Spotify insisting that its staff “aren’t children” and can be trusted to remain productive working from home is a breath of fresh air and precisely the messaging workers want to hear on the topic of remote work.

In response to a question regarding the streaming giant’s working policies, chief human resources officer Katarina Berg recently told Raconteur that “you can’t spend a lot of time hiring grown-ups and then treat them like children”.

Fundamentally, the company’s position here is that it doesn’t believe it should enforce in-office working policies but can sympathize with those who do. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, on that we can all agree. But it’s how companies go about enforcing these rules that’s become highly divisive in recent months and extremely frustrating.

A host of major tech firms, including Amazon and Dell Technologies, have sparked a war of words with staff over their push to return to pre-pandemic modes of work.

Amazon recently announced a formal return to a five-day working week, with CEO Andy Jassy churning out the same old tropes over why office attendance is so critical to both the company and its workforce.

Driving productivity and innovation, team synergy, and office culture – all of these are cited as key reasons why getting back into the office is critical. But they completely disregard the workers’ position on the matter.

Slugging your way through traffic or on public transport might help get those creative juices flowing a little more, but were they not flowing while we all worked completely remote during the early days of the pandemic? It appears executives have completely forgotten about the record-breaking profits many of them posted during this period.

Spotify itself noted that its remote work policy has had no tangible impact on efficiency. Meanwhile, a host of other companies including Microsoft – which let’s be honest has been soaring over the last year – also retain remote work policies on the condition that productivity doesn’t drop. And it shows no signs of dropping any time soon.

Like many others, Spotify still has office spaces dotted across the globe. The extent to which staff are expected to attend is limited though, with workers ‘encouraged’ to attend during a specifically designated ‘core week’ aimed at in-person collaboration and company strategy discussions.

This is a reasonable approach. Encouragement in this regard probably works far better than a mandated return with the risk of potential job losses or reduced career opportunities.

The responsibility here though is largely placed on the workers themselves. It’s a no-nonsense, adult approach to managing… well, adults.

Antiquated remote work views

Spotify’s comments around workers not being “children” feel rather ironic given that the main opponents to remote work have themselves acted like petulant kids in recent months, spitting the dummy out and throwing repeated tantrums online.

Chief among these was former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, whose views on remote work at his former employer prompted widespread criticism.

In an interview with students at Stanford University, Schmidt attributed Google’s supposedly poor performance in the generative AI race was due to its flexible working policies. Like many other critics, his position was that the lack of in-office attendance has had a negative impact on innovation at the tech giant.

Again, and without fawning over Microsoft, the fact the tech giant has maintained a steady lead in this domain over the last two years merely showcases the fallacy in this tired argument.

While he U-turned on his comments, what Schmidt’s claims clearly pointed to were the antiquated views held by many organizations and senior business leaders on the topic of remote work.

As I said at the time, the horse has well and truly bolted on pre-pandemic working practices. It’s now up to business leaders to decide whether they crack the whip and force staff back into the 9-5 grind and hope they don’t seek opportunities elsewhere that meet their standards.

Given the significant talent shortages many companies are facing at present, losing your best talent to a competitor that treats them like an adult and not a wayward, easily distracted child, could be disastrous.

Be like Spotify, not the others.

Spotify has announced plans to lay off 200 staff amid a ‘strategic realignment’ of the firm’s podcast division.

Sahar Elhabashi, VP and head of Spotify’s podcast division confirmed the layoffs, which equate to around 2% of the workforce, in a statement on Monday.

“We have made the difficult but necessary decision to make a strategic realignment of our group and reduce our global podcast vertical and other functions by approximately 200 people, or 2% of Spotify’s workforce,” Elhabashi told staff.

“Unfortunately, this means saying goodbye to close colleagues and friends. We know news like this is never easy, especially for those impacted. These decisions are not something we take lightly. I want to express my appreciation for everything those leaving have done for podcasting and Spotify.”

Elhabashi revealed that staff impacted by the cuts will be notified by members of the Spotify HR team, and that those affected “have already received an invite for a 1:1 conversation”.

Staff made redundant will also receive “generous severance packages, including extended healthcare coverage and immediate access to outplacement support”.

The workforce cuts come as Spotify embarks on the “next phase” of its podcast content strategy and in spite of a strong performance from the division in recent years.

Since 2019, podcast consumption on the platform has surged more than 1400%, according to the firm. Podcast content has also increased from 200,000 titles to over 5 million.

Similarly, podcast ad revenue experienced “high double-digit growth” from 2021 to 2022, the company said in its statement, and is now the most-used audio podcast platform in “most corners of the world”.

Elhabashi said that the next stage of its strategy will focus on “delivering even more value for creators” and will enable the firm to maximize audience consumption.

Part of this will include a “broadening” of the company’s analytics capabilities by expanding the Spotify for Podcasters scheme. Elhabashi said this will enable creators using the platform to “maximize their audience” and place a strong focus on “leveling up” the platform’s advertising revenue.

“Underpinning this effort is a continued leveling up of our advertising offerings and the introduction of more business models to help more creators make meaningful money from their work.”

This latest batch of workforce cuts follows a previous round in January, which saw the firm slash 6% of its workforce, or around 600 employees.

At the time, Spotify cited uncertain economic conditions as the primary motivation behind the cuts as consumers and advertisers scaled back spending. 

Google has launched a pilot to provide an alternative billing system on Google Play, with Spotify being the first company to take part.

The tech giant announced yesterday that it will be exploring user choice billing in a select number of countries, following the launch of its additional billing system for users in South Korea.

South Korea passed legislation last year that banned big app store operators from forcing software developers to use their platform’s payment systems. This was the first major bill passed by a major economy against Apple and Google, despite the two companies facing growing criticism for requiring the use of a payment system that charges commissions of up to 30%.

The pilot will allow a small number of participating software developers to offer an additional billing option next to Google Play’s billing system. The company said it’s designed to help it explore ways to offer choice to users, while maintaining its ability to invest in the ecosystem. Google called it a significant milestone and the first on any major app store.

The tech giant is partnering with developers to explore different implementations of user-choice billing, starting with Spotify. The companies will work together to innovate in how consumers make in-app purchases, deliver engaging experiences across multiple devices, and bring more consumers to the Android platform.

Spotify will introduce Google Play’s billing system alongside its current one. Google said this pilot will help it increase its understanding of how user choice billing works for users in different countries and for developers of different sizes and categories.

The music streaming platform said that over the coming months, it will work with Google to build this new experience and roll it out in countries around the world. They will work together to test and learn, and jointly explore product innovations across the Android platform. The launch of the first iteration of the alternative billing system is expected to arrive later this year.

“Spotify is on a years-long journey to ensure app developers have the freedom to innovate and compete on a level playing field,” said Alex Norström, Spotify’s chief Freemium business officer. “We’re excited to be partnering with Google to explore this approach to payment choice and opportunities for developers, users and the entire internet ecosystem. We hope the work we’ll do together blazes a path that will benefit the rest of the industry.”

Spotify has been a critic of app store fees for years. In 2020, for example, it joined an alliance of tech firms, alongside Epic Games, aiming to challenge Apple and its App Store practices. The alliance opposed Apple's “App tax”, which imposed a store commission on creators and consumers ranging between 15% and 30%.

Spotify has announced it will acquire leading audiobook distributor Findaway to expand its portfolio of audio products available to Spotify subscribers.

The move marks the latest expansion for the music giant, arguably the most significant acquisition the company has made since it acquired Anchor and Gimlet in 2019 to bolster its podcast offering.

Findaway's technology is expected to accelerate Spotify's first foray into the growing audiobooks market and help scale its catalogue of books on the platform.

Spotify claimed the partnership will help drive new revenue streams available to publishers and authors, and work to remove current limitations faced by audio-based storytellers. The move is also thought to open up new audiences for publishers to reach, Spotify said.

In addition to offering audiobooks on the platform, Spotify also said it plans to bring its expertise in content personalisation and discovery to Findaway's library of distributed audiobooks - the largest currently in the market.

Spotify announced plans to innovate on Findaway's platform further to fine tune the format, delivery, and tools available to creators.

"It’s Spotify’s ambition to be the destination for all things audio both for listeners and creators," said Gustav Söderström, chief research and development officer at Spotify. "The acquisition of Findaway will accelerate Spotify’s presence in the audiobook space and will help us more quickly meet that ambition.

"We’re excited to combine Findaway’s team, best-in-class technology platform, and robust audiobook catalogue with Spotify’s expertise to revolutionise the audiobook space as we did with music and podcasts.”

The deal is expected to complete in Q4 2021, subject to regulatory approval.

"Together with Spotify we have the opportunity to innovate and democratise the audiobook ecosystem,” said Findaway Founder & CEO Mitch Kroll. “We founded Findaway with the recognition of the power of the spoken word through audiobooks and the unique opportunity to empower storytellers and connect them with listeners.

"We look forward to combining our leading technology tools and world-class team with the reach of Spotify’s platform to provide an enhanced audio experience for creators, publishers and listeners around the world,” he added.

Spotify is anticipating strong growth in the audiobook market, and has increased its 2027 forecasted growth from $3.3 billion (£2.4 billion) to $15 billion (£11.2 billion).

Following Spotify's work with podcasts over the past two years, the company is now forecast to narrowly overtake Apple Podcasts for the first time, in terms of total listenership, by the end of 2021, according to eMarketer.

In an earning call earlier this year, Spotify also announced substantial growth in monthly active users (up 22% to 365 million), overall subscribers (up 20% to 165 million), and podcast ad revenue, which was up 627% at the end of Q2.

Hackers have accessed as many as 350,000 Spotify user accounts as part of a credential-stuffing attack, and have done so without having to crack Spotify’s system.

According to security researchers at vpnMentor, the attacks were successful because hackers reused login credentials from previous data breaches. The hackers simply needed to try various username and password variations on Spotify, which is known as credential stuffing, until they found a match.

Noam Rotem and Ran Locar, part of vpnMentor’s research team, found an Elasticsearch database containing over 380 million records, including login credentials and other user data being validated against the Spotify service. It discovered the database as part of a huge web-mapping project.

The researchers used port scanning to examine particular IP blocks and test different systems for weaknesses or vulnerabilities. The database they found through this scanning was accessible to them because it was completely unsecured and unencrypted, so anyone with internet access could see the data. This lapse shows that even hackers sometimes forget the basics of cyber security.

The researchers said the origin of the database and how the fraudsters were targeting Spotify are unknown. “The hackers were possibly using login credentials stolen from another platform, app, or website and using them to access Spotify accounts,” researchers said in a blog post.

The researchers worked with Spotify to confirm the database belonged to a group or individual using it to defraud Spotify and its users.

Researchers discovered the issue in July and contacted the streaming service within a week. That same month, Spotify initiated a rolling password reset for all users affected, rendering the information on the database useless.

Javvad Malik, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, told IT Pro that this exposure goes to illustrate that criminals don't need sophisticated technical hacking abilities to compromise accounts, rather, they can take advantage of users’ lax security practices.

“Credentials are a particular area in which users are left exposed because they either choose weak passwords or reuse them across different sites,” he said. “It's why it's important that users understand the importance of choosing unique and strong passwords across their accounts and where available enable and use MFA. That way, even if an account is compromised, it won't be possible for attackers to use those credentials to breach other accounts."

Niamh Muldoon, OneLogin’s senior director of trust and security, told IT Pro this is a great example of why single-authentication mechanisms are so weak.

“It can be hard for individuals to remember all the accounts they hold and to keep up to-date with every data breach that is happening. Therefore, organizations should enable their end-users to be as security first and conscious as possible.

"An easy way for organizations to do this is by streamlining access via a single sign-on platform, securing their access via two-factor authentication to protect them against risks like the Spotify end-users experienced,” she said.

Spotify is reportedly considering skipping out on its own IPO, in a controversial move that has left many experts scratching their heads.

Instead of an IPO, the company is said to be eyeing a direct listing, according to the Wall Street Journal. This method of going public negates the share price fluctuations that accompany a traditional IPO, but will likely reduce the amount of money generated by the company.

The WSJ referred to anonymous sources familiar with the matter, who said that the decision was being driven not by the desire to raise the large sums commonly associated with IPOs, but to give long-term investors and employees the chance to cash out. Spotify refused to comment on the matter.

In a standard IPO, early buyers (or, 'institutional investors') are approached to purchase blocks of new shares immediately before they go on the open market. Once trading opens, the shares usually jump in value, whereupon the institutional investors sell them for a profit. This, in turn, pushes the company's stock price higher and leads to a large, immediate payout for the company.

By listing their stock directly, Spotify would bypass the initial investors, selling shares directly to the public. This means that they're not going to surge in value in the same way, and will generate much less money than other tech IPOs.

This is partly why it's such an unusual model; tech IPOs in particular are generally used by companies to secure serious cash infusions in order to fuel expansion efforts. By not pursuing a standard IPO, Spotify would effectively be turning down millions of dollars, if not more.

This money could come in handy for the company, particularly in order to pay off some its $1 billion debts. It would also give the notoriously loss-making business a bit more breathing room in order to consolidate and further grow its business.

However, while recent tech IPOs like Snap's have seen huge valuations, they do not always work out - Twitter's stock price has halved since its market debut, for instance.

However, there are some upsides to a direct listing. Chief among these is a greater chance of stock price stability, as the company bypasses selling its shares to investors who are principally after a quick profit. Tech stocks have a habit of opening with incredibly high valuations, before quickly reducing in value. Similarly, this method could also be more likely to attract long-term investors who will stay with the company over a greater period.

It also sidesteps the fees charged by underwriters, avoids diluting the company's stock and allows the company to freely discuss its stocks without violating SEC regulations.

Rumours of an IPO have been circling the company for a long time, particularly following the company's $1 billion debt financing agreement last year. Provisos in the deal will penalise Spotify the longer it goes without floating its IPO, including rewarding investors with greater equity for every year the company doesn't go public.

It is currently unclear whether a direct listing, as opposed to an IPO, would satisfy the terms of this agreement.

The news comes in the same week that the company inked a new long-term licensing agreement with Universal Music Group, the biggest record label in the world and one of the three main sources of Spotify's catalogue.

Spotify has updated its controversial privacy policy to make it clearer about how users can expect the music streaming software to access photos, contacts and other information stored on users' phones.

"When our new Privacy Policy started rolling out two weeks ago, it created some understandable confusion," said Spotify's CEO Daniel Ek in a blog post announcing the changes.

"So we've kept our promise to update the Policy, but we've also gone a step further by incorporating a plain language introduction in the Policy itself. The introduction is intended to be a clear statement of our approach and principles about privacy. We hope it provides a healthy dose of clarity and context too."

It's important to note that the policy to collect users' smartphone data has not been retracted, but rather Spotify has tried to explain exactly what kinds of data it will access.

For example, the rewritten policy clarifies that information such as specific (non-broad) location, photos, contacts and smartphone microphones won't be accessed without the express permission of the user.

However, registration information (e.g. name, date of birth, address), non-specific location data, the browser or device used, data from touchscreen and information from the accelerometer and gyroscope sensors are required to use the app.

Ek previously apologised to users following an outcry over the update.

"We should have done a better job in communicating what these policies mean and how any information you choose to share will - and will not - be used," Ek previously wrote in a blog post.

He specified that the company would not access or import people's photos, use their contacts or read their location/activity using sensors on smartphones without getting prior permission.

Ek added that the new privacy policy will itself be updated "to better reflect what we have explained above".

Spotify's updated privacy policy caused a stir when it was announced last week, with many of the music service's users saying they will cancel their subscriptions.

The new policy, which has been described as "creepy", says Spotify "may collect information stored on your mobile device, such as contacts, photos, or media files".

"Local law may require that you seek the consent of your contacts to provide their personal information to Spotify, which may use that information for the purposes specified in this Privacy Policy. Depending on the type of device that you use to interact with the Service and your settings, we may also collect information about your location based on, for example, your phone's GPS location or other forms of locating mobile devices (e.g., Bluetooth)," the terms and conditions read.

Spotify added that it may collect sensor data, including information from the accelerometer and other movement sensors and for those using voice commands on their phone.

Previously, the company's privacy policy stated it recorded the content of searches and requests, but it is now asking for permission to track the time and date of those queries, too.

The company hasn't revealed what it wishes to do with some of the information it 'may' collect from devices, such as contacts or photos, but does say it will use some of the other data to better target ads.

However, it will only provide anonymous data to advertisers rather than revealing customers' identities.

Spotify is notifying users of changes to its policy when they launch the app, requesting that they accept the new terms and conditions before continuing.

"Spotify is constantly innovating and evolving its service to deliver the best possible experience for our users. This means delivering the perfect recommendations for every moment, and helping you to enjoy, discover and share more music than ever before," Spotify justified in an earlier statement.

This article was first written on 21/08/2015, but has since been updated, most recently on 07/09/2015

Spotify and Apple Music are going head to head. With billions to be made, and the market for music streaming growing larger by the day, can Apple's service supplant the current king of the hill?

Spotify vs Apple Music: history

Apple Music has been a long time in the works. Back in 2014, Apple finalised its acquisition of Dr. Dre's Beats brand, including both Beats Electronics and Beats Music. The purchase of Beats Music, a pre-existing streaming service, led many to speculate that Apple was planning to set up its own online music platform.

The company's Worldwide Developer Conference in early 2015 proved the rumour mill right, and Apple Music was officially unveiled.

Launching at the end of June 2015, the service features 24/7 online radio station Beats 1. Music, human curated playlists and more detailed ways of interacting with artists.

Spotify is by this point a well-established player in the music industry, with a vast catalogue and millions of subscribers. Nevertheless, it's clear that Apple is gunning for Spotify and, during the launch, founder and CEO Daniel Eck tweeted simply: "Oh ok."

Spotify vs Apple Music: subscribers

The Apple Music service, which appears as a preinstalled default app in iOS 9, has apparently gained 11 million members since its launch in June. However, since the three-month free trial period doesn't elapse for another month, this may drop as users are asked to start actually paying for it.

Spotify, by contrast, is doing much better in the subscriber stakes, boating 75 million active users, 20 million of whom are paying customers. Having been around longer, it's also much more stable.

Apple Music has been raked over the coals in recent weeks for its multitude of bugs, glitches and hiccups, including one flaw which could see thousands of pre-existing songs accidentally deleted from users' libraries.

Spotify vs Apple Music: celebrity endorsement and criticism

The debate between Apple Music and Spotify has been a heated one, particularly in the artistic community.

Spotify had its fair share of public spats with artists before Apple Music even launched Taylor Swift notably pulled her entire catalogue from the service in November last year but Apple Music's launch really ramped up the tension.

Swift in particular has been a big focus of the argument. After she fell out with Spotify, the artist turned her ire on Apple Music, penning an open letter that lambasted their policy of not paying artists royalties during users' free trial periods.

The letter gained widespread media attention, forcing Apple to reverse their policy within less than a day. This quick about-face pleased the mighty Taylor Swift, whose back catalogue including smash hit album 1989 is now available on Apple Music (and not Spotify).

Swift later took a stinging swipe at Spotify in a Vanity Fair interview, saying "I found it really ironic that the multi-billion-dollar company reacted to criticism with humility, and the startup with no cash flow reacted to criticism like a corporate machine."

Others are somewhat less than complementary of Apple's efforts, though. Ex-Oasis guitarist Noel Gallagher has hit out at the service, calling Apple Music's global radio station "some kind of George Orwell sh*t".

In an interview with the Varvet International podcast, he lambasted the idea, saying "how can you be so arrogant that you can say, We now f*cking own world radio'?"

He was also vocally critical of the Connect feature, that lets fans have more access to artists and their day-to-day lives. "Who cares what f*cking Thom Yorke is up to? Seriously, who gives a sh*t? I'd find it creepy if everyone wanted to know what I was up to."

Another target of Gallagher's trademark vehemence was Tidal, the streaming service set up by Jay Z that purports to be by artists, for artists'.

"They were like, We're going to f*ckin' save the music business.' And I'm just sitting there, thinking you might want to write a decent chorus for a f*cking start. Never mind f*cking royalties and the power of music'. Write a tune. F*cking start with that."

Tidal was born out of music creators' alienation with Spotify and the traditional streaming model, leading to some of the world's most popular artists signing up for exclusive deals.

These can be early release deals, exclusive singles, or in the case of artists like Prince, putting their entire catalogue exclusively on Tidal.

Spotify vs Apple Music: the future

Spotify, with an existing user-base that dwarfs all competition, is unlikely to be going anywhere any time soon. However, Apple Music may prove to be a serious long-term rival.

Spotify's inherent problem is that music is an expensive industry - the company claims that it has paid $2 billion to artists and copyright holders since it started in 2008. The licensing of popular music costs money, and Apple has enough capital behind it that it could simply outspend Spotify to get the biggest and best artists first.

The real test though will be whether, people are still willing to pay for Apple's service once the free trial ends.

Spotify vs Apple Music: features

By now, Spotify is established enough that we shouldn't have to explain it. However, if you've been living under a rock, Spotify is an on-demand music service built in the traditional streaming model; it's Netflix, but for music.

Among its main strengths are the fact that its platform-agnostic meaning you can use it on Android, Windows Phone, iOS or through the web app and that it links with Facebook, so users can share what they're listening to.

Apple Music boasts some decidedly shinier features, such as Beats 1 radio. A global, always-on radio station, Beats 1 boasts a cast of all-star DJs like Zane Lowe, Elton John and Dr Dre, playing a huge variety of different styles and genres.

It also incorporates a feature called Connect, which acts sort of like a social network for music stars. Fans follow their favourite artists, and Apple Music will display a newsfeed of pictures, updates, songs and playlists from them.

One of the things Apple appears to be proudest of, however, is that all of its playlists are human-created. "Algorithms are really great, of course, but they need a bit of a human touch in them, helping form the right sequence" Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine said in a Guardian interview.

This would appear to be a dig at Spotify, but despite the multitude of playlists that Spotify has compiled for seemingly every mood, all of Spotify's playlists are curated.

Using big data analytics tools like Spotify's Truffle Pig, the company makes playlists based on a number of variables and criteria, and then refines them by hand based on users' listening habits.

Spotify vs Apple Music: fees and pricing

Pricing structures are a tricky issue, and especially so in the case of Spotify. The service's primary draw is its free tier. You can listen to unlimited music, but it's supported by ads. The 9.99 per month premium tier naturally removes these, but it also gets rid of a few other restrictions.

For example, mobile users can listen to the artists, albums or playlists for free, but only in shuffle mode they can't directly select tracks, and they have a maximum number of skips per hour.

It's a good deal for all parties. The free tier is more than functional enough, especially for casual users, but the benefits of premium (like higher-quality audio) are enough that many will consider switching of their own volition.

Apple Music also has a free tier, but compared to Spotify's, it's downright truncated. Free users won't be able to play, save or like content from Connect, have limited skipping privileges on the Apple radio stations and, crucially, have no access to the Apple Music instant streaming library.

To compensate for this, Apple instead offers an unusually-long three-month trial period for new users. However, as noted above, the trial period will be ongoing for everyone for another two months, meaning there's no evidence of how it will fare as a paid-for service.

It does have an ace up its sleeve in the form of the family subscriptions, however. Single subscriptions cost 9.99 a month the same amount as Spotify but Apple also offers a family membership for 14.99 a month.

Provided via the pre-existing iCloud family sharing, this enables up to six people to use the same Apple Music account, with separate playlists, recommendations and libraries. It's an absolute steal for families, and beats Spotify's similarly-themed offering into a cocked hat.

Spotify vs Apple Music: catalogue

According to the company, Spotify's catalogue is around 30 million tracks. Although the iTunes library has 40 million, only three-quarters of these are available through Apple Music, leaving the two services neck-and neck in terms of rosters.

What Apple Music does have that Spotify lacks is an unsurprising number of exclusives. Dr. Dre's latest album Compton, for example, will be released exclusively on Apple Music. Pharrell also released his single Freedom exclusively on Apple Music, as part of the 30 June launch.

Compared to rivals Apple Music and particularly Tidal, Spotify's standing in the artistic community does not carry a huge amount of weight. While it's unlikely to be starved of new music and major releases, it's also not going to be seeing the same amount of exclusive releases as Cupertino's offering.

Spotify vs Apple Music: restrictions

In a rather unexpected masterstroke, Apple has removed one of its biggest stumbling blocks for Apple Music. Rather than tying users into the Apple ecosystem, Apple Music is available across iOS devices, Macs, PCs and, coming in Autumn, Android phones.

By removing one of the most egregious aspects of Apple's software and services policy, Apple has opened itself up to the die-hard Android fanbase, a segment that might otherwise have been locked out.

Spotify vs Apple Music: user interface

Apple has come under fire for its confusing interface, and rightly so. While it admittedly looks very sleek and, well, Apple-ish, it's hard to navigate if you're just after a quick blast of the Beastie Boys.

Spotify's layout is a lot simpler, cleaner and easier to use, but it does lack the visual panache of Apple's. That said, from a pure functionality standpoint, Spotify wins this round hands down.

Spotify vs Apple Music: verdict

There's honestly not a huge amount between these two services. They've got a similar number of tracks, virtually identical pricing options and no real drawbacks for either.

If you're after a free streaming service and are willing to put up with only slightly obnoxious ad breaks, Spotify has a far more complete functionality to offer. However, if you're an existing iTunes user with a large and well-maintained library, Apple Music will integrate it beautifully.

For our money, Spotify is still just about edging out Apple Music, but we wouldn't hesitate to recommend either, and we've got no problem calling this one an even tie.

Apple has reversed a decision to withhold artist royalty payments on its new Apple Music streaming service following pressure from popstar Taylor Swift.

The musician sparked a public backlash when she postedan open letter on her Tumblr page yesterday denouncing Apple's plan to withhold artists' royalties during a three-month free trial to new users of the app.

The tech giant responded by performing a quick U-turn, with senior VP for internet software and services, Eddy Cue, writing on Twitter: "#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer's free trial period.We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple."

Streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music pay musicians a small amount of money each time their song is played, but under the previously proposed set-up, any track played by users during their free trial period would not have generated any income for artists or producers.

Swift wrote yesterday:"I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company."

Her letter also stated that the letter was in defence of indie musicians less well-known than the 25-year old megastar, and contained "the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer" in her industry.

It came after Swift pulled her entire back catalogue from Spotify after arguing musicians were underpaid by the service, and she threatened Apple with a similar move, withholding her smash-hit album, 1989, until the dispute was resolved.

It is currently unknown what Apple's new royalties payment structure will be. The company was previously planning to compensate artists for the unpaid three months by paying a higher-than-usual rate for all subsequent royalties up to 70 per cent, according to some sources.

The European Commission has begun preliminary inquiries into any deals Apple may have struck with music labels to find out if its yet to be launched music service could endanger its rivals.

The commission has sent out questionnaires to labels and music services to reveal information about Apple's plans and any agreements that may have been struck, according to reports by the Financial Times.

Apple's music streaming service is touted to launch in the summer and would put it into competition with the likes of Spotify, Deezer and Google. Apple's service would be based on its $3 billion takeover of Beats Music. It would be rebranded and sold through iTunes.

A formal complaint to the commission normally triggers these questionnaires last year. The FT said that at present the probe was exploratory and does not mean the EU has launched a full investigation.

The move comes after concerns that Apple would use its muscle to promote the as-yet unannounced service and put other firms at a serious disadvantage. The commission is looking to see if Apple will lure labels away from free, ad-supported services such as Spotify.

Such a service would be integrated deeply into iTunes and the Apple TV service. The industry standard monthly fee is pegged around $10 a month and Apple has the financial largesse to undercut rivals in a bid to gain market share.

Both Apple and the European Commission have yet to comment on the story.

The move towards music streaming and away from downloads has prompted musicians to form their own streaming service. This week saw the launch of Tidal by rapper Jay-Z alongside the likes of Madonna, Kanye West and Alicia Keys.

Last year, Apple received a fine of $840 million as part of a settlement after it was accused of colluding with publishers to artificially inflate ebook prices in the iBookstore.

eBay got hacked and then got the response all wrong . Office (the shoe retailer, not the Microsoft software suite) had a server attacked, resulting in customer data being compromised. Even anti-virus vendor Avast saw its online forums hacked, and user passwords compromised as a result.

No-one's 100 per cent sure what happened over at music streaming giant Spotify, other than there was unauthorised access going on, although it looks very much like it could have been a proof-of-concept attack via the Spotify Android client.

Oh, and let's not forget the whole Heartbleed story, which continues to roll on as a new wireless attack vector is suspected.

With all this going on, you'd be forgiven for thinking there is a security breach epidemic happening right now, but is that actually the case?

One PR company got in touch with me to pitch a by-lined article on why breaches are happening more often. I'm not mentioning them, as I've been around long enough to understand that when someone says 'bylined article' they actually mean 'thinly-disguised product marketing pitch'.

Anyway, the point is this misplaced pitch included a helpful list of reasons to explain why there has been a "sudden spate of cyber security breaches" of late.

Despite experiencing similar waves of breach disclosures many times before in my twenty years of covering the security business, some of the ten reasons listed got my back up, and have decided to address them one-by-one.

1. Hackers are getting better at hacking

Actually, hackers are probably getting lazier and more complacent than they have ever been. There are more tools out there to facilitate easy hacking, and more vulnerabilities to be exploited. But the real biggie is the lack of understanding of security issues by organisations.

So, hackers may be having more success (although there's little actual evidence to support this) and companies are now disclosing breaches more readily, but that doesn't mean hackers are getting better at hacking.

2. There are more hackers, doing more hacking

See above. There are more criminals exploiting vulnerabilities, perhaps, and using readily available exploit kits, but when it comes to the old school, competent 'real' hackers, then my gut tells me the numbers are decreasing.

3. IT providers are failing to provide adequate security measures

OK, you've got me there, I cannot argue with that one. Quite obviously there is an 'adequate security' failure happening here, and service providers need to man up and strengthen their efforts.

4. Organisations are getting worse at security

Again, no argument from me here. Organisations *think* they are getting better at security, which is a big part of the problem, but actually they are getting better at investing in the wrong solutions and worse at keeping up with the real threat vectors.

5. Organisations are getting better at breach detection

Again, I agree that breach detection methodologies are improving and attacks that might have gone unnoticed a decade ago are now more routinely spotted. Unfortunately, if you read the detail of compromises over the last few years, you will note that many of them went totally undetected for months on end, all the time collecting data and compromising users.

This suggests breach detection has a long way to go, and the chances are the breaches we read about are just the tip of the iceberg as far as actual successful attacks go.

Yep, it's true that both regulatory and reputational pressures have meant more companies are willing to disclose breaches, which means we read about more of them. In turn this bolsters the impression that attacks are on the up and our data is at more risk than ever. That impression may, or may not, be correct.

7. There's more data out there

Well, there's certainly more data than there was ten years ago, or even ten minutes ago. The stuff multiplies constantly, but that isn't the same as there being more valuable data out there of course.

8. There's more valuable data out there

I'm not convinced today's data is really much more valuable than it was yesterday, and that the hacking stakes (risk vs profit) have been raised as a result. My own investigations over the years suggest the real world value of the data being stolen is dropping faster than a hot brick. The Shadow Internet is awash with very cheap stolen data these days. It's a reflection of dark market forces in action: when supply outstrips demand then values fall.

9. Everyone is stupid

The argument that everyone from admins to end users are becoming increasingly careless with their information assets is not one I am going to take issue with.

10. This all adds up to a perfect insecurity storm

Possibly, but what the heck is that doing in the top ten list anyways? Surely it's really a top nine list, or more to the point a top five, when you discount the duplicated points and the conclusion being thrown in at number ten.

There's no denying that data security is a hot topic right now and that's not going to change any time soon.

Truth be told, though, it's been a hot topic for my entire career and all that changes are the specifics. There is no breach epidemic, data insecurity is just a self-inflicted wound. The big picture remains the same: identify your valuable data and invest in securing it accordingly. If you don't then one thing is certain, one day your company will be adorning the news section of IT Pro.

Spotify has been hacked on Android, according to chief technology officer Oskar Stl who told users via a blog on the company's website.

"We've become aware of some unauthorised access to our systems and internal company data. Our evidence shows that only one Spotify user's data has been accessed and this did not include any password, financial or payment information.

"We have contacted this one individual. Based on our findings, we are not aware of any increased risk to users as a result of this incident," Stl said.

However, as a precaution, Spotify has launched an investigation and will be encouraging its users to upgrade their Android app over the next few days. It also advises that offline playlists will have to be re-downloaded in the updated version of Spotify for Android.

Stl said in its statement to users: "As soon as we were aware of this issue we immediately launched an investigation. Information security and data protection are of great importance to us at Spotify."

Spotify reminded customers that they should only download its app from authorised and official sources, including the Apple App Store, Google Play and Spotify's own website to ensure it is the genuine, safe version.

The updated version of Spotify appears as a completely new listing on Google Play and users are being told to uninstall the old version of the application after downloading the new version.

This is just the latest in a string of hacks on big internet-based companies. Last week, eBay was hacked and now all of its users are being prompted to change their passwords. The company is now under investigation, questioning its security policies to try and find how the hack happened and why the company was so slow to respond.

"You can't take it with you when you die," the old adage says. But, when it comes to leaving our digital assets to our nearest and dearest, it seems you can't pass them on either. Depending on who consumers buy their e-books, MP3s and movie downloads from, the right to use these digital assets often expires when the person who buys them dies. Therefore, it's often legally impossible to pass them on.

"The long and the short of it is you're borrowing the music or books you buy from iTunes or on a Kindle," Keith Etherington, a solicitor from family law specialists Slater & Gordon, tells IT Pro.

Digital legacy preservation: First steps

Before you can start taking steps to preserve your digital legacy, you need to take stock of what accounts you have and their contents, advises Emma Myers, head of wills, probate and lifetime planning at Saga Legal.

"[We] recommend creating a directory of all online accounts (excluding passwords for reasons of security), which is stored with your will," she explains. "This means next of kin will find it much easier to locate all your accounts."

For on-premise assets, locked up in laptops or stored on tablets, Simon Lewey, a partner at family law firm Cripps Law, says there are organisations who will store device passwords until someone dies and then disclose them to select parties afterwards.

Alternatively, people could store these details with their wills and leave them in the care of their solicitor instead, he suggests. "I've got one client who has given me, to keep physically with his will, a piece of paper in a sealed envelope, with the passwords to his PC," Lewey reveals. "He feels that's a good way of ensuring I can get to that [data], and unlock it."

"As far as I understand it, these are license agreements, not purchase agreements. And, as a result...that license terminates on death." This may come as a surprise and shock to some, particularly when they total up how much money they're likely to spend on accruing these digital assets during their lifetimes. "You might spend 20,000 on iTunes over your lifetime, but once you die, that's it. Apple keeps your money and no-one else gets to listen to the music," Etherington adds. IT Pro raised this point with Apple and the company confirmed it's not possible to "legally bequeath" an iTunes library to someone, as per its terms and conditions. However, Apple did say it is possible to make it accessible to others after the owner's death. This involves contacting iTunes customer services and asking them to transfer ownership of the account to another person who must provide a copy of the deceased's death certificate and a legal document confirming they have the right to take over the account. Alternatively, as Etherington points out, a person could simply pass on their iTunes login details to whoever they want to have access to it after death. Failing to do so won't just stop loved ones accessing your iTunes library, but could also prevent them from accessing an iPad or iPhone that's been passed on too. That's a situation Josh Grant has found himself in after his late mother bequeathed her two-year-old iPad to her family in her will. Since her death from cancer at the age of 59, they've been unable to use it because they do not know her Apple ID and password. Grant told the BBC he was asked by Apple to provide written consent from his mother for the device to be unlocked. "We obviously couldn't get written permission because mum has died. So my brother has been back and forth with Apple. They're asking for some kind proof that he can have the iPad," Grant says. "We've provided the death certificate, will and solicitors letter, but it wasn't enough. They've now asked for a court order to prove that Mum was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account. "It's going to have to go through our solicitor and he charges 200 an hour, so it's a bit of a false economy," he adds.

Since news of this story first came to light, Apple has responded to the family's request to access the device and restored the factory settings.

E-books after death

Amazon's Kindle store terms of use seem to take a similarly dim view of people who might want to pass on their e-book collections, post-death. "Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party," it states. The same goes for rival e-reader maker Kobo, who told IT Pro that once a customer dies, their account will remain open, but no-one can use it and ownership of it cannot be transferred to a third-party. It is also impossible to bequeath a Kobo account in a will.

"However, if the owner of the Kobo account gives the email address and password...to someone before dying, the person who has the Kobo credentials can log into the Kobo account and use it," a statement from Kobo to IT Pro helpfully states. In fact there is nothing to stop users of any of these services passing on their login details, adds Etherington. "I suspect what people will practically come to do is leave behind a little book of their passwords, and provided someone has [that] they can get in. Apple or whoever won't know who is logging in," he adds. The cyber security risks associated with taking this kind of approach are obvious, but it might be the simplest, if not the most secure, way of passing on access to your digital assets after death. Particularly if people have accounts with a large number of digital media providers, such as Apple, Amazon, Kobo, and use streaming service such as Netflix and Spotify too.

Planning ahead

The work involved to shut down someone's account, if ownership transfer is not allowed, can be arduous as each company tends to have its own way of handling things. This is why, Emma Myers, head of wills, probate and lifetime planning at Sagalegal.co.uk, says people need to start planning what will happen to their digital estate after death sooner rather than later. "Without a properly planned digital legacy, your loved ones can face a stressful struggle to gain access to online accounts and shut them down," Myers tells IT Pro.

Tweeting after death

Twitter users unwilling to let the small matter of death stop them accruing followers should sign up to automatic tweet generation service Liveson.

Once people sign up, Liveson will analyse their Twitter feeds and then generate Tweets based on what's been written before once they've died.

The company's tagline is "when your heart stops beating, you'll keep tweeting" and around 417 people have signed up to use it since its launch.

To spare the feelings of friends and family, these preserved profiles will not generate birthday reminders or be used to populate Facebook's lists of friend suggestions for users.

"[Facebook] will automatically memorialise an account when we know that an account user has passed away," the company said in a statement to IT Pro. "Anyone can request memorialisation, with proof of a user's passing." In some cases, friends and family may want the deceased person's profile deactivated or deleted, a situation Facebook is more than happy to comply with. "Family members/executors may request to have the profile removed entirely, but they do not have the right to actually access the account," a Facebook spokesperson added. "Verified immediate family members may request the removal of a loved one's account from the site, and Facebook will close or completely remove [it]." Microblogging site Twitter offers similar service, whereby a verified family member or the executor of the dead person's estate can ask the site to deactivate their account by supplying copies of the user's death certificate, driver's license and username details. These must be accompanied by a signed statement confirming their relationship to the deceased.

Despite the huge amounts of time people spend cultivating their digital footprints, very few are taking steps to preserve them at the moment, claims Simon Lewey, a partner at legal firm Cripps Law.

"At the moment, while it wouldn't be right to say the use of digital media is restricted to the under 40s at all, I don't think we're quite at the generation yet [who are most actively using these services] that are actively concerned about dying," Lewey tells IT Pro.

"Emotional issues like [their family] seeing a Facebook picture after they've died is not really in their contemplation...because the younger you are, the less concerned you are about dying."

The legal costs involved with sorting out your digital estate could also be a barrier, opines Lewey, particularly as its difficult to put a value on how much someone's digital estate is worth.

"I'm not seeing a lot of concerned clients at the moment, and unless they make some reference to it, we're not raising it as a specific issue, not least because a lot of people would say a lot of this stuff doesn't have any real value," Lewey explains. "They might have hundreds of pounds worth of iTunes stuff, or something of that sort, but I'm not going to pay my lawyer a fortune to deal with...something of hypothetical value."

Even so, Saga Legal's Myers says taking steps to preserve your digital legacy is something everyone should think about doing now, regardless of their age.

"The concept of preserving your digital legacy is relatively new and isn't widely known," Myers admits.

"Social media accounts and shopping online are no longer just the preserve of younger generations: tech-savvy over-50s are more common than ever," she adds.

"As we inevitably become an increasingly digital society, planning for your virtual afterlife should be something on everyone's to-do list."

The Government has reminded end users that the legalisation of ripping content from CDs and DVDs does not grant them rights to copy media from on-demand streaming services, such as Spotify and Netflix.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has outlined plans to bring the UK's copyright laws up to date, which will see the act of ripping content from CDs and DVDs made legal from June 2014.

Under the current legislation, it is illegal for individuals to copy content from CDs or DVDs they have bought onto MP3 players or computers.

The IPO wants to legalise the process, provided the person copying the CD or DVD owns the media and will only use it privately.

"The changes will means that you will be able to copy a book or film you have purchased for one device onto another without infringing copyright," states the IPO's Exceptions to copyright: Guidance for consumers report.

"However, it will still be illegal to make copies for friends or family, or to make a copy of something you do not own or have acquired illegally, without the copyright owner's permission.

"So you will not be able to make copies of CDs for your friends, to copy CDs borrowed from friends, or to copy videos illegally downloaded from file-sharing websites," the document continues.

The document also states that end users will be permitted to backup copies of CDs and DVDs, for example, to a personal online storage account, but they will be breaking the law if they allow third parties to access them.

Because the legislation applies only to copies of media the end user actually owns, users of media streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify will still be banned from copying songs, TV shows or movies from these services, the report reiterates.

Furthermore, if people choose to sell their CDs at a later date, they will be found in breach of copyright law if they retain any copies of them taken for personal use.

"If you wish to give away or sell a CD you should first delete any personal copies you have made of it," the IPO document advises.

The changes are set to be debated in the Houses of Parliament, but if approved are expected to come into force on 1 June 2014.

"The Government has consulted extensively on these changes and on the draft legislation, and listened carefully to the views of a wide range of stakeholders," the IPO said in a statement.

"As a result of this process, the legislation published today strikes an important balance between enabling reasonable use of copyright material in the modern age with minimal impact on copyright owners."

Apple's online storage service iCloud has been accused of infringing two patents owned by a San Jose-based software company, according to a recently filed US district court complaint.

The company, Innovative Automation, claims Apple has infringed on its intellectual property with iCloud by "making, using, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States".

This activity, it is claimed, infringes on two patents 7,174,362 and 7,392,283 which are related to the "method and system for supplying products from pre-stored digital data in response to demands transmitted via Computer Network(s)."

The document states: "As a result of Defendant's infringing activities with respect to [both] patent[s], Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained.

"Plaintiff is entitled to recover damage adequate to compensate it for Defendant's infringing activities in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than reasonable royalties, together with interests and costs."

Innovative Automation said it reserves the right, if it is decided that Apple's infringement of the patents was "wilful and deliberate", to pursue further damages.

The firm also filed similar lawsuits on 16 November, aimed at the cloud-based music services offered by Spotify and online retailer Amazon, accusing them of infringing on the same two patents.

All three suits have been filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

IT Pro was awaiting a response Spotify to this story at the time of publication, but Apple and Amazon declined to comment.

Malicous adverts have appeared on the free version of Spotify, as hackers attempted to attack Windows users with the Blackhole exploit kit.

Users did not even have to click through on the ads to be affected, according to Websense, which said the first report it received of a malicious advert appearing on Spotify was from 24 March.

Once users' systems had connected to an outside IP address, the exploit kit would attempt to exploit a range of vulnerabilities, including a flaw affecting Adobe Reader and Acrobat.

The end objective from the hackers point of view was to get the Windows Recovery fake AV application on to user systems.

Once the malware was successfully installed, additional software could be installed to further compromise victims' systems.

A fifth of users who had seen the so-called "malverts" were from the UK, with 59 per cent based in Sweden, according to Avast.

No data on how many users had malware downloaded onto their computers was was available at the time of publication, although a number raised concerns with Spotify over Twitter.

Spotify relies on advertising revenue to keep its free service running, so the attacks represent a serious issue for the music streaming service.

Websense said malvertising was not a new concept, but this case was different.

"In the past the malicious ads have been displayed as part of a website and viewed with the browser. In this case the malicious ad is actually displayed inside of the Spotify application," the security firm said in a blog.

"If you had Spotify open but running in the background, listening to your favorite tunes, you could still get infected."

At the time of publication, Spotify had not responded to a request for a statement on the malicious ads, but has indicated its course of action over Twitter.

"We've turned off all 3rd party display ads that could have caused it until we find the exact one," one company post read.

Another said: "We're still investigating but we take this very seriously and will take every step possible to ensure it doesn't occur again."

Revamped Hotmail plays catch up with Gmail

Microsoft has updated its webmail service Hotmail, adding a few features that have long been available in Google's Gmail. PC Pro

Government to name new digital minister soon

The new coalition government could name a new minister in charge of broadband as early as this week, with MP Ed Vaizey mooted as a top pick. BBC

Researchers step closer to stopping laptop battery fires

Cambridge researchers have found a way to see inside lithium batteries as they work, which should help find a way to prevent laptop fires. IT PRO

Spotify unveils new price plan, caps new users

Streaming music service Spotify has tweaked its price plans and placed a 20 hour a month cap on uninvited new users. Telegraph

Spam, spam, spam

Spam is becoming just as big an issue as viruses, according to Cisco. PC Pro

Spotify beefs up features

Music phenomenon Spotify has launched new social networking features. Expert Reviews

In need of security?

UK security specialists are ramping up their efforts to encourage new people into the field. IT PRO

Up in the cloud

Cloud computing isn't just a fad and spending in this area will double by 2012, according to research. BBC

Spotify is taking aim at Apple's iTunes with its latest upgrade - the largest since the site launched in late 2008.

The streaming music system currently allows users to listen to music for free - if they're willing to abide a few ads, of course - which puts it in competition with the iTunes download store.

But with the release of version 0.4.3, Spotify is also looking to take on the iTunes music player and track organising software, with the introduction of new library features.

Writing on the Spotify blog, community manager Andres Sehr said: "Spotify is evolving into a total music management platform."

Essentially, users will be able to play and organise tracks on their PC using Spotify, integrating their downloaded music with Spotify's streaming music. "We've added a Library' folder in the left side bar, enabling you to combine your own music library with ours," he explained.

These mixed playlists will also be transferable to mobile devices via a wireless connection, but that will require paying for a premium membership to Spotify, as it requires "offline mode" to work.

Going social

In addition to the new library system, Spotify has added integration with Facebook, following up on the social networking site's announcement of its Open Graph plans last week.

Any songs mentioned in a friend's Facebook feeds will be pulled into a feed on Spotify, enabling "real time" sharing, Spotify said.

"Discovering these profiles is simple as we've connected with Facebook so that you can instantly add your friends' profiles," Sehr noted, adding that users real names, Facebook profile photo and friends list will be pulled into Spotify.

The new features go life today, but it will be a few days before they're rolled out to all users, Sehr said. No download is required; the changes will kick in on start up.

For more, check out the following video from Spotify:

Spotify has convinced 320,000 to pay for its premium service, but there's still no US launch date for the streaming music service.

Daniel Ek, the 26-year-old chief executive of Spotify, took to the main stage to take part in a keynote debate on the final day of South by Southwest interactive at which he was widely expected to announce a US launch date for the service.

It soon became apparent that wasn't on the cards, with Ek claiming that organising the rights needed for Spotify in the US was a fearsomely complex process involving over 5,000 publishers, collecting societies and labels.

Refusing to be drawn on a date for a US launch, Ek instead used the keynote to demonstrate Spotify to the largely American crowd, reveal a few interesting facts and figures and to talk about how he sees the service developing.

User growth

According to Ek, Spotify now has around seven million users across the six European countries it operates in, and it's adding around 1,000 paid users a day. Currently, 320,000 people pay 10 a month for the service, meaning Spotify is generating a significant amount of cash each month.

Ek claimed the company is putting a lot of effort into next-gen' Spotify, and that it's opted not to go for a traditional web start-up approach of launching new features early and often.

He talked at length about his aims for the service, and was often most specific about what Spotify was not: it's not going to become a social network, instead seeking to use the existing social graph of Twitter and Facebook.

He explained that the amount of music in Spotify 10 million tracks means discovery is a key issue that needs to be addressed.

"Search is only one solution," he said, adding, "what Spotify won't be is another social network. We'll piggy-back on existing social networks to use their social graph and functions. You'll be able to use that to discover new playlists and what people are listening to."

Not 'free' music

It's also not, Ek claimed, about free music.

He said complex and proprietary digital technology and standards had hindered the cause of digital music and was at pains to say Spotify wasn't "free music versus pay music."

He also argued that even the unpaid for version of Spotify wasn't free. "People label it as free, but it's not people pay with their time, listening to targeted ads and we're seeing good results with those."

"The key with Spotify, is that it will enable your music library on all kind of devices, whether it's a phone, set-top box or game console," said Ek, appealing to the tech-savy crowd with the opinion that "if music legally could be on any device in a way that's as simple as it is to get music from iTunes to the iPhone, then the music industry would be radically bigger."

Napster love

It's clear he's still something of a geek at heart, mentioning how he first fell in love with digital music when using Napster.

"You could see someone's music collection, and you could see what other stuff that person was listening to. For me that was the ultimate thing, and we want to get close to that [with Spotify]," he said.

Referencing Napster might be a good way to excite a geeky crowd but it's something of a red rag to the music industry, and Ek tried to sound a more conciliatory note at various points in the discussion.

According to Ek, "it's about a mix of models. You'll still buy the music you love, not as a dumb plastic disc, but perhaps as a special edition. We want to be a platform for artists to reach out to audience and monetise that."

30 per cent of Spotify playlists are whole albums, a sign, according to Ek, that the album is a concept people are still interested in.

He finished the show by offering some details of the amount of data Spotify uses more than Sweden does as a whole country and that clever use of P2P technology, in particular local sharing between machines on the same network helps manage this astonishing data use.

Spotify was knocked offline for a few hours this weekend after a data centre it uses overheated on Saturday.

Spotify spokesman Andres Sehr apologised for the outage in a blog post, explaining that the data centre was hit by a power outage.

"The backup power kicked in as planned, however, one of the big air conditioners in the data centre did not start properly," he said.

"Heat is a major issue in large data centres and without this cooling unit the temperature rose very quickly and our servers shut down to protect themselves from over heating," he said, adding it took a few hours to get the system up and running because of its complexity.

Sehr said everything was working correctly again. However, he warned that "a few" premium users - those who pay to use the service in offline mode and without ads - may see some "billion anomalies". He said Spotify would contact anyone affected by the problem.

In addition, Sehr advised anyone still having trouble with Spotify to reinstall it.

3 has announced that it will be offering the HTC Hero from next month - the first time that the network has had an Android-based smartphone on its books.

The Hero will be available on a 35 per month contract and, to sweeten the deal, 3 will be bundling the device with a Spotify Premium subscription. This will last for two years, matching the length of the minimum contract deal. However, the phone will still cost 99 upfront.

As part of the competitive deal, users will also get 750 minutes to any network, unlimited texts, unlimited web browsing, and free Skype-to-Skype calls.

The mobile version of Spotify was released last month simultaneously for the iPhone and Android platforms. That said, it was only available in a Premium version costing 9.99 a month, as opposed to the free, ad-supported desktop version.

The 3 deal is the first to offer Spotify Premium as part of a mobile contract.

"This partnership continues our commitment to bring popular internet services to our customers. Spotify Mobile is a fantastic digital service, which gives consumers the ability to enjoy and share music in an affordable way", Charlotte Blanchard, director of products and services at 3, said in a statement.

Blanchard also said that 3 would be extending the deal to mobile broadband customers at some point in the future.

The deal puts 3 in direct competition with Nokia's Comes With Music handsets, whereby those purchasing a compatible handset gain access to thousands of music tracks too.

The killer app we've all been waiting for has now been approved on iPhone and Android platforms.

Music streaming service Spotify has officially moved mobile, and is now available to premium subscribers on the iPhone and iPod Touch, as well as Google's Android platform.

Anyone wishing to use the Spotify on their handsets will need to download the app from the stores and pay the 9.99 monthly fee for a premium membership.

Spotify's spokesman Andres Sehr said on the site's blog that the move is just the first step in going mobile, and is planning to rollout the app to devices other than iPhones and Android soon.

The app will let users edit and access playlists, and work over 3G or WiFi. Spotify warned users to check their data plan before streaming music, as charges could add up quickly.

"The mobile apps will allow you to take the entire Spotify catalogue and put it in your pocket," Sehr added. "You can use our offline mode' to make playlists available at all times, even when no connection is available. Perfect for that ride on the tube or long flight across the Atlantic."

In offline mode, the tracks are downloaded to the phone. The number of tracks that are moved to your handset depends how much disk space the device has, Spotify noted. Offline mode can be used for up to 30 days without syncing back online, and users can force their phone into the mode if they want to save battery life.

Spotify has long been credited with cutting back music piracy, but Apple has been slow to approve the app - although that may be no surprise as some suggest the music streaming app could put a dent in Apple's iTunes profit.

The iPhone version of Spotify has been submitted to Apple and approval is expected within a matter of days, according to the official Spotify blog.

Spotify said the app should be available on the App Store "in a matter of weeks".

Spotify is a free downloadable application that lets users stream music to their computers. It is currently only available in Europe, but has plans to launch in the US by the end of the year.

While the advert supported computer-based version is free, users can choose to pay for the ad-free Premium service, which offers higher quality streaming for 9.99 a month.

The iPhone version will only be available for Premium users, though the app will be free to download. It is not clear whether there will be any additional charges.

Many have viewed Spotify as a potential threat to Apple's iTunes, as it gives access to a wide range of music without users having to pay.

In response to an IT PRO query regarding this, Spotify said: "We have a great relationship with Apple, think the iPhone is awesome and absolutely expect them to approve our app in the next few weeks. Apple has already approved several other music services such as Last.fm, Deezer and Pandora."

In a major change from the computer-based version, users will be able to download songs to listen to offline, for when they don't have network coverage. Users will also be able to search for music, and stream playlists.

Last March, Spotify suffered a security breach, with early users with weak passwords at risk of having their accounts accessed.

Spotifiy has made a video of a the iPhone app running, which you can view below.

It's a popular, up-and-coming web service, so the time seems right for the bad guys to keep Spotify grounded by hitting it with a security breach.

Just days after signing up its millionth user, Spotify admitted that its security had been bypassed, with user information such as email, birth date, gender, post code and billing receipt details potentially open to hackers. Payment data such as credit card numbers are not held by the company, so were not at risk, it said.

The music service was alerted last week that its protocols had been compromised, allowing rapid testing of passwords. "The information was exposed due to a bug that we discovered and fixed on December 19th, 2008. Until last week we were unaware that anyone had had access to our protocols to exploit it," Spotify's chief technology officer Andreas Ehn wrote in the service's official blog.

Spotify was quick to clarify that the only users at risk were those with a weak password who signed up before 19 December last year and had not changed their password since that date. Any user fitting that description was sent a warning email and advised to change their password.

The data that was compromised were password hashes. Until that bug was fixed, "it was possible to access the password hashes of individual users had you reverse-engineered the Spotify protocol and knew the username."

"We are really sorry about this and hope you accept our apologies. We're doubling our efforts to keep the systems secure in order to prevent anything like this from happening again," Ehns wrote.

The Spotify attack follows security breaches at Facebook and Twitter.