MySpace Disables Autoplay to Reduce Costs

By Jane McEntegart, published on August 19, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: , , , | Themes: The Internet
Syndication: Add to your Google homepage Add to My Yahoo!

MySpace has disabled the autoplay function on users' profiles to cut down on streaming costs.

If you've ever had a MySpace page or even visited someone else's page, you'll know how infuriating it is to have whatever song is flavor of the week blare out of your speakers without warning. However, a recent cost cutting measure for MySpace means users will no longer be aurally assaulted when they're trying to post a comment on a someone's page. The company has said it is flicking the switch on the autoplay feature that immediately plays a song when you load up someone's profile.

The move is actually more aimed at MySpace music, which was launched a year ago. Bands often have between three and five songs on their MySpace music profile that are free to stream, but apparently the streaming is costing the social networking site up to $10 million a month.

TechCrunch reports that autoplays accounted for a huge 1 billion song streams per month so cutting that out should improve things a little. Users that really miss the autoplay feature can switch it back on if they wish to do so.

Read more here.

Comments | Print | Send to a friend
Slideshows related to this news

Sponsored links

Comments

Anonymous 08/19/2009 6:57 PM
Hide
-20+

you know what else myspace should disable? myspace

CoopCHennick 08/19/2009 7:02 PM
Hide
-9+

I wonder how many people actually care at ALL about myspace anymore

AMDnoob 08/19/2009 7:05 PM
Show
fooldog01 08/19/2009 7:08 PM
Hide
-8+

This would have been GREAT news... if I didn't quit using Myspace 5 years ago.

AMDnoob 08/19/2009 7:24 PM
Show
lifelesspoet 08/19/2009 7:26 PM
Hide
-0+

This is something that should have been done in the name of user friendliness. Next, could you not let any given copy pasta teenie bopper upload random bloated css. Myspace is worse then geocities could have ever dreamed of as for as horrible user pages are concerned.

leafblower29 08/19/2009 7:38 PM
Hide
-4+

Good. I hate when I go on a page and there is music playing.

scuba dave 08/19/2009 7:43 PM
Hide
-0+

fooldog01 :
This would have been GREAT news... if I didn't quit using Myspace 5 years ago.



Pretty much. I used MySpace in my drunken college-ish days, lol. Soon as i sobered up.. Found i just didn't care for it anymore. All it was ever good for was drunken comments anyway, lol.

megamanx00 08/19/2009 7:48 PM
Hide
-0+

Thank God. Some people tell me to look at their profile and they they have like six or seven things trying to play at the same time through my poor firefox browser. I only recently stated using myspace again so while I probably wouldn't have cared a month ago I currently find this to be good news :D.

joz 08/19/2009 7:52 PM
Hide
-5+

Thank god for Facebook, and not having to deal with myspace "OMG MORE COLOR/MORE NOISE" pages.

duckmanx88 08/19/2009 8:02 PM
Hide
-1+

seriously it take 1 second to load a fb page. i go on myspace and one page has a million picture, backgrounds, bideos, and music that i have to load first. half the accounts on there are anime characters and fake celebrity profiles.

P_haze420 08/19/2009 8:53 PM
Show
uronacid 08/19/2009 9:15 PM
Hide
--1+

P_haze420 :
Myspace= WhoresFacebook= DouchebagsTwitter= Terrorist



How did you make the correlation between them?

thejerk 08/19/2009 9:38 PM
Show
cknobman 08/19/2009 9:44 PM
Hide
-11+

AMDnoob :
why the crap did i get a -1 for my previous comment?! It's not different than the other hating ones!



I gave you thumbs down on both your posts for being a whiney bitch!

thepetey 08/19/2009 9:52 PM
Hide
-4+

cknobman :
I gave you thumbs down on both your posts for being a whiney bitch!


+1 haha

zingam 08/19/2009 9:58 PM
Show
doomtomb 08/19/2009 10:00 PM
Hide
--1+

This is evidence that myspace is about to jump ship.

marcus_br 08/19/2009 10:09 PM
Hide
-3+

Let's now check all these bloated numbers:

1 billion mp3 playbacks.
Supposing they are each 5 megabytes (hardly), then we get 5 billion megabytes, which is basically 5 million gigabytes... or 5000 terabytes.

Email marketing received from the planet this month:

"Get 10 TB of Bandwidth FREE With Your Dedicated Server"

That's basically 10 TB of bandwidth for each $500 considering a NICE dedicated server (lot of ram, disk and cpu power, pretty much quad core with 8 gb ram and some nice 2 or more 1 TB sized disks..the type you would not EVER need for streaming).

Now...5000 is 500 times what they are giving...

So, 500 times $500 equals $250.000.
I've maxed out every possible number and it's still 1/40 of what they are reporting.

Now let's look it the other and correct way (not abusing a promo received by email):

Streaming server price: $300 each (and that's already expensive, streaming the way they do is E-A-S-Y).

1 billion streams/month equals 385 streaming clients per second, let's say streaming takes a whole 5 minutes (wow, full 5 minute musics with 5 mb for EVERY page)...and that will give us a MAX of 385 * 300 clientes (5 minutes = 300 seconds)...which equals to 115.500 connections.
Let's say each of these specialized servers can handle 1000 connections? (easily)...that will take 100 servers.
Let's triple to be sure? 300 servers, costing $300 each, that will give us $90.000/month. But we still need the bandwidth (actually each server comes with AT LEAST 5 mbps, but let's assume they don't):

Then we have to actually calculate how many mbps would we need for 5000 TB/month.
First we make it Tbps, multiplying by 8, that is: 40000 Tb/month.
A month has 2592000 seconds, so 40000 Tb divided by 2592000 equals a minimum of 0,01543 tbps connection...that is actually 15 gbps connection.
Let's assume their peak traffic is 10 times bigger than night hours etc...then they'd need 150 gbps pipes.
I've bought high speed connections (370 mbps) at $4 per mbps.
So, assuming they pay for 15 gbps the same value i did for 370 mbps, that would be U$$ 614.400 per month on connection...plus $90 k for the servers...$700.

Well, not even making the numbers ABSURDLY high i could reach 1/10 of what they declare to be paying.
Maybe add 300 techs (1 per server? LOL) each doing $7k month? Well, that'd take us up to $2.1 mil...plus the server costs, it would go up to $2.8 mil.

So...whatever way you look and inflate the numbers you still can't justify a 10 million bill per month. Someone up there must be completely idiot...or simple a HUGE liar.

Most likely they are not spending even $100k month with it all.

marcus_br 08/19/2009 10:13 PM
Hide
-0+

Ops, forgive my typos :) 15 gbps = 150 gbps (the values are correct) etc.

kittle 08/19/2009 10:25 PM
Hide
-1+

marcus_br :
So...whatever way you look and inflate the numbers you still can't justify a 10 million bill per month. Someone up there must be completely idiot...or simple a HUGE liar.Most likely they are not spending even $100k month with it all.



Ever consider maybe they pay a fee to somebody to stream each song in addition to JUST bandwidth?

marcus_br 08/19/2009 10:43 PM
Hide
--1+

Hardly ever.

Let's say they do pay 3 million in servers and spend 7 million paying "fees".
10 - 3 = 7.

7 million / 1 billion = 0,007 dollars per stream, which is 0,7 cents...almost 1 cent per stream.
So you're telling me if i can setup my myspace page to have 1 million visits/month i would be getting $7000?
That's pretty good, a nice $7 cpm, much higher than google adsense ever pays :)

Do i just upload a song to them and start getting that much? I have a 10 million page views site, you know, maybe i could redirect...upload my own personal music and do some 70k/month.

I doubt strongly though. That's just a LOT of money (10 mi) whatever way you look at it...

Anonymous 08/20/2009 12:32 PM
Hide
-0+

Everytime I go on somebody's MySpace page, it visually appears to me that it should be written in crayon with the "e's" reversed. MySpace is for children. Anybody over the age of, oh, sixteen should've switched to Facebook by now. Anybody over the age of thirty should be using LinkedIn.

Maxor127 08/20/2009 1:31 AM
Hide
-0+

I still prefer Myspace over Facebook. Neither are great though. And I agree, this is a good idea. I just use them to keep in touch with friends. I never even bother updating my profile or leaving stupid statuses and stuff.

matt87_50 08/20/2009 1:59 AM
Hide
-0+

good idea. it extremely irritating anyway to suddenly have fifty thousand songs blaring out of your speakers and having to hunt through all your browser pages to find how to turn them off.

winterlord 08/20/2009 3:10 AM
Hide
-0+

iv never personaly used myspace. but iv visited before and god thats the best thing thats ever happened there im sure

reininop 08/20/2009 4:01 AM
Hide
-0+

Having avoided all of these social networking sites for various reasons, I am curious what the appeal to Myspace was and why Facebook has now become it's successor? I get why people use them, just not why people suddenly starting switching a few years ago. MySpace has always been loud and annoying. I hardly believe everyone "grew up".

nachowarrior 08/20/2009 5:09 AM
Hide
--1+

marcus_br :
Let's now check all these bloated numbers:1 billion mp3 playbacks.Supposing they are each 5 megabytes (hardly), then we get 5 billion megabytes, which is basically 5 million gigabytes...



You forgot one thing... Myspace's bloated code. It loops back on itself and throws so many useless threads that it could make a dual socket 12 core opteron server perform like a pentium 266. :-p

michaelahess 08/20/2009 5:10 AM
Hide
--1+

Social Networking, stupid N00bs.... There's this thing called REAL Life, much better, unless you have no life. Oh wait, that's what these sites were created for. Nevermind!

jerrspud 08/20/2009 4:37 PM
Hide
-0+

I tuned off the autoplay in my setting a long time ago. You can also turn on lite view so you dont have to wait for some that has a bloated page.

Sponsored links