subcription question

That doesn't change.

See the FAQ page at the bottom.
http://www.last.fm/help/faq

mustaqila said:
Being able to play tracks in full and on demand in part of the upcoming improved subscription package that is advertised at the top. The two are not to be confused with one another though.

i dont quite get that. What is advertised and where??

spirosag said:
i dont quite get that. What is advertised and where??

This is what mustaqila brought up:

I have some questions about it:

1. Is Poland going to be in this on-demand group? I have to say that many of the active users have Polish nationality (as you can see on these Flag Counters).

2. What will be the cost?

The problem I think Last.fm has now is their original idea for this service is looking a little out of date. I mean, you have Spotify (which scrobbles), We7 and a few others all offering on-demand free music. Of course, if Last.fm offered a complete catalogue (that includes Warner) for free with no limits (like these other services are offering) then I'd stay here, but at the moment I'd have to say I'll be sticking with Spotify. I don't mind the occasional advert if I get all that free music, and if I'm making a playlist for a party then I can just pay the 99p and not hear any ads.

Babs_05 said:
Spotify - great if you have an invitation. Tenner a month if you don't. They can whistle! I'm not paying that.

Good point! I think I was lucky - I registered my email address with them and 4 days later they invited me. But like I said, if Last.fm had more music available then I wouldn't have any need to use these other sites.

Unless it was really good value I wouldn't pay for a super subscription, I'm mainly here for the radios and don't even try on demand tracks that often. I just hope it helps bring warner and merlin back. But then I'd be happy if on demand was scrapped altogether if it brought them back(not that I think that would help).

RhYnoECfnW said:
The problem I think Last.fm has now is their original idea for this service is looking a little out of date. I mean, you have Spotify (which scrobbles), We7 and a few others all offering on-demand free music. Of course, if Last.fm offered a complete catalogue (that includes Warner) for free with no limits (like these other services are offering) then I'd stay here, but at the moment I'd have to say I'll be sticking with Spotify. I don't mind the occasional advert if I get all that free music, and if I'm making a playlist for a party then I can just pay the 99p and not hear any ads.

there is also grooveshark which seems more and more tempting to me. Semi-scrobling, profiles, friends, and FULL&UNLIMITED play.
I don't get it why we have to pay for that in last.fm.

Babs_05 said:
Spotify - great if you have an invitation. Tenner a month if you don't. They can whistle! I'm not paying that.
Do you have any invitations?

spirosag said:
adamzZz said:
But... I will consider that super-subscribing, if only it would be for a reasonable price.

Define reasonable price. Since the core of last.fm is students in schools &universities a reasonable price would be a very low price.

Now the pricing of last.fm is pretty ridiculous. I love the site for what it offers (although there are much to be done) and want to subscribe but being outside US/UK/GERMANY, like the majority of its users, all i basically get is a "subscriber" icon and no ads for 30Euros/year.

I read that apple is considering an all-you-can-eat subscription for 100$, meaning that you can DOWNLOAD and KEEP as many songs as you want for 100 dollars.
Suddenly a reasonable price for last.fm super-subscription becomes really low if you consider that you could only play them through your browser, one song at a time
and without the possibility to listen from your mp3 player.

Add to that the general economic crisis and music piracyand you got the whole scene
Personally i wouldnt pay more than the current basic subscription (30e) for the "super" one
Yes, there is a lot going on in the world of online music this year and a lot of ideas are being bandied about, another one being a possible annual payment to download as much as you want off the internet without fear of being arrested for piracy. But when it comes down to it, all these ideas are ifs and maybes at the minute. The downsides to downloading off the internet are manifold, including: inadvertently downloading viruses, filling up your memory/external hard drive and needing to buy yet more storage, a surfeit of music where you stop appreciating what you've got. There comes a point where you think twice even before you can take something for free! Last.fm's servers take care of the storage issue, it's content and availability that's the problem, although that's improving as more and more artists become aware of the site.

I'm guessing, but one reason the new super subscription hasn't been rolled out might be because some labels pulled their content from the site, ie went back on their deals, leaving Last.fm in this awful position.

I should imagine the new rate will be low, if only to honour their original mission statement, "Free The Music". I am expecting the new rate to be as low as they can make it and something in the region of £2 to £3 a month. Any higher will be off-putting.

It is possible to rip your Last.fm stream and listen via your mp3 players. It's not perfect quality but 128mbps is standard for internet radio. You don't even have to subscribe to be able to do that but it will required a bit of effort on your part.

Probably, the decision to subscribe to the new rate will all come down to the individual user - what do they get out of the site? how often do they use it? is the service satisfactory? are all their friends here? how lazy are they and are they prepared to go through another learning curve to get to know a new site should a decent competitor turn up?

Babs_05 said:
The downsides to downloading off the internet are manifold, including: inadvertently downloading viruses, filling up your memory/external hard drive and needing to buy yet more storage, a surfeit of music where you stop appreciating what you've got.

1) inadvertently downloading viruses: There is no more risk getting viruses downloading legal music from amazon/itunes etc than with listening to last.fm or even pirating music with a decent antivirus or proper OS.

2)filling up your memory/external hard drive: With memory prices falling like crazy my external drive can now hold more music than i can hear in the next 5 years (literally). Or you can dedicate 5-10 gigs and then erase what you dont need and then redownload it. We are talking about UNLIMITED download here.

3)a surfeit of music where you stop appreciating what you've got: True, i do not listen dedicately more than 10 gigs maybe less but that doesn't make me not to appreciate the rest of my discography and albums that i have listened to only once. Also, how being able to listen to ANY song ANY times i want ONLY from my browser (ala last,fm super-subscription) solves that?

Babs_05 said:
I am expecting the new rate to be as low as they can make it and something in the region of £2 to £3 a month. Any higher will be off-putting.
So, do you really think they will offer unlimited play only for a pound more than what you're paying now?

Babs_05 said:
It is possible to rip your Last.fm stream and listen via your mp3 players. It's not perfect quality but 128mbps is standard for internet radio. You don't even have to subscribe to be able to do that but it will required a bit of effort on your part.

I don't really believe that the solution to an expensive subscription that wont give you the ability to a proper playlist or take the songs with you is illegally ripping the songs. Yes you can do it but you cant take it into consideration when addressing these matters

My opinion is for last.fm to adequately compete with all those new services and sites around there are only 2 ways:
1:Allow downloading of the songs and compete with the titans for a more expensive subcription,
or
2:Create a way to search/manage songs, artist and playlists in a very intuitive way (so far grooveshark is the best in this) for a subscription no more than than the actual subscription, maybe a pound more.

£2 - £3 : no idea. it's a hint to the powers that be.

I don't actually want to download everything under the sun. I certainly would not want my Last.fm Library on my external hard drive. Being able to download from the site is great but in practice, I end up not doing so, reason being, there's no need to if the song is there on the site whenever I want. (info for the powers that be). Anyway, as I understand it, if you stream from the site, artists get royalties. If you play from your media player, they don't. (is that right? someone correct me please if I'm wrong)

Last.fm is the titan. The rest are copycats and ladies in waiting. The majors would be wise to repair their relations with Last.fm. Some of us flat refuse to go to these bit-bob sites they're striking deals with.

I'm with RhYnoECfnW - music discovery. And journals. I like writing journals. And my friends. And their recos (real life music discovery). And my charts. And my groups. And my tag radios. I love my tag radios. I've got 3 years of stuff here. I have no reason to shift anywhere else, not unless I can take my Last.fm with me.