Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 963 posts

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#331

Post by jbeales »

cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

Here's the thing(s):

1. It's not just 1 type of ad. In Little Snitch, I have permitted Spotify to connect to 281 different domain names, most of which are ad-related. That's a lot of companies being allowed to run JS in whatever webview Spotify uses to display ads. I don't listen much on my computer anymore.

2. They keep advertising deals to me - $0.99 for a month, or $9 for 3 months, that I can't subscribe to because they don't let people in Quebec sign up for them, (something related to the consumer protection laws here). These ads are audio, in-app visuals, and even E-mails. This leaves a horrible taste in my mouth, and I've let them know several times, but they never change it. That, combined with the fact that I feel like the $10/month subscription is a tad expensive, make me very reluctant to subscribe again, (I was a subscriber through my mobile phone plane for a long time). At $5/month I'd subscribe instantly. $7-8 I'd probably still do it. $9-10 I can buy 10-12 CDs per year that I own in perpetuity.

I feel like if they did the ads right, (in-house, with non-insulting geotargeting), or offered a subscription price closer to one latté per month, I would have a lot less animosity and be more supportive of this move.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#332

Post by cglace »

alexgmcm wrote: post #316
ar0 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will all depend on how this plays out in practice. For now, this is only some fineprint in a ton of other legalese that might or might not be used in the future. I mean, if they show you a notification that you should really sign-up for a paid subscription or disable your adblocker, this does not really seem a big deal for me and all right for Spotify. However, if they terminate your account because you ha…

I think the main competition will be Amazon Music as I already have access to it due to my Prime account. I have a Spotify subscription because Amazon Music didn't used to exist and now I am used to Spotify, but if I'm paying for Amazon Prime anyway then why not make the switch?

Because the Amazon music subscription you get through prime is terrible.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#333

Post by bhauer »

bliblah wrote: post #309
cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

Why should spotify have any say on what software you use on your computer?

> Why should spotify have any say on what software you use on your computer?

They don't, clearly, as there are people who are running software they would prefer people don't run.

What they do have a say on is whether you get to have a Spotify account, and they can base that on whether or not you're seeing the ads their software uses for revenue.

You of course have the option to pay for the service, which results in the ads being removed from the service.

I say all this as someone who doesn't use Spotify at all.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#334

Post by bcruddy »

zzzcpan wrote: post #303
cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

No, paying for service doesn't guarantee ad-free and tracking-free experience at all, especially for VC backed companies. They probably already inject tons of tracking for paying users. And those users are still just users, not customers. The only real customers of spotify are advertisers and sooner or later paying users are going to be sold to advertisers, there is just more money there and they can't ignore that.

It sounds like they're only suspending free accounts for adblockers. At the same time, I don't mind spotify tracking how I use the application. It generates valuable data for their product managers to improve the overall experience. If there's evidence spotify is using this data to track users across the internet, then there's problem.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#335

Post by Retra »

School-Cotton wrote: post #308
Pharmakon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. Fuck the money, I’m not letting a site run arbitrary code on my machine, especially when they have a track record of spying and installing malware. They have a right to make a living, I have a right to own my property without having it damaged by casual greed.

Well sure, then don't use Spotify, what's the problem? If a business is offering a product at terms you don't like, how exactly is that bad? Just don't use the product.

You mean they're not allowed to complain about it on the internet?

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#336

Post by Nursie »

I like spotify, I pay for a family subscription which gives us an account each for my partner and I, plus a bunch of spare accounts for things like Sonos and Alexa to use. Never hear an ad because I pay for the service.

If they did start shooting ads at me, I'd cancel in a flash, same goes for Netflix etc.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#337

Post by dvtrn »

unethical_ban wrote: post #248
Pharmakon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. Fuck the money, I’m not letting a site run arbitrary code on my machine, especially when they have a track record of spying and installing malware. They have a right to make a living, I have a right to own my property without having it damaged by casual greed.

Then pay for the plan! That's the point! Or don't. I've pirated music and movies. I just don't get too mad about it. My point, put another way: I respect the desire to block JS ads, AND I respect the will a non-critical app in a competitive market to make stupid decisions with their ad policy. AND people who don't like that policy can move to Amazon/Google/Apple/other music platforms, or pay Spotify Premium.

Then pay for the plan! That's the point!

Pardon my language, but it's a fucked up point to say pay a service money if you don't want their software to conduct clandestine operations on a device that probably contains all sorts of sensitive and private data that NOBODY has claim to but you, and the people you've expressly desired to share it with.

That's the point it would seem to me reading these comments; I realize paying gets rid of the ads, but it's pretty messed up to sit back and think that you're ostensibly paying for "good behavior" from Spotify w/rt to ad tech and what that technology enables on our devices.

It's easy to say pay or don't use the service, why isn't as easy to say "Spotify, don't be dicks with your ad technology on MY phone"?

If I pay a kid $.25 for lemonade, I'm paying for lemonade. If he says "hey, enjoy a free sample of my lemonade while I tell you how I made it", that's a fair trade-off. It is NOT a fair trade-off for his dad to spike my lemonade with a sedative so I'll want to sit down and give his kid an opening to blabber about his recipe while winking and saying "should paid us that quarter, chump".

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#338

Post by simias »

cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

I agree, I block every ad I possibly can but if I actually benefit from using a service and they provide a (reasonably priced) paid option I'll gladly subscribe. I want the ad-driven model to die but how is it possible if the alternatives don't manage to make as much money?

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#339

Post by smohare »

sharpneli wrote: post #297
michaelmior wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1-2 coffees a month Where do you buy coffee that one coffee costs $10?! (or even $5?) I still don't think it's a lot of money, but not quite so trivial.

When I visited San Francisco I saw some cafe lattes and similar to be over $10, and that was the smallest size. That place is seriously expensive. On the other hand it’s nice to visit a place where restaurant food costs more than in Finland. EDIT: A Finnish comparison might be ”It’s just a pint or two per month”. So not that expensive.

I’m skeptical. I live and work in SF and frequent fancy coffee shops. I have never seen $10 plus prices for basic espresso-based drinks, although $4-6 isn’t uncommon. A $10 coffee must of had some other markup applied or been a specialty drink.

I’m not saying SF isn’t expensive. It’s not difficult to find cocktails in the $15-25 range, for instance.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#340

Post by akerl_ »

kgwxd wrote: post #327
cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…

And if the approach is “I won’t use services that want to use 3rd-party-RCE-style ads”, it makes sense to me. But the folks who are blocking ads are taking Spotify’s offer (pay us, let us run our ads, or don’t use our service, pick 1) and trying to shoehorn a 4th option that Spotify doesn’t offer: get the content w/o Spotify getting paid.

To tell Spotify “I’d use your service if you added an option where the ads didn’t give 3rd parties the ability to run JS on my system” is different from “I picked your current ad-supported option and then prevented the ads from running”.

Post reply on HN