Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ovao 2953 days ago
My current instance of Spotify is consuming 5.09 GB. (Not a typo.)

Certainly can't be any less efficient than that. Or can it..?

2 comments

that's why I always use the web player, instead.
does the web player still sound atrocious (free Spotify). Last time i've checked it came with memories of 96Kbps mp3s.
High quality on the web player should be 256kbps AAC, so it should have no audible issues. That said, I find the web player absolutely horrible to use.

The desktop Electron app may be a bit of a pig, but on the other hand it runs on Windows, mac OS and Linux with very few issues, so I'll accept that trade-off.

I don't have Spotify premium - so the quality is 128 kbps.

The app works pretty fine, but is absolutely slow on my (old and quite underpowered) living room PC. But on the other hand it is just a media player...

The quality was the deciding factor for me to use the Spotify app.

How can you stand the ads and other limitations in the non-paid version?
I hardly use Spotify. I just use it if I don't want to buy a whole album or if I want to check out some new band. There is an ad every 3 or 4 songs - this seems pretty reasonable for me. I don't know of any other limitations. As much as I've read most of the limitations are for people on the mobile app (didn't like it at all) or when using playlists (I don't use play lists).
You do know you can skip those ads with a cheap VPN subscription, right ?
> Certainly can't be any less efficient than that. Or can it..?

Oh it can be. I get 100-110 mb at the most. I really don't think that you will be able to push it beyond 250 mb.

I think you may have misread his comment :)

> can't be any less efficient than that

"can't be more inefficient than that"

For me the combined processes of Spotify on macOS 10.13.4 (Activity Monitor → Memory + View → All Processes, Hierarchically) takes ~ 400Mb.

Virtual memory is close to 5 Gb, perhaps OP was looking at that.