⋆ Welcome to Punk Engineering ⋆

By Amira Sinclair

Dear Reader:

If you found this page, you're likely already questioning why your devices feel less like yours each year. Maybe you miss burning CDs for friends, or you're tired of depending on streaming services for playlists keeping up with what your friends are listening to.

This site explores how recent tecnological advancements led to a collective loss of ownership of music technology—and how it can be reclaimed.

If you keep reading you will learn about:

• a recent history of music tech
• The hidden politics of platform-controlled music streaming
• Why analog music is resurging
• DIY projects to reclaim tech autonomy
• Steps to engage with community of fellow punk engineers

The Problem and Opportunity:

Over the past three decades, consumer technology has undergone a transformation toward capital-driven consumerism. Devices that were once easy to deconstruct, customize, and repair (boomboxes, Walkmans, CD players, early MP3 players) have been replaced by sealed products designed for planned obsolescence rather than longevity. This shift represents more than an aesthetic preference for the thinnest, shiniest model; it reflects engineering and business decisions that prioritize control and profit over user autonomy. As the right-to-repair movement continues to gain momentum and concerns about e-waste intensify, there is both a need and an opportunity to examine how we arrived here—and how we can design differently.

Although subscription streaming has become the dominant form of music consumption, we are starting to see a resurgence in analog forms of listening (CD/record/MP3 players), as music lovers seek to reclaim agency and community. As someone building a CD and MP3 collection and engaging in local music spaces, I have felt how tinkering with devices and buying/borrowing pieces locally broadens my relationship with music tech. The implications extend far beyond music: tractors, smartphones, medical devices, and the broader philosophy of how we design technology for public good.

Use the navigation buttons below or on the side to explore the sections, or scroll to read in order.

Click any section to jump to that part of the research

✶ Introduction

Music is not Neutral

Music has always been more than a fun pastime. It is how people form identities, build friendships, organize movements, and mark time. Protest songs, local scenes, mixtapes passed between friends, and records debated in store aisles all demonstrate how deeply music is embedded in social and political life (Roy). Because music is a key component of cultural infrastructure, the technologies that distribute it matter. They structure access, labor, identity, and power.

Scholars in science and technology studies argue that technologies are not neutral tools but artifacts embedded in social and economic systems that shape their effects (Winner). Over the past three decades, music listening technologies have undergone one of the most rapid transformations in cultural history. What once existed as a decentralized ecosystem of physical media, repairable devices, local shops, and interpersonal sharing has been largely replaced by centralized, subscription-based music platforms.

What I mean by “streaming” in this project:
Throughout this page, streaming does not mean “audio transmitted over the internet.” I’m talking about platformized streaming systems—large, corporate-controlled infrastructures that organize music distribution, discovery, and monetization through subscription dependency, algorithmic curation, and data extraction. This definition draws on the concept of platformization, which describes how cultural production becomes reorganized around the logics and governance of major platforms (Nieborg and Poell). Streaming as a technical capability is not inherently harmful; the problem is the political and economic conditions that platformized streaming embeds into everyday cultural participation (Kiberg and Spilker); (Hodgson); (Winner).

Punk engineering argues that platformized streaming did not simply modernize music consumption; it reorganized the cultural, technical, and economic infrastructure of music in ways that concentrate power, reduce user autonomy, and narrow participation. Using Spotify as a primary case study, I show how subscription platforms function as a form of planned obsolescence— not of devices, but of ownership, agency, and cultural participation. I then examine counter-movements through which listeners and musicians reclaim autonomy and propose punk engineering as a framework for user-driven, anti-obsolescence design.

✶ Punk Engineering

Punk engineering describes user-driven approaches to technology that prioritize repairability, customization, transparency, and community knowledge over platform control and planned obsolescence.

Principles of Punk Engineering

• Repairable and modifiable systems
• Interoperable and exportable data
• Legible, non–black-box design
• Minimal data extraction
• Community documentation and shared learning

The framework stems from convergent movements in right-to-repair advocacy and insurgent urban design.

The right-to-repair movement represents a growing refusal to accept planned obsolescence and corporate control over technology. From tractors to smartphones, this movement fights for the basic idea that if you own something, you should be able to understand it, fix it, and modify it. (Limn Issue 11) documents how obsolescence has become embedded across industries—from John Deere tractors’ proprietary software preventing farmers from repairing equipment they spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on. And if they cannot fix their own tools, do they really own them. The movement, championed by advocates like Kyle Wiens of iFixit (Limn), argues that this shift harms consumers, stifles innovation, and creates massive environmental waste.

At the same time, research on “punk urbanism” in Kigali, Rwanda describes how residents restore their communities in response to destructive capitalist ventures that persist under the veil of “sustainable development” by “hacking into and hijacking state functions through collective processes of unauthorized repair” (Shearer). This illustrates how communities develop insurgent, decentralized alternatives when top-down technological solutions fail them.

The collective organizing, repairability, and user empowerment at the heart of these movements inspire the foundation of what I call punk engineering. And with this punk framework, I believe we can produce viable alternatives to today’s platform-dominated design defaults.

Planned Obsolescence with Invisible Cracks

Planned obsolescence can be defined as the “design or production of a product with an artificially limited lifespan through deliberately decreased functionality” (Design After Capitalism). It’s the strategy where companies intentionally make products that will stop working, stop being repairable, or stop being compatible to promote new purchases.

Streaming is often framed as “just access,” but in platformized form it quietly makes ownership obsolete. Music subscriptions function as planned obsolescence by making cultural participation contingent on continuous payment (or continuous ad exposure) to a third party—inside a system you cannot meaningfully modify, export, or govern.

Platformized streaming eliminates ownership not by destroying files but by ensuring users never possess them. Libraries disappear when payment stops. Playlists cannot be exported cleanly. Catalogs shift without notice. Stability is replaced with perpetual dependency.

This is why I’m careful with language: the issue is not “streaming as a technical medium.” The issue is the platformization of streaming into a monopolized cultural infrastructure (Nieborg and Poell).

✶ Methodologies

How Punk Engineering Thinks About Technology

Punk engineering rejects technological determinism (TD), generally characterized as “the belief that social progress is driven by technological innovation, which in turn follows an ‘inevitable’ course” (Smith, 1994), in favor of a sociotechnical approach.

Developed by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker in 1984, the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) heuristic framework argues that technologies emerge through social negotiation rather than inevitability. In contrast to TD, SCOT asserts that there are other paths that technological development might have taken—that our current technologies developed as they are not because their design is perfect and inevitable but because they won a struggle for dominance.

Large Technological Systems (LTS) theory complements this by emphasizing that technologies operate as interconnected systems rather than isolated tools (Hughes 52). Streaming platforms are embedded within licensing regimes, smartphone ecosystems, recommendation infrastructures, and advertising markets.

Finally, Langdon Winner’s argument about technological politics explains how stabilized technologies actively structure power relations. What matters, Winner argues, is not the technology itself but the social and economic conditions in which it is embedded (Winner 122).

Together, these frameworks help substantiate my analysis of how platformized streaming became dominant, how it structures culture once entrenched, and how collective participation in technology can reopen the design space.

✶ Music Tech History

Before Platformized Streaming: Music as Objects, Spaces, and Social Practice

Before platformized streaming systems became dominant, music participation was inseparable from physical objects and communal spaces. Walkmans, cassette decks, CD players, and early MP3 players defined the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, serving as personal artifacts that could be decorated, repaired, modified, and shared. Record stores and radio stations functioned as hubs of cultural exchange, providing human curation and spontaneous social discovery rather than algorithmic sorting (NMAAHC). These spaces not only spread cultural influence; they developed it through spontaneous collaboration and community building—as depicted in films like Empire Records (1995), (500) Days of Summer (2009), and Pretty in Pink (1986).

Scholars describe record stores as spaces of cultural education as much as retail, particularly within Black and local music communities (NMAAHC). These spaces functioned as heterotopias: informal, non-hegemonic sites essential to cultural life but difficult to regulate or control.

Early digital music did not immediately erase this ecosystem. File-sharing platforms such as Napster enabled decentralized discovery and sharing, with music circulating directly between users’ hard drives. Discovery was mediated by people, not faceless platforms.

The Rupture: Napster, Fearmongering, and Centralization

Napster revealed how easily music could circulate outside corporate control. The industry response was swift and punitive, with lawsuits targeting platforms and individuals alike, including minors. Lime Wire alone settled for $105 million with the RIAA (CNET). This legal crackdown reframed decentralized sharing as dangerous and illegitimate, generating widespread fear around downloading music.

In response, demand grew for a “safe,” legal alternative. Apple’s iPod and iTunes briefly offered digital ownership under restrictive DRM, but this model was short-lived. The invention of iPods helped lay groundwork for the iPhone and modern smartphones—cornerstones of contemporary technology—but Apple abandoned its digital music marketplace once Spotify gained traction, pivoting toward a subscription-first ecosystem (Phelan).

From a SCOT perspective, this moment represents closure: the “problem” of music distribution was redefined from how people own and share music to how people access music frictionlessly. Once stabilized, alternatives were treated as obsolete.

✶ The Streaming Problem

Spotify as a Case Study in Platform Power

Like many, I remember making my Spotify account after the platform expanded to the United States in 2011. I debated with my friends on whether it or Pandora was superior. Evidently my pick would win out, but it wasn't until over a decade later that I would realize the implications of renting out the catalog of my entire music identity each month.

As it began to take off, Spotify was credited with “saving” the music industry and democratizing access. For many users, Spotify initially felt liberating—an expansive library accessible instantly without the friction of physical media or illegal downloads. However, closer examination reveals a system that consolidates power while presenting itself as neutral infrastructure.

Important clarification: Spotify is not the same thing as “streaming.” Spotify is a flagship example of platformized streaming—a corporate, infrastructural model in which music participation becomes dependent on proprietary platforms that control discovery, monetization, and identity formation (Nieborg and Poell).

Spotify operates as a subscription-based platform that only recently became profitable, reporting its first full year of profitability in 2024 after more than sixteen years of operation (The Verge); (Axios). During that time, Spotify aggressively expanded its user base while operating at a loss, a strategy common among platform-based firms seeking market dominance before monetization.

Recent scholarship shows that Spotify has entered an “auxiliary services” phase, expanding beyond music into podcasts, audiobooks, ambient sound, and other audio content without increasing subscription prices (Kiberg and Spilker). As a result, music must now compete with other forms of audio for the same revenue pool, shrinking artists’ share (Kiberg and Spilker). As one industry source noted, “other content is taking a big part of a cake that, unfortunately, is not getting any bigger” (Kiberg and Spilker).

Artists earn, on average, between $0.003 and $0.009 per stream, with per-stream payouts declining 43% between 2018 and 2020 (USA Today); (Ditto Music). In 2024, Spotify further reduced songwriter compensation by reclassifying its premium subscription as a “bundle” that included audiobooks, a move estimated to reduce songwriter royalties by approximately $150 million annually (The Guardian Australia). Although this reclassification was legally upheld, it illustrates how platform design decisions redistribute value away from creators without altering consumer-facing prices (Reuters).

Spotify’s recommendation infrastructure further consolidates platform power. Investigations have documented the prioritization of royalty-free and internally commissioned “Perfect Fit Content,” including music released under pseudonymous or “fake” artist names that reduce royalty obligations (NPR); (Pelly). A Swedish newspaper uncovered 830 fake artist names from one label, with composer Johan Röhr releasing under 50 aliases and 656 artist names, accumulating 15 billion streams (This is Lorem Ipsum). These incentives reshape music creation itself. Because Spotify registers a stream for royalty purposes only after thirty seconds, artists increasingly optimize song structures to hook listeners immediately, shortening intros and flattening form (Hodgson).

Spotify Wrapped exemplifies the platform’s broader data-extraction model. Wrapped presents listening data as personalized self-expression, transforming private musical habits into shareable identity artifacts. However, this data is generated through continuous surveillance of listening behavior and repurposed for advertiser segmentation. As documented in Mood Machine, a Spotify executive stated: “We know if you’re listening to your chill playlist in the morning, you may be doing yoga, so we serve you a contextually relevant ad” (Pelly). What appears as celebration is, in practice, identity commodification.

As Langdon Winner argues, stabilized artifacts do not merely reflect social relations; they actively structure them (Winner 122). Spotify enforces subscription dependency, obscures value flows, and converts musical participation into data production. In doing so, it transforms music from a practice of ownership and community into a corporate-mediated identity product.

✶ Counter Movements and Community Response

Music Tech User Perspectives

To begin developing a collective vision for music tech beyond platformized streaming systems, I made a 24-question survey asking users about listening habits, how they share music, what formats matter, and what they think about streaming platforms and device ownership. Below are selected responses from the form which illustrate how these systems are experienced by listeners.

Many respondents described detachment from their music libraries:

“It doesn’t feel like my music anymore. It feels like I’m borrowing it.”

Others expressed frustration with algorithmic discovery:

“I keep getting recommended the same kind of music.”

Several emphasized the loss of communal discovery:

“I found way more music through friends and shows than through playlists.”

Notably, nearly all respondents reported listening to music for more than ten hours per week. Music is a cornerstone of many people’s lives, so the infrastructure that supports it matters.

Analog Music Resurgence

Despite the dominance of platformized streaming systems, physical media is experiencing a comeback. Vinyl sales, cassette culture, CD collecting, and iPod mod communities represent more than nostalgia—they signal unmet needs: ownership, stability, identity, and the ability to make a device “yours” again.

In recent years, record stores like South Chicago’s The Record Track have seen growth and new customers as younger generations revisit analog listening technologies, (Black-Owned Record Shop). This resurgence keeps local businesses thriving while using technological innovation for global reach—showing that autonomy and modern tools can coexist.

Spotify Boycotts

Artists and listeners alike are questioning and confronting platform monopolies. The economic and artistic motivations behind boycott movements intensified when Spotify CEO Daniel Ek invested $693.6 million in Helsing, an AI defense technology startup. “This technology has been criticized for its role in propelling the military-industrial complex, with ethical concerns over how the technology has been used to target and surveille different communities” (Forbes). Musicians have always been at odds with Spotify, but this seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for many groups, prompting artists like Massive Attack to remove their music from the platform (Pitchfork). King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard also responded to AI impersonators on their profiles with the statement “we are truly doomed” (Pitchfork). There is a growing sentiment among music listeners and creators alike that it is time to transition away from the deeply problematic platform.

✶ Punk Projects

In the face of the technocratic control of a platformized streaming system, punk engineering’s DIY ethics—prioritizing user agency, repairability, and community over profit—might seem out of reach. But what could it look like in practice for the everyday person? As a proof of concept—and my first acts as a punk engineer—I undertook two engineering projects in disciplines where I’m not an expert to show how we can all engage in punk engineering through process, not perfection.

DIY MP3 Player Project

The Challenge: Building tech from scratch as a non-expert.

The Process: I began with an Instructables tutorial as my foundation, then found another project that filled in technical gaps. Inspired by the Minty MP3 project, I decided to house mine in an Altoids tin—a classic punk engineering aesthetic choice.

The Community: Working in the university makerspace, I soldered connections while troubleshooting with peers. Every challenge became collaborative. The process revealed how complex tech becomes approachable when you can see what’s under the hood—and lean on community for guidance.

The Lesson: It’s still buggy, but I understand every wire. This ongoing project proves that asserting autonomy and reclaiming tech doesn’t require perfection—it requires participation.

Neocities Music Blog

This page itself is punk engineering in practice. Neocities is a static web hosting platform and social network of 1,391,000 websites that allows anyone to create their own site with basic HTML/CSS for free—without ads or data brokerage (Neocities, 2025). They’re bringing back the creativity of the early web (think MySpace and GeoCities) before sealed platforms and corporate privatization took over.

With only foundational coding knowledge, I learned from tutorials, blogs, and other users to develop this site. The social aspect led to a teenage punk enthusiast from the UK discovering my page, commenting, and filling out my Music Tech Autonomy form.

This demonstrates that the solution is not “less tech.” It’s more agency: choosing tools and building spaces that don’t require us to surrender ownership, identity, and culture to platform logics. Punk is in the process, so every downloaded song or recommendation from a friend instead of an algorithm is a step in designing your own listening experience.

✶ Conclusion

Platformized streaming did not have to look the way it does. SCOT reminds us that technologies could have been otherwise and are constantly developing. Winner reminds us that artifacts we use have inherent politics that should not be ignored. And with punk engineering, we can reframe music technology as something users can understand, modify, and enjoy freely.

Protecting music culture does not require rejecting innovation. It requires insisting that innovation serve people rather than platforms. By reclaiming technical agency, we reopen the design space for culture itself.

To be clear: streaming is not inherently evil. Streaming as a technical medium can support access, archiving, and discovery. The problem is the platformization of streaming into monopolized cultural infrastructure—systems that inherently limit user participation in cultural development by centralizing control of discovery, monetization, and identity (Nieborg and Poell). Some critics have argued that culture shows signs of stagnation under optimization-driven systems; I treat that claim as a warning signal worth investigating, not as a settled fact (Farago).

Every downloaded song, repaired device, and shared schematic is a refusal to outsource your cultural life. Punk engineering isn’t about rejecting technology—it’s about refusing to let technology reject us.

Join the movement. Share your builds. Reclaim your tech.

Works Cited

• Axios. "Spotify Posts First Full Year Profit Ever." Axios, 4 Feb. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/02/04/spotify-posts-first-full-year-profit-ever.
• Bijker, Wiebe E., and Trevor J. Pinch. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts." The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, 1987, pp. 17–50.
• "Black-Owned Record Shop On South Side Riding Vinyl's Resurgence To Worldwide Sales." YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8We1ju59urY.
• Circuit Diagrams. "Arduino Mini MP3 Player." circuitdiagrams.in/arduino-mini-mp3-player/.
• CNET. "Lime Wire Settles with RIAA for $105 Million." CNET, www.cnet.com/culture/lime-wire-settles-with-riaa-for-105-million/.
• Design After Capitalism. "Glossary." designaftercapitalism.org/glossary.
• Ditto Music. "How Much Does Spotify Pay Per Stream?" dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream/.
• Farago, Jason. "Why Culture Has Come to a Standstill." The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/magazine/stale-culture.html.
• Forbes. "Why the Spotify Boycott Is About More Than Music." Forbes, 8 Nov. 2025, www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2025/11/08/why-the-spotify-boycott-is-about-more-than-music/.
• The Guardian Australia. "Spotify Audiobook Bundle Royalties System Authors." The Guardian, 2 July 2024, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/spotify-audiobook-bundle-royalties-system-authors.
• Hodgson, Sophie. "Spotify and the Democratisation of Music." Popular Music and Society, 2021.
• Hughes, Thomas P. "The Evolution of Large Technological Systems." The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, 1987, pp. 51–82.
• Instructables. "Arduino Retro Style MP3 Player." www.instructables.com/Arduino-Retro-Style-MP3-Player/.
• Kiberg, Håvard, and Hendrik Storstein Spilker. "One More Turn after the Algorithmic Turn? Spotify's Colonization of the Online Audio Space." Popular Communication, 2023, pp. 165–167.
• Limn Issue 11: "The Obsolescence Issue." Edited by Townsend Middleton, Gökçe Günel, Ashley Carse. Published Nov. 2024. https://doi.org/10.70312/LIMN.11.
• This Is Lorem Ipsum. "The Fake Artists Epidemic That Haunts Spotify." thisisloremipsum.com/post/the-fake-artists-epidemic-that-haunts-spotify.
• Adafruit Learning System. "Minty MP3." learn.adafruit.com/minty-mp3?view=all.
• Neocities. neocities.org/.
• Nieborg, David B., and Thomas Poell. "The Platformization of Cultural Production: Theorizing the Contingent Cultural Commodity." Social Media + Society, 2018, doi:10.1177/1461444818769694.
• National Museum of African American History and Culture. "Neighborhood Record Stores: Supplying Music and Cultural Education." NMAAHC, nmaahc.si.edu.
• NPR. "Spotify Is Accused of Creating Fake Artists, But What Is a Fake Artist?" 12 July 2017, www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/07/12/536670493/spotify-is-accused-of-creating-fake-artists-but-what-is-a-fake-artist.
• Pelly, Liz. "The Ghosts in the Machine." Harper's Magazine, Jan. 2025, web.archive.org/web/20241221144306/https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/.
• Pelly, Liz. Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist. Simon & Schuster, 2024.
• Phelan, David. "Death Of The iPod: The Real Reason Apple Killed Off The iPod." Forbes, 11 May 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2022/05/11/death-of-the-ipod-the-real-reason-apple-killed-off-the-ipod-iphone-13-pro/.
• Pitchfork. "King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard Respond to Spotify Impersonator: 'We Are Truly Doomed.'" pitchfork.com/news/king-gizzard-and-the-lizard-wizard-respond-to-spotify-impersonator-we-are-truly-doomed/.
• Pitchfork. "Massive Attack Say They'll Remove Music from Spotify." pitchfork.com/news/massive-attack-say-theyll-remove-music-from-spotify/.
• Reuters. "Spotify Defeats US Licensing Group's Lawsuit Over Royalties." 29 Jan. 2025, www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/spotify-defeats-us-licensing-groups-lawsuit-over-royalties-2025-01-29/.
• Roy, William G. "Music and Social Change: Reflections on the Relationship between Sound and Society." Social Forces, vol. 79, no. 2, 2001, pp. 485–516.
• Shearer, Samuel. "Repair: Punk Urbanism." Kigali: A New City for the End of the World, 1st ed., vol. 20, University of California Press, 2025, pp. 113–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.33535047.9.
• Tennant, Lewis. From Independent Record Shops to the Internet. Diss. Auckland University of Technology, 2016.
• USA Today. "How Much Per Spotify Stream?" 22 Oct. 2022, www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/10/22/how-much-per-spotify-stream/8094437001/.
• The Verge. "Spotify Earnings Q4 2024 Profitability." www.theverge.com/news/605709/spotify-earnings-q4-2024-profitability.
• Winner, Langdon. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, 1980, pp. 121–136.