THE REASON BEHIND THE UPDATE?? Should we patiently wait?

  • 5
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 years ago
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: This conversation has been inactive for over 6 months and is now closed.

Friends, there's a problem we must be aware of. 
This simple google link shows Last FM is being in a grievous financial state.https://www.google.ru/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=...
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/last-fm-continues-to-lose-cbs-money-financial-report-conf...
 If we agree to support its gradual change, we'll be able to preserve the site. I'd rather tolerate its temporary deficiencies, than sink this ship entirely.

Thanks to Donyvi . :I think most people are not aware of this, but last.fm has been in a financial rut in the past years:

"The company reported pre-tax losses of £2.8m in 2009, just over £5m in 2010, £4.4m in 2011 and£3.9m in 2012," 

In 2014 "staff numbers fell from 61 to 35".
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/08/last-fm-made-loss )

If your feeling is that the new site is going to kill last.fm, you may be right, but keep in mind that it was already bleeding. 

Last.fm isn't oblivious to the wishes of its users. What the users want simply isn't financially viable.
Photo of Dana B.

Dana B.

  • 18 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 5
Photo of James Joul

James Joul

  • 983 Posts
  • 2017 Reply Likes
I was already aware of this, which makes the launch of the new website even more of a disaster. Instead of making a better website, a much improved version on what once was, they've destroyed it.

Why would anyone Subscribe now? I know I have no reason to. They've just alienated and angered the existing customers they do have. What is there on this new website that would bring in more customers? Because I can't see any reasons to join, only reasons to leave.
Photo of Donyvi

Donyvi

  • 345 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
It may not be the right thing. From my perspective as a veteran user, the new site is a huge disappointment.

I'm not discouraging people from voicing their frustration. I'm just tired of reading (mostly well-meaning) threads about bringing the old site back, when in fact, the old site was a financial disaster.
Photo of Powder Smith

Powder Smith

  • 21 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
I totally agree.
If it is on the verge of collapse why would you create and introduce such a horrid 'new' site?
Not to mention why didn't Last.fm staff once try to listened to any of the previous feedback from the users prior to unleashing this new mess. And there was a LOT of feedback given but it obviously fell on deaf ears.

Let 'em sink, Last.fm is just a small portion of where and how I spend my music time on.
Photo of Dana B.

Dana B.

  • 18 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
You're right. The first reaction is anger, but let's not rush. 
They really need to reconsider what they've done. They could add advertising and improve interface. However, they shouldn't change good time-tested things and bargain one trouble for another. Perhaps, there was lack of communication on the previous version of the site, hence less information flow, less adds etc. As i see it, it wasn't social media enough. It had to adapt, it still can, they need somebody with a vision)
Photo of James Joul

James Joul

  • 983 Posts
  • 2017 Reply Likes
If they rebuild the website to a standard far better than it was a before the redesign, with more options for customization and worthwhile new features, they can have my money. I'll happily Subscribe again.

If you're in a tough financial situation, launching a broken and unfinished website that the community expressed no want for is, simply put, suicide - and may end up finishing off Last.fm altogether.

You really have to wonder how something like this happened. 
Photo of Donyvi

Donyvi

  • 345 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
@James Joul: I agree. It seems rushed, at best.
Photo of Kougeru

Kougeru

  • 159 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
"Let 'em sink, Last.fm is just a small portion of where and how I spend my music time on."

Way to be greedy. Some of us have been using the site for over 10 years. That's a decade worth of play data; it's important to us.
Photo of Dana B.

Dana B.

  • 18 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
yes, i agree
Photo of Powder Smith

Powder Smith

  • 21 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Kougeru, I have used this site for over five years and a subscribed user.
I have well over many scrobbles and have created many band pages on behave of the unsigned/indie bands on my own time. "Way to be greedy" does not apply here.
Photo of Powder Smith

Powder Smith

  • 21 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Kougeru, I have used this site for over five years and a subscribed user.
I have well over many scrobbles and have created many band pages on behave of the unsigned/indie bands on my own time. "Way to be greedy" does not apply here.
Photo of Kougeru

Kougeru

  • 159 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
It does when you tell the site to die for the mistake of a few developers. Users deserve better. We deserve the site we came here for. Their financial issues are not our fault. They should've offered better stuff for subscribers to get more people to subscribe. I would just ask for an export button except that there's so much broken data right now it would probably be inaccurate as hell compared to what it could be if they get around to fixing it..which I believe they will.
Photo of Powder Smith

Powder Smith

  • 21 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
If the site like Last.fm does not try to hear what the majority of it's users are trying to share with them regarding improvements, well this site created their own demise.

I am not going to support that kind of nonsense.
I have supported them enough on here and to see how how they recklessly misused our support.

It is what it is, They could of and would of but they didn't.
(Edited)
Photo of George336

George336

  • 251 Posts
  • 270 Reply Likes
I'm a huge supporter of the site and genuinely like the new one but even I can see that the site's fortunes aren't going to turn around with the new site in its present form. I doubt that the present owners remotely expect that. If they did, they'd have thrown more money at it. But I suspect that yearly losses will gradually fall and things will even out. I note that one of the articles above is from The Guardian. That has suffered dramatic losses recently but the chances of it closing any time soon are slim to zero. I could elaborate on that but it would be so boring, I reckon most people reading would fall asleep. And anyway, I reckon that most people will be able to work out why some companies can sustain heavy losses. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if subscription rates here rise once the site is running as it should be. I'm a subscriber and think that the 3 pounds per month is a minuscule, unsustainable sum. I know it's not a popular thing to say on here but I am of the opinion that the site offers extremely good value for money. I'd therefore be more than happy to pay more for the service. For the cost of a Tesco sandwich, I can acquire information about my music listening habits that I simply can't get anywhere else. But I'd agree that in order to attract new subscribers, the site does need to offer something else. As to what that is, I've no idea but there must and will be something.
Photo of Svetlana Stričević

Svetlana Stričević

  • 315 Posts
  • 583 Reply Likes
George, they could just UPDATE that old version which was GREATLY customized. THERE WERE OBJECTIONS ON SOME FEATURES BUT NOT ON LAYOUT AND PLATFORM USE.
If they wanted more users and popularity they COULD ACCTUALLY WORK something instead of implementing something unuseful but 'new'.
They don't have right to be positively described for this half assed done work.
They could also rise Subscription to 5 or 7$ per month I am sure most of us users who enjoyed last.fm would pay it.
Now they lost everything.
This is much deeper and not about gaining something because site was in loss.
This is CBSi marketing purpose and other action to destroy music and listeners who cared for anything but not mainstream and their services like Spotify, adds etc. 
Photo of George336

George336

  • 251 Posts
  • 270 Reply Likes
I'm a bit tired of you decrying mainstream music. Just because you listen to some obscure Japanese folk act or whatever, it doesn't mean that you are more special than people who do not share your musical tastes. Indeed, music is often obscure for a reason, namely because it's awful and few want to listen to it. I've seen you wander around these forums. You just repeat yourself. It's also hard to understand what you're saying sometimes, not because your English is bad but because it's all a bit hysterical and nonsensical. As I've repeatedly said though, I'm happy with the site's new layout. That's my valid point of view. You do not share that view and nothing you say will change my views. Get over yourself.
Photo of Donyvi

Donyvi

  • 345 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
@George Tait Aren't you afraid of being stabbed by a pitchfork? :)
Photo of George336

George336

  • 251 Posts
  • 270 Reply Likes
I am wearing full body armour. Nothing but a nuclear bomb can penetrate it.
Photo of Lannister

Lannister

  • 135 Posts
  • 63 Reply Likes
Nothing but Acme I hope.
Photo of phoenixbloom

phoenixbloom

  • 153 Posts
  • 160 Reply Likes
@george336 - obscure music isn't often obscure because it's awful...just saying.
Photo of George336

George336

  • 251 Posts
  • 270 Reply Likes
A lot of obscure music is, of course, very good but a lot of it isn't. That stands to reason. But I wouldn't have said that had the lady I was replying to not been so hoity toity about so called 'mainstream music'.

'The Dreaming' is Kate's best album, by the way. Just saying.
Photo of Svetlana Stričević

Svetlana Stričević

  • 315 Posts
  • 583 Reply Likes
Sorry but this is halfy an bullshit! *o* they may lie others, but they can't lie to those who offered them a help without any gain of money and they didn't even bother to answer! 
stuff reduced because they couldn't get on with ignorance of CBSi and falling down site because of mainstream purposes and marketing for the company and not for the site, music, artists and users.

They instead on improving site so it can gain more users and change incoming on better, they invested time on useless thing and promotions of nothing. Even on their twitter as I followed most posts wasn't anything inspiring and improving.
Instead of eating up their shit and starting improving and upgarding that good platform and layout they had to receive those funds, they launched unfinished version without anything and like 'got money' with this for what?
lost users?
really... 
    They never GIVE A DAMN for Feedback which acctually taped solutions or wrongs or rights on all this. They considered and answered only feedback which was going in their favor and which was easy to fix just to calm those users who weren't seeing the deeper problem.

    Also I started to see that they mostly reply to special users from special Countries, if you understand what I want to say. So this isn't that easy and 
    pinkish' as you describe.

    EVERY site has updates and changes, BUT NO SITE COMPLETELY ABANDONED THEIR ORIGINAL LAYOUT WHICH SERVED PURPOSE OF THE SITE.

    Livejournal - lives through years, updates constantly losing and gaining users, BUT never changed layout in that way so all users can complain and couldn't be able to use site for MAINpurpose - BLOGS and WRiting.

    TUmblr - changed company also  updated many times, BUT didn't abandon their Layout for purpose, because they knew the'll lose users and their purpose as site for PICTURE POSTS FOLLOWERS
    twitter also facebook. THEY ALL HAD MAJOR CHANGES BUT THOSE CHANGES DIDN'T AFFECT FUNCTIONALITY OF THE SITE AND ITS PURPOSE.

    Last.fm WAS ALWAYS described AS BEST site for MUSIC, SCROBBLING, SAVING music data, PROMOTING artists, and INTERRACTING with others on Music basis.
    BUT BRINGING MAJOR CHANGES which DON'T HAVE ANYTHING USEFUL for the site purpose as it was such site before.. what is that?
    they fell down to the point of lowbudget music sites with poor design who don't exist anymore because of unpractical usage so no customers who could gain attention.

    So that bullshit that they were falling down couldn't be exactly right if many of investitions were made for this site! This could be only to 'stealing funds' so it would look like they have problems or any other thing!
    As I know personally from my friends joined around 20 of them in the end of 2014 of which 12 became Subscribed ones! So where is all that profit going then? if they had such problems to abandon GREAT layout and platform with great customization, and to switch it to unfinished shit for promotion of Spotify or that other things from CBSi marketing..

    Sorry but I can't fall again for such lies as you described here in your post.
    I feel sorry for you that you had been fallen for their trap to give them approve for what are they doing now.

    And this new version could be intereting to new users, but like any new users who care just for flashy things and not for music they will be bored and leave quickly site. Because site as this can't give anything for users to stay long on it to gain something and to enjoy it on long term.

    copypasted from another same thread. This is opinion of 6 years user of this site, and not only mine.
    Photo of Tom Stephen

    Tom Stephen

    • 447 Posts
    • 621 Reply Likes
    Thank you for posting this. c:
    Photo of Laura Marx

    Laura Marx

    • 20 Posts
    • 67 Reply Likes
    This is irrelevant to the issues with the new website.
    Photo of Kougeru

    Kougeru

    • 159 Posts
    • 228 Reply Likes
    IMO, it is. Their loss of staff probably kept the devs too busy to read the freaking forums.
    Photo of Donyvi

    Donyvi

    • 345 Posts
    • 348 Reply Likes
    @Laura Marx: I agree that it is irrelevant to the issues with the new website, but it is relevant when the premise of many of the posts is that the developers wrecked a working site when in fact it was a financial disaster.
    Photo of Soulful Drifter

    Soulful Drifter

    • 6 Posts
    • 8 Reply Likes
    @Donyvi Could you help us understand how the new site will help them financially?
    Photo of Laura Marx

    Laura Marx

    • 20 Posts
    • 67 Reply Likes
    oh, my heart aches for the poor bourgeoisie at CBS, taking in 2 million less of their 30 billion net worth. I am sure I will be kept up at night thinking about it.
    (Edited)
    Photo of Donyvi

    Donyvi

    • 345 Posts
    • 348 Reply Likes
    Hehe, I would be surprised if anyone with that name thought otherwise :)
    Photo of newmusicmark

    newmusicmark

    • 24 Posts
    • 59 Reply Likes
    Was thinking the same thing...  also look at Alexa ranking since April when they got rid of the radio functionality...it's clearly trending down...   I'm sure the new changes are due to trying to make some money but it's obvious they didn't understand how it is currently used and/or didn't care
    Photo of First Last

    First Last

    • 202 Posts
    • 433 Reply Likes
    I think just about all of the core userbase knew this. Wasn't best to piss us off, though.
    Photo of Mark O'Sullivan

    Mark O'Sullivan

    • 60 Posts
    • 94 Reply Likes
    The code base was becoming too expensive to maintain and too risky to modify so I hear. The question is refactor of rewrite. Refactor is make modifications to the live system piecemeal, replace bits in the currently running system. Rewrite is blank sheet, start again completely from scratch and when the new is done throw out the old and replace with the new, big bang. They chose rewrite.

    Programmers generally prefer to make new stuff, create something of their own rather than try to understand and just fix somebody else's mess written using design patterns and paradigms that have since become unfashionable. We're architects at heart not plumbers, we prefer to build than to fix. The old code was written by guys who left the company or were run over by busses years ago. The oldest code forms the backbone of how the whole thing works because it's the first written code in the system. And because it's the earliest code it's more likely the most patched and modified and so has become the most convoluted and hard to maintain. And the guys who wrote it aren't around to be asked what does this or that do. So the choice was to rewrite. 

    A downside with rewrite is that you are throwing away years of battle tested code i.e. it's been tested by years of actual live use by millions of real users. As a consequence of all that use many many bugs have been found, and so the code contains many many fixes for those bugs and it's the accretion of all these later modifications by lots of different programmers that slowly makes the code harder and harder to understand and maintain. All those little fixes are like barnacles that have become attached to the boat. The boat's now so covered in barnacles it barely has a boat shape. It may even contain undocumented features the current devs don't know about but users depend on or at least features the current devs don't fully understand how and why users are using them. If you rewrite you risk unwittingly throwing out a lot of stuff. 

    Another downside to rewrite is that if for whatever reason you can't finish, say you run out of money to complete because you underestimated the time it will take (and that always happens developing software) then you have an unusable half finished thing you can't sell. However if you don't finish refactoring everything you originally intended to refactor then you still have the existing working product which at least now works a little better.

    There's no upside to rewrite. You rewrite if there is no other way, say you gotta now make it run on a completely different platform, or a different language because the old is no longer supported.

    So they chose rewrite but they could have rewrote and kept the same interface. My guess is the dumbed down for touch screens interface might have been something to sweeten the pill for management because the dev work needed is obviously gonna cost. The new look is so they can say "well if we rewrite then we can also at the same time 'modernise' the look and feel". It's something to make it easier to sell to their bosses otherwise it's like "we are going to spend loads of money to make a new site which will look and work exactly the same as the old".

    Releasing this skeleton version couldn't have been intentional so there may have been a time constraint beyond which the old site could no longer be made available. I dunno maybe the old site is hosted in one place and the new on another and the servers hosting the old site are due to be unplugged by a certain date because they can no longer be paid for beyond then. I dunno and I dunno much about how these things work. But some unmovable deadline must have forced their hand in to releasing this barely started product and if this time constraint was known of from the start then the time to complete must have been massively underestimated.

    That's my best guess anyhow, based on experience and the spits and spots of info on the actual situation.
    Photo of Fuck-You-CBS

    Fuck-You-CBS

    • 26 Posts
    • 36 Reply Likes
    Now I can laugh at human folly.
    Last.fm were great while it lasted.

    This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.