As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Technology
31
Beiträge
19
Kommentatoren
286
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
And carting CDs and vinyl around used a lot more energy still.
We should focus on increasing renewable energy production, not degrowth.
-
And carting CDs and vinyl around used a lot more energy still.
We should focus on increasing renewable energy production, not degrowth.
...we can do both...
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
These companies will use the lowest possible bitrate with the newest possible codecs to balance quality and bandwidth. They will also default to a medium quality when it comes to picking audio quality.
I’d say they are doing their best already just to save bandwidth costs.
Just look at YouTube and how they set the video quality (resolution) as low as they can get away with.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
European average carbon footprint for video streaming as producing 55g of CO₂e per hour. This CO₂e or carbon dioxide equivalent is a comparable measure of the potential effect of different greenhouse gases on the climate: 55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
What the fuck is this article? This is not helpful in any way. Yeah du-doy the thing that uses electricity "creates" carbon. How bout we remove fossil fuels from the grid then?
1.1g per hour is ridiculously efficient. An average meal in the Western world is ~3Kg.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
I never really had much interest in music streaming services, given the wealth of storage on modern devices, and the ease of ripping audio from almost any source in existence.
Do we need a constant internet connection to listen to music? Is it that hard to use VLC, and just buy/download what you want, and rip what you can't?
-
European average carbon footprint for video streaming as producing 55g of CO₂e per hour. This CO₂e or carbon dioxide equivalent is a comparable measure of the potential effect of different greenhouse gases on the climate: 55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
What the fuck is this article? This is not helpful in any way. Yeah du-doy the thing that uses electricity "creates" carbon. How bout we remove fossil fuels from the grid then?
1.1g per hour is ridiculously efficient. An average meal in the Western world is ~3Kg.
55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
How much is that in football fields?
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
To minimise the environmental footprint of your own music streaming, use Wi-Fi rather than 4G or 5G. If you listen to a song repeatedly, purchase a download to play. Use localised storage rather than cloud-based systems for all of your music and video files. Reduce auto-play, aimless background streaming or using streaming as a sleep aid by changing the default settings on your device including reducing streaming resolution. And turn your camera off for video calls, as carbon emissions are 25 times more than for audio only.
Lol no I won't.
What a stupid, bizarre and illogical article. It clearly shows that the key is in moving to renewables yet it still argues for the users also doing this sort of tiny useless gestures. I suspect it's AI-written at least in part.
-
To minimise the environmental footprint of your own music streaming, use Wi-Fi rather than 4G or 5G. If you listen to a song repeatedly, purchase a download to play. Use localised storage rather than cloud-based systems for all of your music and video files. Reduce auto-play, aimless background streaming or using streaming as a sleep aid by changing the default settings on your device including reducing streaming resolution. And turn your camera off for video calls, as carbon emissions are 25 times more than for audio only.
Lol no I won't.
What a stupid, bizarre and illogical article. It clearly shows that the key is in moving to renewables yet it still argues for the users also doing this sort of tiny useless gestures. I suspect it's AI-written at least in part.
Use localised storage rather than cloud-based systems for all of your music and video files
This is good advice tho. I also chose to read it as a Spotify endorsement of the high seas
-
I never really had much interest in music streaming services, given the wealth of storage on modern devices, and the ease of ripping audio from almost any source in existence.
Do we need a constant internet connection to listen to music? Is it that hard to use VLC, and just buy/download what you want, and rip what you can't?
Using VLC is easy. Having good musical taste and finding the time to renew your library so it doesn't grow stale is hard.
I know, I used to download all my stuff and now I just get YouTube music started on a piece I like and let it autoplay forever while I work, do a tabletop campaign, play videogames... I find that this way, I find the music it plays to be in the right mood 98% of the time.
It disgusts me to say it but it just works and saves me a lot of time.
-
Using VLC is easy. Having good musical taste and finding the time to renew your library so it doesn't grow stale is hard.
I know, I used to download all my stuff and now I just get YouTube music started on a piece I like and let it autoplay forever while I work, do a tabletop campaign, play videogames... I find that this way, I find the music it plays to be in the right mood 98% of the time.
It disgusts me to say it but it just works and saves me a lot of time.
I guess a big factor would be constant access to the internet on your mobile devices. I usually travel through internet "dead zones" (no cell coverage, wifi, or just in a building that doubles as a Faraday cage), so I find having offline music a lifeline for staving off boredom. That could be why it appeals to me more - plus the whole "they can't take it away" side.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
As if this fucking matters all while the ai hype literally spins up power plants just to handle the energy usage
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
Wait until they learn about Youtube, TikTok and Instagram.
-
European average carbon footprint for video streaming as producing 55g of CO₂e per hour. This CO₂e or carbon dioxide equivalent is a comparable measure of the potential effect of different greenhouse gases on the climate: 55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
What the fuck is this article? This is not helpful in any way. Yeah du-doy the thing that uses electricity "creates" carbon. How bout we remove fossil fuels from the grid then?
1.1g per hour is ridiculously efficient. An average meal in the Western world is ~3Kg.
It's to put the blame on the consumer. Fuck these cooperate overlords. I'm hungry, when do we eat?
-
55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
How much is that in football fields?
0.54% of a foosball table. Or 0.00000000000000042% of the length of two average elephants.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes
Why aimless streaming should be avoided because video uses so much more energy than just audio.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
Same for Youtube for ages. But Yt has separate channels for audio, why can't they just switch the video channels off, if the tab is out of focus?
-
Wait until they learn about Youtube, TikTok and Instagram.
Youtube and tiktok are video platforms (instagram turned into one some years after creation). Telling them to stop having videos is equivalent to saying they should cease to exist. Spotify is a music streaming platform. Telling them to stop having videos has a minimal impact on their business model, which is evident by the fact that Spotify was widely successful before they started including videos.
-
To minimise the environmental footprint of your own music streaming, use Wi-Fi rather than 4G or 5G. If you listen to a song repeatedly, purchase a download to play. Use localised storage rather than cloud-based systems for all of your music and video files. Reduce auto-play, aimless background streaming or using streaming as a sleep aid by changing the default settings on your device including reducing streaming resolution. And turn your camera off for video calls, as carbon emissions are 25 times more than for audio only.
Lol no I won't.
What a stupid, bizarre and illogical article. It clearly shows that the key is in moving to renewables yet it still argues for the users also doing this sort of tiny useless gestures. I suspect it's AI-written at least in part.
You do realize that it's harder to move to renewables if the energy required keeps increasing? Higher bandwidth usage requires expansion of internet infrastructure to account for peak usage which increases the amount of energy used, not only for the manufactured hardware (which will likely turn to e-waste at some point) but also to keep the infrastructure running. I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.
-
I never really had much interest in music streaming services, given the wealth of storage on modern devices, and the ease of ripping audio from almost any source in existence.
Do we need a constant internet connection to listen to music? Is it that hard to use VLC, and just buy/download what you want, and rip what you can't?
Music discovery is the greatest feature besides having most music available without having to rip it first. Shared playlists are fantastic as well. The platforms automatically recommend music for you, can play music similar to one song you like, and so on.
How do you share a curated playlist of songs with someone else without something like Spotify?
-
Same for Youtube for ages. But Yt has separate channels for audio, why can't they just switch the video channels off, if the tab is out of focus?
Ads. Ads are more important to them the anything else.
