That tends to be the case with blatant ripoffs.

I think your first point is totally valid.

On point two: Personally I'd be less likely to use a product that looks like a knock-off of a product I'm already using. The design is the first thing you come in contact with before you even hear a single song. I'm not saying they have to reinvent the wheel, but having a distinct design separates one product from the other and signifies that there is something different or that they have more to offer than their competitor. If I open an app that looks like the store-brand version of Spotify I'd at least expect a discount not a $10 markup.

Plus in UI design, you’re always toeing the line between familiarity and innovation. Stray too far from established norms, and you’ll probably alienate people.

From a business point of view, I can’t see there being many negative repercussions for matching this closely, and as mentioned, plenty of positive ones.

fwiw, the structure of the Spotify interface has always been one of the major reasons I’ve stuck with Rdio. The business-y reasons proposed by Willie Morris are the only reasons that make sense to me as to why they’d want to copy it, because it can’t have been because the Spotify interface is actually nice.

Also, didn’t Spotify get accused of copying Rdio when they overhauled last year? I guess that proves your point, Grant.

I still think there is a difference between assembling ideas and copying. It's the difference between drawing and tracing.

Couldn't agree more. I find it amusing how upset people get about things like this, especially when it comes to web design...then you look in their portfolios and see a bunch of bootstrap template looking sites with hamburger buttons and faded full screen lifestyle images and centered three column blocks of text with icons on top. What do you call a ripoff that has happened so many times you can't remember who did it first? A trend, and after long enough, a standard.

Is this totally lazy and are they missing out on making something even better than spotify by copying? Yes. But if you dissect the spotify design there is nothing original or proprietary about it. Just a bunch of the current trends combined to solve a business problem.

Your last line is a bit of a non-sequitur. No one is asking Tidal to reinvent the button, of course there are rip-offs.

It's one thing to draw inspiration from Dribbble for your design, or to even copy the style of another design, but this is an app that looks so similar you could almost confuse the two.

Tidal didn't need to change the placement of items; there is obviously a good reason to have Playlists on the left, the Play Controls on the bottom, etc -- that isn't what's causing this furore, rather it's the shameless similarities in the visual details.

I don't think this is the same thing as assembling other ideas, and if it is then we might as well all go home and let project managers use an automated UI generator to go with their automated logo creators.

I get the argument, and I agree with you. I suppose I was shouting out into the void at the person defending WiMP vs Tidal vs Spotify... and upon thinking about it more, I believe some of the thoughts are misguided.

Sure, interaction models need to be evolved and they grow slowly. There is the line between stealing (some call it 'inspiration') and inventing that you have to hit exactly right for people to claim it is actually innovative. But this design edges more towards all 'inspiration' without anything particularly new.

I think that because the design and functionality is so similar to Spotify, to most people it shows a lack of effort. Mix that with the message the backers are trying to promote, and you get a bit of a shitstorm of inauthenticity. They are not providing us with a superior product, it is an obvious money grab from the start... and that's why people are up in arms about the design.

If it was a music streaming platform that copied Spotify's design and donated all proceeds to charity, would people be so angry?

I know I wouldn't care as much... ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I'll keep thinking on it Ü

I agree.

But is this something new? You see designers getting inspiration from other designers all the time, that what DesignerNews and Dribbble for example is widely used for.

Not that i want to "legalize copying", but there is no clear distinction between getting inspired and copying, or what some like to call stealing.

I think its funny how much people are focusing on "it looks like Spotify", instead of giving the team behind some useful feedback that could help them improve the experience.

Not sure I'd call the market of those who are dissatisfied with Spotify Premium's 320kbps and are willing to pay twice that much "huge". If there was it would be fairly easy for someone like Spotify to flip the switch on higher bitrate streams and they would have done it a while ago.

Please read http://nextdraft.com/2015/03/30/tidal-apple-beyonce-and-the-future-of-streaming-music/

I don't think it's naive at all. Maybe I'm cheap, but price is usually my initial method of judgement for a product. Probably why I won't be getting the $17,000 gold apple watch. It may be more naive to jump onto a high-priced service without proper research about the product.

That being said, I tested out their hi-fi streaming and could hear a bit of difference. However, that difference was definitely not worth me paying double what I already pay for Spotify premium. I suggest spending $15 on an app called Boom. Getting the right EQ on 320 songs from spotify does a world of difference.

Also, I'm genuinely curious about the huge market of audiophiles. What percentage of subscription-based music listeners are considered hi-fi junkies?

The vast majority of listeners do not have the equipment (electronic or biological) to detect the difference between 320 and lossless music.

Even claimed audiophiles have been tested and they can't even tell the difference (they guessed which was which like 50% of the time, no better than random) with good headphones.

Furthermore the bandwidth necessary is MUCH higher meaning it's unrealistic to use while on the go or you will destroy your data plan.

It's marketing bullshit.

Probably because unlimited HD movies and tv shows are $8/mo.