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

701–710 of 963 posts

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

#701

Post by s_tec »

rstupek wrote: post #686
stale2002 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you are accusing someone of a crime ("stealing"). Installing an ad blocker is within someone's full legal right. Why are you making false statements regarding what is or is not a crime?

It is and it's also within your rights not to use the service, or pay for it. Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it?

> Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it?

The Free Software movement has been fighting against this exact mentality for decades. Digital autonomy should be a basic human right. Anyone should be able to download and execute whatever code they want on their own computer.

Spotify also has this right, of course, and is free to block users if they choose. I am not morally obliged to support their business model. At the same time, I choose to have a paid Spotify account because it's more convenient.

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

#702

Post by sumeno »

loco5niner wrote: post #676
gowld wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pandora and Google Play Music (and maybe Spotify too I don't know) put ads in the audio stream (and video, if you are looking at the app screen while listening to music for some reason). Seems simpler to do this than get into a technical arms race with users.

>Pandora and Google Play Music ... put ads in the audio stream Why would you want to encourage Spotify to adopt this horrible practice? I don't WANT ads injected into the audio.

Then you can pay for the service

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

#703

Post by tradesmanhelix »

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…

Paying for the service is a red herring since Spotify is specifically targeting the free tier with this policy.

Thus, there really are only two options here when it comes to the free tier on Spotify: "Endure our ad experience or no 'free' service for you." However, there is a 3rd option here when it comes to the free tier: Spotify fixes the currently-terrible ad experience on its service.

I'd be 100% fine with ads on Spotify if they were bespoke like the ads I see from https://carbonads.net. Their ads are relevant, tasteful, and unobtrusive. Oddly, I end up paying more attention to Carbon ads than I've ever paid to a Spotify ad.

Sadly, Spotify is only offering consumers two options without any hint that they've even considered that they themselves could do something to address the issues underlying their customers' use of ad blockers.

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

#704

Post by jimbokun »

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #703
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…

Paying for the service is a red herring since Spotify is specifically targeting the free tier with this policy. Thus, there really are only two options here when it comes to the free tier on Spotify: "Endure our ad experience or no 'free' service for you." However, there is a 3rd option here when it comes to the free tier: Spotify fixes the currently-terrible ad experience on its service. I'd be 100% fine with ads on…

Just pay for the service already and stop being so cheap!

It is amazing value for money, and at least some of it goes to the artists.

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

#705

Post by EGreg »

logfromblammo wrote: post #690
heynk wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've paid for Spotify for a while, so its been some time since I've heard an ad. But from what I remember, if you put the volume below ~30%, the ad pauses.

Buy headphones with their own thumbwheel attenuator and/or mute button, or plug your corded headphones into an extension cord or dongle that has them. Traditional broadcast radio gets zero feedback from most receivers. Spotify is already a step ahead of that by preventing users from avoiding ads just by changing the radio station, and I think that the clever tricks with the volume are really pushing it in terms of us…

The Tivo option: prerecord streams and strip out ads.

I will tell you why the VCR was different: TV shows didn’t play on demand, so you had a legitimate reason to record stuff.

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

#706

Post by School-Cotton »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #691
School-Cotton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of businesses don't give away free samples, and survive fine.

Obviously Spotify sees value in offering a free tier to their service.

Yes, the value is that they make money from it through ads.

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

#707

Post by endorphone »

vaishaksuresh wrote: post #626
endorphone wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an absurd claim. I use spotify and suffer zero ads. There is no universe where I am anything but a paying user. People go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize being outrageously cheap.

Ads and Tracking are two different things. Just because you don't see ads related to the tracked data in spotify does not mean that information is not used by the third party elsewhere. If pay spotify and you listen to metallica, you might not get ads on spotify, but you might get a link to Metallica merchandise on another website.

The overwhelming bulk of Spotify's revenue comes from paying customers, not advertisers. And for those who are too cheap to simply subscribe, the majority of "ads" are pleas to subscribe (because selling advertising is not the business they want to be in).

The GP's claims are nonsense, discounted by the most cursory investigation. Trotting out some tired rhetoric about advertisers being the real customer to explain away an unwillingness to pay the most trivial of amounts is just embarrassing for everyone. It's especially ironic given that so many are both trying to justify not paying for a worthwhile service while also trying to justify ripping off the same service because...ads, or something.

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

#708

Post by magduf »

School-Cotton wrote: post #288
magduf wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because then they tell all their less-technical friends and family that Spotify is shitty and evil and not to use them.

If this were a real thing, we'd all be using Linux on the Desktop by now.

I've been trashing Windows for ages too, but there's a big difference here: people who really want to run some particular (usually proprietary) software generally have to use Windows to do that, and Windows has a lock on non-Apple computers for that and for many other reasons.

Spotify doesn't have any kind of lock on music. The Apple fans are all using Apple Music, after all, and there's lot of other choices out there. Ditching Spotify isn't going to affect your life or digital device using in any significant way.

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

#709

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

jancsika wrote: post #647
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…

"Ad blocker" is #1 thing that should be installed first on every single browser, everywhere, to block third party ads. Then we browse. Heck, that browser Brendan Eich is working on comes pre-installed with one. So this isn't some fringe position I hold. It's basic web hygiene. > When people aren't willing to pay for 1-2 coffees for a month of unlimited music streaming are you really surprised that companies have no c…

> "Ad blocker" is #1 thing that should be installed first on every single browser, everywhere, to block third party ads.

Agreed. But I don't block ads just because ads are annoying. I don't even block ads because I don't like being tracked. My reason for blocking ads can be summed up in a single word.

Malvertising.

As soon as ad networks began trying to spread malware through ads was when ads moved from being a nuisance to a serious security concern.

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

#710

Post by fastball »

michaelmior wrote: post #271
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…

> 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.

As a student I paid £5 p/m, and I've definitely had a coffee that cost me £5.

As a not student, I pay £10 p/m. As I've had coffees that cost me £5 in the past, that is two coffees.

Post reply on HN