Hacker News Reader

The issue with replacing Spotify with a self hosted alternative is the need for content.

Spotify (EDIT: for some people) solves the content problem for a low fee. Self hosted requires either spending lots of money, or in lots of regions something that probably qualifies as copyright infringement.

(EDIT: noted that this isn't universally solved, and thanks for responses pointing this out)

View on HN

I can understand that. In many ways people become rely on this big Internet "Database" to hear and listen to things. However, companies runs Internet become more censored and surveilled. Disk and USB space are cheap, it is a good idea to start archiving and collecting things where you can play without Internet.

> > Self hosted requires either spending lots of money, or in lots of regions something that probably qualifies as copyright infringement.

> Disk and USB space are cheap

Apologies for any ambiguity. When I was refering to spending lots of money, I wasn't considering the costs of self hosted infrastructure (servers, backups), but rather the cost of acquiring the media in the first place.

Half of my playlist isn't on spotify, so I wouldn't call that problem "solved"

Likewise. It it also annoying whenever you go some where people ask oh is it on Spotify or Youtube?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com