• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    11 months ago

    How is white noise costing this much money? Surely the bandwidth isn’t that expensive

    And why does Spotify care if they’re paying out white noise creators from the same fun they pay music creators? It’s still time in service right?

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, it seems weird. I can see the record companies not liking it because people listening to hours of white noise aren’t listening to music, but shouldn’t Spotify be happy if people are in the app at all? Maybe the issue is that they have more of a subscription model, so make more money when people pay the fee without using the bandwidth, but the white noise podcasts use bandwidth for many, many hours?

      The article certainly doesn’t explain it well.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think that’s exactly it.

        People will leave them playing over night etc.

        So they are paying a lot more in bandwidth and royalties.

        • Cabrio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not just that but due to the randomness of white noise data it can’t be compressed, so the bandwidth is much higher just because of that factor alone. Think 30mb for a white noise file the same length as a 3mb song.

        • reddig33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That’s an easy fix. Most music streaming services will time out after 30 minutes with an “are you still listening?” prompt.

          • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is a terrible idea. I use spotify for music at work and if I had to click a prompt every 30 minutes I might as well be watching YouTube videos.

            • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Honestly I just download the stuff I like to listen to from YouTube using vlc and use the android version of that to just play the group of audio files all on a shuffled loop. Then again, my work asks that phones be in airplane mode in the room I work at (tho is fine with music and Bluetooth headphones, it’s something about interference from the data connection they’re worried about) so I couldn’t use a streaming service for it anyway.

          • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            This has to be an intentionally bad idea lol, most albums are longer than 30 minutes and this would ruin the flow

          • nexas_XIII@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            If I have to interact with my phone at any point while I’m driving I’m leaving that service.

          • FoxBJK@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            A “sleep timer” feature would be a much better suggestion. Audio streaming is not so network-intensive that we need to build in timeouts

    • Stizzah@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      11 months ago

      I see you don’t speak capitalism. Allow me to translate: Spotify is not making (enough?) ads money on independent noise creators. Big record labels are not making any money on independent noise creators. These leeches are outraged that they cannot profit onto those paesants’ work, but they say it like they were losing money (that is not true) because they don’t want to sound like leeches.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Surely the bandwidth isn’t that expensive.

      Compared to the CPU requirements to generate it locally, it is thousands of times more expensive to stream it.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Do you mean “how do I write a white noise app?” or “what is the best white noise app?”

          White noise boils down to generating random numbers and sending it to your audio out. You may want to tweak the distribution to make the noise more pleasant. That shouldn’t be too hard to implement.

          For existing white noise apps, IDK I don’t do that. But like, Google knows.

          • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            No, I mean for everyone saying that streaming white noise is a waste of bandwidth and resources, what exactly is an easier or faster way of getting white noise than just searching for it on something like Spotify?

            • cbarrick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Then the question you are asking is “What is the best white noise app?”

              YouTube and Spotify have every reason to pull their white noise content. Just Google for “white noise app” and download the first one that isn’t totally sketchy.

              • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                So your faster and easier solution is to download an app for something I may need only once?

                Cool.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes but no? A subscriber pays a set amount per month. No matter how much that subscriber listens to music, it’s paid from their monthly subscription fee, right?

        So if a subscriber listens to one hour of music versus 10 hours of music, does Spotify pay less royalties for the 1 hour?

        Even if they do pay royalties based on listen time, if somebody’s listening to white noise for 24 hours a day, there should be an upper limit to the royalties paid to the monthly subscription right?

        I just don’t understand how somebody listens to 10 hours of K-pop every day versus 10 hours of white noise how Spotify is saving money in the second but not the first example

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          But then the word “costs” is not correct. It doesn’t cost them that money, they just aren’t making money on that time which they might not have anyway.

        • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          You pay a certain amount a month to Spotify.

          A percentage of that goes straight to Spotify’s pockets and the rest goes to what you listen to.

          If you listen to music all day, and then have a white noise playlist at night, then half of that amount goes to just the one stream and the other half is split between all the others labels of the music you listen to. Without that white noise playlist the music labels would make twice as much money from you.

            • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Because big labels have power. As Spotify you want to keep them happy more than the little guys. Otherwise they can lobby against you.

            • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Because their platform becomes more desirable for creators. They’ve had issues with this in the past, Taylor Swift pulled all her music from spotify at one point due to the lower than average royalties. That’s a situation they’d like to avoid in the future because it’ll cause people to drop their subscription.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Don’t they pay music producers/artists/podcasts based on how much people listen to their content? I’m guessing they object because people consume way more white noise due to being asleep. So there aren’t many people who listen to K-pop for 8 hours but lots who do that with white noise. Not to mention if there are any ads you would sleep through them.

    • TrustedTyrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but Spotify doesn’t actually pay a specific amount per stream. Instead they pay creators based on how much people listen to them from the pool of money they have to pay from. So people repeatedly listening to white noise takes away from the pool of money that could go to actual musicians.

    • OskarAxolotl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Only reason I could think of is that compressing white noise is very inefficient because of its high entropy. Compression needs patterns and white noise doesn’t really have any.

    • metarmask@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      At first I thought it was something about it being a worst case scenario for compression algorithms, costing bandwidth.