Spotify to play own music library too!

The best points from everyone

• 
  rosen1991 replied on October 08, 2009 11:54

  This feature is already leaked!
  http://www.macstories.net/news/leaked...
  
  
  
  3 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  jamie replied on October 07, 2009 14:06

  Yes, people can use 2 different players, but that's totally missing the point - we want to keep our music grouped together in playlists, and sometimes play a playlist straight, sometimes 'shuffle' it, but all conveniently and automatically. You can't do that by juggling between music players.
  
  And ultimately, what it comes down to is, eventually, people will just use the service that lets them listen to ALL their music, and currently, that's not spotify.
  
  This really needs to be added - and for sharing playlists, local stuff could simply be flagged as 'unavailable' (as stuff licensed for other countries only currently is)
  
  You say that the music industries are probably putting pressure on spotify to not have a services like this, because some of the mp3s may be pirated... Well, the people who pirate mp3s are the most likely to get fed up of spotify not playing their other tracks, and so ditch it for their 'free music the other way' - after all, these types of people will easily and at no cost to themselves soon get mp3s of the tracks they listened to on spotify. So, to keep the pirates legal, you need to let them play their mp3s via spotify.... and also all of us with legitimate music which isn't and never will be on spotify.
  
  (p.s. this reply isn't directed at the person above, but spotify and the people who aren't supporting this idea)
  3 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  Michael Purses replied on August 15, 2009 20:00

  I think integrating Spotify into Songbird as an add-on of some sorts could give Spotify/Songbird even more potential ;-) Along the lines of what Florent V. suggested...
  
  Vote for it if you like :-D
  Spotify should create an add-on for Songbird
  
  Songbird +Spotify is all I need

   

  I’m excited
  4 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  Liase replied on August 11, 2009 20:25

  8 months old suggestion and "238 people like this idea" and... no dev response?

   

  I’m confused
  4 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  Vegard replied on June 17, 2009 14:56

  I think that this opposes the whole concept of spotify, which is using the internet to get the music when you need it, where you need it, instantly. I don't really like it.
  Adding local databases management to spotify will just clutter things up... Don't want spotify to play my videos, do my tax returns or cook my dinner either. How it is now + more playlist management + more options to export music (for money of course) is all I want! :)
  5 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  syturvy replied on May 22, 2009 16:37

  The longer I listen to Spotify, the more the lack of music is bothering me.
  
  On their blog I read about the tens of thousands of new songs they are adding every week... but Idon't care if they have 5 million songs in their catalogue. I just need the ones I want to listen to. Unfortunately, they are either not available because of "geographical" restrictions or simply not in Spotify. I hope they think of a solution quick or it will be bye bye Spotify.
  
  (Another option for them is to come up with a really smart recommendation system, incorporating echonest technology or something. Then I could at least listen to something similar to the missing music.)

   

  I’m bored with Spotify
  4 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  Florent V. replied on May 04, 2009 08:57

  Many people seem to miss this point: some people (most people?) have music that will most probably never end up on Spotify. Because of legal restrictions, because some labels (will) see Spotify as a promotional means where they only want part of their music, or simply because it's too obscure.
  8 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  andreasvo replied on February 16, 2009 12:41

  Anywhere.fm proved that this infact can be done very nicely.
  You can offcourse not view and play a playslist direct from someone else's computer, you would have to upload the music to a spotify server.
  
  Then you would upload the music to spotify, where you can make playlists as normal, these will sync between your own clients (just as it does today). Then you need a way of finding other users on spotify and viewing and playing theire playlists.
  Everything would be streamed of spotify servers when its being played.
  
  The issue of users uploading illegal music is offcourse a problem, but as long as it is not possible to download other peoples music I think this will be fine.
  Again, this is what anywhere.fm did, and as far as I know they did not have legal disputes over this.
  3 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  syturvy replied on January 15, 2009 09:03

  What if you could upload the tracks you own and want to listen to with spotify? If they are not in Spotify's catalog yet, they would be private (only you can listen). And when they acquire the rights, the private version gets replaced with the public one.
  
  That way the client only uses one library and it doesn't get bloated.

   

  I’m happy
  3 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  Florent V. replied on January 14, 2009 22:15

  I would like to turn this idea upside down: Spotify could become a fully-fledged music player much like iTunes, Winamp, Songbird and the like... or it could provide an API for those music players to integrate Spotify.
  
  It could work like this:
  - you install Spotify, which installs a base library and the simple Spotify front-end;
  - during installation, Spotify could detect that you are using such and such players, and help you install an extension if available;
  - third-party players could integrate Spotify as a core service (go to the preferences and activate it), or as an add-on of sorts.
  
  No doubt that the Spotify people have thought about this. (They may have ruled it out, though.)

   

  I’m unsure
  11 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  datapata replied on January 05, 2009 09:59

  I came here just to suggest this feature, but apparently someone beat me to it :)
  
  I agree with macf13nd that having a fast light-weight client is really important, but this could really be a 'killer feature' for many people.
  
  I think it should be implemented so that the user picks a local folder with music, and Spotify integrates the local music seamlessly into its online collection. This way the interface would stay exactly the same, the only difference would be that my local songs would show up as well when I search for music.
  4 people think this is one of the best points
• 
  macf13nd replied on January 04, 2009 19:31

  Great idea! - Only thing is I wouldn't want the client to get 'bogged down'.
  
  Currently it feels like a fast iTunes; excellent. If it had to index 100GB of music / manage a library, it might bloat quite easily.
  
  However, the coders seem to be of the highest quality, so perhaps it is worth a shot!

   

  I’m excited
  18 people think this is one of the best points