241–250 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify has that as well, they included explicit warnings a while back.
Really, that was one of the reasons I left. I might look again.
I don't see what the technical issue is, if I apply a filter, I get the clean version or it skips the track - if I don't have it on, I get the explicit version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree about this. I like Google Music and unlike Apple Music it didn't and doesn't want to delete all my music then shrug and say it's my fault for not buying from Apple, but... I can't even use youtube while my 3 year old daughter tries to listen to her bath music. It's pretty ridiculous.
This happened with MP3s? It happened to me with several hundred PDFs of sheet music from IMSLP that I was storing on iBooks. I couldn't work out where they had gone or why they were wiped. I switched to GoodReader and painstakingly had to rebuild the entire collection.
Apple is not just an expensive cloud service provider, they're an untrustworthy one.
These problems have been going of for years. Apple just doesn't invest enough to fix the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"pushing political agenda" "politics shoved in my face" "don't agree with his politics" It's always the same boring meme phrases. I know that having a persecution complex is effective politicking but it comes off immature. I read the article you posted. You should understand that an individual artist is more important to Spotify than an individual user to Spotify. Especially artists like: Men At Work and Savage Garde…
> "pushing political agenda" "politics shoved in my face" "don't agree with his politics" Spotify has company created playlists specifically for the travel ban and DACA, permanently in the Browse section. Yes, they are pushing their agenda in users' faces. Why not just remove the complaining artists? Why remove the entire playlist? Do you believe that if the political roles were reversed between politician and artist…
Spotify as a company can push whatever politics they want to. It's a business decision, if it loses them users then it's upto their management to determine whether that was a good option or not.
You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you.
Saying they're shoving their politics in your face is hyperbole. If I read a business focussed newspaper, they're likely to have articles that are anti-climate change. I don't agree but I'm in their house.
>Why not just remove the complaining artists? Why remove the entire playlist?
https://press.spotify.com/uk/about/ "Number of playlists: Over 2 billion"
2 billion playlists, why expend the manpower to do that? Paying moderators isn't free.
>Do you believe that if the political roles were reversed between politician and artist that Spotify would nuke the whole playlist? I sure don't.
Why don't you describe an actual hypothetical scenario?
That a politician created a playlist called Liberal Music and some artists complained. Saying that they want nothing to do with the politician and their party. Also at least one artist indicated that they'd contact their publisher to take action.
Why wouldn't Spotify just take the playlist down? It's the easy action. Playlists are just lists of songs, the songs are still there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steady on: firstly, this is not average Joe or Josephine here, it's a politician using Artists on Spotify and their music to make a political stunt, so it's not like Spotify have politicized anything. Secondly, the artists themselves complained about it, and somebody reported the issue to Spotify. Using musicians to promote an agenda they disagree with is hardly an innocent act when a politician does it. FWIW, Spotif…
It's definitely a he said/she said situation, but it's between two very politically active entities. Spotify still has an anti-travel ban playlist in their browse section after almost a year. It's their business and they can do what they want, but they are in no way coming from a politically neutral standpoint.
I was originally quite surprised to see comments suggesting that Spotify was very political, because I've never considered that myself in ten years and I still can't see after trawling all over my Spotify account - there's literally nothing I can see that's overly political, except the politics section of the podcasts. Obviously it's tailored to me, but I really can't find anything. I would probably more offended by Spotify suggesting I like the Spice Girls or Justin Bieber than anything else, TBH.
I rarely read the full thread on HN but read this one to see if anyone had mentioned Echo or Alexa-enabled devices. Surprising that no one did, esp given how many they have sold. We are an Apple household primarily but also have a Google Home and recently bought an Alexa-enabled car charger (Anker/Roav Viva). The only service that will work across the board is Spotify. In that regard Spotify is like Netflix -- availa…
Not to sanction further consolidation or oligopoly issues, but Spotify has long seemed like a logical acquisition for Amazon. - Fix Prime's song catalogue size issue (still an issue?) - Grab massive market share and upsell/bundle other services - Provide bargaining power to Spotify - Get access to very advanced IP - Integrate with voice ui further (i.e. smarter voice commands including play list creations, complex re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "pushing political agenda" "politics shoved in my face" "don't agree with his politics" Spotify has company created playlists specifically for the travel ban and DACA, permanently in the Browse section. Yes, they are pushing their agenda in users' faces. Why not just remove the complaining artists? Why remove the entire playlist? Do you believe that if the political roles were reversed between politician and artist…
There's two things here. Spotify as a company can push whatever politics they want to. It's a business decision, if it loses them users then it's upto their management to determine whether that was a good option or not. You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you. Saying they're s…
If you read my other comments in this thread you'll see I agree.
> You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you.
It is a company owned by liberals. Semantics, but important ones. Also you pose a strawman. I never suggested they be obligated to appeal to me, just that their political posturing doesn't and that I'm nearing the point where I will also exercise my free will and leave.
> Saying they're shoving their politics in your face is hyperbole. If I read a business focussed newspaper, they're likely to have articles that are anti-climate change.
Not a proper comparison. I get a newspaper specifically to read about politics. I don't do the same for a music streaming service, as much as you probably don't want a plumber coming to your house and lecturing you on how Trump's America is fantastic.
> Why wouldn't Spotify just take the playlist down? It's the easy action.
Why has the decided soft, yet ham-handed, censorship of conservatives become a systemic issue with online services, be it Facebook, Twitter or even Spotify? Why does the far left need even their music streaming service to be an echo chamber?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's two things here. Spotify as a company can push whatever politics they want to. It's a business decision, if it loses them users then it's upto their management to determine whether that was a good option or not. You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you. Saying they're s…
> Spotify as a company can push whatever politics they want to. If you read my other comments in this thread you'll see I agree. > You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you. It is a company owned by liberals. Semantics, but important ones. Also you pose a strawman. I never sugge…
A company is a tool of it's owners, everyone else involved is paid agents of the ownership. The distinction you draw isn't important, it's meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "pushing political agenda" "politics shoved in my face" "don't agree with his politics" Spotify has company created playlists specifically for the travel ban and DACA, permanently in the Browse section. Yes, they are pushing their agenda in users' faces. Why not just remove the complaining artists? Why remove the entire playlist? Do you believe that if the political roles were reversed between politician and artist…
There's two things here. Spotify as a company can push whatever politics they want to. It's a business decision, if it loses them users then it's upto their management to determine whether that was a good option or not. You should accept that Spotify is a "liberal" company either as a stance of the management or as who they see their most engaged users to be. Everything doesn't need to appeal to you. Saying they're s…
What tech company isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't speak for Google or Apple, but I know that Spotify's entry into a country is largely dictated by rights holders. They themselves would like to offer everything to everyone, of course.
Its directed by spotifys ability to negotiate with rights holders.
Getting to play the "well what about digital rights" seems like a cop-out for the previously mentioned reasons. It would anyways in my accounting department.