a complete win. Spotify did a better job of providing constantly changing selections of music to play. It offered six genre-driven Daily Mix playlists that combined tracks from my collection with related recommendations, and its Discover Weekly playlist was always worthwhile for finding new music.



In contrast, Apple Music’s My Favorites Mix and My Chill Mix playlists update only once per week and contain just 25 songs. Apple Music also provides some curated playlists and recommended albums, but when I just want to play music without thinking about it, Spotify’s Daily Mixes were near perfect. Apple Music requires more interaction.


Although the interface of iTunes 12.6 has settled down, it’s still confusing and cluttered, thanks to the awkward splits between your library (which might include local music), Apple Music, and the iTunes Store. The iOS Music app has also improved over time, but it still took me some time before I figured out how to turn off shuffle, given that the control was hidden out of sight on my iPhone screen with no indication that scrolling was necessary.


I can’t say that I’ll stick with Apple Music forever, but with Spotify seemingly uninterested in expanding its limit and providing lyrics, Apple has a better set of features for now. And if Spotify ever gets its act together, I can always switch back.

Post a comment

TidBITS members can unsubscribe from just-published articles at http://tidbits.com/subscriptions. TidBITS Talk readers will need to create a filter to delete these articles.

Article copyright © 2017 By Adam C. Engst . Reuse governed by Creative Commons License.




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Marilyn Matty

On Aug 30, 2017, at 2:48 PM, TidBITS Articles <[hidden email]> wrote:

Losing lyrics was a blow, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was when I ran headfirst into Spotify’s 10,000 track limit. You read that right — despite the fact that Spotify is a streaming service that contains over 30 million tracks, you cannot add more than 10,000 to your collection. This utterly arbitrary limit was a true deal-breaker.

I don't subscribe to any streaming music service at the moment, but I have been considering Spotify or Apple Music, and this throws my decision to Apple.

Unless it is because of a deal they cut with the music companies, and their relationship with the powers that be has been much more problematic than those of Apple, Google, etc., I can't see any other reason behind this. What I also don't understand is why you didn't get any warnings as you got close to the limit.

The limit isn’t new, though I didn’t know about it when I signed up for Spotify. In 2014, user takingbackbenny started a Spotify Community discussion devoted to the limit that has garnered over 4500 votes and generated 300 pages of comments from Spotify users who are shocked that the service would have such a limit. Several years after it started, Spotify staff said:

At the moment we don’t have plans to extend the Your Music limit. The reason is because less than 1% of users reach it. The current limit ensures a great experience for 99% of users instead of an “OK” experience for 100%.

Spotify never explains why changing an arbitrary number in the code from 10,000 to 50,000 (Google Play Music’s limit) or 100,000 (Apple Music’s limit) would somehow hurt the experience for those who don’t want to add that many tracks.

About 4-5 years ago when streaming music services were just getting off the ground some friends with backgrounds in radio explained why Pandora, Spotify, etc. couldn't ever be very profitable, if at all. With subscribers paying about $10 annually, at least 70% of the services' income were going to the labels/artists. And there is no way an ad supported streaming music service can achieve the audience size or level of granularity that Facebook, Google, etc. can. As labels and artists will continue to demand better compensation, and Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. who can afford to break even or loose a little money in streaming as they move forward in audio and video, the scenario only looks bleaker for Spotify. An article in The NY Times this June says Spotify is now paying 85% of its revenue to labels and artists.

Spotify Is Growing, but So Are Its Losses


A Spotify music collection is just a list of tracks, so it’s hard to imagine how allowing that list to exceed 10,000 could cause any problems.

My guess is that the only way they can minimize losses is to minimize infrastructure costs. Since they are about to go public, they probably are cutting corners anywhere they can.

I can’t say that I’ll stick with Apple Music forever, but with Spotify seemingly uninterested in expanding its limit and providing lyrics, Apple has a better set of features for now. And if Spotify ever gets its act together, I can always switch back.

Google already has a few toes in the water, and Facebook wants to get into the act. The landscape is going to get a lot more competitive.

Marilyn



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

adamengst
Administrator
What I also don't understand is why you didn't get any warnings as you got close to the limit.

Yeah, there was no warning at all. Try to add that 10,000th track and you get that error I showed.
 

A Spotify music collection is just a list of tracks, so it’s hard to imagine how allowing that list to exceed 10,000 could cause any problems. 

My guess is that the only way they can minimize losses is to minimize infrastructure costs. Since they are about to go public, they probably are cutting corners anywhere they can.

It seems likely that it’s just really bad programming that they’ve never gotten back to. I can’t see how increasing the list size for a very small percentage of users would impact infrastructure.  

I can’t say that I’ll stick with Apple Music forever, but with Spotify seemingly uninterested in expanding its limit and providing lyrics, Apple has a better set of features for now. And if Spotify ever gets its act together, I can always switch back.

Google already has a few toes in the water, and Facebook wants to get into the act. The landscape is going to get a lot more competitive.

What’s a little worrying, and this was a small part of why I chose Spotify originally, is that the tech giants can both afford to break even or lose money on one service because they make so much elsewhere. That hurts competition and innovation and artist earnings, while simultaneously helping consumers by driving prices through the floor. I don’t know how sustainable it really is.

cheers... -Adam





____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by TidBITS Articles
On 30 Aug 2017, at 12:48, TidBITS Articles <[hidden email]> wrote:
I can’t say that I’ll stick with Apple Music forever, but with Spotify seemingly uninterested in expanding its limit and providing lyrics, Apple has a better set of features for now. And if Spotify ever gets its act together, I can always switch back.

The killer feature for me with Apple music is Siri integration, and there's a LOT of it.

"Hey Siri, play more like this"
"Hey Siri, play the top hits from 1985"
"Hey Siri, add this to my library"
"Hey Siri, play my top-rated" (Where "top rated" is a playlist I have in iTunes)
"Hey Siri, after this play 'Walk Like an Egyptian'"
"Hey Siri, what (or who) is this)"
"Hey Siri, skip"
"Hey Siri, like this song"

and you can even ask for a specific version of a song

"Hey Siri, play Shake it Off by Ryan Adams"
   (which I highly recommend)

And I can do all of that hands-free in the car (or hands-free while sitting at my computer typing).


-- 
Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Dave Scocca

On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:48 PM, @lbutlr <[hidden email]> wrote:

The killer feature for me with Apple music is Siri integration, and there's a LOT of it.
[...]

and you can even ask for a specific version of a song

"Hey Siri, play Shake it Off by Ryan Adams"
   (which I highly recommend)

And I can do all of that hands-free in the car (or hands-free while sitting at my computer typing).


I'm curious whether there's any way other than the standard Apple Bug Reporter to provide feedback on Siri problems.

On my phone, whenever I ask for "Johnny B. Goode" I get "Be Good, Johnny" by Men at Work.  I can work around this by pronouncing the "E" -- asking for "Johnny B. Goody" -- but there's got to be something wrong in there with the way it prefers having the words in the wrong order to having them in the right order.

Dave




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

@lbutlr
On 31 Aug 2017, at 11:55, Dave Scocca <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On my phone, whenever I ask for "Johnny B. Goode" I get "Be Good, Johnny" by Men at Work.  I can work around this by pronouncing the "E" -- asking for "Johnny B. Goody" -- but there's got to be something wrong in there with the way it prefers having the words in the wrong order to having them in the right order.

It tried to play the 0% tomato meter 1988 movie "Johnny B Good" for me, but "Play jony bee good by chuck bary" works.

--
Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Marilyn Matty
In reply to this post by adamengst

On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

A Spotify music collection is just a list of tracks, so it’s hard to imagine how allowing that list to exceed 10,000 could cause any problems. 


My guess is that the only way they can minimize losses is to minimize infrastructure costs. Since they are about to go public, they probably are cutting corners anywhere they can.

It seems likely that it’s just really bad programming that they’ve never gotten back to. I can’t see how increasing the list size for a very small percentage of users would impact infrastructure. 

Anything they have to spend on will show up in the numbers Wall St. reviews for an IPO.

I can’t say that I’ll stick with Apple Music forever, but with Spotify seemingly uninterested in expanding its limit and providing lyrics, Apple has a better set of features for now. And if Spotify ever gets its act together, I can always switch back.

Google already has a few toes in the water, and Facebook wants to get into the act. The landscape is going to get a lot more competitive.

What’s a little worrying, and this was a small part of why I chose Spotify originally, is that the tech giants can both afford to break even or lose money on one service because they make so much elsewhere. That hurts competition and innovation and artist earnings, while simultaneously helping consumers by driving prices through the floor. I don’t know how sustainable it really is.


Though Apple, Tidal and Google are no angels, they have been paying musicians more than Spotify. It's why Apple Music has now has more tracks than they do. Musicians and record companies hate free music services, which pay the most minuscule fees, which is why Apple didn't start one even though they enacted to. 

Spotify has been resorting to dirty tricks, one of which is reputably the reason why Taylor Swift's album was an exclusive release on Spotify:

Spotify Said to Be Burying Songs by Artists With Apple Deals:


Katy Perry Knows Exactly How Much Spotify Is Punishing Apple Artists:


How Spotify's 'Fake Artist' Controversy Has Increased Tensions With Label Partners, Could Hurt Its Bottom Line:


Marilyn






____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Al Varnell
In reply to this post by Dave Scocca
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dave Scocca wrote:
I'm curious whether there's any way other than the standard Apple Bug Reporter to provide feedback on Siri problems.

Well, there's always Feedback <https://www.apple.com/feedback/macos.html> but that's not nearly as effective as a good Bug Report.

-Al-
-- 
Al Varnell
Mountain View, CA







____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Marilyn Matty
In reply to this post by adamengst


On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:
 

What’s a little worrying, and this was a small part of why I chose Spotify originally, is that the tech giants can both afford to break even or lose money on one service because they make so much elsewhere. That hurts competition and innovation and artist earnings, while simultaneously helping consumers by driving prices through the floor. I don’t know how sustainable it really is.


I spoke to a friend who has a long history in the radio business. His guess is that because Spotify has to shell out money every time someone plays a track, heavy users cost them a lot more. Someone with 10,000 probably tracks probably listens to a lot more than someone who has 100 and pays the same rate as you do.

Marilyn



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

adamengst
Administrator
I spoke to a friend who has a long history in the radio business. His guess is that because Spotify has to shell out money every time someone plays a track, heavy users cost them a lot more. Someone with 10,000 probably tracks probably listens to a lot more than someone who has 100 and pays the same rate as you do.

That sounds sensible when comparing 100 tracks to 10,000, but I would have to be convinced that there’s a significant difference in likely usage between 9,000 tracks and 10,001 tracks, or even 50,000. 

cheers... -Adam



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Travis Butler
In reply to this post by Marilyn Matty

On Sep 2, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Marilyn Matty <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:
 

What’s a little worrying, and this was a small part of why I chose Spotify originally, is that the tech giants can both afford to break even or lose money on one service because they make so much elsewhere. That hurts competition and innovation and artist earnings, while simultaneously helping consumers by driving prices through the floor. I don’t know how sustainable it really is.


I spoke to a friend who has a long history in the radio business. His guess is that because Spotify has to shell out money every time someone plays a track, heavy users cost them a lot more. Someone with 10,000 probably tracks probably listens to a lot more than someone who has 100 and pays the same rate as you do.

I think it still quite possibly is for technical reasons, given that there are ways of implementing libraries that can really scale poorly. 

It’s important to remember that a library isn’t simply a list of tracks - it’s a *database* of tracks. And the way that database is put together can make a huge difference in how the system responds to larger number of tracks.

For a generic example: 

The simplest and smallest way to represent a library is a list of Track ID’s, with each Track ID pointing to a track entry in Spotify’s master music database. Each time that track is accessed in the library, the system goes to the master database to pull the track name, artist, track length, genre, album name, etc. This works great in some ways: the amount of memory needed for the library is very small, and all of the information is automatically up-to-date because it’s being read live from the master database. 

Unfortunately, if you’re working with a *lot* of tracks at once - like, say, pulling up a list of all the Jazz tracks in your library - there’s a potentially large performance hit. The system has to go and access the master database entry for each and every track in your library, so it can do a search on the metadata fields in the master track entries and pull the information it’s showing in the list on the screen. Depending on the database schema, the system might need to pull the entire master track record with all of the metadata Spotify uses, in order to pull the 4 or 5 pieces of info needed for the screen display. 

Now take that high number of database accesses, and multiply it by hundreds of thousands of active users, and you can see where you can get a significant performance penalty. This is an example of a design that scales poorly with user activity.

To get around this kind of issue, another way to define the user’s library is to put all the information the system needs when manipulating the library into the library track record. So instead of a simple entry with just the track ID, each library entry would have the song name, artist, album, genre, length, and any of the other fields normally displayed in the interface. You’ve just made a dramatic cut in the number of database accesses needed to run the interface; everything you need to sort, search, display lists, etc. is already in the user’s library database, and after you load the library you don’t have to touch the master music database unless you need some piece of rarely-used information that isn’t in the library record. 

But you’ve replaced that problem with another one - instead of a simple Track ID that takes a few bytes to store, you’ve now got a much larger record needing several times as much memory. Multiply that by the number of tracks in the library, and the number of user libraries the Spotify system needs to keep in memory... And any time you update one of the targeted fields in the master database, you have to push that update out to the library track record for every user library in the system. This kind of system, you’re going to see a much larger resource hit as the size of the user library increases, even if you’re dramatically cutting down on live accesses.

It’s all tradeoffs - different database designs create different performance bottlenecks.

If the Spotify people originally designed their system with an eye to reducing activity load, at the expense of high memory overhead for library records, that would be a reasonable explanation for restrictions on large libraries. And if the cost of fixing that is re-architecting the system to reduce library overhead at the cost of more frequent database accesses, that would fit with their claim that it would make things slower for everyone. 

Note that this is not an excuse. At the very least, someone should have been thinking ahead when they architected their system and were considering these issues. And if they are deliberately choosing to limit very large libraries in the name of a database design that puts the emphasis on different bottlenecks, that’s also their responsibility. But take 'em to task for what they’ve actually done.







____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Franconi Enrico
I’ve no clue whether my hypothesis is true, but I strongly suspect that the limit may arise from the licensing contracts with the record labels. With a smaller upper limit, Spotify may have got a better deal.
—e.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Rodney
In reply to this post by Travis Butler

On Sep 4, 2017, at 04:18, Travis Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it still quite possibly is for technical reasons, given that there are ways of implementing libraries that can really scale poorly. 

Nothing you said explains the number 10,000.

The two major reasons applications don’t scale these days are they simply didn’t include enough bits for various fields to represent every unique item in their database, or for performance reasons.

You get an example of the field size problem with 8 bit characters; you can only represent 256 of them, numbered 0-255. That’s why they invented the “escape” character; it tells the system to temporarily interpret a character string based on a different encoding, and was very handy for allowing graphics on old CRTs or transmission control codes in communications networks.

I don’t see this as a problem here. If Spotify previously allowed bigger libraries, then they cut back, then they’d previously solved that scaling problem.

Performance reasons? I doubt it. Maybe performance decreased with size until it became “unacceptable” by some criteria at around 10,000 entries, but I’d be surprised.

My guess that the only “performance reasons” are about profit. Somebody ran the numbers for cost vs size and profit vs size. The lines intersected somewhere around 10,000. I don’t have a problem with that, but I prefer to own my music instead of renting it. Old age can bring on nostalgia.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Travis Butler

On Sep 4, 2017, at 4:22 AM, Rodney <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t have a problem with that, but I prefer to own my music instead of renting it. Old age can bring on nostalgia.

<shrug> I feel the same way - which is why I don’t subscribe to any streaming services, satellite radio, cable TV, or software rental schemes like Office365 or Creative Cloud. I buy all my music, thank you very much, even if it does mean haunting used CD shops and having boxes full of CD’s in storage. :) So I don’t have a personal stake in this fight. If anything, I’m biased against Spotify from the analyses I’ve read on how much they actually pay artists.

However, as an in-house application developer who’s always getting 'It ought to be easy to do this, right?' questions from my boss, who doesn’t really understand how the system is put together (by five different developers over 10 years) or the kind of performance issues involved, I am kinda sensitive to issues of legacy cruft and database design. <sheepish look> And it does really irritate me when people insist there couldn’t possibly be for technical reasons; that kind of attitude just makes it harder for me to do my job right. (Maybe I do have a personal stake in this after all.)

On Sep 4, 2017, at 04:18, Travis Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it still quite possibly is for technical reasons, given that there are ways of implementing libraries that can really scale poorly. 

Nothing you said explains the number 10,000.

No, it doesn’t. But I have had plenty of occasions where I’m implementing something and had to pick a hard limit, and made a guess based on the usage I expected. Most hard limits are arbitrary, unless you’re dealing with something like a signed integer overflow/rollover; there isn’t likely to be any real difference in use between 9999 and 10000. But the same thing is true no matter where you put the limit.

The two major reasons applications don’t scale these days are they simply didn’t include enough bits for various fields to represent every unique item in their database, or for performance reasons.

Yes. And I tried to describe, at a simple/generic level, two different kinds of database designs and the performance bottlenecks each one could encounter as they scaled.

You get an example of the field size problem with 8 bit characters; you can only represent 256 of them, numbered 0-255. That’s why they invented the “escape” character; it tells the system to temporarily interpret a character string based on a different encoding, and was very handy for allowing graphics on old CRTs or transmission control codes in communications networks.

I don’t see this as a problem here. If Spotify previously allowed bigger libraries, then they cut back, then they’d previously solved that scaling problem.

Did they, though? The impression I got from the original article is that the limit was *always there,* and that Adam just ran into it recently:

The limit isn’t new, though I didn’t know about it when I signed up for Spotify.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Performance reasons? I doubt it. Maybe performance decreased with size until it became “unacceptable” by some criteria at around 10,000 entries, but I’d be surprised.

I haven’t seen anything about their internal code; but I’ve run into more than enough scaling issues that 'performance' seems like a perfectly plausible explanation to me. Since this is the explanation they actually gave, and the only claims I’ve heard otherwise have included no evidence, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see actual evidence.  





____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Rodney

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 15:23, Travis Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> However, as an in-house application developer who’s always getting 'It ought to be easy to do this, right?' questions from my boss, who doesn’t really understand how the system is put together (by five different developers over 10 years) or the kind of performance issues involved, I am kinda sensitive to issues of legacy cruft and database design. <sheepish look> And it does really irritate me when people insist there couldn’t possibly be for technical reasons; that kind of attitude just makes it harder for me to do my job right. (Maybe I do have a personal stake in this after all.)

I don’t recall saying “couldn’t possibly”, and you’re not the only “in-house application developer” on the list…😉

I simply said I didn’t believe it, and still don’t. Sure, somebody may’ve been stupid enough to store the track ID or some other unique identifier as a 3 byte (or nyble) decimal number, but I assume they’d trade storage space for performance and use multi-byte binary numbers. I worried about using the absolute minimum number of bits back when 16K was a lot of memory. In those days I’d have used binary, so there’d have been either an 8,192, or 16,284 limit, but not 10,000.

>> I don’t see this as a problem here. If Spotify previously allowed bigger libraries, then they cut back, then they’d previously solved that scaling problem.
>
> Did they, though? The impression I got from the original article is that the limit was *always there,* and that Adam just ran into it recently:

I stand corrected. I only skimmed most of this thread, because I don’t stream music.

> I haven’t seen anything about their internal code; …

That’s the biggest part of the problem with your explanation.

> … but I’ve run into more than enough scaling issues that 'performance' seems like a perfectly plausible explanation to me. Since this is the explanation they actually gave, and the only claims I’ve heard otherwise have included no evidence, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see actual evidence.

There hasn’t been any evidence for any claims, theirs or yours (or mine), so it probably isn’t worthwhile for us to discuss it. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the “scaling issues” I believe are cost vs profit. As I said, I don’t have a problem with that.


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

adamengst
Administrator
I’m sure there is _a_ reason for the limit and it might even be a good one, but unless Spotify were to share that reason, it’s impossible to guess. 

And if they’re not going to share it, I have no problem calling their development cred into question as the penalty for not being transparent. :-) 

If they’re bothered by that, they can explain the situation and I’ll retract or at least temper my criticism.

cheers... -Adam




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10, 000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

@lbutlr
On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I’m sure there is _a_ reason for the limit

Sure. Obviously, even.

> and it might even be a good one

No no, I'd not go that far. I'd put the odds of it being a *good* reason at statistically 0%.

--
Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

Curtis Wilcox
In reply to this post by TidBITS Articles
On Aug 30, 2017, at 2:48 PM, TidBITS Articles <[hidden email]> wrote:

Losing lyrics was a blow, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was when I ran headfirst into Spotify’s 10,000 track limit. You read that right — despite the fact that Spotify is a streaming service that contains over 30 million tracks, you cannot add more than 10,000 to your collection. This utterly arbitrary limit was a true deal-breaker.


Do local files count amongst the 10,000 tracks or only tracks from Spotify? I don't consider myself a music hoarder but my iTunes library has over 7,100 tracks (~2/3rds ripped from CDs ages ago); if I let Spotify look at my music library and counted that along with every track I added from their offerings, I'm sure I could get to 10,000 pretty easily because my inclination would be to add everything by a number of artists. Then again, if one just wants to influence their algorithms picking songs to play, one can Follow artists which I assume is considered in addition to what you've listened to and what's in your library.




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TidBITS: The 10,000 Track Limit: Why I Switched from Spotify to Apple Music

adamengst
Administrator
Do local files count amongst the 10,000 tracks or only tracks from Spotify? I don't consider myself a music hoarder but my iTunes library has over 7,100 tracks (~2/3rds ripped from CDs ages ago); if I let Spotify look at my music library and counted that along with every track I added from their offerings, I'm sure I could get to 10,000 pretty easily because my inclination would be to add everything by a number of artists. Then again, if one just wants to influence their algorithms picking songs to play, one can Follow artists which I assume is considered in addition to what you've listened to and what's in your library.

I don’t know, to be honest. I always kept my Spotify library separate from my local music.

cheers... -Adam 



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: http://tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____