151–160 of 963 posts
They allow advertisers to run JS on your device, and ads are a trendy way to deliver malware. People are using ad blockers not just to hide annoyances and to improve performance, but to protect themselves from bad actors. https://spotifyforbrands.com/en-US/ad-experiences/ > JavaScript or iFrame Tags: All third-party tags and tracking URLs need to be in https format. I was on the fence about this because there is a le…
I basically see two schools of thought in the discussion: 1. People that believe ads are strictly a source of revenue. If you don't like them but want to use the service, pay for the service 2. People who believe that ads are more than a banner on the page, its permission for ad networks and services to run potentially malicious content on their computer
Would you thing it was more ethical if Spotify just got rid of the free option completely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you already pay with your time and attention when they play ads. Why should you pay for a subscription?
Because the subscription service is ad-free?
They allow advertisers to run JS on your device, and ads are a trendy way to deliver malware. People are using ad blockers not just to hide annoyances and to improve performance, but to protect themselves from bad actors. https://spotifyforbrands.com/en-US/ad-experiences/ > JavaScript or iFrame Tags: All third-party tags and tracking URLs need to be in https format. I was on the fence about this because there is a le…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
mp3s are compressed and lossy. Makes them unsuitable for buying. There are a few sites like bandcamp that sell flacs. Not sure why the big players don't let you buy flacs. It's not like there's an engineering issue. Maybe they get the rights only for lossy files. Edit: Since some will invariably point out that you can't hear flacs, here's a better argument. Even if you prefer lossy music, there are and will be better…
Then buy the CDs as if you can probably tell the difference. You're just making excuses for not wanting to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then buy the CDs as if you can probably tell the difference. You're just making excuses for not wanting to pay.
Yep. At this point now there's so much paid music available in high quality than anyone who says that it's still not good enough is looking for reasons to feel better about themselves for not paying.
But music? There may be corner cases but pretty much any of the big streaming services plus judicious a la carte purchases have you pretty well covered. Personally I do like owning music but then I started from a pretty large collection of physical media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you already pay with your time and attention when they play ads. Why should you pay for a subscription?
Because a few dollars a month is cheaper than your time lost listening to ads.
Nice alternative to Spotify is Apple Music. They recently opened up their API ( https://developer.apple.com/documentation/applemusicapi ) which has been used to create a nice web interface by https://musi.sh/ Their suggestions AI is quite a bit behind Spotify's unfortunately. Dunno if that's by a lack of design or because of Apple's privacy stance -- probably the former.
This is a good move. Even though ads are annoying and frustrating at most times it is not anybody's birth-right to use a product/service for free and block their sources of revenue. If they have a pay-to-remove-ads option, use it.
Should TV networks try to block you if you don't look at the TV while ads are running? Or if you turn it off/switch channel/mute it? Same goes for newspapers and magazines - do you have a right to skip pages filled with ads and not look at them?