[ThomPete]

I know this is your choice. But seriously.

Why not pay for such a great service? Why quible over such a low price?

You might be different than most people. But paying 20USD for a couple of bears and drinks is nothing yet when it comes to pay for music ad libitum people suddenly become very aware of their money.

I am not casting any blame, just interested in why people rationalize like that.

[qq66]

He was paying for mobile access. If mobile access is now free, that means he is donating $20 to Spotify if he keeps paying.

The question turns into, "Why is Spotify more worthy than any other organization, for-profit or non-profit, of my $20 donation?"

[sleepyhead]

Mobile access is not free. It is only a player for music you have bought.

[estel]

Well, given the other restrictions that Spotify imposed this month on the Free Spotify accounts, I can't see myself limiting myself to those restrictions any time soon, hence why I'm Premium.

[ThomPete]

Because of the value they provide you?

[joesb]

Personally, I don't want to blur the line between paying and donating.

If you want to make business out of something, price it. I'm not going to "donate" if you are not some non-profit charity organization. But I'll gladly "pay" the same amount.

Business accepting donation feels like a convenient way for them to deny responsibility because, they didn't sell me anything, even if socially people will tell me to "donate".

[Torkel]

"paying 20USD for a couple of bears and drinks is nothing yet when it comes to pay for music"

One geek, two bears and lots of drinks - what a sight :)

[ThomPete]

ha ha beers!

[bergie]

I'm a happy paying Spotify user. While for the time I actually listen to music the 20 USD per month is quite a bit, the fact that I was able to get rid of all my CDs and MP3s makes it worth it. Music on demand